Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:14:57.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolution and consequences of digital rights management in relation to online music streaming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2021

Nick Scharf Open the ORCID record for Nick Scharf [Opens in a new window]
Nick Scharf*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
*
*Author e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Streaming services now provide the dominant way in which music is distributed and consumed online. Digital rights management (DRM) lies at the heart of this trend and has evolved alongside a movement from copy-based to streaming-based consumption. This shift poses a number of new and unique issues. Music streaming services have changed the nature of the product offered, with musical content becoming de-bundled and reduced to a series of permissions covered by DRM and associated licences, leaving users trapped in a permission-based system. This may create tension with copyright law principles regarding personal ownership and exhaustion of rights in relation to secondary markets, but through analysing relevant US and European case law it can be demonstrated that there is little, if any, legal opportunity for digital secondary markets to emerge. There are also further specific consequences which may affect artists relating to musical diversity and the composition of popular music and, also, consequences regarding the changing nature of the Internet itself. In this context copyright remains centrally important, but only in establishing the initial proprietary rights that enable subsequent DRM and licence-based online exploitation, indicative of a re-establishment of record industry power that is now allied to streaming platforms.

Keywords

intellectual propertycopyrightdigital rights managementstreamingmusic
Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 61 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 R Anderson Security Engineering (Hoboken: Wiley, 2nd edn, 2008) p 682.

2 Ibid, pp 682–683.

3 Sony Corp of America v Universal City Studios, 464 US 417 (1984).

4 Ibid, at 495.

5 Anderson, above n 1, p 691.

6 US Audio Home Recording Act, 106 Stat 4237 (1992), to amend title 17, United States Code, to implement a royalty payment system and a serial copy management system for digital audio recording, to prohibit certain copyright infringement actions, and for other purposes.

7 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), adopted in Geneva on 20 December 1996.

8 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), adopted in Geneva on 20 December 1996.

9 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 112 Stat 2860 (1998), to amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes.

10 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

11 Goldstein, P Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox, Revised Edition (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003) pp 165–170Google Scholar.

12 D Hesmondhalgh The Cultural Industries (London: SAGE Publications, 2nd edn, 2007) p 151.

13 W Patry How to Fox Copyright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) p 233.

14 See for example Angelopoulos, CJ ‘Modern intellectual property legislation: warm for reform’ (2008) 19(2) Entertainment Law Review 35Google Scholar at 36 and Bechtold, S ‘Digital rights management in the United States and Europe’ (2004) 52 American Journal of Comparative Law 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 331.

15 Kemp, B ‘Copyright's digital reformulation’ (2002–2003) 5 Yale Journal of Law & Technology 141Google Scholar at 144.

16 Koempel, F ‘Digital rights management’ (2005) 11(8) Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 239Google Scholar at 239.

17 P Samuelson ‘Digital rights management {and, or, vs.} the law’ (2003) 46(4) Communications of the ACM 41 at 42. See also L Lessig Code Version 2.0 (New York: Basic Books, 2006) p 116.

18 N Scharf ‘Digital rights management and fair use’ (2010) 1(2) European Journal of Law and Technology.

19 S Knopper Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age (London: Simon & Schuster, 2009) pp 222–228.

20 See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/FrankStevenson/mail1.txt.

21 Universal v Reimerdes, 11 F Supp 2d 294 111 and DVD Copy Control Association Inc v Bunner, 116 Cal App 4th 241.

22 RealNetworks Inc v DVD Copy Control Association Inc, 641 F Supp 2d 913 and 321 Studios v Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc, 307 F Supp 2d 1085 (2004).

23 B Johnson ‘Amazon Kindle users surprised by “big brother” move’ (The Guardian, 17 July 2009), available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-kindle-1984. See also ‘Ofcom knocks back BBC DRM plans’ (BBC News, 10 November 2009), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8352241.stm, and C Arthur ‘Microsoft cutting off up to 1m gamers with modified Xbox 360 controls’ (The Guardian, 11 November 2009), available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/xbox-modded-consoles-live-cut-microsoft.

24 M Scherzinger ‘Toward a history of digital music: new technologies, business practices and intellectual property regimes’ in N Cook et al (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Music in Digital Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019) p 49.

25 International Federation of Phonographic Industries Global Music Report 2017: Annual State of the Industry (2017) p 10, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20190918044926/ https://www.ifpi.org/downloads/GMR2017.pdf.

26 International Federation of Phonographic Industries Global Music Report 2019: Annual State of the Industry (2019) p 6 available at https://web.archive.org/web/20190529065926/ https://www.ifpi.org/downloads/GMR2019.pdf.

27 Ibid, p 15.

28 M Borghi ‘Chasing copyright infringement in the streaming landscape’ (2011) 42(3) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 316 at 317.

29 Ibid, at 317.

30 Sobel, LS ‘DRM as an enabler of business models: ISPs as digital retailers’ (2003) 16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 667Google Scholar at 667.

31 T Ingham ‘Here's exactly how many shares the major labels and Merlin bought in Spotify – and what those stakes are worth now’ (Music Business Worldwide, 14 May 2018), available at https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/heres-exactly-how-many-shares-the-major-labels-and-merlin-bought-in-spotify-and-what-we-think-those-stakes-are-worth-now/.

32 D Kusek and G Leonhard The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution (Boston: Berkeley Press, 2005) p 102.

33 Ibid, p 99.

34 Intellectual Property Office Online Copyright Infringement Tracker: Latest Wave of Research (March 2019) Overview and key findings, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/867708/oci-tracker-2020.pdf.

35 Ofcom ‘Communications Market Report 2016’ (4 August 2016) pp 114–115, available at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/26826/cmr_uk_2016.pdf.

36 Ofcom ‘Communications Market Report 2015’ (6 August 2015) p 82, available at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/20668/cmr_uk_2015.pdf.

37 S Stokes Digital Copyright: Law and Practice (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 3rd edn, 2009) p 157.

38 Borghi, above n 28, at 319.

39 Stokes, above n 37, p 157.

40 Borghi, above n 28, at 327.

41 See website available at https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/buffering.

42 Borghi, above n 28, at 328.

43 J Ozer ‘DRM’ (2017) 14(2) Streaming 122 at 122–123.

44 Ibid, at 125.

45 Scherzinger, above n 24, p 52.

46 N Lucchi ‘The supremacy of techno-governance: privatization of digital content and consumer protection in the globalized information society’ (2007) 15(2) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 192 at 211.

47 MA Einhorn and B Rosenblatt ‘Peer-to-peer networking and digital rights management – how market tools can solve copyright problems’ (2005) 534 Cato Institute Policy 3.

48 JGH Griffin ‘The changing nature of authorship: why copyright law must focus on the increased role of technology’ (2005) 2 Intellectual Property Quarterly 135 at 145.

49 P Ganley ‘Digital copyright and the new creative dynamics’ (2004) 12(3) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 282 at 289.

50 Einhorn and Rosenblatt, above n 47, at 3.

51 M Grynberg ‘Property is a two-way street: personal copyright use and implied authorization’ (2010) 79 Fordham Law Review 435 at 481.

52 G Parchomovsky and PJ Weiser ‘Beyond fair use’ (2010) 96 Cornell Law Review 91 at 127.

53 Intellectual Property Office, above n 34, pp 29–30.

54 L Snapes and M Sweney ‘YouTube to launch new music streaming service’ (The Guardian, 17 May 2018), available at https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/17/youtube-music-new-streaming-service-launch.

55 A Watson ‘Most popular music streaming services in the US 2018–2019, by audience’ Verto Statista Report (11 March 2020), available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/798125/most-popular-us-music-streaming-services-ranked-by-audience/.

56 R Iyengar ‘Jay Z just launched his own music-streaming service called Tidal’ (Time, 30 March 2015), available at https://time.com/3764675/tidal-for-all-jay-z-streaming-music-spotify/.

57 A Flanagan and A Hampp ‘It's official: Jay Z's historic tidal launches with 16 artist stakeholders’ (Billboard, 30 March 2015), available at https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6509498/jay-z-tidal-launch-artist-stakeholders.

58 A Perzanowski and J Schultz ‘Reconciling intellectual and personal property’ (2015) 90 Notre Dame Law Review 1213 at 1237.

59 ‘Licensed Application End User Licence Agreement’, available at https://www.apple.com/legal/macapps/stdeula/.

60 ‘Pandora Terms of Use’, available at https://www.pandora.com/legal.

61 ‘Spotify Terms and Conditions of Use’, available at https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/.

62 ‘Apple Media Services Terms and Conditions’, available at https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html.

63 Ibid.

64 ‘Deezer Terms of Use’, available at https://www.deezer.com/legal/cgu.

65 Ibid and above, n 60.

66 ‘TIDAL – Terms & Conditions of Use’, available at https://tidal.com/terms.

67 Above, n 64.

68 Above, n 66.

69 ‘Amazon Music terms of Use’, available at https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201380010.

70 Above, nn 64 and 66.

71 Above, nn 61, 64, 66 and 69.

72 See A Perzanowski and J Schultz The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2016).

73 Perzanowski and Schultz, above n 58, at 1235.

74 S Sjölander Did Modern Media Skill the Superstar? A contribution to the theory of consumer behaviour in the presence of increasing information (Lund University, 2016), available at https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/8880948, pp 21–22. See also J Earls ‘There will be no new entries in the Top 40 singles chart this week’ (NME, 4 July 2016), available at https://www.nme.com/news/music/various-artists-170-1192642.

75 Perzanowski and Schultz, above n 58, at 1248.

76 Ibid, at 1214 and IFPI reports, above n 26.

77 J Liu ‘Owning digital copies: copyright law and the incidents of copy ownership’ (2001) 42 William & Mary Law Review 1245 at 1280.

78 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 16.

79 Perzanowski and Schultz, above n 58, at 1213.

80 Ibid, at 1223.

81 Ibid, at 1215.

82 Copyright Act of 1976, Pub L No 94-553, 90 Stat 2541 (for the general revision of copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code, and for other purposes), 19 October 1976.

83 Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp.

84 Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs.

85 UsedSoft v Oracle, above n 83, para 44.

86 Ibid, paras 45–47.

87 Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle, Opinion of AG Bot, para 59.

88 UsedSoft v Oracle, above n 83, para 55.

89 Ibid, para 59.

90 Ibid, para 61.

91 Ibid, paras 67–68.

92 Ibid, para 78.

93 Ibid, para 79.

94 Ibid, paras 51 and 56.

95 Case C-355/21 Nintendo Co Ltd v PC Box Srl.

96 Ibid, para 36.

97 Ibid, para 23.

98 Capitol Records, LLC v ReDigi Inc, 934 F Supp 2d 640 (SDNY 2013).

99 Case C-419/13 Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright.

100 Case C-263/18 Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV and Others.

101 Capitol Records v ReDigi, above n 98, p 4.

102 A&M Records Inc v Napster Inc, 239 F3d 1004 (2001).

103 Capitol Records v ReDigi, above n 98, p 6.

104 Ibid, p 6.

105 Ibid, p 12.

106 Ibid, p 12.

107 Capitol Records LLC v ReDigi Inc, No 16-2321 (2d Cir 2018).

108 Case C-419/13 Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright.

109 Ibid, para 23.

110 Ibid, para 15.

111 Ibid, para 42.

112 Ibid, para 44.

113 Ibid, para 46.

114 Nederlands Uitgeversverbond and Groep Algemene Uitgevers v Tom Kabinet Internet BV, above n 100.

115 Ibid, paras 61–72.

116 Case C-263/18 Tom Kabinet, Opinion of AG Szpunar, para 61.

117 Ibid, paras 61–62.

118 See webpage available at https://web.archive.org/web/20200606215639/https://www.tomkabinet.nl/.

119 M Sorrentino and JE Solsman ‘Disney plus: everything to know about Disney's streaming service’ (CNET, 4 May 2020), available at https://www.cnet.com/news/disney-plus-streaming-service-release-date-price-shows-and-movies-to-expect-hulu-espn-plus/.

120 ‘Full stream ahead for BritBox in UK as ITV and BBC sign agreement’ (BBC Media Centre, 19 July 2019), available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2019/britbox-agreement.

121 ‘BritBox: ITV and BBC set out plans for new streaming service’ (BBC News, 19 July 2019), available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49037855.

122 J Kurose ‘Content-centric networking’ (2012) 55(1) Communications of the ACM 116.

123 JC Ginsburg ‘From having copies to experiencing works: the development of an access right in US copyright law’ (2002–2003) 50 J Copyright Society USA 113 at 115 and S Dusollier ‘Electrifying the fence: the legal protection of technological measures for protecting copyright’ (1999) 21(6) European Intellectual Property Review 285 at 291.

124 J Lowensohn ‘Spotify: Thursday's the day for US launch’ (CNET, 13 July 2011), available at https://www.cnet.com/news/spotify-thursdays-the-day-for-u-s-launch/.

125 See https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spotify.music&hl=en_GB.

126 For example, Amazon's Kindle only supports ebooks from Amazon's own marketplace. This can be altered, but requires third-party software and a degree of technical ability. See https://uk.pcmag.com/ebook-readers/41944/how-to-put-free-ebooks-on-your-amazon-kindle.

127 It should be noted that alternative models do exist, such as those supported by Creative Commons licensing as well as others, for example Bandcamp.

128 ‘Streaming and the Official Singles Chart: Everything you need to know!’ Official Charts Company (23 June 2014), available at https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/streaming-and-the-official-singles-chart-everything-you-need-to-know-__4253/.

129 P Sexton ‘Ed Sheeran Still “Divide”s & Conquers on UK Charts’ Billboard (17 March 2017), available at https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7728615/ed-sheeran-uk-charts-divide-shape-of-you-number-one.

130 M Savage ‘Has streaming broken the UK singles chart?’ (BBC News, 17 July 2016), available from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36794105.

131 M Savage ‘Chart company changes formula to reflect rise in streaming’ (BBC News, 19 December 2016), available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38364237.

132 M Savage ‘Ed Sheeran penalised by new chart rules’ BBC News (7 July 2017), available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40531119. See also ‘Rules for chart eligibility: singles’ (Official Charts Company, January 2020) p 7, available at https://www.officialcharts.com/media/657559/official-uk-singles-chart-rules-jan-2020.pdf.

133 Ibid, p 7.

134 HL Gauvin ‘Drawing listener attention in popular music: testing five musical features arising from the theory of attention economy’ (2018) 22(3) Musicae Scientiae 291.

135 M Crane ‘Has music streaming killed the instrumental intro?’ (Ohio State News, 4 April 2017), available at https://news.osu.edu/has-music-streaming-killed-the-instrumental-intro/ and ‘The dying art of the great song intro’ (BBC News, 4 October 2017), available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41500692.

136 HA Simon ‘Designing organizations for an information-rich world’ (1971) p 40, available at https://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=33748.

137 MH Goldhaber ‘Attention shoppers!’ (Wired, 21 January 1997), available at https://www.wired.com/1997/12/es-attention/.

138 Gauvin, above n 134, at 300, citing P Lamere ‘The skip’ (Music Machinery, 2 May 2014), available at https://musicmachinery.com/2014/05/02/the-skip/.

139 ‘Company Info’ Spotify, available at https://newsroom.spotify.com/company-info/.

140 Gauvin, above n 134, at 301.

141 K Keightley ‘You keep coming back like a song: adult audiences, taste panics, and the idea of the standard’ (2001) 13 Journal of Popular Music Studies 7 at 23.

142 ‘Why the music we love as teens stays with us for life’ BBC Radio 3, available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/WYbJdPrX3qn17F1YYK36sS/why-the-music-we-love-as-teens-stays-with-us-for-life.

143 CJ Stevens ‘Is memory for music special?’ (2015) 8(3) Memory Studies 263 at 264.

144 M Savage ‘The UK's most-streamed songs may surprise you’ (BBC News, 11 April 2019), available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47881992.

145 ‘Does the music industry's definition of “catalogue” need an upgrade?’ (Music Business Worldwide, 5 December 2017), available at https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/music-industrys-definition-catalogue-need-upgrade/.

146 Keightley, above n 141, at 29.

147 Heverly, RA ‘Breaking the internet: international efforts to play the middle against the ends – a way forward’ (2011) 44 Georgetown Journal of International Law 1083Google Scholar at 1086.

148 Negativland, ‘Two relationships to a cultural public domain’ (2003) 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 239Google Scholar at 246.

149 PB Hugenholtz The Future of Copyright in a Digital Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Academy Colloquium (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996) p 91.

150 Borghi, above n 28, at 317.

151 M Castells The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) p 27.

152 B Carpenter (ed) ‘Architectural principles of the internet’ (1996) IAB 3, available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958.

153 DD Clark ‘An insider's guide to the internet (version 2.0)’ MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (25 July 2004) p 2, available at https://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/An-Insiders-Guide-to-the-Internet.pdf.

154 D Clark ‘Characterising cyberspace: past, present and future (version 1.2)’ MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (12 March 2010) p 7, available at https://projects.csail.mit.edu/ecir/wiki/images/7/77/Clark_Characterizing_cyberspace_1-2r.pdf.

155 RA Spinello Regulating Cyberspace: The Policies and Technologies of Control (London: Quorum Books, 2002) p 30.

156 MA Lemley and L Lessig ‘The end of end-to-end: preserving the architecture of the internet in the broadband era’ (2001) 48 UCLA Law Review 925 at 930.

157 JH Salzter et al ‘End-to-end arguments in system design’ (1984) 2(4) ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 277 at 278.

158 MS Blumenthal and DD Clark ‘Rethinking the design of the internet: the end-to-end arguments vs the brave new world’ (2001) 1(1) ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 70 at 91.

159 Ibid, at 77.

160 Ibid, at 93–94.

161 M Nottingham ‘The internet is for end users’ (Internet Architecture Board, 11 September 2020), available at https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-for-the-users-07.html.

162 Blumenthal and Clarke, above n 158, at 83.

163 N Anderson ‘Why DRM's best friend might just be Apple Inc’ (Ars Technica, 1 November 2007), available at https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/01/8595/.

164 NF Sharpe and AB Olufunmilayo ‘Is Apple playing fair? Navigating the iPod FairPlay DRM controversy’ (2007) 5 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 332 at 332.

165 G Kot Ripped: How the Wired Generation Revolutionized Music (New York: Scribner, 2009) p 203.

166 Knopper, above n 19, p 238.

167 Ibid, pp 150–157.

168 Ibid, p 156.

169 Ibid, p 232.

170 Anderson, above n 163.

171 Sharpe and Olufunmilayo, above n 164, at 333–334.

172 Kot, above n 165, pp 202–203.

173 T Ricker ‘First click: Apple's greatest innovation its ecosystem’ (The Verge, 7 September 2016), available at https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/7/12828846/apple-s-greatest-product-is-its-ecosystem.

174 Sharpe and Olufunmilayo, above n 164, at 340.

175 Anderson, above n 163.

176 J Colcourt ‘RIP, iTunes. This is what happens to your Apple music now’ (CNET, 5 July 2019), available at https://www.cnet.com/how-to/rip-itunes-this-is-what-happens-to-your-apple-music-now/.

177 Blumenthal and Clark, above n 158, at 92.

178 T Berners-Lee ‘Long live the web: a call for continued open standards and neutrality’ (Scientific American, 1 December 2010), available at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/long-live-the-web/.

179 H Lindvall ‘Behind the music: the real reason why the major labels love Spotify’ (The Guardian, 17 August 2009), available at https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2009/aug/17/major-labels-spotify and M Arrington ‘This is quite possibly the Spotify cap table’ (TechCrunch, 7 August 2009), available at https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/this-is-quite-possibly-the-spotify-cap-table/.

180 Boone, MS ‘The past, present, and future of computing and its impact on digital rights management’ (2008) Michigan State Law Review 413Google Scholar at 429.

181 Sobel, above n 30, at 669.

182 Ganley, above n 49, at 290–291.

183 Kurose, above n 122, at 116.

184 Sharpe and Olufunmilayo, above n 164, at 341.

185 Bates, BJ ‘Commentary: value and digital rights management – a social economics approach’ (2008) 21(1) Journal of Media Economics 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 62.

186 Lemley, MA ‘Is the sky falling on the content industries?’ (2011) 9 Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 125Google Scholar at 134.

187 Angelopoulos, CJ ‘Modern intellectual property legislation: warm for reform’ (2008) 19(2) Entertainment Law Review 35Google Scholar at 37.

188 Greengard, S ‘Digitally possessed’ (2012) 55(5) Communications of the ACM 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 14.

189 M Sweney ‘Back on track: UK vinyl sales heading for best year in three decades’ (The Guardian, 21 November 2020), available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/21/uk-vinyl-sales-gigs-covid-record.

190 Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC.

191 T Jonze ‘Vulfpeck … the band who made $20,000 from their “silent” Spotify album’ (The Guardian, 25 July 2014), available at https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jul/25/vulpeck-the-band-who-made-20000-from-their-silent-spotify-album.

192 H Brown ‘Spotify removes Vulfpeck's “Sleepify”’ (Billboard, 26 April 2014), available at https://www.billboard.com/articles//6070030/spotify-removes-vulfpecks-sleepify.

193 ‘Getting music on Spotify’, available at https://artists.spotify.com/help/article/getting-music-on-spotify.

194 T Ingham ‘Spotify opens the floodgates: artists can now upload tracks direct to the streaming platform for free’ (Music Business Worldwide, 20 September 2018), available at https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-opens-the-floodgates-users-can-now-upload-tracks-to-the-streaming-platform-for-free/.

195 T Ingham ‘Spotify's direct distribution deals: what do artists get paid?’ (Music Business Worldwide, 23 September 2018), available at https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotifys-direct-distribution-deals-what-do-the-artists-get/.

196 C Arthur ‘Taylor Swift may have triumphed, but Apple will still call the tune’ (The Observer, 27 June 2015), available at https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jun/27/taylor-swift-triumphed-apple-music-calls-tune.

197 The industry structure between record companies and retail could now be characterised as concentrated oligopolies. See Hviid, M et al. ‘Digitalisation and intermediaries in the music industry’ (2018) 15(2) SCRIPTed 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 273.