OpenMusE Music Diversity and Circulation Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators

D2.1 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators OpenMusE An open, scalable data to-policy pipeline for European music ecosystems Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 2 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Project Factsheet Acronym: OpenMusE Title: An open, scalable data to-policy pipeline for European music ecosystems Coordinator: SINUS Marktund Sozialforschung GmbH Reference: 101095295 Type: Research and Innovation Action Program: Horizon Europe Start: 1st January 2023 Duration: 36 months Website: https://www.openmuse.eu/ Consortium: SINUS Marktund Sozialforschung GmbH, Germany (SINUS), Coordinator TURUN YLIOPISTO, Finland (UTU) UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (UVA) Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e di Perfezionament, Italy (SSSA) EKONOMICKA UNIVERZITA V BRATISLAVE, Slovakia (EUBA) Reprex B.V., Netherlands (REPREX) SYNYO GmbH, Austria (SYNYO) MUSIC INNOVATION HUB SPA IMPRESA SOCIALE, Italy (MIH) Slovenský ochranný zväz autorský pre práva k hudobným, Slovakia (SOZA) Aloaded AB, Sweden (ALOADED) Music Export Ukraine, Ukraine (MEU) Muzikos Eksporto Fondas, Lithuania (MXF) D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 3 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 ARTISJUS MAGYAR SZERZOI JOGVEDO IRODA EGYESULET, Hungary (ARTISJUS) MUSICAUTOR SDRUZHENIE, Bulgaria (MUSICAUTOR) HEARDIS! GMBH, Germany (HEARDIS) D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 4 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Deliverable Factsheet Number: D2.1 Title: Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data collection Methods and Indicators Lead beneficiary: SSSA Work package: WP2 Task: T2.1 Dissemination level: Public Submission date: Living version 30.09.2023. Final version 08.01.2024. Main author(s): Caterina Sganga (SSSA) Magali Contardi (SSSA) Arianna Martinelli (SSSA) Piergiorgio Pilo (SSSA) James Rhys Edwards (SINUS) Contributor(s): Mária Kmety Barteková (EUBA) Quality check: Daniel Antal (REPREX), Tomáš Mikš (SOZA) Document history: Revision Date Main Modification Author 0.1 05/09/2023 First Document structure SSSA 0.2 18/09/2023 Sections 1-3 first draft SSSA 0.3 18/09/2023 Draft section 4 EUBA 0.4 20/09/2023 Revised draft s.1-3; data gaps SSSA 0.5 23/09/2023 Revised draft 1-3, executive summary, footnotes SSSA 0.6 26/09/2023 Finalised first draft SSSA D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 5 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 0.7 29/09/2023 Final draft after quality check SSSA 1.0 30/09/2023 Final formatting, submission to EC SINUS 1.1 15/10/2023 New revised draft template for partners to integrate data and information SSSA 1.2 30/11/2023 Finalised additions to Sections 1-3 SSSA 1.3 23/12/2023 Finalised additions to Section 4-5 SSSA-SINUS 1.4 6/1/2024 Finalised draft SSSA-SINUS 2.0 9/1/2024 Final formatting; submissions to EC SINUS Disclaimer of Warranties This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe, research and innovation programme, under Grant Agreement No. 101095295. This document has been prepared by OpenMusE project partners as an account of work carried out within the framework of the EC-GA contract no 101095295. Any dissemination of results must indicate that it reflects only the author’s view and that the Commission Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Neither Project Coordinator, nor any signatory party of OpenMusE Project Consortium Agreement, nor any person acting on behalf of any of them: (a) makes any warranty or representation whatsoever, express or implied, (i). with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, process, or similar item disclosed in this document, including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or (ii). that such use does not infringe on or interfere with privately owned rights, including any party's intellectual property, or (iii). that this document is suitable to any particular user's circumstance; or (b) assumes responsibility for any damages or other liability whatsoever (including any consequential damages, even if Project Coordinator or any representative of a signatory party of the OpenMusE Project Consortium Agreement, has been advised of the possibility of such damages) resulting from your selection or use of this document or any information, apparatus, method, process, or similar item disclosed in this document. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 6 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Glossary AGCM Italian Competition Authority AVMSD Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) BC Berne Convention BER Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (Block Exemption Regulation) CCI Creative and cultural industry - Cultural and creative industries are comprised of all sectors whose activities are based on cultural values, or other artistic individual or collective creative expressions and are defined in the legal basis of the Creative Europe Programme CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights CD Cultural diversity – represents the different forms of culture that emerge in time and space. Cultural diversity manifests itself in the originality and multiplicity of identities, as well as in the cultural expressions of peoples and societies representing humanity. At the same time, cultural and linguistic diversity contributes to the dissemination and consolidation of the European values of democracy, tolerance and equality. CDC UN Cultural Diversity Convention CDSMD 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 CEDAW UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women CJUE Court of Justice of the European Union CMO Collective Management Organisations - are, in most cases, not-for-profit entities, whose legal form can be either private or public. Their key function is to ensure the smooth enforcement, licensing, collection and distribution of revenues among stakeholders, thus allowing the effective remuneration of all creators with lower transaction costs and increased market efficiency. CoE Council of Europe DDEX Digital Data Exchange – is a persistent identifier used in the digital environment. DG Data granularity - refers to a measure of the level of detail in a data structure. DOM Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (Declaration on Minorities) ECC European Cultural Convention ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ECRML European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 7 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 ESC European Social Charter EOA European Audiovisual Observatory EU European Union Ethnicity describes the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs FRBR Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records – is a persistent identifier used in the digital environment FCNM Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities FCVCHS Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GBR Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Geoblocking Regulation) ICESCR UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination IP Intellectual Property ISRC International Standard Registration code – is the globally recognised standard numbering system for audio and music video recordings. It comprises a 12-digit alphanumeric code and functions as a universal identification number for each sound recording. ISWC International Standard Musical Work Code. is a unique, permanent, and internationally recognised reference number for the identification of musical works. LFM-1b public dataset that consists of more than one billion listening events created by over 120,000 users of the music streaming platform LFM-1K public dataset, which includes historical listening sessions of nearly 1,000 users between 2005 and 2009. LFM-360K public dataset which consists of approximately 360,000 users' listening histories from Last.fm MusicBrainz a persistent identifier used in the digital environment for music. MD Music diversity - is part of the cultural diversity and refers to the variety and range of musical styles, genres, traditions, and cultures present within a particular musical context, community, or industry. It encompasses the inclusion of different musical forms, voices, and expressions, and it often promotes the celebration and recognition of various cultural and artistic contributions to music D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 8 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Metadata (or metainformation) is data that provides information about other data, but not the content of the data itself, such as the text of a message or the image itself. There are many distinct types of metadata, including descriptive metadata (the descriptive information about a resource, used for discovery and identification), structural medatata (indicates how compound objects are put together), administrative metadata (information that helps managing a resource, such as permissions, date of creation, type), reference metadata (information about contents and quality of statistical data), statistical or process data (describing the process that collects, processes or produces statistical data), legal metadata (information about creator(s), rightsholders, eventual public licensing. MFN Most Favoured Nation PR Regulation on Cross-Border Portability of Online Content Services (2017/1128) (Portability Regulation) Qualitative indicators used to refer to concepts and definitions of music diversity that are included in legislative (binding) and policy (non-binding) sources, which are not directly referred to specific data sources to be collected. Quantitative indicators as opposed to qualitative indicators, in D2.1 “quantitative indicators” are used to identify statistical/policy indicators that directly targets specific and measurable data, regardless of the source introducing or requiring their implementation. Race Declaration Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice SatCab II Directive Directive on Certain Aspects Concerning Contracts for the Supply of Digital Content (2019/770/EU) SROI Social Return on Investment – SROI assesses changes that are important to the community - the individuals or entities involved. It describes the narrative of change by quantifying social, environmental, and economic consequences and employs monetary figures to represent these outcomes. This approach allows for the computation of a benefits-to-cost ratio. RC Rome Convention TDM Text and data mining - is the process of deriving information from machine-read material. It works by copying large quantities of material, extracting the data, and recombining it to identify patterns (source: UK government) TFUE Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union TRIPS Agreement in Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights UCC Universal Copyright Convention UDCD Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Economic Social Cultural Organisation WCT WIPO Copyright Treaty WIPO World Intellectual property Organisation D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 9 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 WP Work Package WPPT WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty WTO World Trade Organisation D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 16 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Introduction Culture is essential to Europe and at the heart of its identity. It contributes to prosperity, social cohesion, and the well-being of Europeans; it reinforces Europe’s image and influence in the world,1 as emphasised in the New Strategic Agenda for the EU 2019-2024.2 On the 60th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the leaders of the 27 Member States and EU institutions marked their ambition for a Union “which preserves our cultural heritage and promotes cultural diversity” and “where citizens have new opportunities for cultural and social development and economic growth.”3 In 2022, the European Council adopted the Resolution on the EU Work Plan for Culture 2023-2026.4 The EU Work Plan for Culture is based, inter alia, on the guiding principle that “Cultural and linguistic diversity are fundamental assets of the EU and are to be respected, promoted and enhanced, including through mobility and the circulation of works.” In this context, the Work Plan identifies a priority area to target the issue of discoverability concerning diverse European cultural content in the digital realm. The crux of the matter lies in the methods employed for producing and documenting data and the role of major digital platforms, acting as gatekeepers in determining the visibility of this content. According to the Work Plan, the goal is to ensure that European cultural content not only exists online but is also readily discoverable. Thus, a deeper understanding of the policies and laws influencing cultural and linguistic diversity, including regulating algorithmic recommendations to enhance exposure to diverse content, is essential. Specifically to the music sector, the European Commission started a discussion with members of the European music industry in 2015 to identify the main issues and potential solutions, including those that the EU might assist with.5 This discussion served as the catalyst for the creation of the Music Moves Europe framework,6 which now serves as the focal point for all EU initiatives and actions aimed at increasing the variety and competitiveness of the music industry in Europe through legislative and financial measures. Along the same lines, as part of the 2018 Preparatory Action titled "Music Moves Europe: Boosting European Music Diversity and Talent," the EU commissioned the development of the Feasibility Study for establishing a European Music Observatory (EMO Feasibility Study). The Horizon Europe project Open Music Europe is organised around the four pillars identified in the EMO Feasibility Study. 1 Culture is defined by UNESCO as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, that encompasses not only art and literature but lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs.” Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity 2001. 2 European Council of the European Union, ‘A New Strategic Agenda for Europe 2019-2024’ <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/06/20/a-new-strategic-agenda-2019-2024/> accessed 22 September 2023. 3 European Council of the European Union, ‘European Council Meeting Conclusions, 14 December 2017’ <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/14/european-council-conclusions-external-relations/> accessed 22 September 2023. 4 European Council of the European Union, ‘Council Resolution on the EU Work Plan for Culture 2023-2026 - 15381/22’ <https://culture.ec.europa.eu/node/2887> accessed 22 September 2023. 5 European Commission, ‘Music Moves Europe - Preparatory Action 2019’ <https://culture.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/mme_2019_brochure_final-web.pdf>. 6 European Parliament. (2018). Research for CULT Committee - Music Moves Europe: Boosting European music diversity and talent. Retrieved from: https://culture.ec.europa.eu/calls/music-moves-europe-boosting-european-music-diversity-andtalent-call-on-professionalisation-and-training; European Commission - Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Projects and Studies (2018-2020) Funded under the Preparatory Action: “Music Moves Europe : Boosting European Music Diversity and Talent” (Publications Office of the European Union 2022) <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/24018> accessed 23 September 2023. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 17 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 WP2 on Music Diversity and Circulation, in particular, focuses on two important music industry policy issues: i) how to measure and foster cultural diversity within European musical repertoires, taking into due account its multifaceted dimensions and definitory problems (on which see more infra, Section 2.1); ii) how to measure and foster the diversity of representation across music distribution channels and the international flows of repertoires and artists. In this sense, D2.1 makes a step forward compared to the EMO Feasibility Study, where the “diversity” assessment is limited to the analysis of cross-border movements of works and artists. The results of the research conducted under T2.1 and conveyed in this deliverable intend to assist in designing and monitoring policies that advance these goals, using a multidisciplinary approach that brings together the consortium expertise in law, economics and data science to devise a comprehensive set of diversity policy objectives and measures and quantitative indicators of music diversity in the creation and distribution phases. The goal of D2.1 - “Music diversity and circulation: Novel data collection methods and indicators” - is the identification of critical research questions, data sources and gaps, and data collection methods, and the co-development of indicators capable of measuring music diversity and circulation in Europe. Indicator candidates will be later reviewed and selected to be added to the Open Music Observatory (D5.1). This objective stems from the consideration that, over the past decade, there has been a notable surge in the adoption of evidence-based policy approaches in both European and global contexts. The key objective of this movement has been to enhance the rigorousness of legislative and other policy activities by means of a wider use of previously collected and verified data.7 Since evidence-based policies frequently rely on scientific findings, this movement has been closely intertwined with endeavours to enhance the transparency and replicability of scientific research.8 Against this background, gaining a comprehensive normative view of music industry performance to support evidence-based policymaking is of paramount importance. This requires the development of a coherent system of evaluation indicators, capable of embedding the often insulated legal and economic benchmarks into a holistic set. Indicators that have not yet been measured and tracked due to the absence of data or their unavailability but are nevertheless essential to fully capture diversity as defined in binding legal sources, should be mapped and collected from already identified stakeholders from the cultural and creative sectors and industries (CCSIs). To pursue these goals with scientific rigorousness, the research conducted under Task 2.1 and channelled in D2.1 has been structured around five main steps. (1) To lay the groundwork of the research, T2.1 kicked off with the identification of relevant research questions, and started exploring different regulatory definitions of cultural diversity, in order to streamline them and adopt an all-encompassing notion that could be used as a paradigm for the entire course of the project. This entailed a thorough and updated literature review of two major issues affecting music industry diversity. The findings resulting from the literature review and the cultural diversity-oriented analysis of existing provisions go beyond T2.1, as they also serve as a basis for the work to be conducted under WP4. (2) As a second step, again to ensure the correct definition of the scope of the analysis, also for the benefit of other research activities conducted within the framework of WP1, WP3, WP4 and WP5, T2.1 conducted a comprehensive mapping of international, EU and national regulatory 7 Marcus R Munafò and others, ‘A Manifesto for Reproducible Science’ (2017) 1 Nature Human Behaviour 0021. 8 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission) and others, Reproducibility of Scientific Results in the EU: Scoping Report (Publications Office of the European Union 2020) <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/341654> accessed 22 September 2023. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 18 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 sources that either define cultural and creative diversity, have diversity as a fundamental objective, or employ diversity indicators in their implementation. The research went beyond state-of-the-art mappings and traditional classifications to also encompass sources that may indirectly impact on music diversity – with particular regard to the EU regulatory and policy framework. Great attention was also paid to verifying whether and to which extent lower-level sources (EU and national) correctly embed definitions and policy objectives in line with the definition of cultural diversity mandated by higher-level sources (international and EU). As a result, the analysis allowed the identification of existing policy domains and objectives of music diversity as defined by law, and the description of measurable target objectives that were further introduced within M10-M12 in order to correctly map music diversity in line with the international and rules currently in force, including the review of diversity definition and approaches adopted in previous studies. The results of the mapping also constitute a large backbone for the development of T2.2, and will be fed into D2.2, which is planned to include “the policy context regarding music diversity and circulation in the target countries in particular, and in Europe in general.” (3) The third step of T2.1 – economic analysis – conducted a literature review of social and economic aspects of cultural diversity, and related data availability and gaps. As the main goal of EU policies is economic growth and at the same time the cohesion of the Union, cultural policies must be aligned and be intertwined with employment policy to contribute to the development of dignified, respectful and inclusive cultures. The value of cultural industries is generated by creative human capital, which is the basis for generating economic growth in any sector. Against the background of such considerations, the goal of the third step of T2.1 was to identify existing indicators of music diversity beyond traditional direct parameters, with the aim to include also a measurement of diversity in the human capital employed in the sector and of its impact on the economic performance of the music industry, as already elaborated in WP1. The theme of cultural and musical diversity and circulation (WP2) creates a knowledge bridge between the economic performance of the music industry, the valuation of intangible assets and their monetisation, elaborated in WP1, and the theme of sustainability in WP3 Music, society, and citizenship. In light of the strict interaction between this step and the work currently conducted under WP1 and WP3, this part was updated from M10 to M12 and included in this updated version of D2.1. (4) The fourth step of T2.1, which was carried out in M10-M12 of the project in order to align its activities and results to the work conducted in WP1 and WP3 and other tasks in WP2, merges current and proposed/new diversity policy objectives and measures taken from regulatory sources, streamline them in a consistent and unitary set and translate them, to the extent possible, in measurable quantitative indicators. (5) On the basis of the results of these four steps, which are described in this deliverable, the fifth step of T2.1 entailed the identification of data sources and gaps, with a focus on the EU (Eurostat) and Slovakia as paradigmatic case study, and the devising of data collection methods to fill in the gaps. Information on data availabilities and gaps in other countries covered by OpenMusE will be added during the data collection phase of WP2, following the example of Slovakia. As this information is sometimes not publicly available, the extent of this work will be determined by the feasibility of cooperation with relevant authorities. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 19 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 This deliverable summarises the research conducted within Task 2.1. Compared to the previous version of D2.1, which was submitted as a living document on 30 September 2023. This updated version expands on other regulatory domains within step 2 to align with the needs of WP1 and WP3 and embeds the results of steps 4 and 5 of the analysis, aligning them with the research results obtained in the meantime in the context of T1.1 and T3.1. The mapping was supplemented with the inclusion of: ● other topical domain and countries in the legal mapping (e.g. competition law, international IP law, WTO law, audio-visual law), in light of their indirect impact and/or constraining effect on the implementation of diversity-oriented policies; ● other policy documents from the EU and selected countries; ● a survey of diversity-oriented policies and measurements implemented by representative organisations of collecting societies; ● a supplementary review of academic literatures and other studies previously conducted on music diversity, if not already covered by other WPs, which define or functionally conceptualise diversity within the music context; ● the analysis of best practices developed by countries, also expanding the geographical approach within and outside the EU, CMOs and other industry-related stakeholders to be used as a model for the development of policy recommendations; ● a more developed analysis of existing quantitative indicators which may interplay with music diversity, also in line with the findings of other WPs (especially WPs 1, 3 and 4). D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 20 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 1 Research Questions and Structure of the Deliverable Task 2.1 – “Music diversity and circulation: Novel data collection methods and indicators” aims at answering the following research questions, in accordance with the needs of both cultural policymakers and diverse market actors in the music industry. ● What are the European competencies and policies that may pertain to the definition and implementation of cultural diversity in the music industry? ● How can diversity be defined in the context of the music industry? ● Which policy objectives, measures, and forms of measurement thereof can be derived from international, EU and national legislative sources? o Are they consistent and, if not, how can they be streamlined? ● Which policy objectives, measures, and forms of measurement thereof can be derived from EU and national policy documents on the matter? o Are they consistent with each other and with the policy objectives, measures, and forms of measurement thereof identified by legislative sources? If not, how can they be streamlined? ● Which other quantitative indicators may directly or indirectly affect music diversity? Where are they mapped? ● What are the data gaps impairing the correct verification of qualitative and quantitative indicators, as identified and streamlined in the context of this research? ● Which data collection methods may be devised to fill in these gaps? To answer such questions, the research conducted in Task 2.1 was articulated around five main steps, as described in the Introduction. D2.1 summarises its research results. D2.1 starts delving into and embracing a definition of "cultural diversity", which includes a literature review of the operational (and functional) definition and approach to the notion concept of cultural diversity within the music industry. To align with the objectives of WP4, D2.1 literature review addresses two major issues impacting diversity within the music industry: i) algorithm recommender systems and ii) data infrastructure issues in the sector. Employing a comprehensive approach to cultural diversity, this report thus offers an exhaustive analysis of international, EU and selected Member States’ legal and policy sources having the direct goal or potential indirect effect of promoting cultural diversity in the EU digital music market. More specifically, the mapping covered measures and provisions directly or indirectly serving not only to promote diversity of musical content (languages and artistic expressions) and the characteristics of artists or stakeholders (producers, performers, songwriters, etc.) - including the related demographic or anthropological aspects – but also those directly or indirectly impacting on the flow of such repertoires, artists and stakeholders involved in the distribution channel. To ensure the most encompassing coverage possible, the analysis of key sources was supplemented with the inclusion of side topical domain (e.g. competition law, international IP law, WTO law, audio-visual law), in light of their indirect impact and/or constraining effect on the implementation of diversity-oriented policies); a wide array of policy documents from the EU and selected countries; a survey of diversity-oriented policies and measurements implemented by representative organisations of collecting societies; a supplementary D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 21 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 review of academic literatures and other studies previously conducted on music diversity, if not already covered by other WPs, which define or functionally conceptualise diversity within the music context; and the analysis of best practices developed by countries, also expanding the geographical approach within and outside the EU, CMOs and other industry-related stakeholders to be used as a model for the development of policy recommendations. The geographical scope of the analysis at a national level was first based on the countries represented by WP2 partners, in light of the fact that the scope of D2.1 was originally conceived to support the pilot project to be later conducted by WP2 in Slovakia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Bulgaria by SOZA, MXF, MEU and MUSICAUTOR. However, in light of the results of the ongoing OpenMusE research, the study was later complemented in M10-M12 to also cover countries that have developed relevant diversity laws and policies (e.g. Canada), which may be used as a benchmark for EU-based proposals of reform. The report then proceeds to review quantitative indicators used for assessing music diversity. This assessment serves to develop, in the following months, a comprehensive set of indicators that integrates existing policy objectives, measures and forms of measured thereof, derived from regulatory and policy sources, with existing and proposed quantitative indicators drawn from economic analyses. The proposed novel approach is twofold. First, it elucidates commonalities and disparities between the two categories and strives for a cohesive and unified set of indicators. Second, it juxtaposes this newly formulated set with presently employed indicators, identifying areas of alignment, discrepancies, and areas where additional indicators may be needed. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 22 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 2 Literature Review The following pages will offer a concise overview of the main arguments advanced by the literature on the definition of cultural diversity in the music industry and on the challenges raised against its proper implementation by the evolution of markets and technologies. Particular attention will be paid to some of the most debated issues, such as, for instance, the obstacles raised by algorithmic recommendation systems and the technical and regulatory flaws affecting copyright data infrastructures. 2.1 Defining Cultural Diversity in the Music Industry The objective of achieving cultural diversity is often proposed as a policy goal.9 However, this notion lacks a precise definition. Where should the boundaries of a particular community be drawn, and what features characterise the shared culture of such a community? Individuals in various roles, such as politicians, citizens, and States, have differing opinions about whether and how cultural policies should support such an identity, but there is also ambiguity regarding the best strategies that should be adopted as to define the latter. 10 In turn, this makes it difficult to delineate and apply the notion from a legal standpoint. In addition, the very same label “cultural diversity” is used with different meanings in different policy documents and by different entities and organisations, or sometimes interchangeably to refer to the diversity of sub-groups of natural persons involved in culture (diversity of subjects) and the diversity of cultural works themselves (diversity of content), thus increasing the problems raised by the semantic conundrum and challenging the overall feasibility of any attempt to streamline the various concept into a minimum common definition. 2.1.1 Diversity of Subjects At a very general level, cultural diversity is commonly understood as applying to groups of natural persons,11 and entails the variegated array of traditions and values that can be found within different communities or parts thereof.12 The notion of “culture” implies a multi-level approach that embeds sociological, economic, historical, political and legal aspects.13 The UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity broadly labels as “cultural diversity” “the manifold ways in which the cultures of groups and societies find expression” (Article 4(1)(2)), whereas “cultural content” is defined as the symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural values that originate from or express cultural identities”. As noted by Jacques et al., this definition adopts a multi-dimensional approach to variety, balance and disparity.14 9 European Commission, ‘Music Moves Europe, Commission Communication on a European Agenda for Culture in a Globalising World - COM(2007) 242’ <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/TodayOJ/> accessed 22 September 2023. 10 European Commission, Sport Directorate-General for Education Youth, and Culture, The AB MUSIC Working Group Report (Publications Office of the European Union 2016). 11 "Coexistence within society of culturally differentiated groups which maintain separate ways of life", see http://vocabularies.unesco.org/thesaurus/concept7021 accessed 22 September 2023. 12 Barbara Oomen and Sasja Tempelman, ‘The Power of Definition’ in Yvonne Donders, Kristin Henrard and Anna Meijnecht (eds), Law and cultural Diversity (Netherland Institute of Human Rights 1999). 13 ibid. 14 Sabine Jacques and others, ‘An Empirical Study of the Use of Automated Anti-Piracy Systems and Their Consequences for Cultural Diversity’ (2018) 15 SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society 277. A similar approach is taken in the literature in Françoise Benhamou and Stéphanie Peltier, ‘How Should Cultural Diversity Be Measured? An Application Using the French Publishing Industry’ (2007) 31 Journal of Cultural Economics 85.. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 23 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 In addition, while the acknowledgement of diversity is briefly mentioned in the preamble of the European Union Treaty,15 the same is explicitly endorsed and strengthened in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Charter provides additional hints of the diversity criterion, whereby Article 21 states that “any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited”. In addition, in stating that “the Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity” Article 22 explains the importance of ensuring linguistic diversity in Europe. 2.1.2 Diversity of Content The notion of cultural diversity can vary depending on how one defines “culture.” This notion can encompass a wide range of aspects, from intellectual and artistic achievements, such as arts and literature, to the broader anthropological or demographic concept of culture, which includes ethnicity, gender, origin, shared beliefs, language, traditions, and customs of individuals and communities.16 Consequently, cultural rights encompass various rights, including those related to creativity and, consequently, pertaining to the protection of cultural producers, including copyright, and the safeguarding of cultural products and expressions, such as cultural heritage. A crucial component of European culture is music. Beyond its economic significance, the music sector is essential to nurture Europe’s cultural diversity, advancing social inclusion, and boosting its soft power diplomacy — all while bringing about positive changes in the various societal spheres.17 In this field, beyond the demographic or anthropologic elements of cultural diversity, the essence of such concept lies in creating and distributing varied musical content. As already spelled out in a previous study focused on diversity and the role of music distribution stakeholders, the notion mainly revolves around the production and diffusion of diverse cultural expressions.18 Thus, in broad constructs, diversity may be also related to identifying content (languages and artistic expressions) as well as the characteristics of artists or stakeholders (producers, performers, 15 Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union (2012) OJ C326/13. Retrieved from: https://eurlex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF 16 Yvonne Donders, ‘Cultural Rights in the Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: Included or Ignored?’ in Toshiyuk Kono and Steven Van Uyysel (eds), The UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: a tale of fragmentation of international law? (Cambridge-Antwerp-PortlandIntersentia 2012) <https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1820360/124893_SSRN_id2015258_1_.pdf> accessed 23 September 2023.The author categorises cultural rights into two overarching classifications: cultural rights in a narrow context and cultural rights in a broad context. The former encompasses entitlements such as the right to access and appreciate one's culture for members of minority groups, whereas the latter refers to those rights and norms that possess a significant connection with culture cultural rights in a broader context. 17 “Music Moves Europe,” European Commission, accessed June 2, 2022, https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creativeeurope/actions/music-moves-europe_en; European Commission, Call for Proposals: Music Education and Learning, Ref. EAC/S53/2019 (Brussels, 2019). 18 Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy and others, ‘Collecting Societies and Cultural Diversity in the Music Sector’ (European Parliament 2009) Study European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education IP/B/CULT/IC/2008_136 <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2009/419110/IPOLCULT_ET(2009)419110_EN.pdf> accessed 23 September 2023. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 24 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 songwriters, etc.), also including the related demographic or anthropological aspects.19 These indicators might include, inter alia, information about gender, race, ethnicity, language, nationality and genre.20 2.1.3 Diversity of Subjects and Content in Studies on the Music Industry As the following table shows, various studies on the music industry approach the concept of cultural diversity through distinct lenses. The 2006 UNESCO Study on the Protection and Promotion of Musical Diversity21 emphasises freedom of musical expression, pluralism of musical structures, and the existence of different groups making music. The 2009 Study Collecting Societies and Cultural Diversity in the Music Sector22 adopts a functional approach, tying cultural diversity to producing and distributing varied musical content; the 2022 WIPO Study on Collective Management Rights23 adds the need to supply diverse creative content. Similarly, the Study on the Place and Role of Authors and Composers in the European Music Streaming Market, Legrand Network/GESAC (2022)24 takes a functional approach related to streaming and AI algorithms. From several statements it can be inferred that cultural diversity is related to “The various forms of expression – music genres, languages, origin of performers and songwriters”, the “diversity of the catalogues CMOs represent, with compositions in all music genres, from the most popular to the most experimental genre, written by authors and composers of all origins,“ a “wider diversity of authors, composers and repertoires” (and not just the most popular ones), and the “presence, visibility and discoverability of European authors on digital services”, also suggesting that “the notion of discoverability should be connected to transparency”. The same can be said for the UNESCO Revenue Distribution and Transformation in the Music Streaming Value Chain (2022),25 which builds upon the definition laid in the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions to argue that more action is needed to ensure that a diverse range of actors (especially in terms of size, geographical location and gender) can participate in the digital creative economy. These emphasise the need to ensure diversity of creators by making them able to participate in the streaming environment, and the diversity of platforms and their ability to represent a wide variety of cultural expressions. Undoubtedly, the convergences across the various studies lie in consistently recognising the importance of the artistic dimension and cultural values originating from or expressing cultural identities as a crucial 19 Youth Directorate-General for Education and others, Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a European Music Observatory: Final Report (Publications Office of the European Union 2020) <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/9691> accessed 23 September 2023. According to the Feasibility Study (page 23), one of the drawbacks of elaborating data on diversity in the music industry is related to the diversity and fragmentation of the actors involved. 20 ibid., See, for instance, the parameters suggested in the Feasibility Study, p. 29-35. These include the country of production and the country of origin of the artists (differentiated from the origin of the production), as well as disability and/or vulnerable groups, p.35. 21 UNESCO and Richard Letts, ‘The Protection and Promotion of Musical Diversity’ (UNESCO; International Music Council 2006) Study Commissioned by UNESCO <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215412> accessed 23 September 2023. 22 Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy and others, ‘Collecting Societies and Cultural Diversity in the Music Sector’ (European Parliament 2009) Study European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education IP/B/CULT/IC/2008_136 <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2009/419110/IPOLCULT_ET(2009)419110_EN.pdf> accessed 23 September 2023. 23 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2022). Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, third edition. Geneva, < https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-855-22-en-collective-management-of-copyright-andrelated-rights.pdf > 24 Legrand Network, Study on the place of authors and composers in the European music streaming market, GESAC, European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers, 2022. Retrieved from: https://authorsocieties.eu/content/uploads/2022/09/music-streaming-study-28-9-2022.pdf 25 UNESCO, Revenue Distribution and Transformation in the Music Streaming Value Chain (2022), < https://www.unesco.org/creativity/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/01/2-policy_perspectives_music_en-web.pdf >. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 25 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 component of cultural diversity. In this sense, most of these studies underscore the idea that a diverse range of musical repertoires and a diverse range of authors, groups, and societies contribute to cultural diversity. The importance of fair representation both off-screen, in terms of workforce representation, and on-screen, in the portrayal of diverse perspectives is only highlighted in discussions related to the audiovisual sector. The following table summarises explicit and implicit definitions of diversity in the above studies. Table 1: Overview of Definitions of Diversity adopted in Previous Studies. Source: SSSA. (2023). Study Definition / Approach to Cultural Diversity Study UNESCO: The Protection and Promotion of Musical Diversity (2006) Triple definition of musical diversity: 1. Musical diversity exists if there is freedom of musical expression . Although freedom of musical expression includes the freedom to refrain from expressing diversity, this understanding of the term is helpful since it is relatively easy to decide what interferes with the freedom of musical expression. 2. Musical diversity exists if there is a pluralism of musical structures (musical repertoires, musical forms, a wealth of traditions, hybrid forms etc.). Although this definition may appear technical in the sense that it employs technical terms of the academic musicological discourse, it does not provide objective means to decide which structures are more diverse than others. Similar concepts have been ap plied by evolutionist approaches in musicology since Darwin. Such approaches have often been criticised as ethnocentric and, thus, the corresponding criteria seem problematic in the context of the cultural relativism of UNESCO's understanding of cultural diversity. We still use a diversity of musical structures as an indication for diversity. 3. Musical diversity exists if there are different groups of people making music separately or together. To assume that different groups of people naturally or automatically have different music seems to be an outdated concept in the academic discourse. This does not say that different groups of people cannot have different music, of course. But it has been shown that music and people are two different spheres just as languages and the people speaking them. Discussions of musical diversity often treat the fact of coexistence of music of different populations and social groups as an indication for musical diversity. In fact, such a situation refers to diversity, but it is by no means certain, since many groups can make the same uniform kind of music – at least theoretically. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 32 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 According to a 2022 Study,45 biases in recommendations can originate from different sources. These can stem from the datasets used to train the algorithms – for instance – if there is more consumption or more data on a specific group of users or artists. They may also originate from the way algorithms are designed. In this sense, recommendation systems can be calibrated to serve various goals, such as meeting consumers’ needs regarding content, creators’ needs to reach new audiences, or distributors’ aim to gain revenues. Anderson et. al.46 further emphasised the role of the social dimension in algorithm design. They suggested that the lack of diversity among engineers designing AI-based recommendation systems affects the types of music that align with users’ tastes, needs, and preferences in design practices, which in turn is exacerbated by the goals of the specific platform or company involved, such as pursuing advertising revenue or increasing subscriptions. On this basis, they advocated for greater diversity among the community of designers within prominent commercial streaming services, and proposed the expansion of non-profit and publicly oriented recommendation systems that aim to enhance human musical discovery and well-being in ways that extend beyond the profit-driven motives of existing services. Algorithmic biases, whether related to popularity, gender, nationality, or the algorithmic design itself may contribute to a lack of diversity in the music users are exposed to and consume. Likewise, intensified bias may also shape creative patterns in the long term, as they influence creators’ incentives to create content that will more likely reach greater visibility among consumers. Furthermore, the interpretation of individual preferences by algorithms and data, devoid of the broader cultural and social contexts, favours a culturally detached curation, overlooking the socially embedded essence of musical experiences. These processes have far-reaching implications on a broader scale, influencing populations, regions, and cultures in automating the cultural and musical landscape through personalised tracking, tailored recommendations, and the profiling of social identities.47 There is consensus among stakeholders and scholars about the opacity in how these recommendation systems strike a balance among competing objectives.48 Against this, Burri49 advocated for stronger governance tools of algorithms as a form of public interest mediation within the digital realm, with the primary goal of enhancing visibility, discoverability and accessibility to diverse types of content. This includes – for instance – the curation of playlists as a joint effort between humans and algorithms and the introduction of tools designed to incentivise exposure to diverse content, involving guidance for users concerning local, regional, or national content to effectively encourage the consumption of a wider range of content. Similarly, Born et. al. suggested tailoring algorithmic model design to fine 45 Hesmondhalgh and others (n 35). The Study has been conducted for the UK Government, Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. 46 Georgina Born and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence, Music Recommendation, and the Curation of Culture: A White Paper’ (Schwartz Reisman Institute 2021) White Paper <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ef0b24bc96ec4739e7275d3/t/60b68ccb5a371a1bcdf79317/1622576334766/BornMorris-etal-AI_Music_Recommendation_Culture.pdf>. 47 ibid. (Noting that media scholars, with a historical perspective, have consistently expressed apprehension about cultural uniformity, particularly in the context of mass culture production, and arguing that algorithmic recommendation systems, in the contemporary era, amplifies the trend towards cultural standardisation and fragmentation.). On a more cautious approach, see: Bourreau, Moreau and Wikström (n 31); Judith Möller and others, ‘Do Not Blame It on the Algorithm: An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Recommender Systems and Their Impact on Content Diversity’ (2018) 21 Information, Communication & Society 959. 48 Commission, Directorate-General for Education, and Culture (n 10); Hesmondhalgh and others (n 35); Karlijn Dinnissen and Christine Bauer, ‘Fairness in Music Recommender Systems: A Stakeholder-Centered Mini Review’ (2022) 5 Frontiers in Big Data <https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdata.2022.913608> accessed 23 September 2023. 49 Mira Burri, ‘Cultural Diversity Policy in the Age of AI’, Artificial Intelligence in the Audiovisual Sector (European Audiovisual Observatory 2020). D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 33 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 nuances of diverse music traditions, integrating cultural contexts and demographics, as well as cultural contexts and communities. In a recent report, UNESCO50 instead suggested the development of a specialised streaming platform as to promote lesser-known artists working in niche genres or regions. Yet, it also cautioned that audience fragmentation might entail a significant risk that should be further explored. Finally, introducing regulatory tools in the media arena has also been advanced.51 These include the devising of international frameworks and standards to guide governments in developing or revising legislation to achieve more transparent algorithms, and the introduction of norms that incentivise exposure to diverse content. This latter is not a novel approach, as the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) includes measures to promote and enhance the visibility of “European” content. 2.2.2 Data Infrastructure The structural problem of low diversity in creation, accessibility and delivery of cultural, as well as music, contents is exacerbated by the lack of accurate and integrous data and metadata within the music industry. As illustrated above, algorithmic recommendation systems deployed by digital platforms such as Spotify tend to favour their own playlists, simultaneously diminishing the visibility of albums, individual tracks and works owned by third parties. The algorithmic bias generated by the use of “unfair” recommendation systems leverages on several features, such as the gender of the artist, the age and country of residence of the user, the popularity of the song at stake and so forth. As demonstrated by a Study of 2022, these biases, having a negative impact on cultural diversity, also stem from the inaccuracy of the datasets on which algorithms rely.52 Therefore, the lack of a robust music data infrastructure is part of the problem and must be addressed as to increase diversity of copyrighted music contents uploaded on digital aggregators on a daily basis. Vast literature underlined that a “metadata gap problem” affects the music industry.53 Metadata is commonly defined as “structured information that describes, explains, locates, or otherwise makes it easier to retrieve, use, or manage an information resource.”54 “Descriptive metadata” is particularly lacking alongside the music value chain. This type of metadata concerns contents of a recording, including the song title, the performing artists and the year of release. The music value chain is complex. Each song or lyrics is made of a plethora of rights, associated with a payment flow. These rights are variously entitled to musicians, performers, producers, publishers, record labels, distributors, rights management organisations and physical retailers. National copyright laws and licensing schemes vary from one country to another. Consequently, if metadata about music files are missing or provided in an incomplete form, the legal scenario becomes therefore complicated and highly fragmented, having an impact on competition within the music market, with the effect of 50 UNESCO (2022), Revenue distribution and transformation in the music streaming value chain. Retrieved from: https://www.unesco.org/creativity/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/01/2-policy_perspectives_music_en-web.pdf 51 Ibid; Burri (n 43). 52 Hesmondhalgh and others (n 35). 53 Tony Brooke, ‘Descriptive Metadata in the Music Industry: Why It Is Broken and How to Fix It — Part One’ (2014) 2 Journal of Digital Media Management <https://hstalks.com/article/3494/descriptive-metadata-in-the-music-industry-why-it-/> accessed 23 September 2023; Tony Brooke, ‘Descriptive Metadata in the Music Industry: Why It Is Broken and How to Fix It — Part Two’ (2014) 2 Journal of Digital Media Management 359. 54 Jenn Riley, ‘Understanding Metadata: What Is Metadata, and What Is It For? A Primer’ <https://groups.niso.org/higherlogic/ws/public/download/17446/Understanding%20Metadata.pdf> accessed 23 September 2023. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 34 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 discriminating between more and less popular artists.55 Hence, this, in turn, influences the degree of diversity of music contents flowing across Europe. In fact, if metadata regarding the song title, performing artists and the year of release with regard to a digital music file are not properly collected and accessible in a centralised manner, it is also difficult to develop specialised platforms which aim at promoting unknown and local artists to a greater extent. Metadata are organised alongside “silos,” which can be exchanged and from which value can be extracted through the form of “schemata”. “Schemata” are “languages” through which metadata can be communicated. In the case of music, there is no recognised standard schemata as to exchange descriptive metadata. In this sense, the music market would benefit from a “persistent identifier” (PID),56 which is an alphanumeric sign which should be given to each audio recording. Such identifier is unique worldwide, ensuring that items are not confused. PIDs are part of an “abstract model,” a hierarchical infrastructure where each item has an identifier alongside the value chain. Thanks to identifiers, it would be easier to extract value from each part of the hierarchical structure. The music value chain can be summarised through an abstract model, where every digital music file containing the related sound recording is identified via PIDs. Creative works have been tentatively put within an organisational scheme thanks to the various identifiers elaborated for this purpose, such as the DDEX (Digital Data Exchange), MusicBrainz, FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records).57 However, these initiatives are privately owned, nation-based and never evolved into a common standard for music data.58 The complexities of music industry’s business model and the lack of transparency risk provoking structurally low remuneration for authors and performers, at the expense of those who lack the bargaining power to embark on individual licensing or gaining sufficient visibility according to biased recommendation systems. Accessing “clean data” is essential to solve the problem, helping with attributing songs and calculating remuneration. On the contrary, inaccurate metadata about songs risk creating a situation where it is not clear who owes what (and how much) to whom, jeopardizing royalty share attribution and discriminating among contents in a non-transparent manner. It may occur that digital platforms extract unfairly high value and erode market share entitled to record labels, distributors and authors, also preventing the appearance of less popular artists and performers on the platform. As a consequence, this market area is characterised by a general lack of trust towards royalty calculation systems and criteria adopted to apportion market share, with a negative impact on market contestability. AI models mostly rely on robust and accurate datasets, and their elaboration, based on TDM and related techniques, risks being discouraged by the fact that the general exception for TDM (Article 4 CDSMD) is contractually overridable (see below — EU sources). Thus, the payment of a license fee as to make use of a dataset via TDM is an additional cost to be priced into which negatively impacts on the competitiveness of the EU AI-driven music industry. Moreover, as existing data, metadata and information about the music licensing system is inaccurate, incomplete and to be collected in a uniform 55 Brooke, ‘Descriptive Metadata in the Music Industry’ (n 47). 56 Ibid, 54 et seq. 57 Frank Lyons and others, ‘Music 2025 – The Music Data Dilemma: Issues Facing the Music Industry in Improving Data Management’ (15 August 2019) <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3437670> accessed 23 September 2023. 58 Ibid, 45 et seq. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 35 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 way, the very same development of AI models for music can be overly difficult for the lack of input data. This, in turn, can contribute with reducing the diversity of AI creative contents in the EU digital market. Addressing the issue, music stakeholders have attempted to build a common dataset containing accurate information about the music value chain. As an example, the Global Repertoire Database is an initiative embraced with the aim of implementing metadata standards and elaborating protocols. Two standards for the identification of music contents have been elaborated until now. The first is ISRC and relates to sound recordings. Instead, ISWC concerns underlying works. Several initiatives have also been embraced at the national level, with the help of local CMOs.59 For all the reasons explained above, the creation of a well-functioning data infrastructure would be useful to bolster market contestability and correct inequalities in bargaining power among stakeholders. Furthermore, the establishment of a data infrastructure based on commonly accepted standards and PIDs will also help with streamlining the licensing proceedings and increasing awareness about less popular songs. 59 Martin Senftleben and others, ‘Ensuring the Visibility and Accessibility of European Creative Content on the World Market: The Need for Copyright Data Improvement in the Light of New Technologies and the Opportunity Arising from Article 17 of the CDSM Directive’ (2022) 13 JIPITEC <https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-13-1-2022/5515>. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 36 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 3 Mapping Policy Objectives and Measures on Diversity in International and EU Legal Framework Following this encompassing approach towards cultural diversity, the analysis conducted under T2.1 allowed for the identification of existing policy domains and objectives of music diversity as defined by law, and the description of measurable target objectives to promote diversity in the broad sense referred above. These can influence the music industry and ensure an equal representation of the various actors involved and of the related cultural expressions. Several legal and policy instruments might contribute to fostering diversity in music. Among them, the following sources have been mapped: Source Status International Instruments addressing cultural matters (Section 3, Annex I) mapped Copyright and Intellectual Property Laws (Section 3, Annex I) mapped Public Broadcasting, Audio-Visual and Media Regulations having a direct or indirect positive impact or constraining effect on the implementation of diversity-oriented policies (Section 3, Annex II) parts mapped Other regulations in non-related subject matters (e.g. competition law, international IP law), to the extent that may have a constraining impact on the implementation of diversity-oriented policies (Section 4, Annex II) mapped Policy (i.e. non-binding) documents mapped Best practices developed by States outside the geographical scope of T2.1 which may be used as benchmark of successful best practices in measuring and fulfilling music diversity goals, to be used as a model for the amendment of existing and/or development of new indicators, and related policy recommendations (Section 4, Annex II) partially mapped (only available data) Since the 1950s, numerous international organisations have addressed discrimination based on various factors, including sex, race or ethnicity, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation. Over the years, major conventions and declarations that signified significant strides toward a more varied society were approved. These conventions have Member States as their primary beneficiaries or recipients, which are responsible for implementing the measures requested therein. This section looks at some of the relevant declarations and conventions to examine how cultural diversity is addressed. The section does not provide an exhaustive account of all legal texts, but attention is given to those norms that contribute to fostering cultural diversity or have diversity as an underlying goal. As these provisions serve the objective of achieving greater diversity in the music sector, the aim is to extrapolate the objectives, measures and forms of measurement thereof used in the legal norms to achieve such a purpose. The analysis of each mapped source is complemented by an easy-to-read chart that translates D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 37 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 into measurable quantitative indicators the diversity domains, objectives and criteria suggested by the provision(s). A closer look into the evolution of international legal framework addressing diversity through the UNESCO Conventions reveals a notable shift from initially focusing on the diversity of natural persons or groups to a broader consideration of the diversity of forms of expression. The early conventions, dating back to the 1950s, primarily targeted discrimination against individuals based on factors such as sex, race or ethnicity, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation. Over time, there has been a growing understanding that fostering cultural diversity requires addressing not only the diversity within communities (i.e., based on demographic criteria of individuals) but also the range of cultural expressions and manifestations themselves. This shift is particularly significant in the context of the music sector, as it recognises that diversity is not only about the demographic composition of musicians or musical groups but also about the multitude of genres, styles, and content artistic expressions within the industry. This expansive and allencompassing approach to diversity provides a more feasible and actionable way for those involved in the music industry to implement and integrate diversity considerations into their practices. It allows for developing measures and indicators that go beyond demographic considerations and focus on promoting diverse artistic expressions, namely, emphasizing the content of the music itself. As the findings of this deliverable and D3.1 demonstrate, this could involve measures and indicators that range from the adoption of policies that support specific content and education programs that raise awareness about diverse musical traditions to promoting cross-cultural collaborations and providing opportunities for artists from underrepresented communities, among others. 3.1 United Nations Framework The formal establishment of the right to participate in cultural life within the scope of human rights can be traced back to 1948. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)60 emphasises the right of everyone “freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”. Additionally, according to Articles 2 and 7 UDHR, every individual is entitled to these cultural rights and freedoms “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. The language of the UDHR, born as a non-binding document but subsequently accepted as part of customary international law,61 was later specified by Article 15 of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966,62 a binding text. Article 2 ICESCR further prohibits direct and indirect discrimination. It imposes on the States Parties to the Covenant to guarantee that such rights will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Notably, as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)63 underlined, State obligations have 60 UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 10 December 1948, 217A (III), Article 27. 61 Caterina Sganga, ‘Right to Culture and Copyright: Participation and Access’, Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing 2015) <https://www.elgaronline.com/display/edcoll/9781783472413/9781783472413.00044.xml> accessed 23 September 2023; Hurst Hannum, ‘The UDHR in National and International Law’ (1998) 3 Health and Human Rights 144. 62 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3. 63 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 10 December 2008, entered into force 5 May 2013) A/RES/63/117; The CESCR has been established on the basis of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 38 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 multiple addressees.64 They are directed not only to legislators but also to administrative bodies and courts. Moreover, they overstep national boundaries and require states to comply with them when operating in international I.65 Thus, the relationship between cultural diversity and the right to culture in the UDHR is interconnected and significant. The UDHR emphasises the importance of respecting cultural diversity, protecting minority cultures, and ensuring equality and non-discrimination for all, regardless of their cultural backgrounds. The interplay between cultural diversity and the right to culture underscores the Declaration’s commitment to fostering a society where cultural diversity is valued, and universal human rights are maintained. The United Nations (UN), especially since the establishment of United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 1945, 66 has been actively involved in promoting diversity as a cultural right, focusing on a range of issues, including gender equality and the elimination of gender-based discrimination, affirming the rights of all cultures to coexist, fostering multilingualism, and defending different cultural expression. In this section are highlighted a few of the crucial declarations and conventions pertinent to these fields. References and details to these and other norms are included in Annex I 3.1.1 UN Instruments Having Gender Equality as a Diversity Objective The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, is often referred to as a global charter of women's rights.67 The Convention officially entered into force on September 3, 1981. Almost all countries of the world have ratified it and are bound by its provisions.68 The CEDAW defines what constitutes discrimination against women and provides a framework for domestic actions to eradicate it. Article 1 CEDAW states that discrimination against women is “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field." By ratifying the Convention, States commit to incorporate the principle of gender equality into their legal frameworks, repeal discriminatory laws, and enact appropriate legislation prohibiting discrimination against women in areas of economic and social life in order to ensure, on the basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, including the right to take part in cultural life. 64 In ECOSOC, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment no. 3, The Nature of State Parties’ Obligations (Article 2, Paragraph 1, of the Covenant), UN Doc. E/1991/23, 14 December 1990, paras 5–6. 65 In this wake, the CESCR explicitly requested by the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights to assist WTO, WIPO and national governments “to integrate into their national and local legislations and policies, provisions, in accordance with international human rights obligations and principles, that protect the social function of intellectual property”, and to compel international organizations to “take fully into account the existing State obligations under international human rights instruments”. See: ESOSOC, Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights (Resolution 2000/7), Resolution 2000/7, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2000/7, 17 August 2000, para. 11. For details, see: Sganga (n 55). 66 Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO Constitution), 16 November 1945, 4 UNTS 275, Article 1(1). 67 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm. 68 Including Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia and Ukraine. See: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CEDAW&Lang=en D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 39 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Table 3: Diversity objectives and monitoring measures. Source: Compiled by SSSA (2023) Diversity Objectives and Monitoring Measures Diversity Objectives Measures to Monitor their Implementation Gender Legal standing of the principle of non-discrimination based on gender Gender Equality Plans across the music industry Quota for women in repertoires Gender Balance in performances, including festivals and events Gender balance/ representation in media streaming platforms Gender balance in engagement in cultural activities e.g. gender demographic of audiences at music events and festivals Gender balance in decision-making processes within organisations and policymaking shaping the sector Equal opportunities for collaboration with other musicians, producers and industry professionals Gender distribution in educational training, workshops and initiatives Gender distribution in grants and funding 3.1.2 UN Instruments Having Race and Ethnicity as a Diversity Objective The main UN treaty that promotes equality and the abolition of racial discrimination is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),69 which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1965 and entered into force in 1969.70 Article 1 ICERD defines racial discrimination “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”. The non-exhaustive list of rights in Article 5 includes, among others, a number of economic, social and cultural rights. The principle of nondiscrimination established in the Convention does not mean that everyone must receive identical treatment. Policies such as affirmative action, referred in the Convention to as “special measures,” may be required in order to the achieve the equality purposes pursued. Article 2(2) obliges State Parties to take special measures when the circumstances so warrant, for example, in the case of persistent disparities.71 Such special measures aim to secure the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and 69 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted 21 December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969) 660 UNTS 195 (ICERD). 70 For an overview of the ratifications, see: https://indicators.ohchr.org/ 71 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), ‘Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2001) UN Doc A/56/18 para 399. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 40 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 fundamental freedoms for disadvantaged groups.72 They may benefit any group or person covered by Article 1 ICERD. However, as clarified in Article 1(4) ICERD, they should not lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and should not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. Another relevant instrument is the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (Race Declaration), adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 27th session in November 1978.73 Although the Declaration is not binding, it received substantial international endorsement.74 As such, it is the most extensive global instrument addressing group identity, particularly in areas where the latter and cultural spheres intersect. Article 1(2) of the Race Declaration emphasises the value of differences and the right of individuals and groups to be different,75 the right for human beings to maintain cultural identity,76 as well as the right of groups to their own cultural identity and the development of their distinctive cultural life.77 With this document, States acknowledge the diversity of cultures and reaffirm that different communities should be able to decide on the development and expression of their cultures.78 Accordingly, Article 3 of the Declaration prohibits “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, ethnic or national origin or religious intolerance motivated by racist considerations, which destroys or compromises the sovereign equality of States and the right of peoples to self-determination”. Table 4: Diversity objectives and monitoring measures. Source: Compiled by SSSA (2023) Diversity Objectives and Monitoring Measures ICERD / Race Declaration Diversity Objectives Measures to monitor their implementation Gender Colour Language Ethnicity Religion Nationality Ethnic representation in repertoires of artists from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds Audience diversity, including in festival, events, and concerts to ensure access and participation of different racial-ethnic groups Inclusive programming of live events, festivals and performances to ensure that music from diverse ethnic and religious groups and backgrounds is represented 72 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), ‘Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2001) UN Doc A/56/18 para 399. 73 Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 27 November 1978. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000039429 . 74 Medes Malaihollo, ‘The International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – Reviewing Special Measures Under Contemporary International Law’ (2017) 5 Groningen Journal of International Law 135. 75 Article 1(2) Race Declaration. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000039429 . 76 Article 1(3) Race Declaration. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000039429 . 77 Article 5(1) Race Declaration. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000039429 . 78 UNESCO, GENERAL CONFERENCE (20th session), “Draft Declaration on Race and Judicial Prejudice”, Doc. 20 C/18, Annex, Explanatory Report, § 5 (25 September 1978); UNESCO, “Working Paper of the Meeting of Government Representatives to Prepare a Draft Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice”, Doc. SS77/CONF.201/1, at 18-9 (18 August 1977), both reported in: Natan Lerner, ‘New Concepts in the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice’ (1981) 3 Human Rights Quarterly 48. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 41 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Territory Nationality of establishment Cultural identity Monitoring religious music genres associated with different religious traditions Ensuring the presence of venues dedicated to religious music performances and events Measures to preserve and promote traditional religious music practices Language and lyrics: monitoring the use of different languages and cultural references in music produced and promoted Promotion: assessing measures to enhance the production and distribution of music content from artists with different nationalities, religion, colour and ethnic backgrounds Promotion of cultural sensitivity, including educational training to ensure respect and mutual understanding, to avoid stereotypes Monitoring and assessing representation in awards Equal access to opportunities and funding, also based on nation of establishment 3.1.3 Instruments Having Cultural Expressions and Linguistic Minorities as a Diversity Objective In 1992, the General Assembly of the UN adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (Declaration on Minorities or DOM), which, however, is not a binding document.79 According to article 2 DOM, the beneficiaries of the declaration are persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities in the territory of a contracting Member. These minority groups are entitled to all human rights and fundamental freedoms, without discrimination, and full equality before the law. Article 1 DOM impose States to promote the preservation of the ethnic, national, linguistic and religious identity of the minority. Individuals belonging to a minority can freely practice their own culture, religion, and language and participate in the life of the society, in legislation concerning them as well as the whole society. Article 4 DOM does not only guarantee rights for the individual but also for the minority as a group. States should take appropriate measures to enable the members of the minority to learn their mother tongue, history, culture, tradition and customs, except for those practices which violate international standards or national law. Articles 5-7 DOM requires States to cooperate to protect minorities and to plan national policies and programs to ensure their rights. Almost ten years later, in 2001, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UDCD).80 It is not a legally binding agreement, but it does incorporate principles that all Member States must follow. The UDCD elevates cultural diversity to the status of "the shared heritage of humanity", rendering its defence an ethical imperative.81 This imperative implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly concerning the rights of persons 79 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, GA Res. 47/135, 18 December 1992. 80 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2nd of November 2001. Retrieved from: https://www.unesco.org/en/legalaffairs/unesco-universal-declaration-cultural-diversity 81 Ibid, Article 4. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 48 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Race/ Ethnicity Monitor the presence and operation of media outlets, such as radio stations, owned and operated by national minority communities, different racial and ethnic backgrounds or associated with traditionalmusic related objects (repertoires, instruments) Monitoring the use of different languages and minority groups, traditions, and religious references in repertoires and artists in broadcasting activities; Assessing and monitoring the presence of music streaming and distribution platforms that offer content in multiple languages, support the supply of content from ethnic, religious, linguistic and minorities/indigenous groups, including content associated with those groups Monitoring and assessing representation in awards, festivals and events of national minority communities, different racial and ethnic backgrounds or content associated with traditional-music related objects (repertoires, instruments) Ensuring the presence of venues dedicated to religious music performances and events Measures to preserve and promote traditional religious or ethnic music practices Language quota in repertoires; monitoring the use of different languages and cultural references in music produced and promoted Equal opportunities for collaboration among musicians, producers and industry professionals with different linguistic backgrounds Implement export programs and initiatives that support crosscultural exchange, and the production/distribution of repertoires in different languages. Assessing measures to enhance the production and distribution of music content in different languages; assess and monitor the presence of music streaming and distribution platforms that offer content in multiple languages Monitoring and assessing representation in awards, festivals and events of repertoires in different languages Promotion of language sensitivity, including educational training to ensure respect and mutual understanding, to avoid linguistic stereotypes Monitoring audience diversity, access and engagement in cultural activities and music consumption from broad ethnic, religious and linguistic audiences Equal opportunities for collaboration and funding access Ethnic, gender, linguistic and religious balance in decision-making processes D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 49 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 2.3.5 Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (2005) The Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (FCVCHS) was adopted in 2005.96 It entered into force in 2011, but only a few countries have ratified it.97 Article 5 FCVCHS acknowledged the significance of cultural heritage located within territories under the State’s Member jurisdiction, irrespective of its source. That provision also acknowledges the essential role of “European Cultural Heritage” and it states that “the ideals, principles and values, derived from the experience gained through current and past conflicts, which foster the development of a peaceful and stable society, founded on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law should be considered”. Despite this, the Convention lacks a definition of “European” Cultural Heritage. Article 2 only refers to “Cultural Heritage” groups or communities as a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. The notion includes all aspects of the environment and values resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, to sustain and transmit to future generations. The Framework Convention does not create specific obligations but only suggests possible intervention areas. In this context, particularly relevant is Article 14 FCVCHS, dealing with cultural heritage and the information society. Under this provision, Parties undertake to develop the use of digital technology to enhance access to cultural heritage and the benefits which derive from it. To this end, the provision suggests States encouraging initiatives which promote the quality of content and endeavour to secure diversity of languages and cultures in the information society. This includes the suggestion of adopting initiatives seeking to resolve obstacles to access to information relating to cultural heritage, particularly for educational purposes, whilst protecting intellectual property rights. Table 9: Diversity objectives and monitoring measures. Source: Compiled by SSSA (2023) Diversity Objectives and Monitoring Measures Diversity objectives Measures to monitor their implementation Language Language quota in repertoires Monitoring the use of different languages and cultural references in music produced and promoted Equal opportunities for collaboration among musicians, producers and industry professionals with different linguistic backgrounds; Implement export programs and initiatives that support crosscultural exchange, and the production/distribution of repertoires in different languages. Assessing measures to enhance the production and distribution of music content in different languages; assess and monitor the 96 Council of Europe (2005) Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, CETS No.: 199. Faro: Council of Europe. Retrieved from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treatydetail&treatynum=199 97 Among the countries under the scope of this report, only Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine have ratified the instrument. For a detailed list of the ratifications, see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/recent-changes-for-treaties. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 50 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 presence of music streaming and distribution platforms that offer content in multiple languages Monitoring and assessing representation in awards, festivals and events of repertoires in different languages Promotion of language sensitivity, including educational training to ensure respect and mutual understanding, to avoid linguistic stereotypes Monitoring audience diversity, access and engagement in cultural activities and music consumption from broad linguistic audiences 3.3 Measures Adopted by the European Union For the purpose of this study, a focus on the measures adopted by the European Union to foster – directly or indirectly – cultural diversity, with particular regard to the music ecosystem, is of paramount importance. The goal of this section is (a) to outline the competence of the EU in the cultural field, which will help understanding how far the Union may go in adopting measures directed to foster diversity in the cultural and creative industries, along and eventually beyond Member States’ laws; and (b) to provide a functional analysis of the EU provisions which may play a role in fostering cultural diversity, in line with the direction indicated by the instruments of international human rights soft law mentioned above. Each provision will be assessed with the aim of understanding whether and to which extent it may be used to prevent discriminations among artists and further diversify the array of copyrightprotected contents uploaded on digital platforms. Particular attention will be devoted to the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD), the Portability Regulation (PR), the GeoBlocking Regulation (GBR) and the SatCab II Directive. 3.3.1 EU Competences in Cultural Policies Since the early stages of the European Community (European Union) formation, it was clear that Member States had divergent viewpoints on if and how cultural policies should promote a shared cultural identity. Most Member States highlighted the need to protect national sovereignty, arguing that cultural matters should remain outside the EU’s purview.98 As a result, a legislative framework for supranational initiatives aiming at promoting culture was not included in the initial Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome),99 and the EU had to adopt a cautious and gradual approach to address cultural industries.100 However, at the beginning of the 1970s, there was a rising 98 Tobias Theiler, Political Symbolism and European Integration (Manchester University Press 2005). Retrieved from: https://dnb.info/1241194262/34 Tobias Theiler, Political Symbolism and European Integration (Manchester University Press; Distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave 2005) <https://d-nb.info/1241194262/34>. 99 The Rome Treaty contained a few provisions related to culture, (Article 36, which permitted member states to impose restrictions on imports and exports to safeguard their national cultural treasures, and article which outlined the Community's responsibility to support the cultural development of third countries). As regards the role of the EC institutions on cultural matters prior to its adoption with Article 128, see Rachael Craufurd Smith, ‘Community Intervention in the Cultural Field: Continuity or Change?’ in Rachael Craufurd Smith (ed), Culture and European Union Law (Oxford University Press 2004) <https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275472.003.0002> accessed 23 September 2023. 100 This process was referred by Bjarki Valtysson as a “discursive journey”. See: Valtysson Bjarki, ‘Camouflaged Culture: The “Discursive Journey” of the EU’s Cultural Programmes’ (2018) 24 Croatian International Relations Review 14. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 51 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 understanding of the need for government intervention in the cultural realm.101 The expansion of cultural industries, the rise in the consumption of cultural goods and services, and the fact that the Treaty of Rome also had implications for the trade in cultural goods contributed to highlighting how trade and culture are interconnected and that actions in trade policies can influence cultural aspects or industries.102 Such an understanding led to progressively abandoning the view of culture as an “isolated” phenomenon and paved the way for Community law, such as competition law, intellectual property law and tax law to affect the cultural field profoundly. The starting point is the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which officially made culture an EU concern for the first time by including cultural policies within the scope of Article 128 EC.103 The most important aspect of this article lies in the explicit articulation of cultural policy goals, guiding principles for community involvement in this field, specific areas covered, and the legislative procedure that should be followed for their implementation. Yet, as a rule, Member States still have complete sovereignty over the cultural sphere. The two core principles inspiring European cultural policies are subsidiarity104 and preservation of the diversity of the national cultures (principle of no harmonisation). Indeed, Article 128 EC did not give the Community a legal mandate to undertake legally binding actions or to control policies in the cultural sectors, but only a role to encourage cultural cooperation between Member States, to support and supplement their actions only if necessary and only in those areas indicated in Article 128(2) EC. These include contributing to the flowering of national cultures, respecting Member States’ national and regional diversity while bringing common cultural heritage to 101 See, for instance: See: European Communities Commission, Stronger Community Action in the Cultural Sector. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament, Transmitted on 12 October 1982. Supplement 6/82 Bulletin of the European Communities (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 1982) <https://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/handle/10234/50544> accessed 23 September 2023. 102 Craufurd Smith (n 93). 103 Article 128, Maastricht Treaty on the European Union, Official Journal C 191, 29 July 1992. Retrieved from: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:1992:191:FULL .The basis of this article shall be sought in article 3, which broadened the then Community's application to include cultural matters, thus laying the basis for the EU's competence in the field of culture. Article 128 EC was renumbered to became article 151 after the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts (OJ C 340, 10.11.1997, pp. 1144) (1997), and article 167 after the Lisbon Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 (OJ C 306, 17.12.2007, p. 1–271) (2007). The first version of the article included in the Treaty of Maastricht states: “1. The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. 2. Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in the following areas: - improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples; - conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance; - non-commercial cultural exchanges; - artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector. 3. The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organizations in the sphere of culture, in particular the Council of Europe. 4. The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this Treaty.[…]” Subparagraph 5 established a decision-making procedure to be used in the cultural policy. Remarkably, it required a co-decision procedure combined with unanimity in the Council of Ministers. This unanimity requirement was later eliminated with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007. 104 The principle of subsidiarity covers areas which do not fall within the EU’s exclusive competence. Its legal basis is article 5(2) of the Maastricht Treaty (ECC), which declares that “the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of scale and effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community”. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 52 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 the fore, encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action to foster cooperation with third countries and international organisations acting in the sphere of culture, especially with the Council of Europe.105 Most importantly, by requiring to “take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this Treaty”, Article 128(4) EC establishes a formal link between culture and several other aspects of European policies, while imposing a rigorous analysis of how choices made in other areas such as trade, employment, and development could potentially harm cultural interests. As such, this paragraph legitimated EU interventions on cultural matters and highlighted the need for a more systematic approach to the field within the EU framework.106 The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, other than renumbering Article 128 EC as Article 151 EC, further strengthened the limitations to EU competences. When taking cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the Treaty, the Community shall “respect and promote the diversity of its cultures.” 107 Thus, Article 151 EC serves two purposes.108 First, it defines the EC responsibility in furthering culture, also through partnerships with other nations. Using the plural form "cultures” also served a broader horizontal purpose, which is to portray the Community as a body tasked with balancing the cultural variety of Member States while preserving a common cultural heritage.109 The apparent cultural differences among Member States became the cornerstone for encouraging cooperation between these countries and conceiving a common European identity. Diversity as a cultural characteristic in itself was included within the "unity in diversity" framework as the chosen motto for cooperation among European nations.110 Thus, despite Member States' reservations about the principle of subsidiarity, in the mid-2000s the EU's role in cultural and creative industries continued to expand, as there was a convergence of ambitions that accelerated the gradual development of EU cultural policies.111 105 On the Council of Europe’s cultural action see Christoph Gordon and Simon Mundy, ‘Cultural Policy Reviews: Some General and Methodological Reflections on the Council of Europe’s Programme of Reviews in Member States, 1985-99’, European Perspectives on Cultural Policies (UNESCO Publishing 2001) <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000124309> accessed 23 September 2023. 106 In this sense, Article 128/ 151 EC is designed as a programmatic rule, which does not grant the Community the authority to establish an independent cultural initiative, but it does not preclude Community actions under alternative legal basis. See: Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, ‘The Cultural Mainstreaming Clause of Article 151(4) EC: Protection and Promotion of Cultural Diversity or Hidden Cultural Agenda?’ (2006) 12 European Law Journal 575. 107 Council and Commission of the European Communities, “Article 151,” in Treaty Establishing the European Community, Amsterdam consolidated version, CELEX 11997E/TXT (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997). See also:Theiler, Political Symbolism and European Integration (n 92)., 68–70. (asserting that the revision of Article 151 served as a reminder to the Community that its authority remained considerably limited). 108 Marilù Marletta, “Art. 151”, in Antonio Tizzano (eds.), Trattati dell’Unione Europea e della Comunità Europea (Giuffrè editore, Milano, 2004), 808-811. 109 The concept of “European identity” will be introduced later, in the in the preamble of the Lisbon Treaty on the European Union (EU). By adding in article 3 that (the EU) “shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced”, the Lisbon Treaty includes a reference to the notion of a "European Identity", which is intended to foster a sense of shared belonging among its inhabitants. 110 The EU Motto,” European Union, retrieved from: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countrieshistory/symbols/eumotto_en#:~:text=%22United%20in%20diversity%22%2C%20the,different%20cultures%2C%20traditions%20and%20languag es. . See also: Monica Sassatelli, ‘The Logic of Europeanizing Cultural Policy’ in Ulrike Hanna Meinhof and Anna Triandafyllidou (eds), Transcultural Europe: Cultural Policy in a Changing Europe (Palgrave Macmillan UK 2006) <https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504318_2> accessed 23 September 2023. 111 Yudhishthir Raj Isar, ‘“Culture in EU External Relations”: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?’ (2015) 21 International Journal of Cultural Policy 494.(Highlighting how stakeholders such as European Cultural Fundation and Culture Action Europe, advocated for specific EU actions and funding for the creative and cultural sectors). D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 53 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 With the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, Article 151 was transformed into Article 167 TFEU. This Treaty granted the EU full legal personality112 and replaced the requirement of unanimity vote by the European Council with the qualified majority principle for decisions adopted in the cultural field.113 This effectively expanded the scope for EU-wide initiatives in the cultural domain. Following the Lisbon Treaty, the EU significantly increased its involvement in the cultural and creative sectors. This shift in focus is exemplified by the 2007 communication “A European Agenda for Culture in a Globalizing World”,114 which is the first comprehensive policy document on culture at the EU level, and by the active negotiations that led to the EU participation as single signatory to the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.115 Notably, because the cultural field interacts by its very nature with other areas of EC competence, creating cultural policies and initiatives was no longer just the main goal; it was also a way for the EU to address other issues. European legislation, policies and programmes in a wide range of domains directly or indirectly impact the cultural and creative sectors. The EU was, thus, able to gain more prominence and power over policies by establishing "a persuasive link between economic "issues" in the EU and culture as a potential "solution." As such, numerous aspects of public policy have been intertwined with cultural policy. Particularly worth mentioning are the European activities in the fields of the internal market, competition and commercial policies. The instrumentalisation of culture, also known as “policy attachment” 116 i.e. the use of culture for goals other than those of culture, increased the influence of cultural policymakers while also reshaping EU cultural policy. It is obvious that the implementation of these rules, when coupled with the existence of very diverse and even opposing interests, may frequently lead to conflicts and tensions.117 There is thus an inherent necessity for the EU institutions to constantly strike a balance and attempt to reconcile competing policy ambitions and Treaty objectives. This task is, however, challenged with intricate and divisive positions, such as regarding the 112 Its preamble states that the Treaty is inspired by “Europe's cultural, religious and humanistic legacies, from which the universal values of inviolable and inalienable human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law have developed” 113 Council and Commission of the European Communities, “Article 167,” in Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, CELEX 12007L/TXT (Luxembourg: Official Journal of the European Union, 2007). 114 European Commission, ‘Music Moves Europe, Commission Communication on a European Agenda for Culture in a Globalising World - COM(2007) 242’ (n 9). 115 European Commission, Inventory of Community Actions in the Field of Culture, Accompanying Document to the Communication on a European Agenda for Culture in a Globalizing World, SEC(2007) 570, 10 May 2007. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52007SC0570&from=GA. Notwithstanding the actions undertaken, some scholars asserted that despite the rhetoric about the value of culture at the European level and the compelling evidence that these sectors significantly advance the Lisbon Agenda in terms of economic and social welfare, culture has remained at the bottom of the Commission's list of priorities, and that some issues remained unaddressed by the main institutions. See in this regard: Psychogiopoulou (n 100).. See also: European Parliament, Briefing Paper on the Implementation of Article 151.4 of the EC Treaty, IP/B/CULT/FWC/2006_169, 18 June 2007, at p. iii. Retrieved from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL-CULT_ET(2007)389585 116 Annabelle Littoz-Monnet, ‘Encapsulating EU Cultural Policy into the EU’s Growth and Competitiveness Agenda: Explaining the Success of a Paradigmatic Shift in Brussels’ in Evangelia Psychogiopoulou (ed), Cultural Governance and the European Union: Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity in Europe (Palgrave Macmillan UK 2015) <https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137453754_3> accessed 23 September 2023. 117 The evaluation of national film support programs' compliance with EC state aid rules, the issue of territoriality requirements in copyright exercise, the standing of cultural goods and services in multilateral trade negotiations, the status of public service broadcasting, or the evaluation of market concentration in the cultural sector are a few examples of situations involving stakeholders and/or policies with conflicting interests. The Economy of Culture in Europe: A Study for the European Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture, KEA European Affairs, October 2006, p. 198. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/studies/cultural-economy_en.pdf D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 54 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 concepts of national and European identity, Europeanisation, and culture, which has made finding solutions extremely political and sometimes emotionally fraught. 118 3.3.2 Industry-Focused Policy Actions: Creative Europe, Music Moves Europe Creative Europe119 represents a substantial shift in the EU involvement in cultural policy, which point out at economic factors as main driving force. The program introduces a new support program and advocates for a new perspective on culture that assesses its value using market mechanisms. This transition necessitates a reformulation of cultural identity and diversity, bringing them into line with the objective of boosting competitiveness. Creative Europe reflects this change: economic objectives, such as competitiveness, growth and employment, have taken a centre stage now, whereas they were previously delicately incorporated into the social component.120 As such, the program embraces the dual function of the cultural and creative industries in supporting both sociocultural and economic goals in order to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth.121 Nonetheless, the “one-size-fits-all” approach adopted by the Creative’s Europe scheme fell short of meeting the unique needs of each creative sector. This was the case in the music industry, which felt that Creative Europe favoured economic goals over industry needs.122 Over the past few decades, there have been substantial changes in the music ecosystem, including its patterns of music creation, consumption, and dissemination. Stakeholders asserted that the support mechanisms laid in the program were insufficient to meet such changes of paradigm and the unique and growing needs of the sector. In response, the Commission acknowledged the need for EU actions in the music industry and started looking into the possibility of creating a music-specific program tailored in 2015.123 Yet, in line with the EU Treaty obligations, any expansion of the EU policy in the cultural realm shall abide by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This meant that the EU had to advance persuasive arguments to demonstrate that an EU intervention was necessary in light of the fact that the transnational features of the matter made it go beyond the competence of EU Member States, and , and an EU action could bring clear benefits to national communities. Traces of this could be found in subsequent documents that explained the need for a European-wide music program on the ground of the same economic rationale featuring the Creative Europe program 118Sophie De Vinck and Caroline Pauwels, ‘Cultural Diversity as the Final Outcome of EU Policy-Making in the Audiovisual Sector: A Critical Analysis.’ in P Van Den Bossche and H Schneider (eds), Protection of Cultural Diversity from an International and European Perspective (2008)., pp. 263-316. The authors argue that the EU policy, in particular in the field of audiovisual media, led to the emergence of the notion of “cultural diversity”. 119 European Parliament, and European Council, Regulation Establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020), CELEX 32013R1295 (Luxembourg: Official Journal of the European Union, 2013), 347/226. Retrieved from: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1295 The program came into force on 1st, 2014, with €1.46 billion budget spread over seven years. Actions include joint initiatives with international organizations, a network to boost internationalism and competition in the cultural and creative industries, and platforms to support emerging artists and "European programming." 120 Cornelia Bruell, Creative Europe 2014-2020: A New Programme - A New Cultural Policy As Well? (ifa (Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen) 2013) <https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/54757>. (Arguing that where policy documents for the earlier culture programs listed transnational circulation, intercultural dialogue, and cross-border mobility as primary objectives, Creative Europe redirected the focus towards competitiveness, growth, and employment). 121 Littoz-Monnet points out that several Member States were particularly dissatisfied with the economic nature of Creative Europe. Littoz-Monnet (n 110). 122 ibid. (Reporting that French policy makers objected that cultural policy should allow for a diverse range of cultural expressions and that these do not always contribute to economic targets and the global market). 123 Commission, Directorate-General for Education, and Culture (n 10). D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 55 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 and its link to culture.124 According to the Commission, the music industry faces unique problems because of changing consumption patterns. Artists and producers frequently claim they are not fairly compensated when their creative work is used online. Furthermore, European content, especially that from smaller countries, has difficulty becoming visible on big streaming services.125 The EU aimed to effectively adjust to this shifting environment by taking a music-industry-specific approach,126 justified by the connection between the music industry and the EU's overall cultural agenda, which emphasised the potential of music to strengthen European identity and close gaps between the Member States, and by the role played by music as a source of creativity, competitiveness and economic growth. To “identify and quantify the actions and policy initiatives at national level which would gain by being complemented at EU level, and possibly, formulate and invent the new ones which should and could be undertaken”127 the Commission created a dialogue platform for a selected group of stakeholders representing the needs and interests of “the European music industry.”128 The Commission ultimately tabled three topics for discussion - “cross-border circulation and cultural diversity;” “support, professionalisation and remuneration of music creators;” and “reinventing the music experience in the digital age, 129 covering numerous measures and issues related to the ongoing copyright reform discussions and other policy topics; the empowerment of music creators and SMEs; cultural diversity; artist mobility and the cross-border circulation of European repertoire; the struggle of music start-ups and emerging artists to survive and thrive in a challenging context; the rights of musicians; and the importance of data and metadata in a functioning music economy. The extensive agenda-setting process resulted in the establishment of Music Moves Europe through Preparatory Actions.130 The Music Moves Europe website details the primary structure and accomplishments of this strategic initiative, which comprises four key dimensions: policy, funding, legislation, and dialogue. The interdependence of these four pillars is illustrated in the policy dimension, since the legislative and funding components are fundamentally shaped and enabled by policies, while the dialogue pillar plays a vital role in shaping and assessing policy initiatives. As delineated within its framework, the policy dimension of Music Moves Europe primarily involves engagement with formal regulations and legislative frameworks. This encompasses two key facets. The first one related to the specific policy procedures and guidelines that Music Moves Europe must adhere to, including the operational EU treaties, international commitments outlined in the previous sections, and various EU policies, regulations, and directives. Notably, the Commission's webpage for Music Moves Europe highlights the Commission's New European Agenda for Culture (2018) as a seminal 124 See, European Commission, “Music Moves Europe”, retrieved from: https://culture.ec.europa.eu/cultural-and-creativesectors/music/music-moves-europe: “Music is one of the most popular forms of art, widely consumed, and a vibrant expression of Europe’s cultural diversity. It also contributes significantly to Europe’s economy. […] Technological change has brought about radical shifts in the music field and the music industry is busy exploring new business opportunities. Digitization and online distribution have altered revenue streams, reshaped business models and led to new consumption patterns). 125 Ibid, Commission, Directorate-General for Education, and Culture (n 10). 126 European Commission, ‘A New European Agenda for Culture. CELEX 52018DC0267.’ (European Commission, 2018) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/TodayOJ/> accessed 22 September 2023. 127 Commission, Directorate-General for Education, and Culture (n 10). 128 Ibid, the report documents these proceedings and formally states the Commission’s two-fold objectives behind the scheme. 129 Youth Directorate-General for Education, AB Music Working Group Report (Publications Office of the European Union 2016) <https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/450111> accessed 22 September 2023. 130 See, European Commission, “Music Moves Europe”, retrieved from: https://culture.ec.europa.eu/cultural-and-creativesectors/music/music-moves-europe. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 56 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 document in the cultural domain.131 This updated version, building upon the initial European Agenda for Culture (2007),132 actively underscores the role of culture in fostering a more inclusive and equitable Union while supporting innovation, creativity, sustainable employment, and economic growth. Furthermore, Music Moves Europe must align with the economic objectives outlined in the policy frameworks established by the Europe 2020 strategy and the overarching Creative Europe program.133 Consequently, Music Moves Europe operates within a broader, intricate policy landscape delineating its scope. The second facet of the policy pillar is that Music Moves Europe seeks to implement its own policy initiatives. The specific music-related action within the Council Work Plan for Culture 2019-22134 illustrates this dimension. This action, entitled "Diversity and Competitiveness of the Music Sector,” responds to the recognition that the digital transformation, particularly the emergence of music streaming, and intensified competition from global players, have induced fundamental shifts in music creation, production, performance, distribution, consumption, and monetisation. The funding aspect constitutes the second pillar of Music Moves Europe, and it directly addresses the financing of music-related projects and initiatives through two primary channels. The first channel involves funding for music projects facilitated via the Creative Europe program. As a strategic initiative, Music Moves Europe does not possess its independent funding structure; instead, it predominantly relies on the overarching Creative Europe program. In this context, the proposal for the new Creative Europe program for the period 2021-2027 formally introduced a sectoral initiative dedicated to music.135 The primary objective of this initiative is to advance diversity, creativity, and innovation within the realm of music, with a particular focus on enhancing the distribution of musical content across Europe and beyond. This support encompasses a range of activities, including training initiatives, audience development strategies for European music repertoire, and the collection and analysis of sector-specific data. The third dimension of Music Moves Europe pertains to the legal framework. Although the EU lacks direct legal jurisdiction in the cultural sphere, as established in the previous section, EU legislation in various other policy areas significantly influences the music industry, encompassing aspects such as mobility, financial matters, and working conditions. Through its legislative pillar, Music Moves Europe endeavours to £ensure that the interests of the [music] sector are considered in other policy domains where the EU wields legislative authority. As per the Music Moves Europe website, the 2019 Copyright Directive (CDSM Directive) exemplifies music-focused legal initiatives that Music Moves Europe seeks to support. In fact, the 2019 Copyright Directive and the Guidance on the implementation of its article 17 is the sole illustration of the legislative pillar. Specific measures adopted with the CDSM Directive in response to the profound changes in the digital landscape are addressed in Section 3.4.2 below. 131 European Commission, ‘CELEX 52018DC0267.’ (n 120). 132 European Commission, ‘Music Moves Europe, Commission Communication on a European Agenda for Culture in a Globalising World - COM(2007) 242’ (n 9). 133 European Commission. Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, /* COM/2010/2020 final */, CELEX 52010DC2020. Brussels, 2010. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC2020 134 Council of the European Union, ‘Council Conclusions on the Work Plan for Culture 2019-2022’ (2018) OJ C Official Journal of the European Union 12. 135 European Commission, The CulturEU Funding Guide EU Funding. Opportunities for the Cultural and Creative Sectors 20212027 (Publications Office of the European Union 2021) <https://ec.europa.eu/culture/sites/default/files/2021-11/cultureufunding-guide.pdf> accessed 10 January 2022. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 57 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Several interactions with the music sector have been coordinated regarding the fourth pillar, related to dialogue. These interactions primarily encompassed discussions concerning the Preparatory Action on music in February 2018, music diversity in Europe and the industry's competitiveness during the First Structured Dialogue in May 2019, 136 and discussions on the outcomes of the Music Moves Europe call pertaining to offline-online distribution during the Second Structured Dialogue in December 2019.137 The outcomes of the First Structured Dialogue, which focuses on music diversity, are relevant to this deliverable. 138 They primarily stress the need for a more precise definition of "diversity" concerning EUlevel initiatives in the field of music. Stakeholders reached a consensus that addressing this question could serve as a topic for discussion within the framework of the Music Moves Europe initiative. In a broader context, participants emphasised the importance of instilling awareness of cultural diversity and equality from a young age and further nurturing these values through education. There was also a shared view that supporting the discoverability of artists should be a multi-level endeavour. During the discussions, an idea was proposed, drawing inspiration from the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), suggesting the consideration of introducing quotas for EU repertoire on playlists and music services. Furthermore, within this exchange, participants underscored the significance of effectively implementing the CDSM Directive. The primary follow-up actions identified as the next steps to be taken included: a) Investigating the role of streaming services in promoting cultural diversity; b) establishing a more precise definition of terms like "diversity" and "national and EU repertoire" to facilitate evidence-based policymaking for EU-level music initiatives and c) Enhancing data collection and monitoring efforts within the music sector to explore opportunities for targeted measures aimed at fostering diversity, drawing inspiration from strategies employed in the audio-visual services sector. 3.3.3 The Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a European Music Observatory In a study commissioned by the EU in 2015, the EU had investigated alternative methods for gathering data in creative industries beyond audiovisual sectors.139 The findings from this study, shared during AB Music dialogue sessions, proposed the establishment of a European Music Observatory as one of three viable options. Other suggestions included enhancing the sustainability of Eurostat's existing efforts, creating a CCS Virtual Platform, and forming a Creative Leadership Board to assist in data collection. The already cited AB Music Working Group Report, issued by the Commission in 2016, summarises that participant in the dialogue overwhelmingly favoured a comprehensive update of Eurostat's data collection methods over creating a music observatory. The Commission itself expressed reservations about the observatory, citing its ambitious nature and the inevitable challenges related to human resources and budget constraints. Nevertheless, the primary objective remained the improvement of trend detection in the music industry and the facilitation of evidence-based policymaking. 136 European Commission. Music Moves Europe: First Dialogue Meeting Final Report. Brussels 2019. Available at: Council of the European Union, ‘Council Conclusions on the Work Plan for Culture 2019-2022’ (2018) OJ C Official Journal of the European Union 12.. 137 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Boudillet, Y., Music moves Europe – A EU support to innovative online & offline music distribution – Contribution of EU funded projects to promoting music diversity, Publications Office, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/680192 138 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Report from the Conference “Diversity and Competitiveness of the European Music Sector” with EU Member States’ Experts (4-5 March 2021), Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/65755 139 KEA. Feasibility Study on Data Collection and Analysis in the Cultural and Creative Sectors in the EU. Brussels, 2015. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/ library/studies/ccs-feasibility-study_en.pdf. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 64 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 diversity of music contents. Thus, Article 17(4)(b) CDSMD may contribute to ensuring higher visibility of copyrighted contents, because rightsholders are obliged to provide information about the nature and type of content of the work in order to have it finally removed. Cultural diversity and Article 17(4)(b) CDSMD Evaluating this provision in the light of the indicators of cultural diversity mentioned above, it can be fairly said that the evolutionary reading of Article 17(4)(b) CDSMD promoted by Senftleben et al. might have an impact on cultural diversity intended as a right to culture for national minorities, as well as for categories of less popular and niche artists. Although the CDSMD does not contain provisions specifically addressing the non-discriminatory principle and transposing it within the field of copyright management, Article 17 CDSMD might be paramount in enhancing cultural rights and affecting the degree of diversity of distribution channels within the meaning of Article 5 UDCD. In addition to that, Article 17 CDSMD promotes the virtuous interaction between a higher quality of copyrighted contents uploaded on digital platforms and a greater level of cultural diversity, removing obstacles created by IPRs, in line with the objectives of Article 14 FCVCHS. In fact, as noted by Senftleben et al., Article 17(4)(b) and (8) CDMSD prescribe a “certain manner to exercise copyright”, which may be interpreted as also implicitly taking into the account the policy goal of prompting cultural diversity. 3.4.2 Article 18 CDSMD Article 18 CDSMD sets the general principle of “proportionate” and “appropriate” remuneration, generally known as the principle of fair remuneration. As also clarified by the European Copyright Society (ECS),149 the term “appropriate” refers to the fairness standard inferred from the “objective and usual practices in cultural sectors.” The rationale of Article 18 CDSMD lies in the need to recalibrate the lack of bargaining power defying the position of authors and performers in their contractual relationship with distributors, record labels, publishers and digital platforms. Relevantly, despite the introduction of such general principle and other contractual adjustment tools, the CDSMD provisions do not guarantee the maximal harmonisation of EU copyright contract law rules. For this reason, some Member States enacted provisions as to guarantee a higher level of protection against abuses of contractual power at the expense of authors and performers. In this sense, modes of remuneration, the geographical scope of the license, the type and length of rights and exclusionary prerogatives conferred is fixed or are subject to legal constraints under national copyright statutory laws.150 Along these lines, Recital 76 CDSMD affirms that Member States are free with introducing rules which, in compliance with EU law, aim at increasing transparency in the mode of remuneration of authors and performers. Following the rationale underlying Recital 76 CDSMD, France is a virtuous example of how to ensure a transparent legal environment for authors and performers through contract law mandatory provisions. According to Article L131-4 of the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle, the amount of remuneration due to authors and performers does not take into consideration costs sustained and the policy embraced by the intermediary, thus allowing authors and performers to receive an amount of 149 The European Copyright Society and The European Copyright Society, ‘Comment of the European Copyright Society Addressing Selected Aspects of the Implementation of Articles 18 to 22 of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market’ (2020) 11 JIPITEC <https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-11-2-2020/5105>. 150 Extensively, European Parliament and others, ‘Strengthening the Position of Press Publishers and Authors and Performers in the Copyright Directive’ (European Parliament 2017) Study European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the JURI Committee <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2017)596810.> accessed 23 September 2023. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 65 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 remuneration which directly stems from net revenues extracted through the exploitation of their works.151 This criterion has been tested on and further refined in case law.152 It should not remain unnoticed that the lump sum-based mode of remuneration, although disfavoured, is not outright banned. Recital 73(3) CDSMD allows to resort to it in five “exceptional circumstances”, that is when (a) it turns out to be impossible to calculate a “proportionate” remuneration for authors and performers; (b) information about revenues is unavailable; (c) fair remuneration can be ensured by bearing overly burdensome bureaucratic costs; (d) the contribution of the author or performer in question is ancillary; and when (e) exploitation concerns a limited part of the work. Nevertheless, resorting to a lump-sum remuneration is rare and generally disfavoured by EU courts. To give but one example, in 1996 the French Supreme Court held null and void the licensing term which extends the lump-sum method of royalty calculation outside from the closed list of exceptional circumstances listed in Recital 73(3) CDSMD.153 In this respect, the lack of sufficient or clear metadata about music files would not exceed such list, falling under the circumstances where royalty calculation is outright impossible or related information cannot be accessed. The French Court added that the lack of compliance with the Recital 73 CDSMD implies the necessity of compensating rightsholders for the losses suffered due to the adoption of the lump sum method. Cultural diversity and Article 18 CDSMD Article 18 CDSMD plays only a limited and indirect role in boosting cultural diversity. In fact, the text of the provision does not contain any reference to the necessity of avoiding discriminations based on the origin and language of the content at stake. However, as spelled out in the previous sections, the lack of criteria useful to individuate rightsholders and apportion remuneration, which is also particularly relevant within the music industry, may have an indirect impact on diversity of contents displayed by the digital platform. In fact, as music recommendation systems are both highly sophisticated and obscure in their way of functioning, there might also be some level of opacity in the way royalty shares are calculated and distributed among rightsholders, with the effect of automatically privileging most popular authors and performers at the expense of less known, niche and local artists. These artists, as well as the related publishers, small record labels and niche producers, may be indirectly discriminated in light of the language of their songs and recordings, since they are unable to generate high revenues via streaming due to the limited audience, mainly constituted by a language, ethnic or national minorities. In this respect, Article 18 CDSMD can be a fruitful instrument to push both legislators and courts of the various EU Member States so as to ensure an adequate level of remuneration to these small and niche artists as well, avoiding that they are forced to leave the market. 3.4.3 Article 19 CDSMD As with Article 17 CDSMD, Article 19 CDSMD may also give an impulse to the creation and exchange of information and metadata about music contents by setting out a transparency obligation. According to this provision, authors and performers are entitled to receive all the information related to the revenues 151 See also Agnès Lucas-Schloetter, Carine Bernault and Andre Lucas, Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique (5th edn, LexisNexis 2017) <https://www.lgdj.fr/traite-de-la-propriete-litteraire-et-artistique-9782711026548.html> accessed 23 September 2023., p. 523-592. 152 TGI Paris, 3e ch., 17 December 1990. 153 Cass. 1re civ., 9 January 1996, 92-19.080, 92-20.436, 92-20.489; CA Versailles, 1re ch., 22 June 2000, 97-8.924. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 66 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 generated through the exploitation of their works and performances. To this end, they shall receive, on an annual basis, all the up to date, relevant and comprehensive information about the yearly earnings. However, Article 19 suffers from several drawbacks. First, this rule is not flanked by any EU-wide harmonised system of penalties and sanctions for failure to meet the transparency threshold. Yet, Member States, such as in the case of Italy,154 are free with going beyond the minimum harmonisation standard set with the EU Directive. It follows that the entities called to intervene in the first place are CMOs, that — in line with the text of Recital 77 — can give effect to Article 19 by negotiating informatory duties within the stipulation of contracts for the transferal of economic rights, also looking at the specificities of each sector, as well as of the music industry. Unfortunately, the absence of common standards for music data and identifiers is likely to thwart the role of CMOs as well. Impacting on the overall music value chain, the insufficiency and contradictory nature of existing datasets is likely to create a situation where CMOs, as well as authors and performers, may receive incomplete, missing or inaccurate data, due to the fact that the same have not been properly collected on a large scale in first instance. The situation is worsened by the fact that Article 19 CDSMD only mandates a formal requirement of transparency, consisting of information to be delivered in compliance with several formalities. At the same time, obtaining this information gives no warranty of the quality, accuracy and integrity of the data contained therein. This, in turn, frustrates the rationale of the provision and serves no purpose in understanding whether the amount of remuneration agreed on should be revised thanks to the ex-post judicial adjustment system devised under Article 20 CDSMD. Further, it is noteworthy that Article 19(3) CDSMD contains a derogation under which information duties are not required when the contribution to the work has been limited or ancillary, as well as when obtaining information is burdensome due to administrative obstacles. These derogations hinder the effectiveness of the provision to a significant extent. In fact, gaining information about music files, due to the lack of standardised formats for music metadata and recognised identifiers, is nearly always “burdensome” from an administrative standpoint. For this reason, the applicability of Article 19 CDSMD to the music field might be put into severe discussion. It is also relevant that the understanding of whether a contribution of an author or a performer to an overall work might be problematic from a data law perspective. All in all, it can be said that Article 19 CDSMD risks being inapplicable in the music sector, where rightsholders are always borne with high transaction costs and struggle to receive sufficient information about the data infrastructure and the music payment flows. Were this rule to be fully effective, there are still obstacles preventing the provision from having an impact on cultural diversity. By the same token, implementation of this rule risk amounting to apparent compliance, exacerbated by the lack of an EU-wide harmonised apparatus of sanctions and penalties. Cultural diversity and Article 19 CDSMD Also Article 19 CDSMD may have a merely indirect impact on cultural diversity. Its role in incentivizing an exchange of information between stakeholders on one hand, and authors and performers on the other, is functional to achieving a higher level of transparency as to the methods of remuneration, royalty rates and actual exploitation of copyrighted music works. However, this instrument is too weak from the perspective of cultural diversity. Although granting proper remuneration is particularly important for niche, small and less known artists, guaranteeing a flow of information in this regard does 154 Ludovico Bossi and Jacopo Ciani Sciolla, ‘The Transposition of the Transparency Obligation Pursuant to Article 19 Directive (EU) 790/2019: An Italian Perspective’ (2022) 17 Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 457. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 67 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 not amount to a clear-cut proactive legislative measure as to ensure a sufficient variety in the type of music contents uploaded on digital platforms. In this sense, Article 19 CDMSD only serves the purposes of Articles 5 UDCD and Article 14 FCVCHS, which promote initiatives that aim at changing the structure of distribution channels of cultural goods also relying on IP law. In this case, the EU policymaker intervened on methods of remuneration, as to improve regulation in the field and lessen contractual freedom, with a view to preventing that some artists are remunerated in a disproportionately low manner. Diversity objectives and methods of measurement under the CDSMD are/shall encompass: ● Data enhancement efforts, to measure the efforts made by rightsholders and OCSSPs to enhance the accuracy and completeness of data regarding works. ● Interoperability in data management standards, to monitor their progress ● Visibility of less popular and nice copyright-protected content, to monitor the eventual positive impact of the implementation of Article 17(4) CDSMD ● Non-discrimination in the distribution of content, to monitor and assess the impact of Article 17 CDSMD in this respect ● Establishment of data repositories regarding EU copyright licensing practices and their impact on diversity, particularly in the context of music recommendation systems ● Price and payment conditions for authors, to monitor the implementation and enforcement of the principle of "proportionate" and "appropriate" remuneration ● Remuneration disparities and discrimination practices against less-known, niche, and local artists based on language or origin ● CMOs practices to enhance transparency, in order to monitor compliance with the their transparency obligations under Article 19 CDSMD and its eventual impact on diversity ● Adoption of common standards in the identification of works and rightsholder, in order to monitor its impact on diversity 3.4.4 Article 3 Portability Regulation (PR) The Portability Regulation has been enacted with a view to ensuring that online contents made available by subscription are also fully accessible by subscribers when the same are temporarily present in a Member State other than their country of residence. The impact of this overall piece of regulation on cultural diversity can be inferred if sufficient attention is paid to the principle of non-discrimination looming in the background of the Regulation. In this sense, Recital 12 PR speaks clearly about the underlying rationale of the act, which coincides with, on one hand, the objective of removing barriers to cross-border portability of protected contents for the benefit of subscribers (Article 3 imposes an obligation in this regard), while, on the other, discouraging unrestricted geo-blocking. The core of the regulation lies in the cross-border portability obligation sculpted in Article 3 PR. Accordingly, providers of online content services, including copyrighted music contents, such as Spotify and Pandora, are compelled to ensure access to paid subscription services also when subscribers are temporarily located in a Member State other than the one of residence, when the license was primarily D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 68 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 obtained. Article 4 extends the rule to free-of-charge subscription services, although on an optional basis. As noticed by scholars,155 this Regulation has many backlashes. In the first place, verification of temporary residence is not always so easy, as also compliance with EU data protection law is required and means adopted should be “reasonable” and “proportionate,” in line with the text of Article 5 PR. Moreover, as noticed by Trimble, geo-blocking is not negative from the perspective of cultural diversity. Rather, it allows to prevent losses and preserves the principle of copyright territoriality, from which the Portability Regulation partially deviates or, at least, mitigates. It is also relevant that the length of the physical permanence in a Member State other than that of residence is not clarified. This paves the way to abuses on the side of subscribers, hampering cultural diversity, because many rightsholders may be incentivised to revoke the authorisation if the revenues lost due to the application of the portability obligation enshrined in Article 3 PR are overly consistent. As the merits and impact of geo-blocking on cultural diversity is unclear and debated, the overall influence of Articles 3-4 PR on cultural diversity is difficult to be evaluated. In general, it ought to distinguish between the impact of these rules on diversity of contents, thus analysing the specific position of rightsholders vis-à-vis the enactment and implementation of these EU provisions. On a different level, the position of subscribers in relation to the principle of non-discrimination should be investigated. Cultural diversity and Article 3 Portability Regulation Article 3 PR has an unclear impact on cultural diversity. Weiss argues that the artificial portioning of digital creative markets in the EU can be held as beneficial for cultural diversity. It allows preserving the specificities of national markets and offer cultural contents specific for the legal traditions, language and content preferences of a nation-based audience. This runs contrary to the freedom of circulation of goods and services and the freedom of movement enshrined in Article 36 TFEU, as well as with the objective of creating an EU market for audiovisual services, cultural and creative contents. Yet, the pursuit of such aim risks eroding the freedom of national legislator with promoting their cultural values and identities through nation-based distribution channels and consumption of cultural goods. In line with this trend of erosion of copyright territoriality, as well as of promoting of multi-territorial licensing, Article 3 PR may constrain freedom of contract, preventing rightsholders with tailoring contents to the specificities of national audiences and thus contributing to homogenizing of cultural contents offered via digital platforms. From an opposite perspective, subscribers are provided with broader access to contents regardless of whether they are located. Thus, it can be concluded that, on the side of rightsholders, diversity of contents can be reduced if the concept of temporary residence is interpreted in an extensive way. On a different note, it must be observed that cross-border availability of contents allows avoiding discriminations among consumers based on language and nationalities. Diversity objectives and methods of measurement under the Portability Regulation are/shall encompass: ● List of streaming services implementing the Regulation provisions ● Domestic and foreign uses of musical content, to monitor eventual increases in access and consumption of music content abroad 155 Extensively, Sebastian Engels and Jan Bernd Nordemann, ‘The Portability Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1128): A Commentary on the Scope and Application’ (2018) 9 JIPITEC <https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-9-2-2018/4728>. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 69 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 ● Audience diversity of local content (e.g. from country x) abroad (e.g. in country Z) o Coupled with the indicators stemming from international sources, the monitoring and measuring regarding consumption and access should also cover specific groups (e.g. minority linguistic, ethnic-related content); ● Presence of technical measures (e.g. DRM, technical tools to verify requirements for portability (Member State of residence)) which hinder access to content ● Measures implemented by streaming services to overcome barriers created by technical measures ● Measures adopted to clear rights and ensure visibility of all rightsholders represented. 3.4.5 Articles 3, 4 and 5 Geo-Blocking Regulation (GBR) As also hinted at while analysing the Portability Regulation, geo-blocking measures undertaken by online platforms as to avoid copyright infringement and preserve copyright territoriality are looked with suspicion in EU forums. In this respect, Reda outlined that, especially in the digital era, massive implementation of geo-blocking measures may produce a situation where consumers have limited money to spend on cultural contents, as they have to sustain additional costs such as access to VPN services, which, in turn, can reduce subscription to streaming services and number of downloads of copyright contents. This can seriously impair the position of creators of the online cultural content itself. This is particularly detrimental for music creators, as the “music sector relies more heavily on the global licensing of repertoire, which seems to be more closely aligned to user expectations”.156 Moreover, as exclusive licensing is rare within the music field, there is a concrete risk that streaming services offer the same music catalogues, impairing fringe artists who are not assisted by a record label. Their position would be severely underpinned by geo-blocking, as these niche artists have few occasions to become reachable by a wider audience. In line with the considerations made above, the Geo-blocking Regulation aims at repealing market fragmentation created by geo-blocking practices. Going in parallel with the objectives of international human rights law instruments prompting cultural diversity, Recital 5 of the Regulation sets out the aim of ensuring access and free movement of goods and services across EU as to avoid discriminations based on nationality, place of residence and establishment of consumers. Specifically, Recital 15 asserts that the Regulation seeks to abolish restrictions and discriminatory treatments based on payment and delivery conditions, also reasserting such prohibition within Article 5 GBR. In this respect, conditions of trade and access should be respectful of the principle of nondiscrimination, with particular regard to the customer’s nationality, place of residence and of establishment. The same principle is translated into an obligation under Article 4 GBR. 156 European Commission. (2015a). Impact assessment accompanying the document “Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council to ensure the cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market. (COM(2015) 627 final). Commission Staff Working Document. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/LV/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015SC0270 See also, extensively, Julia Reda, ‘Geoblocking: At Odds with the EU Single Market and Consumer Expectations’ in Petr Szczepanik and others (eds), Digital Peripheries: The Online Circulation of Audiovisual Content from the Small Market Perspective (Springer International Publishing 2020) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03044850-9_5> accessed 23 September 2023. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 70 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Equal conditions of trade shall also be ensured by avoiding technical measures which may hamper equal access to online interfaces, also in the form of online applications. Such principles are advanced in Article 3, setting an obligation in this regard. Yet, Article 3(3) GRB contains a derogation, allowing to block or limit access when such practice is necessary to ensure compliance with requirements set in other EU laws. In this sense, the Geo-blocking Regulation can be read as a “toothless tiger,” whose effectiveness can be frustrated if it is demonstrated that geo-blocking is applied as to avoid infringement under Article 17(4) CDSMD. Cultural diversity and the Geo-blocking Regulation Articles 3, 4 and 5 GBR constitute the bulk of this piece of EU law. The impact of the Regulation on cultural diversity is hotly debated. On one hand, classification of markets allows to model price setting on the specificities, ability to pay and content preferences of nation-based audiences. On the other, geo-blocking creates additional costs and entry barriers at the expense of secondary creators, especially in the case of the music industry, where dubbing and language minorities are not always taken into consideration by large online platforms operating in the EU. Yet, at least abstractly, being a reflection of the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 3, 4 and 5 GRB undoubtedly go hand in hand with international soft law instruments which prohibit discriminations based on nationality, place of residence and establishment. The abolishment of local or place-based restrictions, resulting in differentiated trade conditions, goes in parallel with legal tools oriented to prompting cultural diversity. The necessity of avoiding barriers on this basis is recalled in multiple provisions, such as Article 2(1) of the Race Declaration, Articles 14, 9 and 10 ECHR, Article 2 DOM, also emphasizing the necessity of equalizing individuals before the law. Articles 11 and 12 ECRML are also relevant in this respect, as they specifically refer to the need to preserve media pluralism. Diversity objectives and methods of measurement under the Geo Blocking Regulation are/shall encompass: ● Prices and payment/delivery conditions for accessing online music services, in order to verify the presence of discriminations based on users’ nationality, place of residence or establishment; ● Equality in accessing same musical content, including regional or national music catalogues, regardless of their nationality, residence or place of establishment; ● Presence of discriminatory registration and verification requirements imposed by online music platforms which may disproportionately affect users and discriminate them on the basis of based on their geographical indication ● Imposition of technical measures which may hinder equal access to online interfaces, streaming services or content ● Presence of audience complaints related to discriminatory practices related to payment, delivery or technical access 3.4.6 Article 3 SatCab Directive II The SatCab Directive II addresses rights of broadcasting organisations, related to online programs transmitted via tv or radio. The same has some relevance for the interplay between copyright matters affecting the music industry and cultural diversity because broadcasts organisations daily transmit programs containing a vast array of copyrighted contents, also including, inter alia, musical works. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 71 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Above the others, the SatCab Directive sets the country of origin principle, although limited to certain types of programs, in line with Recitals 10 and 11. It is also relevant that Recital 15 refers to the principle of appropriate remuneration as to overcome disparities among national laws with regard to retransmission services and related rules. In this sense, the license fee should be calculated in relation to the value allocated to the means of retransmission, without limitations on collective management of rights and prejudice to the ability of rightsholders to decide how to manage their prerogatives. The Directive addresses “online ancillary services,” consisting in acts of retransmission of protected contents, including online music contents, in radio and tv broadcasts, by broadcasting organisations. It is worth noting that this Directive only cursorily touches the music industry, by targeting music works contained in and transmitted together with television and radio broadcasts. Article 3 SatCab II sets the country of origin principle, resting on a legal fiction according to which acts implicating reproduction, retransmission and broadcasting of copyrighted contents takes place only within the territory of the Member State where the broadcaster has the principal establishment. However, considering that “broadcasting organisations” are not defined within the text of the Regulation, it is not clear whether pay-tv platforms can be included in the definition. Extending the definition as to cover platforms whose business model is akin to that of digital aggregators, the country of origin principle might be applied in an overly extensive manner, carrying with it the risk of superseding copyright territoriality. Yet, it ought to consider that the notion of “ancillary service” included in Article 2 SatCab II is narrow, for it includes only a restricted array of contents (news, current affairs programs and broadcasters’ own contents), with the effect of introducing a derogation to copyright territoriality on a highly contentspecific basis. Moreover, if the broadcaster licence the content to a different platform, the principle seems not to be applicable.157 Article 4 SatCab II sets the rule under which acts of retransmission of programs must take place upon authorisation of the rightsholder, although consent or refusal can only be granted via CMO. In this way, clearance of rights and licensing practices are streamlined, with the effect of ensuring higher visibility to copyrighted contents via cable retransmission and broadcasting. Article 5 SatCab II contains the exception under which Article 4 SatCab II does not apply if copyright is entitled to broadcasting organisations themselves. Cultural diversity and the SatCab Directive II The Directive has only a limited impact on cultural diversity. By setting the country of origin principle, Article 3 SatCab II creates a legal fiction which reminds of the non-discrimination principle. In fact, it facilitates the obtaining, retransmission and broadcasting of a broad array of copyrighted contents (as well as digital music files) without the need to seek prior authorisation in each Member State. This ensures higher visibility of online music contents and can enhance both secondary creation and cultural diversity. In fact, for those programs which have limited audience for being tailored to the specificities of a local audience, it may become inconvenient and too expensive, from the perspective of the broadcasting organisation to clear rights in each Member State of retransmission. In this way, overhomogeneity of cultural contents is avoided thanks to the streamlining of licensing practices and, as a consequence, the reduction of related transaction costs. Yet, the text of the Directive does not contain 157 Ted Shapiro, ‘Comment on the EU’s Update of the “SatCab” Directive: A Brave New Digital World for the Audiovisual Sector?’ (Wiggin LLP) <https://www.wiggin.co.uk/insight/comment-on-the-eus-update-of-the-satcab-directive-a-brave-new-digitalworld-for-the-audiovisual-sector/> accessed 23 September 2023. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 72 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 any direct reference to the non-discrimination principle as articulated in the various international human rights soft law provisions extensively discussed above. Diversity objectives and methods of measurement under the SatCab II Directive are/shall encompass: ● Use by broadcasting organisations of the principle of origin for retransmission of content and its impact on the circulation of repertoires ● Transaction costs for cross-country licensing, to monitor if it has led to increased access to a diverse range of content, including local and minority groups ● Audience engagement across the EU, to monitor whether the directive’s implementation has led to higher and diversified audience engagement with music content from different Member States ● Variety of content retransmitted by broadcasting organisations, in order to monitor whether the Directive has contributed to avoiding homogeneity of music content by enabling broadcasting organisations to retransmit diverse content tailored to specific local audiences. 3.5 Other Regulatory Frameworks Impacting Music Diversity: Enablers & Disablers 3.5.1 Legislative Measures Adopted within the Audiovisual Sector and its Potential application to the Music Industry Recital 69 of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive158 (AVMSD) recognises the significance of promoting European content in Video on Demand (VOD) services in order to encourage cultural diversity. Article 1(1)(n) and paragraphs 3 and 4 AVMSD define “European works” as content originating in Member States, European third states, or through specific agreements with the EU or coproductions with EU-based co-producers. The works must also be created by authors and workers who are citizens of one or more relevant States (EU Member States and States that have ratified the Convention), provided that the producer is established in a Member State or that, in the case of coproductions, co-producers from such States contribute the majority of the total co-production costs. According to these provisions, Member States may adopt their definitions of “European works” for audiovisual media services (AVMS) as long as they comply with EU law and AVMSD objectives.159 However, Member States have limited flexibility to prioritise their domestic content over others, as EU law prohibits discrimination against AVMS from other Member States. Compared to the 2010 version, the 2018 AVMSD revision introduced a significant change. The promotion of European works in on-demand AVMSD is now a mandatory obligation (Article 13(1) AVMSD), requiring providers to allocate at least 30% of their catalogue to European works. This quantitative threshold is combined with the obligation to give prominence to such European works. Recital 35 AVMSD provides insights into the definition of "prominence", clarifying that this "entails the promotion of European works by making it easier for viewers to access and choose these works, 158 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1–24 159 For an overview of the transposition of the definition of European Work in the EU Member States see: Jean-François Furnémont, Mapping of the regulation and assessment of the nationality of European audiovisual works, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, 2020 < https://rm.coe.int/mapping-of-the-regulation-and-assessment-of-the-nationality-ofeuropea/16809ebe39 > D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 73 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 essentially increasing their visibility." To accomplish this goal, the 2018 AVMSD revision recommends, as specified in Recital 35, the use of metadata tagging for audiovisual content that meets the criteria of a European work, and to make such an information available to media service providers. These measures may also include having a dedicated section for European works on the service homepage, the possibility to search for European works in the search tool available thereon, the use of European works in advertisement campaigns, or the promotion of a minimum percentage of European works on the service's catalogue, for example by using banners or similar tools. Although the Directive offers a number of tools to improve the visibility of European Works, it still features a number of gaps and shortcomings.160 First, the solutions suggested in the Recital have limited effectiveness when it comes to many on-demand services, where viewer recommendations are tailored to individual consumption patterns, often determined by the service's algorithm. Second, the range of measures for ensuring the visibility of European works remains relatively extensive, and so Member States maintain considerable freedom in determining which measures to implement. Third, the Directive does not entrust the European Commission with drafting guidelines for a more precise definition of the criteria for prominence, a circumstance that might lead to a lack of uniformity among national measures. According to a study of the European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO) from 2020, only a few Member States have published information about their initiatives to use metadata labelling for works created in Europe and made it available to media service providers.161 Best Practices reported by the EAO include, inter alia, indicating the country of origin or the language while using “European Works” tags in a separate, organised section (Belgium and the Netherlands); providing the International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN) (France) when requesting contributions from the national fund to digitally convert or repair works, to ensure that the latter contain all the metadata required for distribution across many digital platforms. Challenges reported by stakeholders include the difficulty in determining the author’s nationality or who the majority co-producer was. Best Industry Practices reported by VoD providers to assess the nationality of works include the use of standard identifiers such as ISAN or EID, and of databases of national film centres or of EU-funded databases, such as those provided by Cineuropa or Europa Cinemas. Article 13(2) AVMSD allows Member States to require financial contributions from media service providers to support European production, which must be proportional and non-discriminatory. These may be direct contributions to European works' production or levies payable to a national fund, based on AVMS revenues in their territory. Although these investments may primarily benefit domestic productions, the rule deviates from the country-of-origin principle, for it permits media service providers targeting audiences in a specific Member State but established in other Member States to benefit from these financial contributions. Member States are required to report every two years on the state of implementation of the AVMSD to the Commission (Article 13 (4) AVMSD), which should then provide a summary of national transpositions to the European Parliament and the Council, 160 Apa, Ernesto, and Giovanni Gangemi. "The new audiovisual media services directive and the promotion of European works by on-demand media service providers." Media Laws, Rivista di Diritto dei Media 2 (2019): 93-127; Mazzoli, Eleonora Maria (2020), ‘Online content governance: Towards a framework for analysis for prominence and discoverability’, Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 11:3, pp. 301–19; García Leiva, M. Trinidad and Albornoz, Luis A. (2021), ‘VOD service providers and regulation in the European Union: an audiovisual diversity approach’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 27:3, pp. 267–81. 161 Jean-François Furnémont, Mapping of the regulation and assessment of the nationality of European audiovisual works, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, 2020 < https://rm.coe.int/mapping-of-the-regulation-and-assessment-of-thenationality-of-europea/16809ebe39 > D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 80 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 exemptions for the music industry allows Member States to align their cultural strategies with targeted support and promotion for the music industry. By giving Member States the possibility to pursue their cultural strategies, both the cultural state aid derogation and the BER embed the consideration of – and require the Commission to take into account - national or regional cultural policies and goals in the assessment of the legitimacy state aid. In essence, the provisions strike a balance between the principles of the common market and national cultural prerogatives. o Antitrust Whereas in the field of state aids cultural policies are specifically taken into account, antitrust and merger control rules lack similar considerations. Despite this gap, however, provisions concerning the evaluation of the legitimacy of restrictive practices, strategic alliances, and price arrangements could impact or accommodate cultural goals and diversity. In this sense, it has been argued187 that the goals of competition law and those pursued by EU cultural policy complement each other, for a competitive model based on the principles of consumer welfare and economic efficiencies has the potential to promote the production and distribution of cultural goods and services on a larger scale for European consumers. Articles 101-102 TFEU lay the basis of EU antitrust law. Article 101(1) TFEU prohibits agreements among undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings, and concerted practices (collectively referred to as agreements in this context) that aim to prevent, restrict, or distort competition within the internal market. For instance, in Ministère Public v Tournier188 and Lucazeau v SACEM,189 the CJUE held that a reciprocal representation agreement providing (directly or indirectly) that users established in Member State B are prevented from having direct access to the repertoire of a CMO in Member State A may fall under the “concerted practice” within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, if it alters the normal conditions of competition. By contrast, such an agreement would not infringe Article 101(1) TFEU if justified by legitimate reasons, including the need to ensure a more effective monitoring of repertoire exploitations. Article 101(3) TFEU lifts these restrictions when an agreement between companies positively affects the production and distribution of goods and/or supports technical and economic development. In Simulcasting,190 the EC was requested to analyse the compatibility with Article 101(1) TFUE of a model reciprocal agreement concluded between the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and several CMOs acting on behalf of record companies. The agreement aimed at facilitating the grant of multi-territorial licenses to radio and TV broadcasters willing to simultaneously transmit on the Internet sound recordings included in their programming (simulcasting). By virtue of the simulcasting agreement, each participating CMO could grant the other participating CMOs simulcasting licenses for its repertoire(s). Although it prohibited price competition, the Commission exempted the agreement under Article 101(3) TFUE, but it requested CMOs to clearly separate copyright royalties from 187 Psychogiopoulou, Evangelia. "Cultural Mainstreaming in EC Anti-Trust and Merger Control." The Integration of Cultural Considerations in EU Law and Policies. Brill Nijhoff, 2008. 241-291. See also Frank L. Fine, The Impact of EEC Competition Law on the Music Industry, 12 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 508 (1991-1992). 188 Judgment of 13 July 1989, Ministère Public v Tournier, C-395/87, ECLI:EU:C:1989:319. See also: Graber, Christoph B. "Collective rights management, competition policy and cultural diversity: EU lawmaking at a crossroads.", (2012) 4 W.I.P.O.J, Issue 1 p-35-43. 189 Judgment of 13 July 1989, François Lucazeau and others v Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique (SACEM) and others, Joined cases C-110/8, C-241/88 and C-242/88, ECLI:EU:C:1989:326 190 Commission Decision of 8 October 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/C2/38.014 — IFPI "Simulcasting"), 2003/300 EC, O.J. L107/58. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 81 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 administrative fees, making them more transparent. In the EC view, such a transparency measure could enhance competition between CMOs, rendering the agreement in line with antitrust considerations. In addition, the EC noted that introducing a multi-territorial licence would improve music distribution, increase availability of sound and video recordings online, and would place new artists on equal terms with more powerful rivals vis-a-vis the terms and price conditions of a simulcasting service. Ultimately, this would lead to a greater benefit for consumers, who could get broader and easier access to a wide range of content. Although the Simulcasting decision did not explicitly mention the protection and advancement of cultural diversity, the EC admitted its indirect influence on the matter. In granting the exemption, in fact, the EC considered as a positive element the fact that the agreement ensured an increased circulation of diverse content and improved its distribution, in this way proving that cultural factors play a relevant role when evaluating the compliance of restrictive agreements with EU competition law. Article 102 TFUE governs the behaviours of companies that are inherently immune from typical competitive market conditions (“dominant undertakings”), and prohibits abuses of such dominant positions. Determining whether an undertaking holds a dominant position may be a difficult endeavour, as it depends on several criteria such as the definition of the relevant market and of the undertaking's market share. Article 102 TFUE provides an exemplificative list of abuses. They cover practices that directly harm consumers, such as when a dominant undertaking charges prices above the competition level (known as “exploitative abuses”), or excludes competitors or other undertakings from the market (known as “exclusionary practices”). Recent cases investigated by the EC under Article 102 TFEU and reviewed by the CJEU identified as abusive practices, inter alia, i) self-preferencing, ii) data leveraging, iii) naked restrictions and iv) excessive pricing. Self-preferencing encompasses cases where a dominant and vertically integrated business favours the positioning or selling of its own products or services to the detriment of competitors by using its own platform. In June 2017, the EC ruled191 that Google's preferential positioning and display of its own comparison-shopping service in its general search results pages over rival services was against Article 102 TFUE. On appeal, the CJUE made clear that Article 102 TFEU did not automatically forbid selfpreferencing but found that Google's actions did not constitute merit-based competition in this particular instance and held that “the list of abusive practices contained in Article 102 TFEU is not exhaustive.” 192 Similarly, in App Store Music Streaming,193 the EC held that by forcing consumers to use its in-app purchasing system and restricting developers' ability to notify iPhone and iPad users of cheaper alternatives to in-app purchases, Apple used its App Store to abuse its dominant position in the market for distribution of music streaming apps. This constituted a violation of Article 102 TFUE, for Apple stifled competition by driving up prices for rival music streaming app providers, which in turn drives up prices for customers. Whether Apple's actions qualify as self-preferencing or some other type of abuse is still under review.194 191 Judgment of 10 November 2021, Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping), T-612/17, ECLI:EU:T:2021:763. 192 ibid, § 154. 193 Case AT.40437, Apple App Store Practices Music Streaming (App Store Music Streaming). 194 Ibid. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 82 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 In Servizio Nazionale Elettrico195 the question was whether a company‘s practice to restrict access to data it held as a result of its dominant position, in order to benefit its own products or services at the detriment of its rivals breached Article 102 TFUE. The case revolved around the attempt of ENEL to counterbalance the upcoming liberalisation of the Italian electricity market with an attempt to maintain SEN's customers by manipulating their consent to receive commercial offers, making them believe it was mandatory for ENEL and voluntary for other suppliers. This led to fewer consents in favour of ENEL’s competitors, which limited their availability of customer data. ENENEL then used SEN's customer information to customise marketing offers in an effort to lure clients away from SEN. The CJUE ruled that the practice of data leveraging is anticompetitive when carried out by a dominant company, if it results in foreclosing effects, but the highest Italian administrative court (Consiglio di Stato) ruled that the unlawfulness of the conduct was not proven in the specific case.196 Naked restrictions encompass practices that a dominant company engages in with the sole purpose of excluding its rivals. For instance, in Qualcomm197, the EC declared in violation of Article 102 TFEU Qualcomm‘s offer to Apple of exclusivity fees on the condition that Apple refrained from buying baseband chipsets from other companies, for it hindered not just its rivals' attempts to compete for Apple's business, but also other potential business opportunities with other customers. In another case, the EC imposed fines on Google for exclusivity agreements related to its Android operating system,198 which included paying mobile network operators and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) if they refrained from pre-installing rival general search services on devices within an agreed portfolio. According to the EC, these actions harmed competition because they decreased the incentives for users to pre-install rival search apps and prevented rival search engines from competing. Charging excessive prices is another behaviour falling under the screening of antitrust law. It consists of a situation where a dominant company sets excessively high prices on customers. Setting prices that are significantly higher than the competitive market level has the effect of exploiting or excluding consumers from accessing or benefitting certain goods or services.199 In the SABAM case,200 the CJEU held that if a CMO based the increase of its tariffs for certain concerts and music festivals on gross receipts from ticket sales, without deducting all expenses associated with organising these events, there was no abuse of dominant position for excessive pricing in violation of Article 102 TFEU. The Court also stated that the CMO would not abuse its dominant position by implementing a tariff structure system to determine the musical works falling under its jurisdiction, provided that no other method is available to safeguard artists' rights without imposing disproportionate costs on the CMO. In an earlier case – BRT v SABAM –201 the Court recognised that CMOs hold de facto monopolies, for they occupy a dominant position in a substantial part of the common market. As such, the fair trade 195 Judgment of 12 May 2022, Servizio Elettrico nazionale SpA e a., C-377/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:379. 196 Laura Zoboli, Much Ado About Nothing? Italy’s SEN Antitrust Saga Comes to an End (13 February 2023), Kluwer Competition Law Blog, <https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/02/13/much-ado-about-nothing-italys-senantitrust-saga-comes-to-an-end/ >. 197 Case AT.40220, Qualcomm, 24/01/2018. 198 Case AT.40099, Google Android, 18/07/2018 (Google Android). 199 Communication from the Commission – Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings, O.J 2009/CDd 45/02, 24.2.2009, < https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009XC0224(01) >. (Article 102 TFUE is the former Article 82 RC). 200 Judgment of 25 November 2020, Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Weareone.World BVBA and Wecandance NV (SABAM v Weareone.World), C-372/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:959. 201 Judgment of 30 January 1974, Belgische Radio en Televisie and société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs v SV SABAM and NV Fonior (BRT v SABAM), C-127/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:6. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 83 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 obligations deriving from Article 102 TFUE required that contracts concluded between a CMO and its individual members could limit the freedom of the latter only to the extent this is necessary for effective rights management by such CMO. In several cases involving CMOs, their practices have been found to be in breach of Article 102 TFUE. In GEMA and GVL (West German CMO),202 the practice of both German CMOs of refusing to conclude management agreements on grounds of nationality, excluding foreign authors not being domiciled in Germany was deemed contrary to Article 102 TFUE (formerly, article 82 EC Treaty). Whereas the Commission did not explicitly rely on cultural arguments in support of these decisions, Psychogiopoulou203 correctly pointed put that the rationale behind these decisions had implicit cultural considerations. In this sense, she noted that the economic discrimination faced by foreign artists translated in reduced cross-border exploitation of their rights and reduced cross-border consumption of foreign works, ultimately hindering the circulation of diverse music content across Europe. Although falling outside the scope of this analysis, two recent cases at the national level are worth mentioning. In 2022, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal204 ruled that applying unequal conditions to streaming services amounted to an abuse of the dominant position where no measures to remove that inequality have been put in place. The case involved Bruna/Stemra, a Dutch CMO and Association of Background Music Distributors (ABMD), an association of companies that offer background music for business users, such as the hospitality industry, shops or fitness centres. ABMD filed a lawsuit, alleging Buma/Stemra's policy of charging of different license fees for private and business use, as well as the policy of charging lower fees to streaming services constituted an abuse of dominant position. The court ruled in favour of ABMD, finding that Buma/Stemra applied unequal conditions to streaming services, allowing commercial use of private subscriptions without taking corrective measures, and ordered Buma/Stemra to change its licensing policy and take measures to prevent commercial use of music from streaming services meant for private use only (e.g., Spotify). The case shows that measures and policies that result in a discrimination between CMOs‘ members and streaming services are prohibited under competition law. In 2020, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) imposed a €10.9 million fine on CTS Eventim for employing an unlawful exclusive strategy in the Italian pop music events ticket market.205 TicketOne, holding a dominant position in pop and rock concert ticketing, was investigated for its agreements with event organisers since 2013. The AGCM found that TicketOne and CTS Eventim engaged in a complex exclusive strategy that could have foreclosed competing ticketing operators from selling, by any means and through any channel, a particularly high proportion of tickets for live pop music events, thus limiting market access for new entrants. Additionally, TicketOne's higher fees were found to harm both rival ticket sellers and consumers, leading to reduced quality and variety of ticket-selling services. Due to the number of involved operators and the duration and gravity of the abusive conduct, the Italian Authority not only imposed a fine but also required the group to ensure that competing ticket sellers have the possibility to sell, in any way and through whichever channel at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory 202 Commission Decision 82/204/EEC of 4 December 1981 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.971—GEMA statutes), OJ L 94, 8/4/1982, p. 12, and Commission Decision 81/1030/EEC of 29 October 1981 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.839—GVL), OJ L 370, 28/12/1981, p. 49. See also: Mihály Ficsor, Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights – Third Edition (2022), WIPO < https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4645&plang=EN >. 203 Psychogiopoulou, Evangelia. "EC competition law and cultural diversity: The case of the cinema, music and book publishing industries." European Law Review 30.6 (2005): 838-861; 204 Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 200,256,847/01, 24.05.2022, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2020:2583. 205 See website AGCOM: https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2021/1/A523 D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 84 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 (FRAND) conditions, at least 20% of the total amount of pop and rock music events tickets distributed by the event promoters or ticket sellers bound by the agreements concluded by Eventim-TicketOne. Nevertheless, in 2022 the fine was annulled by the Italian Administrative Court,206 on ground of lack of sufficient evidence on the alleged abuse. o Significance for the Music Industry The practice of the EC and EU and national courts show that, even if in the absence of explicit recognition, cultural policy elements are considered in the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU as a factor that could outweigh anti-competitive effects of private agreements or practices. In the Simulcasting decision, for instance, the Commission openly acknowledged the relevance of the positive impact the restrictive agreement had on the availability and dissemination of works for consumers. Similarly, the App Store Music Streaming case showcases that antitrust law could favour cultural diversity by prohibiting practices that may impede the market entry and expansion of smaller or diverse music streaming services. The SABAM cases also suggest that competition law could intervene to enhance cross-border circulation of works within EU Member States. However, it is essential to acknowledge a nuanced perspective, which seems to be overlooked by the Commission: an increase in the quantity of disseminated musical works does not always guarantee genuine content diversification, especially when different operators offer identical or similar content. In such cases, consumers might be presented with a virtual rather than a real substantive choice. In this sense, the Commission approach to antitrust law is rather focused on economic aspects and seems to neglect concerns about cultural diversity in content origin and type. As noted by some scholars,207 while an increased number of market players and works can contribute to the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity through enhanced availability of cultural content, Article 167(4) TFUE may have limited practical significance in certain situations where competition pertains to access to the same cultural assets. This is because the Treaty provision does not demand an absolute prioritisation of cultural matters but requires, instead, cultural considerations to be given due weight within other policy frameworks. In this sense, competition law, while indirectly could impact on cultural policies and in the circulation of works, may have inherent constraints in fully safeguarding and promoting cultural diversity. The cases discussed reveal that competition law, primarily designed to ensure fair competition, may not be the optimal tool for achieving specific cultural diversity goals. The focus on consumer welfare and economic efficiencies within the internal market may not always align with broader cultural objectives. Consequently, competition law could represent an “external enabler” with “internal constraints” for music diversity, suggesting that a nuanced and integrated approach is necessary to balance both competition and cultural considerations effectively. 3.5.3 International IP Framework: The Principles of National Treatment and of Most Favoured Nation The principles of national treatment and most-favoured-nation (MFN) are often considered within the broader framework of trade agreements and are designed to promote non-discrimination among trading partners. They have also been included in WIPO-administered treaties. While granting equal market access conditions to nations and foreign creators could enhance the circulation of works, these principles may collide with national cultural policies designed to benefit domestic works and own cultural identity. Balancing national treatment and MFN principles with cultural diversity objectives can 206 TAR Lazio, sentenza n. 3334 del 24 marzo 2022 207 Psychogiopoulou, Evangelia. "Cultural Mainstreaming in EC Anti-Trust and Merger Control." The Integration of Cultural Considerations in EU Law and Policies. Brill Nijhoff, 2008. 241-291. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 85 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 be complex. Nations aim to preserve and promote their own cultural identities, yet international trade obligations often require equal treatment for foreign cultural products. This tension underscores the need for countries to craft cultural policies that navigate these principles while safeguarding their cultural heritage and diversity. In the European context, these principles come into play as the European Union adheres to international trade agreements involving cultural products and services and the WIPOcopyright administered treaties. The following section delves into these principles as outlined in the international trade and copyright agreements and their possible implications for music cultural diversity. o WIPO-administered Treaties The principle of national treatment, which is the most favourable to foreigners, requires States to grant protection to non-nationals in the same terms as it does to its own nationals. This obligation is enshrined in most multilateral treaties concerning copyright and related rights, including the BC (Articles 5(1), 5(3)), the RC (Articles 2, 4, 5, 6) the WCT (Article 3) and the WPPT (Article 4). The Paris Convention also relies on the principle of national treatment, enshrined in Article 2 (1). In the BC, the principle is framed as a ban to discrimination against foreign authors. Beneficiaries of national treatment are either nationals of or having their habitual residence in one of the countries of the Berne Union, or those whose works have first been published in one of those countries (or simultaneously in a country outside and within the Union).208 Compared to other international treaties, the BC extends the scope of protection offered by the principle of national treatment also to works published within the Union, regardless of the nationality or domicile of their authors209210 The WCT simply incorporates the national treatment provisions of the BC, while the WPPT requires its Contracting Parties to “accord to nationals of other Contracting Parties . . . the treatment it accords to its own nationals.” By contrast, the Rome convention formulates different points of attachment for national treatment, which go beyond the nationality criterion, such as the place of the performance or the place of its first fixation. As noted by Brauneis,211 nationality has not been chosen for practical reasons. Very often, in fact, performing ensembles such as orchestras, bands or choirs include performers of different nationalities, which would render the application of nationality as a point of attachment too difficult and/or ineffective. With respect to phonogram producers, the points of attachment are the country of first fixation and first publication (Article 6 RC).212 Accordingly, any discrimination against a work based on foreign first publication – offering higher protection to works first published domestically than those first published in the territories of other treaty members – would violate national treatment obligations. This holds true even where nationals first published abroad and non-nationals did it domestically, as the RC explicitly prohibits discrimination against phonograms on the basis of their foreign publication (Article 2(1)(b) RC). 208 Berne Convention Art. 3(2). “[a]uthors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union but who have their habitual residence in one of them shall, for the purposes of this Convention, be assimilated to nationals of that country.” 209 Kur, Annette, Thomas Dreier, and Stefan Luginbuehl. European intellectual property law: text, cases and materials. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019. 210 ibid. 211 Brauneis, Robert, "National Treatment in Copyright and Related Rights: How Much Work Does it Do?" (2013). GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. 810 <https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/810 > 212 Fundamentals of Protection (Articles 3–6 and 18–20), Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. C. (2022). International copyright and neighbouring rights : the Berne Convention and beyond. (3rd ed. / Sam Ricketson and Jane C. Ginsburg). Oxford University Press. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 86 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 According to von Lewinski,213 the national treatment principle is a manifestation of the principle of nondiscrimination envisaged in nearly all international law treaties on human rights, which include special provisions on non-discrimination and add different grounds on which discrimination may not be made, such as race, colour, religion, national or social origin, and the like.214 Once a person is eligible for national treatment under one of the Conventions, determining whether the work at issue is protected, whether copyright has been infringed and what remedies are available depends on the law of the country where the protection is sought.215 The principle of national treatment is subject to a number of exceptions, concerning terms of protection (Article 7(8) BC), resale right (Article 14ter(2) BC), the application in time (Article 18 BC) and the reservation of the ten-year-period regarding translations (Article 30.2(b), part 2 BC). The RC permits the application of reservations, which results in exceptions, with respect to certain rights, as Articles 16.1(a)(iii) RC and Article 16.1(a)(iv) RC do with regard to secondary uses of phonograms for broadcasting and communication to the public, and Article 16.1(b) RC with regard to the communication right for broadcasting organisations. o WTO Treaties WTO Treaties feature the principle of national treatment (Article 3 GATT, Article 17 GATS and Article 3 TRIPS). The approach differs from the one adopted by intellectual property conventions, including the WPO TRIPS Agreement. In the context of GATT,216 but primarily deals with non-discrimination in trade in (physical) goods, ensuring that imported and domestically produced goods are treated equally once they enter a country's market. As explicitly stated in Article 3 GATT, the main purpose of this provision is to avoid protectionism in the application of internal taxes and regulatory measures. To this end, the rule sets out three distinct obligations: one with respect to internal taxation of ‘like products’ (Article 3(2), first sentence GATT); one with respect to internal taxation of ‘directly competitive or substitutable’ products (Article 3(2), second sentence GATT); and one with respect to internal regulation regarding ‘like products’ (Article 3(4) GATT). GATS concerns the supply of services. In line with the GATT provisions, the GATS obligation requires that Member States do not implement discriminatory measures benefiting domestic services or service suppliers. 213 Dr. Silke von Lewinski, Intellectual Property, Nationality, and Non-Discrimination, WIPO-UNHCHR/IP/PNL/98/6, WIPO (1998) <https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=7609>. 214 For example, some of the most important provisions on non-discrimination are Article 2 of the UDHR, Article 2.2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the ICESCR), Article 2.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Equality before the law has been laid down as a human right in Article 7 of the UDHR, Articles 14.1 and 26 of the ICCPR. See in detail Section 3.2 (UNESCO Framework). 215 Fundamentals of Protection (Articles 3–6 and 18–20), Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. C. (2022). International copyright and neighbouring rights : the Berne Convention and beyond. (3rd ed. / Sam Ricketson and Jane C. Ginsburg). Oxford University Press. 216 This section deals with the GATT 1994, which is the most important international agreement pertaining to trade in products. There are, however, twelve more WTO multilateral accords that deal with trade in products in addition to it, amongst them the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, and the Agreement on Safeguards, which might apply to policies pertaining to cultural goods. A detailed analysis of these agreements exceeds the scope of this analysis. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 87 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 By contrast, TRIPS and other IP conventions forbid discriminations against natural and legal persons, by requiring that foreign and domestic rightsholders are treated equally.217 Article 3 TRIPS demands each Member to “accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property.” “Nationals” are “those natural or legal persons that would meet the criteria for eligibility for protection provided for in . . .” the relevant Conventions, “ . . . were all Members of the WTO members of those Conventions.” (Article 1.3, para. 2 TRIPS). WTO treaties complements this principle with the MFN obligation, according to which every time a Member State improves the benefits that it gives to one trading partner, it has to give the same ‘best’ treatment to all other WTO members, so that they remain equal. Countries are to grant equal treatment to goods and services from all WTO members. The MFN aims to replace the frictions and distortions inherent in power-based (bilateral) policies with the assurances of a rules-based framework, ensuring that everyone benefits from concessions agreed upon by major trading partners, eliminating the need for additional negotiations. The principle is enshrined in Article 1 GATT, Article 2 GATS and Article 4 TRIPS, albeit with some slight differences.218 Whereas the national treatment principle aims at achieving non-discrimination between individuals, the MFN principle aims at non-discrimination between trading partners. For instance, in the c In the TRIPS Agreement, the MFN treatment obligation is modelled on Article 1 GATT. Article 4 TRIPS requires that “any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity’ that is granted with respect to the protection of intellectual property to nationals of any country shall be extended immediately and unconditionally to nationals of all Members “. For instance, excluding intellectual property protection for CDs imported from certain countries while granting such protection to CDs from other countries would undoubtedly be considered an advantage under Article 4 TRIPS, for the intellectual property rights holders from the latter countries.219 All three agreements contain exceptions to the national treatment and MFN obligations. In addition to the general exceptions of Article 20 GATT and the economic emergency exception under Article 19 GATT, the GATT Agreement provides for three other derogations which may be of specific relevance for measures related to cultural policies. These are the exception related to screen quotas for cinematograph films (Article 4 GATT), the exception related to government procurement (Article 3(8)(a) GATT), and the exception related to the payment of subsidies exclusively to domestic producers (Article 3(8)(b) GATT). Under Article 4 GATT, Member States may maintain or adopt screen quotas that require the exhibition of cinematograph films of a specific origin during a certain proportion of screen time, thus derogating from the principle of national treatment. Article 3(8)(a) GATT allows Member States to issue laws, regulations or requirements governing the procurement by governmental agencies of products purchased for governmental purposes, which give preference to domestic products when purchasing them for its own use or benefit. This excludes the application of the national treatment principle to subsides exclusively provided to domestic producers 217 Brauneis, Robert, "National Treatment in Copyright and Related Rights: How Much Work Does it Do?" (2013). GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. 810. <https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/810 > 218 See: Brauneis, Robert, "National Treatment in Copyright and Related Rights: How Much Work Does it Do?" (2013). GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. 810. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/810 219 Burri-Nenova, Mira. "Trade and culture: making the WTO legal framework conducive to cultural considerations." Manchester J. Int'l Econ. L. 5 (2008): 2. (Citing the example but referred to books). D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 88 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 of cultural goods. However, the WTO DSB decision in Canada – Periodicals220 WTO shows that the exemption is rather limited in scope. In this instance, Canada supported its domestic periodicals through various means, including subsidised postal rates. It invoked Article 3(8)(b) GATT in its defence when the US challenged the measure before the WTO. Nevertheless, the WTO Appellate Body determined that Article 3(8)(b) GATT was designed to exempt from the obligations of Article 3 GATT only the payment of subsidies which involves the expenditure of revenue by a government.221 Ultimately, Canada withdrew the contested measure. GATS permitted Members to introduce exemptions from the MFN treatment obligation in specific service sectors. Members could list measures in the Annex on Article 2 GATS Exemptions until the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement, i.e. 1 January 1995. Subsequently, requests for exemptions from Article 2 GATS (MFN) can only be granted under the waiver procedures of the Marrakesh Agreement.222 Most WTO Members have listed MFN exemptions. They mainly focus on transport (especially maritime), communications (mostly audiovisual), financial and business services. For instance, the EU included the following exemptions with regard to audiovisual services (production and distribution of television programmes and cinematographic works):223 o Measures granting a benefit for any program (such as the Action Plan for Advanced Television Services, MEDIA and EURIMAGES) that provides support for audiovisual works and suppliers of such works that meet certain European origin criteria. As the Annex states, the measure is justified by “the aim of preserving and promoting the regional identity of countries within Europe which have long-standing cultural links.” o Measures which define works of European origin, in such a way as to extend national treatment to audiovisual works which meet certain linguistic and origin criteria regarding access to broadcasting or similar forms of transmission. As the Annex states, the measure is justified by “the aim to promote cultural values both within the EU Member States (Formerly EC) and with other countries in Europe, as well as achieving linguistic policy objectives.” The lists of measures which individual Members have included in the Annex of Article II Exemptions can be found on the WTO's website.224 It is worth noting that according to Paragraph 6 of the Annex on Article II Exemptions, in principle, exemptions should not exceed ten years (I.e. ending in January 2005). In practice, however, many Members continue to apply the exemptions they listed in the Annex on Article II Exemptions by relying on the lexeme “in principle” used by paragraph 6. Article 3(1) TRIPS introduces a provision allowing an exemption from the national treatment obligation concerning the rights of performers, producers of phonograms, and broadcasting organisations, allowing not to give to WTO Members additional rights granted by other international agreements (such as the WPPT) when such Member is not parties to that agreement. This means that, for the beneficiaries 220 Canada -Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R. For a full overview of the case, see: WTO-DS31: Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds31_e.htm 221 Canada -Periodicals, WT/DS31/AB/R, 34. 222 WTO: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/guide1_e.htm 223 See European Communities and their Member States, Final List of Article II (MFN) Exemptions, GATS/EL/31, dated 15 April 1994. < https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/SCHD/GATS-EL/EL31.pdf&Open=True>. 224 See WTO Website: < https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_commitments_e.htm >. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 89 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 of related rights, there is no obligation to extend to non-nationals the same treatment granted to nationals. Any protection that goes beyond the mandatory minimum standard can be denied to foreigners or made it subject to reciprocity.225 In addition, Article 4 TRIPS outlines several exemptions to the MFN obligation. Article 4(b) TRIPS exempts Members from the MFN treatment if the Berne Convention permits differentiated treatment of foreign nationals, contingent on reciprocity (see, e.g., the restriction of the term of protection of a work of foreign origin to the term granted in the country of origin). Article 4(c) TRIPS recognises the rights of performers, producers of phonograms, and broadcast organisations under other international agreements, without mandating parties to those agreements to universally grant the same rights to all WTO Members. Last, Article 4(d) TRIPS addresses rights granted by international agreements that were in effect before the entry into force of the WTO Agreement which, if notified to the TRIPS Council, shall not be extended to all WTO Members. The EU has construed this exemption quite broadly, as covering both the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area, and all future acts following the process of regional integration.226 o Significance for the Music Industry The national treatment obligation enhances domestic exposure to foreign works. From the author’s standpoint, national treatment could not only serve to facilitate circulation and protection of their works in foreign countries but also incentive creation of new works. As noted by von Lewinski,227 a common cultural argument put forward for introducing the principle is that an author who could not benefit from the exploitation of his work abroad would have less incentive to create new works, so that cultural diversity both in their country and abroad would decline. However, it should be noted that national treatment obligations in copyright law entail advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, it fosters equal treatment of foreign and domestic creators. This ensures that musicians from different countries receive comparable protection for their works, promoting international circulation of their works and, ultimately, enhancing cultural exchange in the music sector due to the enhancement of consumer choices. Nevertheless, careful consideration should be given to the limits and conflicting objectives of the international instruments where the national treatment principle is framed. In that regard, the economic and cultural interests benefitting from national treatment violations under copyright treaties may differ from those benefiting from national treatment violations involving goods under GATT. Differential overregulation of imported products will presumably increase their cost, thus harming domestic consumers and benefiting domestic producers. By contrast, differential under-protection of foreign authors is likely to reduce the cost of consuming their works, thus benefiting domestic consumers and harming domestic authors. This implies that if imported products, such as devices, encounter more stringent regulations than domestic ones, it could lead to increased costs for them, adversely impacting domestic consumers. However, it may favour domestic producers as stricter regulations might create a more advantageous market for their products. Conversely, if foreign authors receive less protection than domestic ones, the cost of consuming their 225 Jörg Reinbothe and Silke von Lewinski (2002). The WIPO Treaties 1996: The WIPO Copyright Treaty and The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty – Commentary and Legal Analysis. London, Butterworth Lexis Nexis. 226 See: EC notification under Article 4(d) of the Agreement, European Communities and their Member States, IP/N/4/EEC/1, 29 January 1996, < https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/IP/N/4EEC1.pdf&Open=True >. 227 Dr. Silke von Lewinski, Intellectual Property, Nationality, and Non-Discrimination, WIPO-UNHCHR/IP/PNL/98/6, WIPO (1998) <https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=7609>. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 96 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Interestingly, access to culture and participation in cultural life in accordance with one’s own language, nation and ethnic origin enjoy a constitutional status in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Constitution240 establishes in Article 54(1) that “everyone has the right to benefit from national and universal cultural values, as well as to develop their culture in accordance with their ethnic affiliation, which is recognised and guaranteed by law”. Furthermore, Article 36(2) recognises the right of citizens for whom the Bulgarian language is not their mother tongue, along with the mandatory study of the Bulgarian language, to study and use their own language. In addition, music, songs and dances, including folk music, are protected as cultural heritage under the Bulgarian Cultural Heritage Law (BCHL). 241 Article 6 BCHL, in fact, includes under the scope of “cultural heritage” oral tradition and tongue, music songs and dances and folk music. 3.7.2 Lithuania Lithuania has no legal instrument introducing a content obligation on radio broadcast (“radio quotas”). However, an attempt to introduce content quotas was made in 2018 by the conservative parliamentarian Vytautas Kernagis.242 The draft proposal established the obligation to broadcast 35% of music in Lithuanian language or authored by Lithuanian residents. The proposal also required that at least 25% of that quota be produced in the previous three years. The draft also provided for a definition of “Lithuanian” content, which encompassed content that fulfilled any of the following criteria: a) performed in Lithuanian language; b) created or recorded in Lithuania, c) involves at least one main artist based in Lithuania, or d) pertains to works of special Lithuanian cultural context, that is, relates to the preservation and fostering of national and ethnic cultural identity. This legislative initiative gained endorsement from parts of the creative industries, yet it encountered great resistance from commercial music stations predominantly featuring foreign music. In addition, Russian and Polish language stations questioned the rationale behind incorporating Lithuanian music into their programming, with the prescribed 35% quota being viewed as excessively stringent. An intense debate revolved around the definition of the notion of “Lithuanian” work. Furthermore, there were uncertainties surrounding the technical implementation of this proposal. Ultimately, the bill failed to secure the approval of the Parliament. Lithuania currently lacks a legal framework that imposes content obligations for live performances or festivals. Likewise, there is neither a content obligation in place nor a proposal for its introduction with regards to streaming services. Last, it shall be mentioned that Lithuania also holds several norms to protect and foster music-related cultural heritage objects. For instance, Article 37 of the Lithuanian Constitution243 recognises the right of citizens who belong to ethnic communities to foster their language, culture and customs. Accordingly, the Professional Performance Art Law (2004)244 preamble states that "Lithuanian’s and other ethnicities’ 240 Bulgarian Constitution, promulgated in 1991 and last amended in 2015. Available at: https://www.parliament.bg/en/const 241 Bulgarian Cultural Heritage Act promulgated Prom. SG. 19/13 Mar 2009 and last amended amend. SG. 17/26 Feb 2021). Text of the Law is available in English at: https://mc.government.bg/files/3696_CulturalHeritageAct-Bulgaria.pdf 242 Lietuvos nacionalinių kūrinių kvotų įstatymo projektą (Lithuanian National Creative Works Quota Law). The proposal never reached the parliamentary discussion stage, but signatures in support of its discussion were collected. 243 Lithuanian Constitution. Retrieved from: https://www.lrs.lt/home/Konstitucija/Konstitucija.htm 244 Lithuanian Professional Performance Art Law. Retrieved from: https://eseimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.235372/asr D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 97 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 cultural traditions should be cherished”. The National Library’s encyclopaedia holds a list of “ethnic Lithuanian instruments,” though no specific measure for their protection could be traced. 3.7.3 Hungary Sections 21-22 of Act CLXXXV of 2010 on Media Services and on the Mass Media regulates content obligations on radio broadcasts (“radio quotas”),245 requiring linear radio media services to allocate to Hungarian musical works at least 35% of the transmission time dedicated to music. Out of this quota, at least 25% shall be from musical works released or produced within five years from the date of transmission, including musical recordings made before 1990 that have been remastered digitally within the same timeframe. Section 22 outlines exceptions to the radio quota obligation, which includes, for instance, the case of broadcasters operating in a language other than that of the Member States of the European Union, where its programs are broadcast in such language/s for the majority of the transmission time, and only to this extent. For the purpose of the Media Services and Mass Media Act, Hungarian works are defined under Section 37 on the basis of a) the Hungarian national origin of production, b) the presence of one national composer or performer, c) is based on the minority population languages. These encompass all languages of nationalities recognised by Hungary, i.e. Romani people, Bulgarians, Greeks, Croatians, Poles, Germans, Armenians, Romanians, Rusyns, Serbians, Slovakians, Slovenians, and Ukrainians. To fall under the provision, the work or subject matter shall concern the life or culture of the given nationality in Hungary. Other criteria for defining “Hungarian” musical works refer to the case of instrumental musical program, which forms part of Hungarian cultural heritage or the culture of any of the nationalities recognised by Hungary, musical works with lyrics and instrumental musical works, which are recognised as Hungarian, and works originally produced in several languages, to the extent the parts originally produced in Hungarian are longer than any other parts produced in the other language(s).246 Hungary lacks a legal framework that imposes content obligations for live performances or festivals. The same can be said for streaming services. Indeed, music streaming services, like Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer, Tidal, YT Music etc. are not considered as Media Services by the act on Media Services and Mass Media.247 Neither content sharing services like YouTube, Vimeo, Tik-Tok also do not fall under the scope of the act. TV channels and Radios on the other hand are deemed as media services, therefore national quotas do apply to them, even if they are solely broadcasted online. The same applies to SVOD services, like Netflix, HBO Max etc. According to the definition in the act, media services, be it linear or on demand, must provide edited programs to the viewers/listeners. Content sharing services or music streaming services are not conveying programs, but individually accessibly works. 245 Act CLXXXV of 2010 - on Media Services and on the Mass Media Act entered into force on 1st of January 2011. Retrieved from: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1000185.tv. 246 See details in articles §37 and §38 of the Media Services and Mass Media Act. 247 The Media Services and Mass Media Act defines Media service’ as an economic service defined by Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursued commercially on own account - performed on a regular basis under economic exposure with a view to making a profit -, where the principal purpose of the service or a dissociable section thereof is devoted to providing programs, under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider, to the general public, in order to inform, entertain or educate, by means of electronic communications networks. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 98 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Hungary also features a provision that protects music-related cultural heritage objects. The Act on Hungarian National Values and Hungarikums248 particularly refers to folk-dance house methods, Hungarian operetta, Traditional Hungarian folk songs, Budapest Gypsy Symphony Orchestra (the worldrenowned artistic and tradition-preserving practice of the orchestra), Tárogató (special Hungarian woodwind musical instrument), Hungarian dulcimer, Kodály Concept. 3.7.4 Slovakia Act. No. 264/2022 Coll. on media services and amendments to certain laws (Act on Media Services),249regulates in Sections 215-217 content obligations on radio broadcasts (“radio quotas”). These provisions distinguish between a “general quota” and a “public service” quota, the former requiring that at least 25% of the music broadcasted each calendar month from 6 am to 12am is reserved to Slovak musical works, the latter increasing the quota to 35% in case of public service broadcaster (public service quota). Out of these quotas, in both instances, at least 20% should be reserved to “new” “Slovak” musical works, which is defined as such within five years of its publication. The law defines “Slovak” a work where: a) at least one author of the music or at least one author of the text has or had a permanent residence in the territory of the Slovak Republic, or b) the text is in Slovak. It has been suggested that when it comes to the practical assessment on what is considered a Slovak musical work, ascertaining the permanent residency of authors within the Slovak Republic can be challenging. Thus, more legislative guidance in this regard would be welcome. A caveat that has been outlined within the provision on radio quotas is the lack of alignment between the Law on the Protection of Languages of National Minorities ACT No. 184/1999 Coll.),250 and the Act on Media Services. The provisions of radio quotas enshrined in the latter do not apply to the broadcasting of a radio program service by a public broadcaster, when this is intended exclusively for national minorities and ethnic groups living in the territory of the Slovak Republic. However, the protection of the language rights of national minorities in the Slovak Republic is ensured by the Office of the Government of the Slovak Republic, which, in accordance with the Law on the Use of the Languages of National Minorities, provides professional and methodical assistance to public administration bodies and organisational units of the security and rescue forces in the implementation of the law (§7a), and also decides on administrative offences committed in the support for the use of languages of national minorities (§7b). According to §1(2), the language of a minority is a codified or standardised language traditionally used in the territory of the Slovak Republic by citizens belonging to a national minority, which is different from the state language. The same article specifies that the minority languages are Bulgarian, Czech, Croatian, Hungarian, German, Polish, Romani, Ruthenian, and Ukrainian. 248 Act XXX of 2012 on Hungarian national values and hungarikums, entered into force on 1st of July 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.hungarikum.hu/sites/default/files/hungarikumok-lista_2021.01.22.pdf 249 Zákon č. 354/2022 Z.z. o mediálnych službách a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (zákon o mediálnych službách). This Act transposes the Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive – “AVMSD”) into the Slovak legal order. 250 ZÁKON č.184/1999 Z. z. z 10. júla 1999 o používaní jazykov národnostných menšín (ACT No. 184/1999 Coll. from July 10, 1999 on the use of languages of national minorities). D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 99 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Slovakia currently lacks a legal framework that imposes content obligations for live performances or festivals. Likewise, there is neither a content obligation in place nor a proposal for its introduction with regards to streaming services. Slovakia features some measures designed to offer support to the creative sector, encompassing the music-related industry. However, this measure is of an indirect nature, for it bolsters the overall music industry rather than exclusively promoting individual "Slovak" musical artists or content.251 Amongst them, it is worth mentioning the Fund for the Support of the Culture of National Minorities,252 which provides economic support for activities such as the development of the use of the languages of national minorities, also in the artistic creation and musical arena. 3.7.5 Ukraine With Law on Media No. 2849IX, in force since 31 March 2023,253 Ukraine has introduced content obligations on radio broadcast (“radio quotas”). The law has been implemented following to the European Union – Ukraine Association Agreement.254 Specifically, its article 40(3) requires all broadcasters to broadcast a minimum of 40% of the daily number of musical compositions within the timeframes 7am-2pm and 3pm-22 pm in Ukrainian language. In addition, the law states that radio stations operating upon a license that mandates that 60% of their broadcasted music is in any EU official language must ensure that at least 25% of the daily number of songs is reserved to works in Ukrainian language. The National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting is entrusted with the monitoring and evaluation of the radio stations’ compliance with the quotas. It is worth noting that the law strongly focuses on the linguistic factor. Instrumental music is not included in the content quota, even when it has been released by an artist bearing Ukrainian nationality. Likewise, the law does not contemplate any gender or genre quota, neither is there an obligation to broadcast content made in the language of indigenous people. Despite their exclusion, however, certain works can qualify for other types of economic incentives and support schemes for their production, managed by the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation. More specifically, Law No. 2310-IX “On amendments to some laws of Ukraine regarding the support of the national musical product and the restriction of public use of the musical product of the aggressor state”255, in force since 31 March 2023, introduces economic support for artists creating “national music product”. According to Section 15, this term encompasses a work, such as a phonogram, including video grams and video-clips, which contains a musical work in Ukrainian language or any other language of 251 In Slovak – Zákon č. 13/1993 Z.z. z 21. decembra 1992 o umeleckých fondoch (Act No. 13/1993 from December 21, 1992 on Art Funds), ZÁKON č. 284/2014 Z. z. z 12. septembra 2014 o Fonde na podporu umenia a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 434/2010 Z. z. o poskytovaní dotácií v pôsobnosti Ministerstva kultúry Slovenskej republiky v znení zákona č. 79/2013 Z. z (Act No. 284/2014 from September 12, 2041 on the Fund for the Support of Art and on Amendments to Act No. 434/2010 Coll. on the provision of subsidies within the purview of the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic as amended by Act No. 79/2013 Coll.), ZÁKON č. 189/2015 Z. z. z 1. júla 2015 o kultúrno-osvetovej činnosti (Act No. 189/2015 Coll. from July 1, 2015 on cultural and educational activities). 252 ZÁKON č. 138/2017 z 10. mája 2017 o Fonde na podporu kultúry národnostných menšín a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Act No. 138/2017 Coll. from May 10, 2017 on the Fund for the Support of the Culture of National Minorities and on Amendments to Certain Laws). 253 Law of Ukraine “About media” № 2849-IX. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2849-20#Text 254 Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, OJ L 161, 29.5.2014. 255 Law No. 2310-IX, “On amendments to some laws of Ukraine regarding the support of the national musical product and the restriction of public use of the musical product of the aggressor state” of 31 March 2023. Retrieved from: https://ips.ligazakon.net/document/view/T222849?bl= D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 100 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 indigenous peoples in the Ukrainian territory, or a musical work without a text, as long as: a) at least one of the performer is a Ukrainian citizen, or a foreign natural person temporarily or permanently residing in Ukraine, b) the work belongs to a legal entity registered according to Ukrainian law. It has been reported that it is still too soon for an in-depth analysis of the effect of the content quota requirements. However, an analysis of the New Music Friday playlist on Spotify in Ukraine in August 2023 conducted by Music Export Ukraine, shows that fifty-seven per cent of all playlists are in Ukrainian language. In terms of gender distribution, of the above percentage, the majority of songs are performed (53%) and written (58%) by males. The gap between gender is narrower in performance than in songwriting. Indeed, women accounts for thirty-eight percent of performances against twenty-four percent in songwriting. The remaining amount refers to mixed contributions (9% for performances, 18% for songwriters). As to genre, pop-genre predominates (63,7%). Ukraine currently lacks a legal framework that imposes content obligations for live performances or festivals. Likewise, there is neither a content obligation in place nor a proposal for its introduction with regards to streaming services. Nevertheless, it shall be noted that due to the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the broadcast of Russian music has been banned. This measure affects only public spaces, such as bars, restaurants, theatres and shops, but it does not affect streaming services. Streaming services are, however, required to take down music content from the Ukrainian territory where the performer artist is under Ukrainian sanctions.256 A public debate is currently taking place in Ukraine about the opportunity to prohibit of Russian music on streaming sites. Ukraine also holds a provision which protects music-related cultural heritage objects as cultural heritage. For instance, the Order of Ministry of Culture of Ukraine no. 1319 of 11 November 2017 (“On the approval of the Procedure for maintaining the National List of Elements of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Ukraine”) protects as cultural heritage objects Cossack songs of Dnipropetrovsk region, Song tradition of Luka village of Kyiv-Sviatoshyn district, Kyiv region, the art of making a sound clay toy "Valkivsky fistula". Protection also encompasses the performing klezmer music of the Podilskyi (Kodimskyi) district of the Odesa region and Kobzarstvo, which is a singing tradition with national instruments. 3.8 Best Practices from other States In order to lay the groundwork for the development of policy recommendations on the amendment of existing indicators and the introduction of new ones, the analysis conducted under T2.1 has been expanded in M10-M12 to include also (a) the analysis of best practices developed by countries also outside the EU to be used as a model for the development of policy recommendations; and (b) a survey of diversity-oriented policies and measurements implemented by representative organizations of collecting societies (CMOs) and, where available, by CMOs in specific countries, which should be highlighted for their originality and success in fulfilling music diversity, and may thus be used, again, as a model for the development of policy recommendations. 3.8.1 Australia Australia, Canada (Québec), Sweden, and the UK have comparatively well-developed national music diversity, circulation, and export agendas. Practices in Canada are analysed below. Attention will be 256 The full list of these artists is available here: https://sanctions.nazk.gov.ua/en/sanctionperson/?country=ua&date_from=06-25-1033&date_to=07-28-2023#filters D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 101 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 paid to good practices in Australia during the data collection phase of the work package, following this example. 3.8.2 Canada (Québec) o Overview of Canada’s Policy Model In Canada, cultural governance is a collaborative effort among different government levels. While the federal government exclusively deals with national cultural policies, this does not hinder the concurrent development and execution of cultural initiatives by provincial, territorial, and municipal authorities within their respective boundaries and areas. This decentralised approach fosters active participation in culture and citizenship across governmental tiers. The country's cultural policies are structured into three main levels: federal, provincial, and municipal, each demonstrating varying degrees of involvement and distinct priorities, particularly in response to digital shifts. While Canadian cultural policy lacks a singular statement of objectives, the federal government backs two key outcomes: the expression and sharing of diverse cultural experiences among Canadians and globally, and the cultivation of an inclusive society grounded in inter-cultural understanding and citizen participation. The Department of Canadian Heritage and the Federal Cultural Portfolio are driven by a mission to contribute to a united and creative Canada, where all citizens can engage in cultural and civic life. The first objective, centred on cultural expression, encompasses four key activities: creating Canadian content and promoting performance excellence, ensuring the sustainability of cultural expression and participation, preserving Canada's heritage, and facilitating access to and participation in the nation's cultural life. The second objective focuses on inclusion, promoting intercultural understanding, community development, capacity-building, and community engagement. Notably, a common thread across both objectives and activities is the emphasis on participation, be it civic or cultural.257 Canada has a long history of relying on communications media as a tool for nation-building and cultural development. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) policies and regulations help to maintain a French-language presence on radio and provide exposure for francophone artists. For example, under the Broadcasting Act (1991),258 each licensed French-language station must devote at least 35% of the popular music of its weekly music broadcasting to Canadian content and the French language. The required amount depends both on the type of radio station and the type of music it broadcasts: French-language radio stations must devote at least 65% of all popular music broadcasts each week to French-language selections. Commercial radio stations also must ensure that at least 55% of the Popular Music broadcast between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday consists of French-language selections. In April 2023, the Canadian government enacted legislation amending the Broadcasting Act 1991 to encompass internet video and digital media. The newly approved Online Streaming Act (2022)259 aims to prioritise accessibility, promote Canadian content and cultural diversity, and enhance the CRTC authority. A core objective of the Act is to safeguard and boost Canadian content and cultural diversity in the realm of online streaming. Accordingly, the law requires utilising Canadian content and improving the discoverability of such content on streaming platforms. The bill requires the CRTC's to engage with 257 Based on information provided by the Compendium of Cultural Policies (2019) <https://www.culturalpolicies.net/country_profile/canada-1-1/ >. 258 Broadcasting Act (S.C. 1991, c. 11), < https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/b-9.01/ >. 259 Online Streaming Act (S.C. 2023, c. 8), <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2023_8/ >. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 102 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 minority and Indigenous communities to foster the creation, availability, and discoverability of programming from these groups. Furthermore, the legislation requires streaming platforms to incorporate features like closed captioning and audio descriptions to support diverse and disabled communities. This includes focusing on providing options in English, French, and Indigenous languages. Notably, indigenous artists from Québec have been currently advocating for CRTC and cultural institutions in Québec and Canada to implement a 5% minimum quota for Indigenous music content on commercial radio in the country.260 This demand aligns with the Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2022-332,261 issued on December 7, 2022. While this policy encourages but does not mandate, commercial radio broadcasters to incorporate Indigenous music into their playlists and report annually on the quantity of Indigenous content aired, in the policy document, the CRTC acknowledged its responsibility in ensuring increased support and representation of Indigenous content and voices within mainstream radio broadcasting. The CRTC is committed to gathering information on various funds and initiatives supporting, promoting, and ensuring the sustainability of the Indigenous broadcasting content sector. This commitment involves launching a follow-up proceeding to explore implementing a tailored contribution system. ● Québec The province of Québec stands out from the other provinces due to the breadth of its cultural intervention. Québec has its own bodies of cultural governance, including the Ministère de la Culture et des Communications (MCCQ). The paramount role of language in society, particularly the recognition of French as the exclusive official language of the Québec government, serves as a key driver for the robust and active support extended by successive Quebec administrations across the cultural sector. Québec’s cultural policies were first developed around heritage and the arts and then were extended to other areas, such as education and community development, but also – and increasingly since the 1980s – cultural industries and digital technologies. Québec's engagement extends globally through active collaboration with la Francophonie and UNESCO.262 The province distinguishes itself by maintaining a sustained strategy for supporting the international tours of performing arts, a unique approach compared to sporadic support from some other provinces. Support for performing and visual arts organisations and festivals is notable in major urban centres like Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, as well as other locations throughout Canada. In 2014, the MCCQ issued its Digital Cultural Plan,263 funded with CA$100 million over seven years. This strategy was partly implemented by the ministry and its regional branches (51 of them), but beyond that, the policy brought together 121 targeted measures deployed from 2014 to 2019.264 Quebec’s Digital Cultural Plan was focused mainly on developing the cultural offer (production, visibility, and influence of Quebec-made content in Québec, Canada, and internationally). Specifically for the music 260 Marie-Ève Marte, Une pétition pour un quota de musique autochtone en ondes, L’actialité (august 2023), <https://lactualite.com/actualites/une-petition-pour-un-quota-de-musique-autochtone-en-ondes/ >. 261 Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2022-332 (7 December 2022), < https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2022/2022-332.htm >. 262 UNESCO, Government of Québec Cultural Policies and Measures (2012), < https://es.unesco.org/creativity/policymonitoring-platform/government-quebec-cultural-0 >. 263 UNESCO, Québec’s Digital Cultural Plan (2016) < https://es.unesco.org/creativity/policy-monitoring-platform/quebecsdigital-cultural-plan >. 264 UNESCO, Québec’s Digital Cultural Plan (2020), < https://es.unesco.org/creativity/policy-monitoring-platform/quebecsdigital-cultural-plan-0 >. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 103 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 industry sector, the Action Plan aimed to increase support for businesses adapting to digital technologies and enhancing content. In 2018, the MCCQ promulgated a new cultural policy, the 2018-2023 Culture Action Plan265 that, among others, places cultural participation at the core of its strategy. The 2018-2023 Culture Action Plan also devotes significant attention to promoting and highlighting the French language. It furthermore aims to support the cultural sector by facilitating its adoption of digital technology, including developing a strategy to enhance the visibility and discoverability of Francophone content from Québec on digital networks. These three main groups of goals are summarised in the table below. Table 16: Goals and Facets of 2018-2023 Cultural Action Plan Source: SSSA Adaptation (2023) Goal Facets Covered 1 Produce and Disseminate National Cultural Content o Crowdfunding platforms (public as producers) o Visibility in social media (public as promotional agents) o Micro-targeting and taste prediction (public as data suppliers) 2 Promote Cultural Equity and Diversity o Democratisation of culture o Cultural democracy 3 Promote Digital Equity o Access to internet connection o Digital literacy o Diversity of platforms uses The second and third goals, focused on encouraging equity and cultural diversity and encouraging digital equity, refer to the social and political dimensions of participation. These objectives are addressed at both provincial and local levels. Pertinent to this report is the first goal of the Action Plan: produce and disseminate national cultural content. It builds on a proposal initially advanced by stakeholders from the audiovisual sector. It seeks to promote the production, market presence, and discoverability of Québec content by actively involving online audiences. This form of governmental action aims to support, mainly from an economic perspective, the development of skills and tools within local professional circles to help them increase their online presence and encourage the public to support them. Actions are concentrated around three main mechanisms: crowdfunding of cultural productions, social or relational marketing, and online micro-targeting. 265 Parti Libéral Québec, Québec New Cultural Policy - Making Culture more rooted in Everyday Life (2018) <https://plq.org/en/press-release/quebec-new-cultural-policy/ >. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 104 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 o Crowdfunding: This measure seeks to rely on the public through crowdfunding for supporting cultural projects and as a means of self-production for artists and diversifying revenue sources for cultural organisations. Returns of investments for contributors might range from free tickets, albums, or promotional materials such as posters and t-shirts, premium access to the beta version of a video game, exclusive props in the game, or a share in the profit on sale, depending on the financial contribution and the kinds of compensation offered in the specific scheme. Some authors266 have pointed out that even if few successful examples of implementation exist, particularly in the book-publishing, visual art, dance and theatre sectors, these funding campaigns demand substantial effort in terms of time and skills. In some cases, the associated costs may exceed the revenues generated, and there appears to be a relatively high dropout rate among participants. o Social Media: This measure builds on the premise that the visibility of cultural content published in news feeds, recommendation lists, and search results depends on users’ engagement rates and exposure rates on these platforms. Accordingly, the Québec Action Plan actively promotes enhancing communication and marketing skills on social-digital platforms, particularly on platforms like Facebook. Within this measure, cultural professionals are provided with training modules that guide them on communication strategies, audience targeting or profiling, online advertising procurement, and understanding how the content-display algorithms that govern online visibility plans operate. This initiative aims to empower creators and authors with the tools to effectively navigate and leverage digital networks, ensuring their content receives optimal exposure and engagement. Specifically, strategies for increasing visibility involve replicating content on socio-digital networks through likes, content sharing, comments, and user tagging. They also include skills and competencies for engaging the audience in subscribing to artists' profiles and curating reading lists on music and video streaming sites, live sharing and using like livestreaming video game segments on Twitch, creating ephemeral 'stories' on platforms such as Instagram, and engaging in live conversations on WhatsApp during TV programs. Lastly, strategic areas involve learning to engage in reviews in various formats such as videos, podcasts, or blog posts. o Micro-targeting: this measure aims to capture traces of human activity using Internetconnected tools (mobile phones, computers, watches, and other items on the Internet of objects) to produce digital data subsequently gathered in aggregated databases. Mechanisms may include integrating sociodemographic data about audiences (such as age, gender, location, and income) with behavioural data, including cultural tastes and preferences (such as online consumption of cultural content categorised by gender, ticket sales for different types of shows, and records of borrowed library books). They can also extend to gathering from the online browsing the types of devices used for cultural content consumption (such as phones, tablets, and computers), real-time consumption facilitated by GPS data from phones and RFID chips, and the modes of transportation used to access cultural venues (covering factors like parking payments, self-serve bicycle rentals, and public transit usage) to infer purchase intentions. 266 Nathalie Casemajor, Guy Bellavance and Guillaume Sirois, ‘Cultural Participation in Digital Environments: Goals and Stakes for Quebec Cultural Policies’ (2021) 27 International Journal of Cultural Policy 650. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 105 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 3.8.3 Sweden Attention will be paid to good practices in Australia, Sweden, and the UK during the data collection phase of the work package, following the example of Canada above. 3.8.4 United Kingdom Attention will be paid in Australia, Sweden, and the UK during the data collection phase of the work package, following the example of Canada above. 3.8.5 Overview of “Diversity” in Various EU Member States’ Cultural Policies In addition to the measures of the selected countries enshrined in the previous sections, Annex III provides an overview of the cultural policies adopted in various EU Member States.267 This mapping is functional to understand the state of cultural policies across the EU, as the scarcity of data on music diversity might be linked to scarce cultural policies. The data, updated until 2018, stems from the Compendium of Cultural Policies & Trends (Compendium),268 which is a comprehensive database managed by a multi-stakeholder’s association. The Compendium generates and reviews policy standards in areas of concern to governments and society by providing knowledge, statistics, comparisons, resources, thematic sections which derives from a variety of sources including research studies, governmental documents and reports by ministers and other key representatives, reports or manifestos of lobby and advocacy groups, important statements from artists and cultural producers, from political campaigns or the media. For the purposes of D2.1., the data related to four macro-areas: 1) Cultural policies for gender equality; 2) Intercultural education, 3) Laws and policies to support main national minority groups and 4) linguistic media and programming have been selected and indexed into a single table. Table 13: Index EU Countries Policy Source: SSSA Adaptation (2023) The results show that Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, Croatia, Denmark, Slovenia and Sweden rank among the countries with more robust cultural policies covering those areas: 267 There is no data available relating to Luxembourg. 268 Available at: < https://www.culturalpolicies.net/statistics-comparisons/comparisons/diversity/#1563299350066531a3aea-5d18 >. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 112 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 recordings that are of a type that does not fall within the MLC’s scope of activity (such as, for example, library music or jingles))].” IFRRO Code of Conduct “[CMOs] maintain fair, equitable, impartial, honest, and nondiscriminatory relationships with rightsholders, users and other parties.” Article 8 and 12, SCAPR Code of Conduct “Distribution of remuneration to all performers shall be based on the principle of equal treatment.” […] “Based on the principle of equal treatment, PMOs shall identify all protected right owners involved, both national and foreign.” Governance Best practice n. 38 Fair and balanced representation of the different categories of members in the board. Article 9(2), EU Directive 2014/26/EU “There shall be fair and balanced representation of the different categories of members of the CMO in the body exercising the supervisory function.” Article 6(3), EU Directive 2014/26/EU “The statute of a CMO shall provide for appropriate and effective mechanisms for the participation of its members in the collective management organisation’s decision-making process. The representation of the different categories of members in the decision-making process shall be fair and balanced.” Article 162 of the amended text of the Intellectual Property Law, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 on 12 April 1996 (incorporating article 9 of Directive 2014/26/EU) (Spain) 2. The composition of the internal oversight body and the procedure for the election of its members by the general assembly shall be determined by the statutes of the management organisation and in any event shall meet the following criteria: a) the body shall be composed of three or more members of the management organisation, ensuring fair and equal representation of the different member categories. None of its members may have a de facto or de jure relationship, whether direct or indirect, with natural or legal persons that form part of or are D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 113 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 represented in the governing and representative bodies of the management organisation […] CISAC Professional Rules “(Where the Board is composed of Creators and publishers) [Each Member shall at all times] maintain a fair balance on its Board between Creators on the one hand and publishers on the other hand; maintain a fair balance on its Board between the various categories of Creators.” Article 4, SCAPR Code of Conduct “PMOs shall act under the democratic control of their members. Members be represented in a fair and balanced way in the decision-making process of their PMO.” IFRRO Code of Conduct “[CMOs] have open representation for all eligible rightsholders in accordance with applicable national and supranational laws, including competition law.” IFPI Code of Conduct for Music Industry MLCs “Unless prohibited by applicable legislation, each MLC is to provide right holders the opportunity for a fair and balanced representation in the governing bodies taking into account the direct economic interest a member has in the functioning of the MLC.” Transparency and Accountability regarding Split Accounts Best practice n. 44 Prohibition of using Rights Revenue and any income from the investment of Rights Revenue for any purposes other than Distributions to Rightsholders or, if so decided by the General Meeting, social, cultural, educational, or cost reduction. Article 11(3), EU Directive 2014/26/EU “The CMO shall manage and keep separate the rights revenue and any income derived from its investment from its own assets, the income derived from its management services or the income derived from any other activities.” Belgian Code of Economic Law, Book XI, Title 5 “The [...] CMO (...) will administer the deductions [for social, cultural and educational aims ] in accounts separate from the CMO’s principal account, and the board of directors will report annually about the deducted sums and their expenditure.” D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 114 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 CISAC Professional Rules “At least once in every calendar year, each Member shall make available to each of its Affiliates and Sister Societies, a description of the Member’s internal Rules concerning financial and other noncopyright related income. This description shall also address the use made by the Member of this income.” Annual Report Best practice n. 46 Indicate in the Annual report a breakdown of deductions for the purposes of social, cultural and educational services in the financial year and an explanation of the use of those amounts, with a breakdown per social, cultural and educational expenditure Article 28, Law-Decree No. 35/2017 (Italy) “1. [...] collective management organisations shall draw up an annual transparency report, including the special report referred to in subparagraph 3, for each financial year, no later than eight months following the end of that financial year. The report shall be published on the website of each collective management organisa tion where it shall remain publicly available for at least five years. […] 3. The special report shall address the possible use of the amounts deducted for the purposes of social, cultural and educational services and shall contain at least the information indicated on the subject referred to in point 3 of the Annex. Revenue Deductions for Cultural Purposes Best practice n. 53 Include in the annual report the amounts deducted from the Rights Revenue for the purposes of social, cultural and educational purposes in the financial year and an explanation of the use of those amounts should be included in the annual report. Best practice n. 56 Ensure that each Rightsholder it represents – whether directly through a membership contract or through a Representation Agreement is entitled to apply for its social, cultural or educational services provided deductions were made on Rights Revenue attributed and distributed to such Rightsholder. Article 12 and Annex, EU Directive 2014/26/EU […] 12(4). Where a collective management organisation provides social, cultural or educational services funded through deductions from rights revenue or from any income arising from the investment of rights revenue, such services shall be provided on the basis of fair criteria, in particular as regards access to, and the extent of, those services.” […] “The following information shall be provided [annually] [in the annual transparency report]: the amounts collected for the purposes of social, cultural and educational services in the financial year, with a breakdown per category of rights managed and per type of use; the explanation of the use of those amounts, with a breakdown per type of purpose.” Belgian Code of Economic Law, Book XI, Title 5 “The general meeting of a Belgian CMO shall decide with a two/third majority about a deduc tion for social, cultural and educational aims. The deduction shall not be higher than 10% . CMOs in other countries may deduct a maximum of 10% from revenues accrued in D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 115 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Belgium. The Belgian CMO, and the nonBelgian CMO for Belgian revenues, will administer the deductions, in accounts separate from the CMO’s principal account, and the boards of directors will report annually about the deducted sums and their expenditure.” IFPI Code of Conduct for Music Industry MLCs “Each MLC is to deduct from the collected sums only the appropriate costs of operating the MLC. No additional deductions for whatever reason should be made unless the right holders have agreed to such deductions or they are stipulated by law. MLCs are to p rovide details of such deductions to members and indicate whether these are statutory or voluntary.” Article 7, SCAPR Code of Conduct “Deductions from the remuneration collected by a PMO (or from income from any investment of that remuneration by or on behalf of that PMO) may also be made for purposes intended to promote the general interests of performers.” IFRRO Code of Conduct “[CMOs] deduct from collections, if authorised by national law and/or their statutes and/or distribution plan rules so to do, allocations for social and/or cultural purposes; and whenever they do so, the authorisation for, as well as the amount and nature of the allocation, is clearly explained to the rightsholders concerned. RROs avoid discrimination on grounds of nationality or otherwise.” Relationships Between CMOs (nonDiscrimination and Transparency) Best practice n. 57 No discrimination in the distribution formula and/or payment for works and other subject matter of Members of other CMOs represented via a Representation Agreement. Best practice n. 58 Transparency by providing information to the other CMO that is complete, consistent, clear and easy to understand. Section 44 and 45, German Collecting Societies Act, 2017 “Where a collecting society mandates another collecting society with managing the rights it manages (representation agreement ), the mandated collecting society may not discriminate against the rightsholders whose rights it manages under the representation agreement.” §45: “The mandated collecting society may make deductions from the revenue from rights it manages under a representation agreement other than in respect of management fees only where the mandating collecting society has explicitly consented thereto”. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 116 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Best practice n. 59 Transparency by providing other CMO with the most recent Annual Report and other relevant information including datamanagement information. Article 14, EU Directive 2014/26/EU “Rights managed under representation agreements: Member States shall ensure that a collective management organisation does not discriminate against any rightsholder whose rights it manages under a representation agreement, in particular with respect to applicable tariffs, management fees, and the conditions for the collection of the rights revenue and distribution of amounts due to right holders.” Article 27, Law-Decree no. 35/2017 (Italy) 1. On the basis of an appropriately justified request, collective management organisations and independent management entities [...] shall make available to collective management organisations on behalf of which they manage rights under a representation agreement or any right holder or any user, by electronic means and promptly, at least the following information: a) the works or other materials they manage, the rights they represent, directly or on the basis of representation agreements, and the territories covered by such agreements; b) where it is not possible to determine such works or other protected materials because of the context of the activity of the collective management body, the types of works or other subjectmatter they represent, the rights they manage and the territories referred by those agreements.” Principles Governing Licensing of Users/Licensees Best practice n. 65 Treat potential users in an objective, fair and nondiscriminatory manner, taking into account national copyright law, including applicable limitations and exceptions; ensure nondiscriminatory and fair pricing and prohibition of unreasonable contractual terms. Article 16(2), EU Directive 2014/26/EU “Licensing terms shall be based on objective criteria [in particular in relation to tariffs].” CISAC, Professional Rules “Each Member shall: grant licenses on the basis of objective criteria and, when applicable, meet the requirements to operate as set by the national legislation, provided that a Member shall not be obliged to grant licenses to users who have previously fail ed to comply with such Musical Society’s licensing terms and conditions; and not unjustifiably discriminate between users.” Transparency in the fulfilment of obligations with Best practice n. 74 Use of agreed format for the obligation of information and data by users to CMOs regarding the use Article 17, Directive 2014/26/EU “Member States shall adopt provisions to ensure that users provide a collective management organisation, within an agreed or pre-established D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 117 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Users and Licensees of their works to allow CMOs to calculate the fee time and in an agreed or pre-established format, with such relevant information at their disposal on the use of the rights represented by the collective management organisation as is necessary for the collection of rights revenue and for the distribution and payment of amounts due to rightsholders. When deciding on the format for the provision of such information, collective management organisations and users shall take into account, as far as possible, voluntary industry standards.” Article 23, Law-Decree no. 35/2017 (Italy) 1. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, within ninety days of use, users must provide collective management organisations, as well as independent management entities, with the relevant information at their disposal, necessary for the collection of rights proceeds and for the distribution and payment of amounts due to rights holders, relating to the use of protected works. The information includes, in particular: a) Regarding the identification of the protected work: the original title; the year of production or distribution within the territory of the State, the producer, and the overall duration of the work; b) Regarding the use of the protected work: all aspects related to dissemination, such as the date or period of communication, broadcasting, representation, distribution, or commercialisation, or any public disclosure. The right of collective management organisations and independent management entities to request additional information, if available, remains unaffected. 2. If necessary to fulfil their obligations, users promptly exercise the right of information under Article 27, clearly indicating to collective management organisa tions and independent management entities the information not in their possession. In this case, the 90day period is suspended until the date of receipt of correct, complete, and consistent information. 3. Collective management organisations must in good faith agree on the information to be provided, the methods, and the timing in contracts with users, also taking into account the standards voluntarily adopted by the sector […] Article L3248, Intellectual Property Code (France) D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 118 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 When an exploitation authorisation is granted, the user is obliged to communicate to the collective management organisation, in a format and within a time limit agreed between the parties or pre-established , the relevant information on the use he has made of the rights, so that the organisation is in a position to ensure the collection and distribution of the revenues deriving from the exploitation of those rights. In defining the format in which this information is to be communicated, organisations and users shall, as far as possible, take into account voluntary industry standards , in particular standard identifiers for works and other protected subject matter. In the absence of agreement between the parties within a reasonable period of time, this information will be that defined by an order of the minister responsible for culture for the sector of activity concerned. Article 12, SCAPR Code of Conduct “PMOs shall concurrently register the uses of both national and foreign performers' performances subject to the rights in their respective territories of operation, mainly based on the following sources: Reports from users providing comprehensive play lists or from reliable surveys”. IFPI Code of Conduct for Music Industry MLCs “Each Music Licensing Company is to require users to report the use of all sound recordings promptly and accurately using a standardised electronic format and where possible using industry standard recording identifiers, unless reporting would be commercially unreasonable and economically unviable considering in particular the value of the license in question.” Processing personal data Best practice n. 76 Keep updated record of each rightsholder a CMO represents so that it can be accurately identified and located Best practice n. 77 Recital 52, EU Directive 2014/26/EU “It is important for collective management organisations to respect the rights to private life and personal data protection of any rightsholder, member, user and other individual whose personal data they process. Directive 95/46/EC governs the processing of personal data carried out in the Member States in the context of that Directive and under the supervision of the Member States’ competent aut horities, in particular the public independent authorities D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 119 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Adoption of measures to protect privacy and personal data. designated by the Member States. […]. In particular, unique identifiers which allow for the indirect identification of a person should be treated as personal data within the meaning of that Directive.” Belgian Code of Economic Law, Book XI, Title 5 “Employees of the collecting society and all other persons who participate in the collection of remunerations due under chapters 5 or 9 shall be under an obligation of professional secrecy with respect to all information of which they obtain knowledge in or on the occasion of the exercise of their functions.” CISAC Professional Rules “Each Member shall refrain from disclosing any Confidential Information.” IFRRO Code of Conduct “[A CMO] deals with confidential information appropriately, respecting agreements and applicable laws while respecting privacy rights of right holders and users.” IT Infrastructure and data management Best practice n. 79 Use of a proper functional data model, which caters for the needs to document, identify, collect, allocate and distribute the Rights Revenue for the rights represented by the CMO in the respective territory and in relation to other territories the CMO cooperates with. Article 24, EU Directive 2014/26/EU “Capacity to process multi-territorial licences 1. Member States shall ensure that a collective management organisation which grants multiterritorial licences for online rights in musical works has sufficient capacity to process electronically, in an efficient and transparent manner, data needed for the administration of such licences, including for the purposes of identifying the repertoire and monitoring its use, invoicing users, collecting rights revenue and distributing amounts due to rightsholders. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, a collective management organisation shall comply, at least, with the following conditions: (a) to have the ability to identify accurately the musical works , wholly or in part, which the collective management organisation is authorised to represent; (b) to have the ability to identify accurately, wholly or in part, with respect to each relevant territory, the rights and their corresponding rightsholders for each musical work or share therein which the collective management organisation is authorised to represent; D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 120 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 (c) to make use of unique identifiers in order to identify rightsholders and musical works, taking into account, as far as possible, voluntary industry standards and practices developed at international or Union level; (d) to make use of adequate means in order to identify and resolve in a timely and effective manner inconsistencies in data held by other collective management organisations granting multiterritorial licences for online rights in musical works.” CISAC Professional Rules and Binding Resolutions “A CISAC Member shall [..] have at its disposal effective machinery for the collection and distribution of Income to Creators and, where relevant, publishers (...).” Binding Resolutions on the use of common information system (e.g. CIS-Net) and identifiers (e.g. IPI and ISWC) o IPI “Each Member shall: a. ensure that it enters Affiliate Information in respect of each of its Affiliates into the IPI System and that such Affiliate Information is comprehensive, accurate and up-todate; b. ensure that it enters the IPI Number in respect of the Affiliates of its Sister Societies into its Database; c. use the IPI Number contained within the IPI System as the basis of any Documentation and Affiliate Information exchange between it and each Sister Society; d. refrain from allocating a new IPI Number to any Interested Party who already has an existing IPI Number contained within the IPI System; and e. use the IPI System in accordance with the IPI General Description and Business Rules.” o ISWC “Where: a. a CISAC Member administering the performing right makes Documentation of a Musical Work which falls within its Repertoire available to a Sister Society; and b. a Creator of such Musical Work is one of such Member’s Affiliates, or c. a CISAC Member administering the mechanical right makes Documentation of a Musical Work D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 121 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 which falls within its Repertoire available to a Sister Society, providing that (i) there is no Member administering the performing right, or (ii) the Member administering the performing right either does not have the means to assign an ISWC or has simply not assigned an ISWC at the point when all creators in the work can be identified; and d. The CISAC Member is able to identify all Creators associated with such Musical Work, then such CISAC Member shall: e. ensure that an ISWC has been assigned to such Musical Work; and f. abide by the ISWC Business Rules.” o Contribution to CIS-Net “Where a Member is in possession of Minimum Mandatory Information on a Musical Work which either falls within its Repertoire, or has been used within its territory, it shall ensure that: a. it enters such Minimum Mandatory Information into CISNet; and b. such Minimum Mandatory Information is comprehensive, accurate and up to date.” Article 12, SCAPR Code of Conduct “PMOs shall continually strive for the development of systems for the identification of right owners and uses and for the trans-border exchange of information and data enabling individual distribution according to the principles mentioned above.” D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 128 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 4 Data Availability and Gaps Considering D2.1 employs a broad definition of cultural diversity (see Section 2.1) encompassing the diversity of cultural works and diversity of sub-groups of natural persons involved in culture, several indicators can be used to measure the different policy objectives identified in Section 3. The following subsections provide an overview of the currently available quantitative data to measure such policy objectives related to music diversity consumption and production at the European level. 4.1 Relevant Data Availability and Gaps in EU-level Cultural Statistics Eurostat is the statistical office of the European Union responsible for collecting, compiling, analysing, and disseminating statistical information at the European level. It primarily focuses on providing harmonised and comparable statistical data for EU member states to support decision-making at the European level. Eurostat collects data directly from national statistical institutes and relevant authorities in EU member states. It ensures that the data collected adhere to common European standards and definitions to enable cross-country comparisons. Official cultural statistics in Europe are collected in accordance with the domains, functions, and dimensions defined in the ESSnet-Culture Final Report (2012). However, “there is no single European survey dedicated to culture” (Eurostat 2018, p. 6): rather, data on culture are extracted from a wide range of more general data that are regularly collected on labour, business activity, trade, education, individual and household economic activity, etc.274 Similarly, as noted in OpenMusE D1.1, there is no standardised statistical measurement of the “music industry” within the system of national accounts (or most current satellite accounts, at least within the EU, to our knowledge).275 The ability to disaggregate cultural statistics and data by domain – e.g., music – is determined by the classification systems or other variable schemas used in the various data collection instruments. The relevance of such data to the topic of diversity of musical subjects is determined by whether the data is collected from natural persons to whom relevant sociodemographic factors apply (such as age, gender, ethnicity, etc.), and whether the data is disaggregated by such factors. In brief, the following EU-level data collection programmes and/or datasets offer data collected from natural subjects on cultural and/or specifically musical practices, disaggregated by sociodemographic factors. These data are thus relevant to the topic of diversity of subjects: • EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS): data on cultural and in some instances musical employment. • Adult Education Survey (AES) (2007, 2011): data on active and passive participation in performing arts (though not specifically music). 274 Classification systems used to identify cultural activities within statistical data include Nomenclature of Economic Activities (NACE), International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual (BPM6) and Extended Balance of Payments Service Classification (EBOPS 2010), Combined Nomenclature (CN) , four-digit Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose (COICOP) and extended five-digit European Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose (ECOICOP), and Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG). 275 As suggested by the Open Muse D.1.1 “Economy of Music in Europe: Methods and Indicators”, there are several reasons for this: most immediately, the “music industry” is not considered as such in statistical systems. Even after the significant revision of NACE in 2006, neither classification system considers music – or other CCIs, such as film – as “industries” per se. Rather, the individual economic activities that make up these “industries” are split over numerous domains, each designated by unique classifiers. A related problem is the high level of informality in the music sector (see Section 1.7, D1.1.), which consistently poses both theoretical and practical problems for measuring the economic performance of music. D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 129 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 • EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) ad-hoc modules (2006, 2015) : data on passive participation in performing arts (though not specifically music). • Eurobarometer 67.1 (2007), 79.2 (2013), 88.1 (2017): data on active and passive participation in music. • Community survey on information and communication technologies (ICT) usage in households and by individuals: data on ICT use for music. • Harmonised European Time Use Survey (HETUS): data on time spent at theatres/concerts and listening to radio or recordings (though not specific to music). • Household Budget Surveys (HBS): data on money spent on musical goods and services. A more comprehensive list of which EU-level statistical and quasi-statistical data relate fully or partially to music is provided in OpenMusE D3.1. The extent of disaggregation by sociodemographic factors possible will be explored in the data collection phase of the project. With regard to the diversity of musical content, current cultural statistics do not appear to encompass relevant data. However, alternative data sources exist, as detailed in the following sections. 4.2 Other Data Availability and Gaps on the EU Level The EMO Feasibility Study started a discussion on how to collect data on music to go beyond the limited coverage provided by Eurostat. The study identifies a range of data availabilities, gaps, and potential sources. Section 3.3.3 reports the data availabilities and gaps identified in pillar 2 on music diversity and circulation. Following the comprehensive mapping of international, EU and national regulatory sources that define cultural and creative diversity (see Section 3), existing policy domains and objectives of music diversity as defined by law and the description of measurable target objectives have been identified. Table 24 consolidates the regulatory mapping, summarizing three macro diversity objectives: demographic, contents and stakeholders. To identify available data and gaps, these objectives need to be empirically operationalised and confronted with potential data sources. Demographic diversity relates to the diversity of subjects (i.e., natural persons). Table 27 summarises measurable target objectives identified for assessing the level of demographic diversity in music. Columns represent different features of the diversity of subjects (natural persons) as identified in policy and legislative documents, whereas rows represent different areas of practice in the music industry/sector. Note that the policy relevance of each cell is not a given; rather, this question should be addressed in discourse with stakeholders across government, civil society, industry, and the scientific community. Table 27 - Overview of the demographic diversity objectives. Source: SSSA. (2023). Demographic Diversity Target Objectives Gender a Ethnicity and Minorities b Religion c Language d Nationality e Areas of Practice 1 Staff Regulations Gender Equality Plans across the music industry Equality Plans across the music industry Presence of religion in equality plans Presence of language in equality plans Presence of nationality in equality plans D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 130 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 across the music industry across the music industry across the music industry 2 Repertoire Variety in repertoires with respect to gender Variety in repertoires with respect of minorities and ethnic groups Variety in repertoires with respect to religions Variety in repertoires with respect to language Variety in repertoires with respect to nationality 3 Concert Gender balance in performances, including festivals and events Ethnic and minority balance in performances, including festivals and events Religions balance in performances, including festivals and events Language balance in performances, including festivals and events National balance in performances, including festivals and events 4 Streaming Service Gender balance representation in media streaming platforms Ethnic and minority balance representation in media streaming platforms Religions balance representation in media streaming platforms Language balance representation in media streaming platforms National balance representation in media streaming platforms 5 Audience Gender balance in engagement in cultural activities e.g. gender demographic of audiences at music events and festivals Ethnic and minority balance in engagement in cultural activities e.g. gender demographic of audiences at music events and festivals Religions balance in engagement in cultural activities e.g. gender demographic of audiences at music events and festivals Language balance in engagement in cultural activities e.g. gender demographic of audiences at music events and festivals National balance in engagement in cultural activities e.g. gender demographic of audiences at music events and festivals 6 DecisionMaking Process Gender balance in decisionmaking processes within organisations and policymaking shaping the sector Ethnic and minority balance in decisionmaking processes within organisations and policymaking shaping the sector Religions balance in decision-making processes within organisations and policymaking shaping the sector Language balance in decision-making processes within organisations and policymaking shaping the sector National balance in decisionmaking processes within organisations and policymaking shaping the sector 7 Collaboration Equal opportunities for collaboration with other musicians, producers and industry professionals Equal opportunities for collaboration with other musicians, producers and industry professionals Equal opportunities for collaboration with other musicians, producers and industry professionals Equal opportunities for collaboration with other musicians, producers and industry professionals Equal opportunities for collaboration with other musicians, producers and industry professionals 8 Music Education Gender distribution in educational training, workshops and initiatives Ethnic and minority distribution in educational training, Religions distribution in educational training, workshops and initiatives Language distribution in educational training, workshops and initiatives National distribution in educational training, workshops and initiatives D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 131 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 workshops and initiatives 9 Funding Gender distribution in grants and funding Ethnic and minority distribution in grants and funding Religions distribution in grants and funding Language distribution in grants and funding National distribution in grants and funding Table 27 can be used to deduce a schema for the assessment of data availabilities and gaps. As an example, consider ethnicity as demographic diversity policy objectives. Exploring this dimension within the proposed schema allows the identification of numerous potential data sources beyond the Eurostat cultural statistics. Note that the actual availability of the data specified in each cell is not a given, but must be assessed together with stakeholders: Table 28 - Overview of potential data points and data sources for the demographic characteristic “Ethnicity and minority groups”. Source: SSSA. (2023). Areas of practice Objectives Potential data points Potential data sources 1 Staff Regulations Equality Plans across the music industry Diffusion of Equality Plans across the music industry Music industry firms’ websites; Survey of music industry firms and professionals 2 Repertoire Variety in repertoires with respect of minorities and ethnic groups Presence of quota for minorities and ethnic groups in repertoires Legislative documents Share of played music related to minorities and ethnic groups IFPI; National CMOs; CISAC; GESAC 3 Concert Ethnic and minority balance in performances, including festivals and events Share of live performances related to minorities and ethnic groups Events themselves; Live music trade organisations; Local and national governments; Liveurope; CNV (for France) 4 Streaming Service Ethnic and minority balance representation in media streaming platforms Share of streamed music related to minorities and ethnic groups Spotify; Alpha Data (with some additional data); Other streaming platforms 5 audience Ethnic and minority balance in engagement in cultural activities Share of participants at festivals and concerts by minorities and ethnic groups Events themselves; Live music trade organisations; Local and national governments; National/regional administrative data; Household Budget Survey (HBS); CNV (for France) Share of music consumption by minorities and ethnic groups National/regional administrative data; Household Budget Survey (HBS); Consumers surveys 6 Decision-Making Process Ethnic and minority balance in decisionmaking processes within organisations and policymaking shaping the sector Presence of governmental agency targeting ethnic and minority balance Legislative documents Share of workers by minorities and ethnic groups Labour Force Survey; national/regional administrative data; Survey of music industry firms and professionals Share of managerial employees by minorities and ethnic groups Labour Force Survey; national/regional administrative data; Survey of music industry firms and professionals 7 collaboration Equal opportunities for collaboration with other musicians, producers and industry professionals Number of collaborative projects (e.g. songs) with other musicians, producers and industry professionals National CMOs; CISAC; GESAC D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 132 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 by ethnic and minority group Barriers to collaborative projects with other musicians, producers and industry professionals by ethnic and minority group Survey of music industry professionals 8 Music Education Ethnic and minority distribution in educational training, workshops and initiatives Person with formal music education by ethnic and minority groups National/regional administrative data; Labour Force Survey Distribution of formal educational faculty and staff employed per ISCED level, sub-field, and ethnic and minority groups Labour Force Survey [NACE Rev. 2 85.52]; national/regional administrative data 9 Funding Ethnic and minority distribution in grants and funding Distribution of grants and funds by ethnic and minority groups National funding agencies; Grant awarding foundations Barriers to grants and funding by ethnic and minority groups Survey of music industry professionals Similar tables could be elaborate for all the other demographic characteristics highlighted in Table 24 and used to build Table 27 and 28 (i.e. gender, religion, language, and nationality). Interestingly, the potential data sources for analysing demographic diversity are mostly the same but analysed with a different focus. For instance, once events data are collected, they can be used for measuring the share of live performance by ethnic and minority groups, languages, and nationality. The second diversity objective relates to music content diversity, that is the availability and variety of different types of media content, such as genres, nationality, and languages. Table 29 classifies the objectives related to the concept of content diversity and relate them to potential data points and sources. Again, the policy relevance of any given cell may appear different from different stakeholders’ perspectives: Table 29 - Overview of potential data points and data sources for the content diversity objective. Source: SSSA. (2023). Content Diversity Concept Objective Potential Data Point Potential Data Sources Content Variety and balance of music consumption Consumers' choice in term of genre Consumers' survey; Nielsen; Alpha Data Consumers' choice in term of nationality (domestic vs. foreign) Consumers' choice in term of language (domestic vs. foreign) Consumers' reliance on proposed playlists while streaming Consumer survey; Music streaming services Variety and balance in available repertoires Share of available repertoire by genre National CMOs; CISAC; GESAC Share of available repertoire by gender Share of available repertoire by language Share of available repertoire by nationality D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 133 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 Share of available repertoire by minorities and ethnic groups Consumption Channels Variety and balance in music consumption channels Consumers' choice in term of different channels of music consumption (live shows, streaming, vinyl...) Consumers' choice in term of different channels of legal vs illegal consumption Specific consumer survey (Global Online Piracy Study); Piracy data specialist MUSO Content and Consumption Channel Variety and balance of the most streamed songs Genre of the most streamed songs in Europe and outside Europe by calendar year Spotify; Nielsen; Alpha Data Language of the most streamed songs in Europe and outside Europe by calendar year Nationality of the most streamed songs in Europe and outside Europe by calendar year Variety and balance of the songs most played on air Genre of the most radio airplayed songs in Europe and outside Europe by calendar year Radio Monitor; BMAT Language of the radio songs most played on air in Europe and outside Europe by calendar year Nationality of the radio songs most played on air in Europe and outside Europe by calendar year Content and Circulation Variety and balance in music circulation Genre of the cross-border streaming activities Radio Monitor; BMAT Nationality of the cross-border streaming activities Language of the cross-border streaming activities Genre of the cross-border radio airplay Nationality of the cross-border radio airplay Language of the cross-border radio airplay Genre of the cross border live shows Events themselves; Live music trade organisations; Liveurope Nationality of the cross border live shows Language of the cross border live shows Content Other subject matter (phonogram, sound recording) To be determined To be determined Traditional Expression To be determined To be determined Transparency To be determined To be determined Regarding the last three rows, content factors that are potentially of interest to certain specific stakeholder groups – such as cultural heritage institutions and the bearers of national musical traditions D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 134 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 – were not identified during the literature review stage, but will be discussed with stakeholders during forthcoming workshops and other dissemination and communication activities (see OpenMusE 5.2). The last identified dimension for music diversity relates to the different stakeholders involved along the whole music value chain. Table 30 - Overview of potential data points and data sources for the stakeholders’ diversity objective. Source: SSSA. (2023). Stakeholder Diversity Objective Potential Data Point Potential Data Sources Creators (authors, interpreters) Diverse participation and circulation in the music industry Share of CMO's membership by gender National CMOs; CISAC; GESAC Share of CMO's membership by nationality Mobility of music professional National CMOs; CISAC; GESAC; Surveys Economic sustainability of music profession Share of income derived from creative activities. Surveys Type of tax regimes Legal documents Welfare access (health insurance and retirement benefits) Surveys; National trade union organisations; Distributors (licensing authority, CMOs) Economic sustainability of a diverse music profession Share of revenues by genre National CMOs; CISAC; GESAC Share of revenues by gender Share of revenues by language Share of revenues by nationality Share of revenues by minorities and ethnic groups Rightsholders (producers) To be determined To be determined To be determined Certain data points that are potentially of interest to specific stakeholder groups – such as rightsholders – were not identified during the literature review stage, but will be discussed with representatives of those stakeholder groups during forthcoming workshops and other dissemination and communication activities. 4.3 Data Available on a National Basis – Selected Examples As emerged from the analysis of the previous sections of this report (Sections 1-3) to measure cultural diversity in the music industry, it is necessary to develop new indicators. These quantitative indicators should align with diversity policy objectives, reflecting the notion of diversity derived from the international and EU texts, as elucidated in the previous sections of this report (Sections 1-3). To this end, a crucial aspect of our pilot-project-driven research agenda involves analysing data gaps on the national level. As indicated in Open Music Europe D1.1, cultural policies predominantly take shape at the national or sub-national levels in certain European Union member states. Furthermore, addressing European-level data gaps necessitates the existence of (interoperable) statistical processes at the individual member state level for data collection. Identifying data availability and gaps on the D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 135 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 national level requires engaging in extensive dialogue with local governmental and scientific stakeholders. Given the robust Open Music Europe partner networks in Slovakia, the consortium initiated this process there. The precision with which data availability and gaps at the national level can be defined in other target countries will depend on the replicability of this dialogue process. 4.3.1 Bulgaria Information on data availabilities and gaps in Bulgaria will be added during the data collection phase of the work package, following the example of Slovakia below. As this information is sometimes not publicly available, the extent of this work will be determined by the feasibility of cooperation with relevant authorities. 4.3.2 Germany Information on data availabilities and gaps in Germany will be added during the data collection phase of the work package, following the example of Slovakia below. As this information is sometimes not publicly available, the extent of this work will be determined by the feasibility of cooperation with relevant authorities. 4.3.3 Hungary Information on data availabilities and gaps in Hungary will be added during the data collection phase of the work package, following the example of Slovakia below. As this information is sometimes not publicly available, the extent of this work will be determined by the feasibility of cooperation with relevant authorities. 4.3.4 Italy Information on data availabilities and gaps in Italy will be added during the data collection phase of the work package, following the example of Slovakia below. As this information is sometimes not publicly available, the extent of this work will be determined by the feasibility of cooperation with relevant authorities. 4.3.5 Slovakia In March 2023, members of the Open Music Europe Consortium signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic. This paved the way for intensive dialogue on data availabilities and gaps on culture, and more specifically music, within the surveying programme of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (SOSR). The Statistical Office oversees the Slovak implementations of European Statistical System surveying programmes mentioned in Section 4.2, as well as a range of national-level surveys and administrative data collection. With regard to ESS-mandated data collection, as noted in OpenMusE D1.1, the SOSR uses certain programmes such as the Labour Force Survey to populate a cultural and creative sectors and industries satellite account; this leads us to believe that our Slovak partners have overcome certain obstacles to using the LFS for this purpose, such as the lack of domain-specific disaggregation and lack of coverage of domain-specific occupations within the NACE and ISCO classifications. As the LFS is disaggregated by sociodemographic factors such as age and gender, this would be relevant to the exploration of diversity issues such as representation and wage gaps within music-related occupations. The Consortium plans to review Slovak practices and their suitability for transfer to the other OpenMusE target countries. With regard to national-level data collection, as also noted in OpenMusE D1.1, the SOSR conducts a number of surveys that could shed additional light on the music sector, including with regard to the diversity and circulation of both natural persons and musical works. Surveys that are potentially relevant to OpenMusE WP2 include: D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 136 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 • 50.1 Kult (MK SR) 3-01 Annual report on cultural and educational activities, which includes data on cultural and social activities for disadvantaged groups of the population. • 52.1 Kult (MK SR) 5-01 Annual report on the musical ensemble and the artistic ensemble, which includes economic indicators for the area of music ensembles and art ensembles, potentially disaggregated by sociodemographic factors. This is relevant to both the diversity of subjects (e.g., earnings by gender) and diversity of content (e.g., representation of different genres within the Slovak musical economy). • 54.1 Kult (MK SR) 7-01 Annual report on radio broadcasting services, which includes the time span of broadcasting in the languages of national minorities. However, it is not yet clear whether this could further be broken down to time span of broadcasting of music-specific radio programmes in the language of national minorities. • 55.1 Kult (MK SR) 8-01 Annual report on television broadcasting services , which also includes broadcasting time in languages of national minorities. However, as above, it is not yet clear whether this can be broken down to time span of broadcasting of music-specific television programmes in the languages of national minorities. • 62.1 Kult (MK SR) 16-01 Annual report on public events in the area of professional music culture. This is relevant to the diversity of content (e.g., representation of different genres on Slovak stages). • 64.1 Kult (MK SR) 19-01 Annual statement on the production and distribution of sound records of musical works. This is relevant to the diversity of content (e.g., representation of different genres in the Slovak repertoire and their economic profile). • 1108.1 NM (MK SR) 1-01 Annual report on the culture of national minorities. Funding for the cultures of national minorities is a topic relevant to both the diversity of subjects and the diversity of content. • National Public Educational Centre (Národné osvetové centrum, NOC) study on the culture and value orientation of the Slovak population (2018), which includes public attitudes toward other cultures and interculturalism. • National Public Educational Centre (Národné osvetové centrum, NOC) study on the consumption of culture (2019), which includes public opinions on the inclusion of a mandatory quota of Slovak music in radio, as well as data on cultural participation broken down by sociodemographic factors. A more detailed table of these and other potentially relevant surveys and their topic areas will be included in OpenMusE D3.1, Section 3.3.5. One aim of the ongoing dialogue between the Open Music Europe project team and Slovak governmental and scientific stakeholders is to dive further into the precision of data available in these and other surveys. Throughout this process, a continual assessment will be conducted and made available as a living document “Dn.1_OpenMusE_SK_IKP_2030_indicator_candidates.xlsx” under the public link https://cloud.sinus-institut.de/public/b7465b D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 137 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 5 Data Sources and Collection Methods 5.1 Cross-WP Data Sources and Collection Methods 5.1.1 Secondary Survey Data As mentioned above in Section 4, certain survey data relevant to the WP2 topics of music diversity and circulation (e.g., on the diversity of natural persons active in the music sector and the diversity of music audiences) exist on both the EU and national levels. Some data are openly available to the public (e.g., Eurobarometer), whereas other data require formal procedures or other legal agreements for access (e.g., Eurostat survey microdata, data held by national statistics institutes). A summary is provided in D3.1, Section 4.1.1. When relevant, aggregated Eurostat data will be accessed via the eurostat package and processed using R. Survey microdata will be imported into R and processed. 5.1.2 Administrative Data Sources As noted in OpenMusE D6.3, in WP2, we will create administrative record microdata datasets from various sources, mainly from royalty accounting. For example, the royalty accounts of ALOADED will be used for this purpose with code generated by REPREX. Because these administrative records contain personal information and business confidential information, the statistical processing (which will make direct or indirect identification impossible) will take place on the IT system of ALOADED. The Consortium will only receive indicator datasets that contain no business-sensitive information or personal data. 5.1.3 Primary Data Collection The OpenMusE partners will conduct a range of primary data collection activities. Specifically: • A music professional, music organisation, and music MSME survey will be conducted under the auspices of WP1 and WP2, with scientific assistance from WP3 and technical assistance from WP4 and WP5. Details on the survey objectives and contents are provided in D3.1, Section 4.3.1. A primary objective of the survey is to fill data gaps relevant to both the diversity and circulation of subjects (e.g., informal music employment and income disaggregated by sociodemographic factors, data on performances abroad, etc.) and the diversity and circulation of content (e.g., languages used in works, genre/style affiliations, etc.). • A cultural access and participation sample survey representative of the general population (natural persons) will be conducted under the auspices of WP3, with scientific assistance from WP1 and technical assistance from WP4 and WP5. Details on the survey objectives and contents are provided in D3.1, Section 4.3.1. The survey is primarily intended to fulfil WP3 objectives, however, may also shed light on topics relevant to WP2 (e.g., attendance at cross-border performances, attitudes toward cross-cultural interaction, etc.). • Records will be kept of stakeholder workshops and/or interviews conducted on a cross-WP basis. These may include audio recordings, transcripts, and memos. Records will also be kept of stakeholder contact information: e.g., mailing lists, etc. These activities will aim to refine and validate the indicators developed in WP1-3. • As part of the Listen Local pilot project conducted in T2.3, data will be collected from musical artists on an opt-in basis. Details on the survey objectives and contents are provided in Section 5.2 below. • Qualitative interviews may be conducted with musical artists and other stakeholders. While not part of the original Description of Action, such interviews could meaningfully augment the D2.1 v2.0 – Music Diversity and Circulation: Novel Data Collection Methods and Indicators 144 © 2024 OpenMusE | HORIZON-CL2-2022-HERITAGE-01-05 | Grant Agreement No. 101095295 who are employed in the humanities, linguistics and arts disciplines industry; percentage of high school and university graduates in other fields who are employed in the music industry 4b Percentage of female graduates of secondary schools with a focus on culture and creative industries working in the field Only conservatories, SUS and SUS without non-arts disciplines from uplatnenie.sk (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) Percentage of female graduates of secondary schools with a focus on music and related matters working in the music industry 4c Percentage of graduates from universities with a focus on culture and creative industries working in the field Employees Bc. and Mgr. from uplatnenie.sk (Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) targets for 4.1 and 4.2 on on the basis of overall employment in the field in SK Percentage of graduates from university with a focus on the music industry working in the field 4d Number of continuing education outreach activities offered NOC Educational Activities - NOC Annual Report Number of continuing education outreach activities offered related to music 4e Number of works or authors who have been successful in international competitions (cultural heritage, literature, audiovisual and design) Internal search Number of works or authors of musical compositions who have been successful in international competitions 4f Share of viewers at the premieres of Slovak films compared to the total to the Slovak film market Share of the audience at the premieres of Slovak films (also in coproduction) compared to the total Slovak film market according to the annual report of the Slovak Film Institute Not applicable 4g Share of culture and creative industries exports in total exports KKP SR Satellite Account 2019 Share of music goods and services exported in total exports; share of music goods and products exported in total CCSI exports; ratio between music services exported (performances, digital platforms) and music goods (CD, vinyl, etc.) 4h Number of translations of Slovak authors published abroad SLC - support via SLOLIA Not applicable 5a Percentage of MK SR organisations with physical debarring of the interior of buildings Questionnaire on the state of physical and information debarring in organisations under the competence of the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic (2022); question C148 Percentage of MK SR music organisations with physical debarring of the interior of buildings 5b Percentage of organisations of the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic with a website that meet the Web Accessibility Standards Questionnaire on the state of physical and information debarring in organisations under the competence of the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic (2022); question B31 Percentage of music organisations of the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic with a website that meet the Web Accessibility Standards [Document text truncated for crawler view.]