FALSE: In the original production model, featured artists as well receive payment for the recording session. This is what is provided for in the collective agreements in force in the sound recording sector in Quebec. However, this recording session fee payment does not prevent featured performers from collecting royalties as well. Why should it be different for accompanying performers?

Accompanying performers receive their fair share of what is called equitable remuneration royalties (in relation to the non interactive and semi-interactive streaming of their music) and the same should apply to all online exploitations of their musical performances.

While it is generally accepted that the share of equitable remuneration royalties going to accompanying artists is generally less than the one of featured artists, the fact remains that accompanying artists contribute to the success of the sound recordings in which they participate and that they should therefore receive royalties for any online exploitation of their performances, including on-demand streaming.

FALSE: How could accompanying performers who receive nothing from the on-demand streaming of the sound recordings in which they participate receive less? From the outset, this statement is false for many performers!

In addition, Will Page the former chief economist of Spotify released a study entitled “Equitable remuneration: Policy Options and their Unintended Consequences” in which he analyzes the Spanish model under which platforms pay 2.4% of their gross income to Spanish collective management organization for performers called AIE and he has demonstrated that such a model resulted in a 13% increase in streaming revenue for performers (including accompanying ones).

The only way in which performers’ incomes could decrease is if we take for given that the share of accompanying performers should be deducted from the share of featured performers rather than providing that the other links in the payment chain or the platforms themselves should pay for it (or decrease their portion of royalties) to allow accompanying performers to receive their fair share.

In short, it is wrong to claim that all models that would result in direct payment from platforms to performers’ collective management organizations in connection with on-demand streaming would result in a decrease in the share reaching performers. The wrongness of this assertion is particularly obvious when one considers the interest of the accompanying performers whose share cannot decline since they currently receive nothing for on-demand streaming.

FALSE: While it is true that sound recordings could in some cases see their share of the pie increase with a user-centric distribution model, this will not solve the problem of the distribution of monies between the different stakeholders in the chain of payment and will not result in more monies reaching the performers’ hands.

The only way to ensure that monies reach performers (in their capacity as performers and not as self-producers of their sound recordings) is to ensure that royalty payments specifically intended for them are made by the platforms directly to their collecting management organizations.

That said if the platforms also adopt, in parallel, a user-centric distribution model which would result in some sound recordings being awarded a larger share of the pie then it is actually the case, then this would only improve the payments to performers participating in these sound recordings.

FALSE: An impressive number of performers whose music is widely played on streaming platforms do not receive any royalties or absolutely ridiculous sums for the streaming of their music..

Among these are non-featured /accompanying performers who never receive royalties for on demand streaming of their music, but also the featured performers to whom the monies simply do not trickle down, being held up by the other links of the payment chain.

FALSE: Some of the largest online music platforms do not pay equitable remuneration royalties that they should pay pretexting that all uses they make of music are already covered by the licenses they obtain, which is wrong.

Indeed, the only way to legally obtain a license for non-interactive and semi-interactive streaming in Canada is to obtain it from the sole Canadian collecting society that is designated to issue licenses and collect all royalties related to these forms of streaming, i.e. ReSound. If the platform claims to have obtained a license allowing it to do non-interactive and semi-interactive streaming from another entity than ReSound, this claim is illegitimate.

Finally, some platforms claim they only offer on-demand streaming even if they push content to their premium and freemium subscribers and:

• they do not stream the exact sound recording they are asked for,
• they do not allow for the replay of a track or
• they do not allow for more than a limited number of skips
• broadcast advertisement from time to time.

By claiming they only offer on-demand streaming, they avoid paying equitable remuneration while some of their streaming activities should be subject to the payment of equitable remuneration royalties.