Yet just as this final act of the Parliamentary Committee’s investigation played out (with some of the panto-drama we’ve now come to expect), something arguably even more consequential was happening in an unloved corner of the internet.
Each of these submissions was published online today (February 23). And each replied to specific set of questions delivered by UK politicians to the majors – just as similar submissions from the likes of BMG, Hipgnosis Songs Fund, and Beggars Group did previously.
In the written submissions, the Parliamentary Committee asks the majors: ‘Can you clarify whether your companies support user-centric payment systems, and if not, what alternative payment systems were being alluded to?’
“The issue of fair compensation for all music creators is essential to our mutual success, so we take the discussion around streaming’s payment model very seriously.
“We welcome any proposal that maximizes fairness and transparency and supports market growth.”
“Music’s rapid change offers the opportunity to optimise models for sustainable and mutually beneficial success, if approached properly. We are committed to getting it right.
“We welcome any proposal that maximizes fairness and transparency and supports market growth.”
“We are agnostic as to whether a user centric model is employed as it is not meant to change the pool of money available to the labels/artists. We feel that whether a user centric model is used is ultimately a matter for the DSPs (who will have to invest significant sums in changing royalty reporting systems) and the artist community (as some artists will win from a changing model and some will lose).
“It is extremely important to understand that a shift in reporting methodology will not increase the amount of money artists are paid in the aggregate.”
“However, due to the practical implications of such change for various stakeholders, we think it would require thorough and concerted impact assessments in order to establish an industry-wide support. It is extremely important to understand that a shift in reporting methodology will not increase the amount of money artists are paid in the aggregate.
“It will just shift money from some artists to other artists. Artists who lose in this scenario are not likely to see this as a more equitable way of dividing payments and thus we believe it is extremely important that the entire artist community weigh in on this shift before it is considered.”
Warner Music UK
“We have explored the concept of a user-centric model and have frequent conversations with digital services about it. It is always our goal to ensure that any business model implemented is reliable, fair, transparent, and underpinned by accurate data for artists and rightsholders.
“A user-centric model would not change the overall royalty pool and our analysis suggests that any changes in the allocation of payments to artists would not be significant.”
“A user-centric model would not change the overall royalty pool and our analysis suggests that any changes in the allocation of payments to artists would not be significant.
“A user-centric model would be far more complex and administratively burdensome for digital services to implement as it would require a tremendous amount of data – it is likely that digital services would want to pass off some of the associated costs to rightsholders and therefore to artists.”
2) Major label shareholdings in Spotify
The Committee asked the three major record companies to explain what they would say to those “who are concerned that the various shareholding arrangements between Spotify, your companies and your parent companies might lead to anti-competitive influences, such as when it comes to licensing, playlisting, etc?”
Universal continues to own the entire stake it bought in 2008, which is estimated to currently be valued at over $2 billion, and perhaps even over $3 billion.
Universal Music UK
“Like other music companies, we do hold some financial equity in Spotify. Our shares are not voting shares.
“As we have said previously, and consistent with our approach to artists’ compensation, if we should sell those shares in the future, we have voluntarily committed to share those proceeds with artists.”
“We do not play a role in the company’s governance; we do not hold any board seats and our financial equity confers absolutely no influence over Spotify’s licensing, playlisting or any other of Spotify’s strategic and operational decisions.
“As we have said previously, and consistent with our approach to artists’ compensation, if we should sell those shares in the future, we have voluntarily committed to share those proceeds with artists.”
Sony Music UK
“Our shareholding in Spotify is nominal (it is less than 3%) and we have absolutely no control over the business organisation and/or running of Spotify and do not have a place on its Board.
“We have to date shared more than $250m from the proceeds of our sale of Spotify shares directly with artists and distributed labels, disregarding whether their accounts may be recouped or unrecouped.”
“The quality and the popularity of our catalogue, the hard work of our artists and teams, and our continuous investment in creative and business capabilities help us in our often long and difficult negotiations with services like Spotify, where we are focused on obtaining maximum value for the use of our recordings, while at the same time building sustainable models to secure a healthy longterm business. We believe that succeeding on both these fronts is critical for us to remain competitive and attract talent.
“Finally, it is worth noting that the investments we made in Spotify have also yielded significant dividends for our artists and distributed independent labels – we have to date shared more than $250m from the proceeds of our sale of Spotify shares directly with artists and distributed labels, disregarding whether their accounts may be recouped or unrecouped.
“We have equity in other DSPs as well and will share proceeds from equity holdings we have obtained in relation to licensing activities in a similar manner to Spotify if we ever have a positive cash event.”
Warner Music UK
“WMG does not currently have an equity stake in Spotify nor does Spotify have an equity stake in WMG. There is no conflict of interest or anti-competitive influence.
“WMG does not currently have an equity stake in Spotify nor does Spotify have an equity stake in WMG. There is no conflict of interest or anti-competitive influence.”
“We did acquire an equity stake in Spotify in 2008 which we sold in 2018. We shared the proceeds of that sale with our artists as if it were revenue from our licence agreement with Spotify.
“When we held an equity stake in Spotify it had no influence on our behaviour and it did not appear to have any influence on Spotify’s behaviour.”
3) Streaming as a ‘sale’ vs. a ‘rental’
The Parliamentary committee asks the labels to explain in writing “precisely why streaming should be classified as ‘making available’” – i.e covered by the making available right. The point the committee is getting at is whether a stream should count as a “sale” or a “rental”.
The distinction here is important. The license for a “sale” – as a stream is currently defined in the UK – is negotiated directly between the DSPs and labels.
Defining a stream as a “rental” would make a stream more akin to a broadcast, for example music played on the radio or TV. The licensing for that is administered in the UK by collection society PPL” href=”https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/companies/ppl/”>PPL (the British equivalent of SoundExchange). Advocates for Equitable Remuneration argue that a similar blanket license for streaming ( i.e having royalties collected and distributed by PPL) would be fairer for artists.
Here’s what the majors had to say:
Universal Music UK
“On streaming services, a sound recording is made available to the consumer electronically in a way that they can choose which track to listen to, when to start listening to it, whether to listen to the whole song, skip it, pause it, rewind it, or save it and re-listen to it.
“Even streaming services that restrict the functionality on certain devices for advertising funded users (e.g. a Spotify user on mobile), allow users to listen with unrestricted functionality on other devices (e.g. PC, TV etc).
“The reason for introducing the exclusive making available right at the international level in the first place was to ensure that rights holders can authorise online uses that have the same commercial effect as the distribution of copies in the off-line world.”
“International Agreements (notably the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, WPPT) to which the UK is party, and international copyright law, provide an express and clear legal obligation for countries to guarantee that rights holders and performers can authorise or prohibit this type of electronic transmission.
“In fact the reason for introducing the exclusive making available right at the international level in the first place was to ensure that rights holders can authorise online uses that have the same commercial effect as the distribution of copies in the off-line world.”
Sony Music Uk
“In the streaming world you can access any song on that service at the time and place of your choosing and you can skip, pause or cancel any stream you receive. Accordingly, streaming clearly falls within the legal definition of the making available right.
“Broadcasts do not afford any interactivity to the end user because the user cannot influence the transmission of the music which can be listened to at a given time; he or she can only choose to turn off the station if the piece broadcast is not to his or her liking.
“If streaming was treated as broadcast and artists received direct a material share of the fees payable, the balance payable to the label would not be sufficient to maintain investment in new signing, A&R and marketing.”
“If streaming was treated as broadcast and artists received direct a material share of the fees payable, the balance payable to the label would not be sufficient to maintain investment in new signing, A&R and marketing and so would materially reduce the opportunity to mitigate its risk on the majority of signings which do not succeed and in respect of which we are unable to break even.”
Warner Music UK
“Because of its interactive nature, streaming clearly falls within the definition of the ‘making available’ right. From the perspective of the user’s experience, the making available right is essentially the internet age form of what was previously a sale.
“Because of its interactive nature, streaming clearly falls within the definition of the ‘making available’ right.”
“An individual listener can choose what to play, when to play it, skip forward or replay, create their own curated playlists, indicate whether they like a particular track (which in turn informs algorithmically generated playlists based on the listener’s listening history), and retrieve album or artist information and credits on demand.
“Most premium streaming services allow their users to download tracks to their own devices to listen while not connected to the internet. None of these interactions are possible via broadcast where every listener hears the same track at the same time with no possibility for individual selection of or interaction with the content.”
“Commercially, streaming is substitutable for and has largely replaced physical goods and downloads. Listeners today prefer to access music through streaming rather than through physical CDs.”Music Business Worldwide
The federal government is ordering the dissolution of TikTok’s Canadian business after a national security review of the Chinese company behind the social media platform, but stopped short of ordering people to stay off the app.
Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced the government’s “wind up” demand Wednesday, saying it is meant to address “risks” related to ByteDance Ltd.’s establishment of TikTok Technology Canada Inc.
“The decision was based on the information and evidence collected over the course of the review and on the advice of Canada’s security and intelligence community and other government partners,” he said in a statement.
The announcement added that the government is not blocking Canadians’ access to the TikTok application or their ability to create content.
However, it urged people to “adopt good cybersecurity practices and assess the possible risks of using social media platforms and applications, including how their information is likely to be protected, managed, used and shared by foreign actors, as well as to be aware of which country’s laws apply.”
Champagne’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment seeking details about what evidence led to the government’s dissolution demand, how long ByteDance has to comply and why the app is not being banned.
A TikTok spokesperson said in a statement that the shutdown of its Canadian offices will mean the loss of hundreds of well-paying local jobs.
“We will challenge this order in court,” the spokesperson said.
“The TikTok platform will remain available for creators to find an audience, explore new interests and for businesses to thrive.”
The federal Liberals ordered a national security review of TikTok in September 2023, but it was not public knowledge until The Canadian Press reported in March that it was investigating the company.
At the time, it said the review was based on the expansion of a business, which it said constituted the establishment of a new Canadian entity. It declined to provide any further details about what expansion it was reviewing.
A government database showed a notification of new business from TikTok in June 2023. It said Network Sense Ventures Ltd. in Toronto and Vancouver would engage in “marketing, advertising, and content/creator development activities in relation to the use of the TikTok app in Canada.”
Even before the review, ByteDance and TikTok were lightning rod for privacy and safety concerns because Chinese national security laws compel organizations in the country to assist with intelligence gathering.
Such concerns led the U.S. House of Representatives to pass a bill in March designed to ban TikTok unless its China-based owner sells its stake in the business.
Champagne’s office has maintained Canada’s review was not related to the U.S. bill, which has yet to pass.
Canada’s review was carried out through the Investment Canada Act, which allows the government to investigate any foreign investment with potential to might harm national security.
While cabinet can make investors sell parts of the business or shares, Champagne has said the act doesn’t allow him to disclose details of the review.
Wednesday’s dissolution order was made in accordance with the act.
The federal government banned TikTok from its mobile devices in February 2023 following the launch of an investigation into the company by federal and provincial privacy commissioners.
— With files from Anja Karadeglija in Ottawa
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2024.
LONDON (AP) — Most people have accumulated a pile of data — selfies, emails, videos and more — on their social media and digital accounts over their lifetimes. What happens to it when we die?
It’s wise to draft a will spelling out who inherits your physical assets after you’re gone, but don’t forget to take care of your digital estate too. Friends and family might treasure files and posts you’ve left behind, but they could get lost in digital purgatory after you pass away unless you take some simple steps.
Here’s how you can prepare your digital life for your survivors:
Apple
The iPhone maker lets you nominate a “ legacy contact ” who can access your Apple account’s data after you die. The company says it’s a secure way to give trusted people access to photos, files and messages. To set it up you’ll need an Apple device with a fairly recent operating system — iPhones and iPads need iOS or iPadOS 15.2 and MacBooks needs macOS Monterey 12.1.
For iPhones, go to settings, tap Sign-in & Security and then Legacy Contact. You can name one or more people, and they don’t need an Apple ID or device.
You’ll have to share an access key with your contact. It can be a digital version sent electronically, or you can print a copy or save it as a screenshot or PDF.
Take note that there are some types of files you won’t be able to pass on — including digital rights-protected music, movies and passwords stored in Apple’s password manager. Legacy contacts can only access a deceased user’s account for three years before Apple deletes the account.
Google
Google takes a different approach with its Inactive Account Manager, which allows you to share your data with someone if it notices that you’ve stopped using your account.
When setting it up, you need to decide how long Google should wait — from three to 18 months — before considering your account inactive. Once that time is up, Google can notify up to 10 people.
You can write a message informing them you’ve stopped using the account, and, optionally, include a link to download your data. You can choose what types of data they can access — including emails, photos, calendar entries and YouTube videos.
There’s also an option to automatically delete your account after three months of inactivity, so your contacts will have to download any data before that deadline.
Facebook and Instagram
Some social media platforms can preserve accounts for people who have died so that friends and family can honor their memories.
When users of Facebook or Instagram die, parent company Meta says it can memorialize the account if it gets a “valid request” from a friend or family member. Requests can be submitted through an online form.
The social media company strongly recommends Facebook users add a legacy contact to look after their memorial accounts. Legacy contacts can do things like respond to new friend requests and update pinned posts, but they can’t read private messages or remove or alter previous posts. You can only choose one person, who also has to have a Facebook account.
You can also ask Facebook or Instagram to delete a deceased user’s account if you’re a close family member or an executor. You’ll need to send in documents like a death certificate.
TikTok
The video-sharing platform says that if a user has died, people can submit a request to memorialize the account through the settings menu. Go to the Report a Problem section, then Account and profile, then Manage account, where you can report a deceased user.
Once an account has been memorialized, it will be labeled “Remembering.” No one will be able to log into the account, which prevents anyone from editing the profile or using the account to post new content or send messages.
X
It’s not possible to nominate a legacy contact on Elon Musk’s social media site. But family members or an authorized person can submit a request to deactivate a deceased user’s account.
Passwords
Besides the major online services, you’ll probably have dozens if not hundreds of other digital accounts that your survivors might need to access. You could just write all your login credentials down in a notebook and put it somewhere safe. But making a physical copy presents its own vulnerabilities. What if you lose track of it? What if someone finds it?
Instead, consider a password manager that has an emergency access feature. Password managers are digital vaults that you can use to store all your credentials. Some, like Keeper,Bitwarden and NordPass, allow users to nominate one or more trusted contacts who can access their keys in case of an emergency such as a death.
But there are a few catches: Those contacts also need to use the same password manager and you might have to pay for the service.
___
Is there a tech challenge you need help figuring out? Write to us at onetechtip@ap.org with your questions.
LONDON (AP) — Britain’s competition watchdog said Thursday it’s opening a formal investigation into Google’s partnership with artificial intelligence startup Anthropic.
The Competition and Markets Authority said it has “sufficient information” to launch an initial probe after it sought input earlier this year on whether the deal would stifle competition.
The CMA has until Dec. 19 to decide whether to approve the deal or escalate its investigation.
“Google is committed to building the most open and innovative AI ecosystem in the world,” the company said. “Anthropic is free to use multiple cloud providers and does, and we don’t demand exclusive tech rights.”
San Francisco-based Anthropic was founded in 2021 by siblings Dario and Daniela Amodei, who previously worked at ChatGPT maker OpenAI. The company has focused on increasing the safety and reliability of AI models. Google reportedly agreed last year to make a multibillion-dollar investment in Anthropic, which has a popular chatbot named Claude.
Anthropic said it’s cooperating with the regulator and will provide “the complete picture about Google’s investment and our commercial collaboration.”
“We are an independent company and none of our strategic partnerships or investor relationships diminish the independence of our corporate governance or our freedom to partner with others,” it said in a statement.
The U.K. regulator has been scrutinizing a raft of AI deals as investment money floods into the industry to capitalize on the artificial intelligence boom. Last month it cleared Anthropic’s $4 billion deal with Amazon and it has also signed off on Microsoft’s deals with two other AI startups, Inflection and Mistral.
