The controversy over the two copyright articles that will be voted on in the Accountability They continue to make people talk, this time with the insistence of Spotify who once again threatened to leave Uruguay if they are approved, in the face of the Uruguayan Society of Performing Artists (Sudei) who asks that you vote in favor.
This Tuesday, the Swedish music platform once again threatened to leave Uruguay in case the two articles that will be discussed this week in the Accountability are approved. However, as La Diaria learned, the Senate is firm regarding the vote in favor of 284 and 285 of the law.
“If implemented [ambos artículos] and Spotify was forced to pay twice for the same music, our business of connecting artists and fans would be unsustainable in this market. Spotify would then have no choice but to stop being available in Uruguay, to the detriment of artists and fans,” the company statement states.
Meanwhile, this Monday, Sudei issued another statement calling for the approval of articles. From the group, they understand that it is “strict justice” to recognize “the right of performers to receive remuneration for the reproduction of their works on digital platforms.”
On the other hand, they establish that “the modifications included in these articles pose a administrative redistribution in the payment of rights between producers and performers, but not a double payment, so if these articles are approved, the platforms will not have to pay more than they currently pay.”
That is why they stressed that “the proposed changes are not intended to affect the business of digital platforms, on the contrary, they seek to achieve fairer treatment between authors, performers, record producers and digital platforms”.
On the other hand, they highlighted “the great openness and commitment of all the legislators in the treatment of this topic during the last months, even more so given the different representatives of multinationals and other organizations in the sector have carried out in order to hinder the discussion with false arguments and threats.”
Spotify’s claim
From the company they establish that the article modifications would involve an additional payment to what Spotify already provides, something that “would severely affect the ability to invest and provide services at reasonable prices to consumers.” On the other hand, they highlighted that, despite the platform’s great popularity, its gross margins are lower than traditional record stores or radio stations.
In that sense, they assured that “with this historically low margin” they must cover the business operating costsincluding promotion of local and global repertoire, data portals and other tools for artists and their teams to develop new audiences inside and outside our platformdeveloping personalized recommendations for fans, and investing in their top-notch music equipment.
On the other hand, Spotify highlighted the importance of their company in terms of growth of music In uruguay. “We have played a pivotal role in reversing the decline of the music industry, which was plagued by piracy. Thanks to streaming, the music industry in Uruguay grew 20% last year alone, to the benefit of artists, composers and those who support them,” the letter explained.
What do the new articles propose?
The modification of article 284 is based on the addition of the social networks and the internet like other formats by which, if a song is reproduced, the performer has the right to a economic remuneration.
On the other hand, the modification of article 285 proposes that “the agreements entered into authors, composers, performers, directors and screenwriters regarding their power of public communication and making phonograms and audiovisual recordings available to the public” have the right to fair and equitable remuneration.
Source: Ambito
