Music streaming has not given golden age to independent artists. Rather, new platforms have replaced the old gatekeepers of the music market. It is concluded that Culture Minister Claudia Roth commissioned: “The market remains for music recording … also shaped in information disparity and structural inequality streaming models”.
Advertisement
But More than 350 pages Try to find out scientists what the current structures in the music streaming market are for cultural workers and what losses are there. All the surveyed groups welcomed that the time of the copy problem has ended with streaming offers. However, not all problems have disappeared, some of them can be reinforced from the streaming era. The study authors try to answer at least the parts of open questions.
Two main questions: Is it appropriate for remuneration artists for streaming calls and what is pain in streaming so that the author can at least partially live with his work. After all, they can now contact potential listeners without the major label, theoretically.
Most artists earn less about streaming
A total of 2,868 people of the music business have informed the study writers about their income status. According to self-evolution, only 13.9 percent of their income goes back into streaming, while compared to 34 percent of live appearances. About three -fourth of the artists receive less than 500 euros from annual streaming calls, 17.8 percent receives 500 to 4,999 euros. Nine percent are 5,000 to 100,000 euros, 1.1 percent above.
A good half of the income goes back into the spotify, followed by Apple, YouTube and Amazon Music (32.4 percent together). The rest comes from royalty from Bandcamp, Deezer, Tidal, SoundCloud and other providers. Hardly any role plays advertised streams that create negligible proportion of total streaming sales.
Netflix is ​​considering its own video podcast in the battle of TV market shares against YouTubeRecommended editorial material
With your approval, an external survey (opinion GMBH) has been invited here.
Always load survey
“When 75 percent of the sales are 0.1 percent of the artists, it speaks a clear language,” the Minister of Culture Claudia Roth (Greens), in the east, says about the music manager, study results. “It takes a fair remuneration of music creators, more transparency and overall market power.”
Controversial remuneration model
The main question of a proper remuneration (in addition to the amount of overall payment) is the so -called “Pro Rata” model. A certain country’s rights are calculated in total number of all streams depending on the distribution of a platform for users and the proportion of a correct -pronounced company. The Pro-Rata model likes the kingdom of famous artists, scientists. Since marketing campaigns affect hearing habits, artists with large labels have an advantage.
Most of the responsibility of the study preferred another, SO -Cold User -Sented Model: The monthly membership fee of individual users will be divided by their number of calls, directly distributed funds distributed to the rights holders of music rights. , This makes individual calls more valuable, streaming less one user over the period. However, artists do not find an insight into the actual play data of providers – from the point of view of the respondents, a clear defect.
Gema demands more algorithm transparency
What has been heard is less and less dependent on users’ personal decisions, but in an interview with the algorithm, the managing director of GEMA, Tobias Holzamuller, has been emphasized. It is a case with streaming services like Spotify, but with a much more extreme but social media platforms such as music on Tikok. “This is why these algorithms and their selection processes have a huge meaning when it comes to the question: what is successful in the market and what is not? And transparency behind these algorithms is zero.” In other words, whether the market is distorted by platforms, does not make sense.
Holzmüller sees this a concrete problem. “There are strong signs that services use these algorithms to benefit their own economic interests – for example preferably to play music where they have to pay less or where they have rights.” The managing directors of the GEMA demand that the respective algorithms of the platforms be revealed and if necessary, the legal foundation will also have to be built.
Legal report recommends transparency
More transparency also requires an appendix for studies: In the opinion of an expert from law of law, it is discussed how music makers and streaming services legally behave and which legal claims are possibly probably artists Can claim In fact, the German implementation of the Consultation law of the European Union is incomplete, the hacker concludes, and recommends changes in the Copyright Act to implement the legally intended “appropriate remuneration” compared to platforms.
To make the remuneration system transparent, the hacker recommends “a central streaming transparency”. It must collect data from providers such as right holders to be able to provide an independent basis in disputes and collect data.
(DS)
Travel Enduro Ducati Multistrada V2: New Lightness
