Musicians and songwriters receive “pitiful returns” from streaming and the entire model is in need of a “complete reset”, an inquiry has concluded.
Following several hearings involving stars including Chic’s Nile Rodgers, Elbow’s Guy Garvey, Radiohead‘s Ed O’Brien and solo singer Nadine Shah, as well as bosses from major record labels and streaming platforms, the digital, culture, media and sport committee has found that artists are not being fairly rewarded for their work.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Gary Numan: ‘It isn’t even worth printing out the statement’
The DCMS committee report, released on Thursday and based on more than 300 pieces of evidence, raises “deep concerns” about the position of the major music companies in the market.
MPs on the committee are now calling on the government to refer the case to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to launch a study into the “economic impact of the majors’ dominance”. They also say a system of equitable remuneration for streaming income – where performers have a right to receive a share without reference to their label contracts – should be introduced.
Advertisement
According to the Broken Record campaign, artists receive around 16% of the total income from streams – while record companies take around 41% and streaming services around 29% – figures that both the Musicians’ Union and independent trade body the Ivors Academy have described as “woefully insufficient”.
Recommendations made following the inquiry include:
The introduction of measures allowing music creators to recapture the rights to their work from labels after a period of time
Give artists the right to adjust contracts if their work is successful beyond the remuneration they receive
The government should introduce legally enforceable obligations to normalise licensing arrangements for user-generated content-hosting services such as YouTube
The government should also require publishers and collecting societies to publish royalty chain information to provide transparency to artists about how much money is flowing through the system
Some successful and critically acclaimed musicians are seeing “meagre returns” from streaming, while non-featured performers on songs are being “frozen out altogether”, the report states.
Streaming started to come under increased scrutiny in 2020, with artist revenue from live performances pretty much wiped out by COVID-19.
Image: Nadine Shah, whose album Holiday Destination was nominated for the Mercury Prize in 2018, told the inquiry that despite her success she struggled as the pandemic hit and her income relied almost solely on streaming
Shah, a Mercury Prize nominee, became emotional and said she was “embarrassed” to talk about it publicly but admitted she falls into that bracket, saying that despite her success her earnings from streaming are not “enough to keep the wolf away from the door”.
Record labels Sony Music, Warner Music and Universal Music also appeared before MPs during the sessions.
Following the release of the inquiry’s report, chair of the DCMS committee Julian Knight said: “While streaming has brought significant profits to the recorded music industry, the talent behind it – performers, songwriters and composers – are losing out.
“Only a complete reset of streaming that enshrines in law their rights to a fair share of the earnings will do.
“However, the issues we’ve examined reflect much deeper and more fundamental problems within the structuring of the recorded music industry itself.
“We have real concerns about the way the market is operating, with platforms like YouTube able to gain an unfair advantage over competitors and the independent music sector struggling to compete against the dominance of the major labels.
“We’ve heard of witnesses being afraid to speak out in case they lose favour with record labels or streaming services. It’s time for the government to order an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority on the distortions and disparities we’ve uncovered.”
The Bank of England has cut interest rates from 4.5% to 4.25%, citing Donald Trump’s trade war as one of the key reasons for the reduction in borrowing costs.
In a decision taken shortly before the official confirmation of a trade deal between Britain and the United States, the Bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) voted to reduce borrowing costs in the UK, saying the economy would be slightly weaker and inflation lower in part as a result of higher tariffs.
However, it stopped short of predicting that the trade war would trigger a recession.
Further rate cuts are expected in the coming months, though there remains some uncertainty about how fast and how far the MPC will cut – since it was split three ways on this latest vote.
Two members of the nine-person MPC voted to reduce rates by even more today, taking them down to 4%. But another two on the committee voted not to cut them at all, leaving them instead at 4.5%.
In the event, five members voted for the quarter point cut – enough to tip the balance – with the accompanying minutes saying that while “the current impact of the global trade news should not be overstated, the news was sufficient for those members to judge that a reduction in Bank Rare was warranted.”
Even so, the Bank’s analysis suggests that while higher tariffs were likely to depress global and UK economic growth, and help push down inflation, the impact would be relatively minor, with growth only 0.3% lower and inflation only 0.2% lower.
Governor, Andrew Bailey, said: “Inflationary pressures have continued to ease, so we’ve been able to cut rates again today.
“The past few weeks have shown how unpredictable the global economy can be. That’s why we need to stick to a gradual and careful approach to further rate cuts. Ensuring low and stable inflation is our top priority.”
The Bank raised its forecast for UK economic growth this year from 0.75% to 1%, but said that was primarily because of unexpectedly strong output in the first quarter.
In fact, underlying economic growth remains weak at just 0.1% a quarter.
It said that while inflation was expected to rise further in the coming months, peaking at 3.5% in the third quarter, it would drop down thereafter, settling at just below 2% towards the end of next year.
Donald Trump is set to announce that America will agree a trade deal with the UK, Sky News understands.
A government source has told Sky’s deputy political editor Sam Coates that initial reports about the agreement in The New York Times are correct.
Coates says he understands a “heads of terms” agreement, essentially a preliminary arrangement, has been agreed which is a “substantive” step towards a full deal.
Three sources familiar with the reported plans had earlier told the New York Times that the US presidentwill announce on Thursday that the UK and US will agree a trade deal.
Shortly after the report emerged the value of the British pound rose by 0.4% against the US dollar.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Mr Trump had earlier teased that he would be announcing a major trade deal in the Oval Office at 10am local time (3pm UK time) on Thursday without specifying which country it had been agreed with.
Writing in a post on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, he said the news conference announcing the deal would be held with “representatives of a big, and highly respected, country”.
More from US
He did not offer more details but said the announcement would be the “first of many”.
A White House spokesperson has declined to comment on the New York Times report.
Senior Trump officials have been engaging in a flurry of meetings with trading partners since the US president announced his “liberation day” tariffs on both the US’ geopolitical rivals and allies on 2 April.
Mr Trump imposed a 10% tariff on most countries including the UK during the announcement, along with higher “reciprocal” tariff rates for many trading partners.
However those reciprocal tariffs were later suspended for 90 days.
Britain was not among the countries hit with the higher reciprocal tariffs because it imports more from the US than it exports there.
However, the UK was still impacted by a 25% tariff on all cars and all steel and aluminium imports to the US.
A UK official said on Tuesday that the two countries had made good progress on a trade deal that would likely include lower tariff quotas on steel and cars.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
9:20
Trump Tariffs: How the 10 days unfolded
Mr Trump said the same day that he and top administration officials would review potential trade deals with other countries over the next two weeks to decide which ones to accept.
Last week he said that he has “potential” trade deals with India, South Korea and Japan.
Asked on Sky News’ Breakfast programme about the UK-EU summit on 19 May and how Mr Starmer would balance relationships with the US and EU, Coates said: “I think it is politically helpful for Keir Starmer to have got the heads of terms, the kind of main points of a US-UK trade deal, nailed down before we see what we have negotiated with the EU — or, more importantly, Donald Trump sees what we have negotiated with the EU.”
Coates said there was “always a danger” that if it happened the other way around, Mr Trump would “take umbrage” at negotiations with the EU and “downgrade, alter or put us further back in the queue” when it came to a UK-US trade deal.
US and Chinese officials to discuss trade war
It comes as the US and China have been engaged in an escalating trade war since Mr Trump took office in January.
The Trump administration has raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 145% while Beijing has responded with levies of 125% in recent weeks.
US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent and US trade representative Jamieson Greer are set to meet their Chinese counterparts in Switzerland this week to discuss the trade war.
China has made the de-escalation of the tariffs a requirement for trade negotiations, which the meetings are supposed to help establish.
Britain’s trade deal with India has created a pocket of controversy on taxation.
Under the agreement, Indian workers who have been seconded to Britain temporarily will not have to pay National Insurance (NI) contributions in the UK. Instead, they will continue to pay the Indian exchequer.
The same applies to British workers in India. It avoids workers from being taxed twice for a full suite of benefits they will not receive, such as the state pension.
Politicians of all stripes have leapt to judgement.
Nigel Farage has described it as a “big tax exemption” for Indian workers. He said it was “impossible to say how many will come,” with the Reform Party warning of “more mass immigration, more pressure on the NHS, more pressure on housing.”
But, is this deal really undercutting British workers or is it simply creating a level playing field?
More from Money
Be wary of any hasty conclusions. In the absence of an impact assessment from the government, it is difficult to be precise about any of this. However, at first glance, it is unlikely that some of Reform’s worst fears will play out.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:43
Whisky boss toasts India trade deal
Firstly, avoiding double taxation is not the same thing as a “tax break.’ This type of agreement, known as a double contribution convention, is not new.
Britain has similar arrangements with other countries and blocs, including the US, EU, Canada and Japan.
It’s based on the principle that workers shouldn’t be paying twice for social security taxes that they will not benefit from.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:27
UK-India trade deal explained
Indian workers and businesses will still have to pay the equivalent tax in India, as well as sponsorship fees and the NHS surcharge.
Crucially, the deal only applies to workers being sent over by Indian companies on a temporary basis.
Those workers are on Indian payroll. It does not apply to Indian workers more generally. That means businesses in the UK can’t (and won’t) suddenly be replacing all their workers with Indians.
The conditions for a company to send over a secondee on a work visa are restrictive. It means it’s unlikely that these workers will be replacing British workers.
However, It does mean that the exchequer will not capture the extra national insurance tax from those who come over on this route.
The government has not shared its impact assessment for how many extra Indians they expect to come over on this route, how much NI they will escape, or how much this will be offset by extra income tax from those Indians. The net financial position is therefore murky.