Aguilar (2019a)
Contents
Source Details
Aguilar (2019a) | |
Title: | The collective management of performers’ rights in the UK: a story of competing interests |
Author(s): | Aguilar, A. |
Year: | 2019 |
Citation: | Aguilar, A. (2019) The collective management of performers’ rights in the UK: a story of competing interests. Scripted 16(1) DOI: 10.2966/scrip.160119.4 |
Link(s): | Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | The study uses a mix of qualitative and ethnographic methods to gather data, including 33 interviews with performers, 15 interviews with government representatives, 2 interviews with performer representatives, email and phone data from PPL members, and immersion in PPL industry events and system interface (including e.g. newsletters and website). |
Data Type: | Primary and Secondary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | No |
Comparative Study?: | No |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
|
Abstract
“In this article I examine the experience of UK performers using collective management organisation PPL, a UK CMO established by record companies that also manages the rights of performers. I consider the effect of the regulatory framework on the provision of transparency to PPL’s performer members by drawing on primary sources including interviews with performers, PPL’s regulation and its public-facing material. I demonstrate that PPL marshals social, financial, legal and technological resources to prioritise the interests of record companies over those of performers. Considering that the current legal framework supports PPL’s actions, I discuss two alternatives: i) tightening regulation of individual CMOs whilst respecting their monopoly status, and ii) opening up the sector to competition. Despite difficulties faced by performers vis-à-vis PPL, I ultimately side with a large body of literature suggesting that performers are best off in an environment that supports CMO’s monopoly status.However, in an environment where regulators resist tightening regulation, performers are forced to support a competitive market for CMOs.”
Main Results of the Study
The study finds that musicians continue to demonstrate ignorance about the existence of performers’ rights. Interviewees report a low uptake on PPL membership, with only 24% being members and and 33% reporting never knowing of its existence. The author attributes this to a tendency for performers to view their work as a service rather than a product to be owned.
Re-distributed payments from PPL tend to be paid to record companies and a minority of featured artists. Registered members report receiving less compensation through PPL than other systems such as e.g. PRS. Other reported issues include the need for registration, the licensing of samples, participation in the Annual Performer Meeting and ring-fencing of non-distributed monies.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The study offers two suggestions as to how to strengthen the management of performers’ legal rights:
• Tighter regulation at CMO level, including safeguards for membership status and improvements to alternative dispute mechanisms.
• Introduce further competition into the licensing market by giving creators a choice of CMO (effectively forcing CMOs to improve their practice).
The study also suggests improving knowledge about performers’ rights more generally through education.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 33 |
Level of aggregation: | Individual |
Period of material under study: | 2014-2016 |
Sample size: | 15 |
Level of aggregation: | Governmental Representatives |
Period of material under study: | 2014-2016 |
Sample size: | 2 |
Level of aggregation: | Company |
Period of material under study: | 2014-2016 |