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
Although no one likes a know-it-all, they dominate the Internet.
The Internet began as a vast repository of information. It quickly became a breeding ground for self-proclaimed experts seeking what most people desire: recognition and money.
Today, anyone with an Internet connection and some typing skills can position themselves, regardless of their education or experience, as a subject matter expert (SME). From relationship advice, career coaching, and health and nutrition tips to citizen journalists practicing pseudo-journalism, the Internet is awash with individuals—Internet talking heads—sharing their “insights,” which are, in large part, essentially educated guesses without the education or experience.
The Internet has become a 24/7/365 sitcom where armchair experts think they’re the star.
Not long ago, years, sometimes decades, of dedicated work and acquiring education in one’s field was once required to be recognized as an expert. The knowledge and opinions of doctors, scientists, historians, et al. were respected due to their education and experience. Today, a social media account and a knack for hyperbole are all it takes to present oneself as an “expert” to achieve Internet fame that can be monetized.
On the Internet, nearly every piece of content is self-serving in some way.
The line between actual expertise and self-professed knowledge has become blurry as an out-of-focus selfie. Inadvertently, social media platforms have created an informal degree program where likes and shares are equivalent to degrees. After reading selective articles, they’ve found via and watching some TikTok videos, a person can post a video claiming they’re an herbal medicine expert. Their new “knowledge,” which their followers will absorb, claims that Panda dung tea—one of the most expensive teas in the world and isn’t what its name implies—cures everything from hypertension to existential crisis. Meanwhile, registered dietitians are shaking their heads, wondering how to compete against all the misinformation their clients are exposed to.
More disturbing are individuals obsessed with evangelizing their beliefs or conspiracy theories. These people write in-depth blog posts, such as Elvis Is Alive and the Moon Landings Were Staged, with links to obscure YouTube videos, websites, social media accounts, and blogs. Regardless of your beliefs, someone or a group on the Internet shares them, thus confirming your beliefs.
Misinformation is the Internet’s currency used to get likes, shares, and engagement; thus, it often spreads like a cosmic joke. Consider the prevalence of clickbait headlines:
You Won’t Believe What Taylor Swift Says About Climate Change!
This Bedtime Drink Melts Belly Fat While You Sleep!
In One Week, I Turned $10 Into $1 Million!
Titles that make outrageous claims are how the content creator gets reads and views, which generates revenue via affiliate marketing, product placement, and pay-per-click (PPC) ads. Clickbait headlines are how you end up watching a TikTok video by a purported nutrition expert adamantly asserting you can lose belly fat while you sleep by drinking, for 14 consecutive days, a concoction of raw eggs, cinnamon, and apple cider vinegar 15 minutes before going to bed.
Our constant search for answers that’ll explain our convoluted world and our desire for shortcuts to success is how Internet talking heads achieve influencer status. Because we tend to seek low-hanging fruits, we listen to those with little experience or knowledge of the topics they discuss yet are astute enough to know what most people want to hear.
There’s a trend, more disturbing than spreading misinformation, that needs to be called out: individuals who’ve never achieved significant wealth or traded stocks giving how-to-make-easy-money advice, the appeal of which is undeniable. Several people I know have lost substantial money by following the “advice” of Internet talking heads.
Anyone on social media claiming to have a foolproof money-making strategy is lying. They wouldn’t be peddling their money-making strategy if they could make easy money.
Successful people tend to be secretive.
Social media companies design their respective algorithms to serve their advertisers—their source of revenue—interest; hence, content from Internet talking heads appears most prominent in your feeds. When a video of a self-professed expert goes viral, likely because it pressed an emotional button, the more people see it, the more engagement it receives, such as likes, shares and comments, creating a cycle akin to a tornado.
Imagine scrolling through your TikTok feed and stumbling upon a “scientist” who claims they can predict the weather using only aluminum foil, copper wire, sea salt and baking soda. You chuckle, but you notice his video got over 7,000 likes, has been shared over 600 times and received over 400 comments. You think to yourself, “Maybe this guy is onto something.” What started as a quest to achieve Internet fame evolved into an Internet-wide belief that weather forecasting can be as easy as DIY crafts.
Since anyone can call themselves “an expert,” you must cultivate critical thinking skills to distinguish genuine expertise from self-professed experts’ self-promoting nonsense. While the absurdity of the Internet can be entertaining, misinformation has serious consequences. The next time you read a headline that sounds too good to be true, it’s probably an Internet talking head making an educated guess; without the education seeking Internet fame, they can monetize.
TORONTO – A new survey says a majority of software engineers and developers feel tight project deadlines can put safety at risk.
Seventy-five per cent of the 1,000 global workers who responded to the survey released Tuesday say pressure to deliver projects on time and on budget could be compromising critical aspects like safety.
The concern is even higher among engineers and developers in North America, with 77 per cent of those surveyed on the continent reporting the urgency of projects could be straining safety.
The study was conducted between July and September by research agency Coleman Parkes and commissioned by BlackBerry Ltd.’s QNX division, which builds connected-car technology.
The results reflect a timeless tug of war engineers and developers grapple with as they balance the need to meet project deadlines with regulations and safety checks that can slow down the process.
Finding that balance is an issue that developers of even the simplest appliances face because of advancements in technology, said John Wall, a senior vice-president at BlackBerry and head of QNX.
“The software is getting more complicated and there is more software whether it’s in a vehicle, robotics, a toaster, you name it… so being able to patch vulnerabilities, to prevent bad actors from doing malicious acts is becoming more and more important,” he said.
The medical, industrial and automotive industries have standardized safety measures and anything they produce undergoes rigorous testing, but that work doesn’t happen overnight. It has to be carried out from the start and then at every step of the development process.
“What makes safety and security difficult is it’s an ongoing thing,” Wall said. “It’s not something where you’ve done it, and you are finished.”
The Waterloo, Ont.-based business found 90 per cent of its survey respondents reported that organizations are prioritizing safety.
However, when asked about why safety may not be a priority for their organization, 46 per cent of those surveyed answered cost pressures and 35 per cent said a lack of resources.
That doesn’t surprise Wall. Delays have become rampant in the development of tech, and in some cases, stand to push back the launch of vehicle lines by two years, he said.
“We have to make sure that people don’t compromise on safety and security to be able to get products out quicker,” he said.
“What we don’t want to see is people cutting corners and creating unsafe situations.”
The survey also took a peek at security breaches, which have hit major companies like London Drugs, Indigo Books & Music, Giant Tiger and Ticketmaster in recent years.
About 40 per cent of the survey’s respondents said they have encountered a security breach in their employer’s operating system. Those breaches resulted in major impacts for 27 per cent of respondents, moderate impacts for 42 per cent and minor impacts for 27 per cent.
“There are vulnerabilities all the time and this is what makes the job very difficult because when you ship the software, presumably the software has no security vulnerabilities, but things get discovered after the fact,” Wall said.
Security issues, he added, have really come to the forefront of the problems developers face, so “really without security, you have no safety.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 8, 2024.
As online shoppers hunt for bargains offered by Amazon during its annual fall sale this week, cybersecurity researchers are warning Canadians to beware of an influx of scammers posing as the tech giant.
In the 30 days leading up to Amazon’s Prime Big Deal Days, taking place Tuesday and Wednesday, there were more than 1,000 newly registered Amazon-related web domains, according to Check Point Software Technologies, a company that offers cybersecurity solutions.
The company said it deemed 88 per cent of those domains malicious or suspicious, suggesting they could have been set up by scammers to prey on vulnerable consumers. One in every 54 newly created Amazon-related domain included the phrase “Amazon Prime.”
“They’re almost indiscernible from the real Amazon domain,” said Robert Falzon, head of engineering at Check Point in Canada.
“With all these domains registered that look so similar, it’s tricking a lot of people. And that’s the whole intent here.”
Falzon said Check Point Research sees an uptick in attempted scams around big online shopping days throughout the year, including Prime Days.
Scams often come in the form of phishing emails, which are deceptive messages that appear to be from a reputable source in attempt to steal sensitive information.
In this case, he said scammers posing as Amazon commonly offer “outrageous” deals that appear to be associated with Prime Days, in order to trick recipients into clicking on a malicious link.
The cybersecurity firm said it has identified and blocked 100 unique Amazon Prime-themed scam emails targeting organizations and consumers over the past two weeks.
Scammers also target Prime members with unsolicited calls, claiming urgent account issues and requesting payment information.
“It’s like Christmas for them,” said Falzon.
“People expect there to be significant savings on Prime Day, so they’re not shocked that they see something of significant value. Usually, the old adage applies: If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.”
Amazon’s website lists a number of red flags that it recommends customers watch for to identify a potential impersonation scam.
Those include false urgency, requests for personal information, or indications that the sender prefers to complete the purchase outside of the Amazon website or mobile app.
Scammers may also request that customers exclusively pay with gift cards, a claim code or PIN. Any notifications about an order or delivery for an unexpected item should also raise alarm bells, the company says.
“During busy shopping moments, we tend to see a rise in impersonation scams reported by customers,” said Amazon spokeswoman Octavia Roufogalis in a statement.
“We will continue to invest in protecting consumers and educating the public on scam avoidance. We encourage consumers to report suspected scams to us so that we can protect their accounts and refer bad actors to law enforcement to help keep consumers safe.”
Falzon added that these scams are more successful than people might think.
As of June 30, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre said there had been $284 million lost to fraud so far this year, affecting 15,941 victims.
But Falzon said many incidents go unreported, as some Canadians who are targeted do not know how or where to flag a scam, or may choose not to out of embarrassment.
Check Point recommends Amazon customers take precautions while shopping on Prime Days, including by checking URLs carefully, creating strong passwords on their accounts, and avoiding personal information being shared such as their birthday or social security number.
The cybersecurity company said consumers should also look for “https” at the beginning of a website URL, which indicates a secure connection, and use credit cards rather than debit cards for online shopping, which offer better protection and less liability if stolen.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 8, 2024.
