Integrating Stakeholder Values in System of Collective Management of Music Copyrights: A Value-Sensitive Design Approach

The scholarly discourse on the collective management of music copyright, ECM, integrates various theoretical frameworks to unravel the economic intricacies and efficiency of copyright systems. The key constructs in ECM include licencing, royalty collection, equitable remuneration, and transaction costs related to economic exchanges in collective copyrights management (Watt, 2016; Hadziarapovic et al., 2023). These constructs, along with economies of scale, asymmetric information, bounded rationality, and governance within CMOs, are foundational in understanding the dynamics of SCMMC (Hadziarapovic et al., 2023).

In the SCMMC in the Netherlands, the “users of music” pay for the use of music by annual or monthly contribution to the CMOs. The Dutch CMO, Buma/Stemra, is appointed by the Dutch Government to collect money from users of music and distribute the collected money to the rights holders. Buma/Stemra is also responsible for negotiating, and given the mandate to negotiate, the tariffs for use of music with different parties. The rights holders in the Netherlands are the composers, lyricists, and the music publishers. The split of the copyright is divided equally by those three, each getting ownership of 33.33% of the music copyright. In case of a composition without lyrics, this split is equal to 50%. The publishers are, depending on the signed agreements with the creators of music, responsible for the exploitation and administration of created musical works. There are different kinds of agreements between publishers and creators, and the publishing share of 33.33% can (partly) flow back to the creators, depending on the type of publishing agreements and contract. When a musical work is created, the role of the creators is to register their work with the CMO, in order to receive the revenue, they are entitled to, for the use of their work. Buma/Stemra is responsible for collection and distribution of performance rights and of mechanical reproduction rights. The latter is only relevant when a song or a composition is recorded by performers or artists, released (distributed) by, for example, a record label, and reproduced on content carriers or digitally through digital service providers (DSPs) on, for example Spotify or comparable online services. The mutual relationships and interactions amongst creators, creators and publishers, and rights holders and CMOs are complex and dynamic, resulting in different sorts of agreements between creators and publishers.

Copyright systems have spurred the growth of creative and cultural industries (Watt, 2016), with CMOs playing an essential role in streamlining transactions and providing risk management for members. While beneficial, CMOs introduce complexities such as the risk of uneven income distribution, underscoring the need for further research into their operational efficiency and impact (Kretschmer & Hardwick, 2007). The shift to an “access over ownership” model in the music industry, highlighted by the advent of Spotify in 2008, marked a critical change from traditional transaction cost economics to focussing on efficient governance, transparency, and information-sharing within ECM.

CMOs, recognised as crucial yet natural monopolies (Handke & Towse, 2007; Watt, 2016; Zhang, 2016), face new challenges and competition from technological advancements and legislative changes. The transition to digital platforms has drastically increased the volume of works under management of CMOs, straining administrative and technical capacities. Despite the potential benefits of collective management, criticisms include the risk of a one-size-fits-all approach and excessive power concentration (Handke, 2012). The sheer scale of new recordings, often with minimal economic value, further complicates royalty distribution and accuracy, leading to inefficiencies in, but also a less, equitable rights management.

Recent studies (Hesmondhalgh et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2022; Page, 2023) have explored streaming's economic impact, noting a shift in revenue sources and calling for fairer royalty distribution mechanisms. Also, the potential of a Digital Copyright Exchange and blockchain for usage monitoring and distribution is explored (Towse, 2017; Beelen, 2019), while Gervais (2019) noted digitalisation's impact on copyright administration, including partnerships between music publishers and CMOs for online rights licencing. Legislative reforms for digital transactions (Priest, 2021) and the application of Directive 2014/26/EU (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2014) highlight the ongoing evolution.

Directive 2014/26/EU was designed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union Directive to improve the online licencing of music by CMOs across the EU (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2014). Challenges like transparency and adapting to digital technologies persist (Yakubova, 2022), yet CMOs have opportunities to enhance copyright markets and align with World Intellectual Property Organisations standard for improved governance (Bakar et al., 2022).

Directive 2014/26/EU was also designed to address governance inefficiencies, transparency concerns, and the lack of uniform licencing standards across EU Member States. The directive's implementation sought to enhance CMOs' accountability and operational efficiency, particularly in cross-border licencing and revenue distribution (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2014). However, despite its regulatory objectives, challenges persist in ensuring that CMOs uphold the values of equity and efficiency, particularly in handling digital transactions and new licencing models (European Commission, 2021). The directive mandates clearer reporting obligations, competition rules, and standardised multi-territorial licencing procedures, yet the practical implementation of these measures remains inconsistent across CMOs (European Commission, 2021).

However, the directive 2014/26/EU also introduced competition-driven reforms that complicate these efforts. By mandating competitive licencing models, the European Commission (2021) has placed CMOs under pressure to streamline operations, often at the expense of thorough rights verification and equitable distribution models. CMOs such as Buma/Stemra (2024) assert that principles like transparency and accountability are already embedded in their systems, yet the exponential increase in digital works, combined with shrinking per-unit royalties, threatens their ability to uphold these values (Hadziarapovic et al., 2022). These market pressures, rather than improving efficiency, risk leading to a situation where automated, large-scale licencing systems prioritise cost-cutting over fairness, reinforcing structural imbalances in the distribution of royalties. Future governance strategies must acknowledge these limitations and explore new mechanisms that balance regulatory competition with equitable rights management.

Studies on streaming services have revealed mixed impacts on copyright revenue, sparking debates on equitable royalty distribution and necessitating CMOs to modernise and embrace new technologies (Hesmondhalgh et al., 2021). CMOs confront numerous challenges, such as mismanagement, a lack of transparency, and adapting to digital technologies (Priest, 2021), and the task of equitably valuing works further intensifies these challenges (Yakubova, 2022). The role of CMOs in balancing the interests of rights holders remains a key point of contention. While creators emphasise fair recognition and equitable remuneration, publishers focus on commercial efficiency, market access, and optimising revenue streams (Kretschmer & Kawohl, 2004). The transfer of copyrights from individual creators to publishers or multinational firms often results in greater revenue potential but reduced autonomy for creators (Kretschmer et al., 1999). This power imbalance within CMOs raises concerns regarding equity, transparency, and accountability as publishers typically prioritise high-revenue works, potentially marginalising smaller rights holders.

According to OECD (2024), human well-being and dignity should be at the core of any technological system. It's imperative that the design process considers the impact technology that can have on users' lives and rights. This calls for a deep sense of empathy and a commitment to engaging with users, understanding their unique needs, values, and cultural contexts. Such an approach ensures that technology serves as a positive force, enhancing rather than undermining human lives and enhancing human autonomy with the end goal of promoting human flourishing (Hayes et al., 2019). For this, we applied VSD in music copyright collective management domain.

VSD is a methodological framework that integrates human values into technology design by systematically considering ethical, social, and stakeholder concerns throughout the development process (Friedman et al., 2013). It combines conceptual, empirical, and technical investigations to ensure that technological systems align with fundamental human values such as fairness, transparency, and accountability. VSD does not adhere to specific ethical theories to differentiate between moral values and stakeholders' personal preferences (Manders-Huits, 2011). Therefore, Jacobs and Huldtgren (2021) suggested that VSD practitioners should adopt a complementary ethical theory to provide a basis for justification and principled judgements during the design process. Ethical frameworks, such as consequentialism, deontology, and Rawlsian Theory of Justice, offer distinct perspectives that can enhance VSD. Consequentialism in ECM, discussed by Watt (2016), focuses on outcomes and overall happiness. Deontology emphasises adherence to moral duties and universal laws, valuing moral intentions above consequences. In contrast, Rawlsian Theory of Justice prioritises fairness and equality, suggesting that societal justice should derive from universally agreeable rules (Rawls, 1999). Each framework brings a unique approach to addressing the ethical challenges in VSD, supporting the need for principled value trade-offs and grounded ethical evaluations in technology design.

Moral rights in EU are not harmonised (European Commission, 2024) and lack a context-related definition of stakeholder values within the EU copyright directives. In choosing Rawls' Theory of Justice as the most suitable ethical framework and lens for our study, several factors informed our decision (Rawls, 1999). Rawls' principles resonate with the ethos of normative guidelines and principles of the EU copyright legislation (European Commission, 2024), focussing on moral rights, key societal values, and distributive justice. Rawls' ideas focus on helping those who are least advantaged in society by ensuring fair distribution of resources and opportunities. He also supports removing obstacles to power and promoting equal chances for everyone, which aligns with broader efforts to create a fair and just society (Rawls, 1999). Rawls' principles provide a guide for making fair and just decisions, especially in areas like technology that affect people's lives.

Values pertain to what is considered beneficial or preferable (Friedman et al., 2013) and serve an evaluative function (van de Poel, 2013), helping to compare current situations with ideal ones. In this context, a human-centred approach becomes essential, ensuring that well-being, dignity, and fairness are not just considered but form the foundation of how music copyright management systems should be (re)developed to bridge the gap between existing practices and the envisioned equitable framework. Milton Rokeach, an American social psychologist, developed a theory distinguishing between the two types of values: instrumental and terminal values. His framework, outlined in “The Nature of Human Values” (1973), categorises values based on their end goals. Terminal values are desirable end-states of existence, such as happiness, inner harmony, or justice, representing ultimate life goals towards which individuals strive. Instrumental values, on the contrary, are the modes of behaviours or means used to achieve these end goals, such as transparency, accuracy, and ownership, which are considered practical or ethical tools to reach desired outcomes. Terminal values answer what ultimate goals we want to achieve, while instrumental values address how stakeholders want or need to behave on their way to achieving those goals. Therefore, this study distinguishes between the two sorts of values as outlined in the Results section.

VSD is an approach that aims to embed values into technologies. VSD defines value as what matters to people in their lives, focussing on ethics and morality (Friedman & Hendry, 2019). the interaction between technology design and social-institutional context is essential to VSD. While technological design features can either bolster or impair specific human values, it is the combined interaction with users and the context in which the technology is used that ultimately shapes its societal impact (Davis & Nathan, 2015).

The goal of VSD is twofold:

• (1)

  it supports critical analyses of existing technologies concerning values, according to Simon (2016),

• (2)

  it provides a concrete methodology to embed these values into new technologies and technology implementations.

For the first goal, the critical analysis of existing technologies, VSD can be used to assess whether terminal values are achieved by the technology design and/or to identify the absence of values by dismantling biases within the technology (Friedman & Hendry, 2019). VSD serves as an analytical approach to unveil valuation processes within technology design and development, which are often “black-boxed” or neglected.

The second goal, the concrete “embedding” methodology, typically involves three main types of investigations: conceptual, empirical, and technical. These investigations interact with each other and iterate in a process that helps to identify stakeholders, values, and potential value tensions (Friedman et al., 2013; Friedman & Hendry, 2019).

The conceptual investigations include the identification of relevant values and direct and indirect stakeholders. Relevant questions in the conceptual investigation relate to the characteristics of various stakeholders like how they are affected by using technologies, the relative importance of different values, and the trade-offs between conflicting values (Friedman et al., 2013). In empirical investigations, social science methods are used to revise these findings with a focus on the opinions of stakeholders, as well as anticipated usage contexts (Simon, 2016). Within this type of investigation, a variety of quantitative and qualitative research methods can be employed to analyse how people create and prioritise different values and the role they play in behaviour. For example, qualitative interviews explore in-depth insights into stakeholders' values, experiences, and behaviours. According to Friedman et al. (2013), technical investigations have two parts: (1) examining how values are embedded in existing technologies and (2) designing new systems that support the values identified in earlier research (Friedman & Hendry, 2019). For example, in SCMMC, researchers might analyse current collective copyright management technologies to see how infringement detection algorithms affect fairness and ownership.

A conceptual investigation formed the basis of the tripartite iterative VSD approach in our previous study (Hadziarapovic, 2023). That phase involved document analyses, a literature review, and qualitative interviews to identify stakeholders and their roles and characteristics within SCMMC (Hadziarapovic et al., 2022). This study builds on that foundation by focussing on the empirical investigation of VSD, examining stakeholder perspectives and value tensions through empirical qualitative analysis. For this purpose, we employed semi-structured open-ended qualitative interviews with stakeholders as a method (Friedman et al., 2013).

For this study, we selected participants through purposive sampling as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2015). We leveraged two decades of industry experience as a starting point to identify suitable participants with relevant experience and knowledge. Some participants were contacted directly per email or phone and were approached through our own network, some through LinkedIn or their organisation email. The participants were selected based on the insights of the stakeholder analysis (Hadziarapovic et al., 2021). The purpose of the interviews with these individuals was twofold: (1) to directly engage with them and understand their rationale and perception of the music copyright system and (2) to uncover and articulate the primary values that these stakeholders prioritise in relation to technology used in collective music copyright management. We restricted the scope to stakeholders that might be most significantly affected (Friedman et al., 2013). Eventually, we interviewed 20 individuals from 5 stakeholder groups. Four of these individuals were interviewed twice, and due to time restrictions during the first interview, we obtained a total of 24 interview transcripts with six composers (direct stakeholders), six publishers (direct stakeholders), three representatives of Dutch CMO Buma Stemra (direct stakeholders), two copyright lawyers (indirect stakeholders), one editor in chief of a major Dutch radio station (indirect stakeholder), one DSP representative (indirect stakeholder), and one book publisher (indirect stakeholder). The participants' age ranged from 20 years to 59 years, and mostly held Bachelor's or Master's degrees. Their working experience in the music industry varied from 10 years to 35 years. The interviews lasted from approximately 36 min to over 2 h and took place between November 2020 and December 2022. The format of these interviews varied, with some conducted face-to-face and others via video call on MS Teams or Zoom due to COVID-19 restrictions at that time. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, with the full consent of the participants.

The data analysis utilised a thematic approach to coding to identify main themes and subthemes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). To ensure reliability and validity, two coders were involved, acknowledging the challenges in using multiple coders such as increased time, resources, and coordination. To ensure intercoder reliability, we conducted a consistency check by having both coders independently code a subset of transcripts and then comparing and discussing discrepancies until consensus was reached.

After transcribing the interviews, we conducted a qualitative content analysis, identifying themes based on both existing literature (deductive) and interview transcripts (inductive). For the deductive coding process, we applied value-oriented coding, a structured system that categorises and defines value-related aspects based on the respondent input (Friedman & Hendry, 2019). This approach allowed us to systematically label core values and organise responses into coherent categories. Each category had a descriptive label and a description but is also exemplified by three quotes drawing from the interviews. The coding and analysis of interview transcripts was supported by ATLAS.ti 24 software (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, 2024), facilitating data organisation and management. We began by coding the interview transcripts, which involved identifying and labelling key phrases, sentences, or paragraphs with relevant codes. For instance, discussing Buma/Stemra's statement on mechanical rights incomes by a participant could generate multiple codes such as “Buma Stemra”, “Statements”, “Recorded music”, and “Mechanical Rights”.

The second phase involved merging similar codes to streamline the dataset, combining labels such as “data precision”, “precision of data”, and “accurate data” into a single “accurate data” code. Subsequently, we grouped related codes into broader code groups that encapsulate related concepts, such as “accuracy”, “lack of accuracy”, “error”, “precision”, “reliability”, and “repeatability”. The final step was organising these code groups into themes. We then prioritised values based on their impact and relevance. An initial coding of 24 interview transcripts identified 187 unique codes. Through a process of merging and cleaning these codes, the final coding structure was refined to 145 codes representing 2,708 individual quotes. These codes were systematically categorised into 11 distinct groups, each corresponding to specific aspects of the theoretical constructs explored. The 11 groups represent 3 main themes. The first theme, representing research question 1, “Core Values of Rights Holders” emerged as a category with the highest number of grounded instances (2,069 quotes), emphasising the terminal values of justice, equity, fairness, and equality and the instrumental values of ownership, accountability, transparency, and accuracy within the stakeholder groups. Additionally, this study identified codes related to the “Value Tensions in Collective Management of Music Copyrights” (Research question 2) and “Preliminary Framework for Collective Management System” (Research question 3), with 614 and 81 quotes respectively.

The next step involved evaluating how each identified value aligned with Rawls' Difference Principle (Rawls, 1999). For that purpose, we analysed quotes, categories, and themes as described in paragraph 3.3. Stakeholder responses were coded and categorised based on explicit mentions in interview transcripts. First, participant responses were coded and categorised by value, grouping statements that referenced the same theme. Then, each value across participants was coded, along with the context in which it was discussed—positively, negatively, or in tension with another value. For example, some participants argued that CMOs should make all data fully transparent, while others emphasised the need to protect proprietary information over transparency. Similarly, in discussions on royalty distribution, some supported equal shares for all, while others argued for a proportional system based on involvement or revenue generation. By comparing responses within the same category, we examined how often these conflicting views appeared and how they shaped value tensions in SCMMC governance. Once values and tensions were identified, the next step was to operationalise prioritised core values into prescriptive norms following two phases (Van de Poel, 2013):

• (1)

  Values were first translated into general norms, marking the transition from an evaluative to a prescriptive framework. In the evaluative domain, values provide a basis for assessing desirability, while in the prescriptive domain, norms dictate actions required to uphold these values. For example, the value of transparency was translated into the norm that “All CMO financial processes should be accessible to stakeholders”.

• (2)

  These norms were further operationalised into specific system requirements, defining the scope, objectives, and implementation methods. For instance, the transparency norm informed the design requirement of a digital dashboard, where rights holders can track royalty distributions in real time. This ensures that revenue allocation processes remain visible and verifiable, aligning system operations with stakeholder expectations.

The described analysis process was peer reviewed by research' supervisors and peers within our research group, with expertise in VSD approach, value-driven digitalisation, ethics in technology, and process management and innovation.

To identify the core values of stakeholders in SCMMC, the first objective is that we categorised values into two main groups: (1) terminal values, which represent fundamental ethical principles shaping SCMMC governance, and (2) instrumental values, which serve as mechanisms to uphold those ethical principles in practice. Table 1 presents the identified core values along with their contextual meanings within SCMMC. This classification provides insight into how terminal values shape SCMMC governance and how instrumental values support their implementation. For example, justice and equity set the foundation for fair copyright distribution, while accountability and transparency serve as regulatory mechanisms that enforce fairness in SCMMC governance.

To explore potential tensions among these core values, the second objective of this study was to analyse their interactions and possible tensions. To identify these value interactions, we systematically coded and categorised stake-holder responses based on explicit mentions in the interview transcripts. We analysed how participants framed each value—whether positively, negatively, or in contrast with another value—allowing us to observe patterns of influence and dependence between values. This process provided insight into how values interact, sometimes reinforcing each other and at other times leading to conflicts. Table 2 presents these value interactions and tensions, supported by quotes from participant interviews. The numbers in brackets [ ] correspond to participant identification numbers. For clarity and conciseness, the quotes have been adjusted and shortened while preserving their essential meaning.

Table 2 illustrates the key interactions and tensions between values identified in this study. An example of a challenge within the presented value tensions is the implementation of transparency in the context of regulatory competition, which has led to unintended consequences affecting fairness and efficiency.

While transparency is a core value of CMO governance, its implementation is increasingly complicated by competition pressures introduced under Directive 2014/26/EU (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2014). The directive's emphasis on multi-territorial licencing and competitive market entry has forced CMOs to prioritise automation and efficiency, often at the cost of detailed rights verification. This creates a direct conflict between fairness and efficiency: smaller rights holders may struggle to claim their royalties due to procedural streamlining, while large-scale publishers with more legal and administrative resources are better positioned to benefit from automated licencing systems. Additionally, as CMOs manage a rapidly expanding catalogue of new works, the pressure to process claims at scale often results in inaccuracies and undistributed “black box” revenues. These challenges highlight the unintended consequences of regulatory reforms that, while intended to promote fairness, may actually contribute to reinforcing disparities in digital music copyright governance.

Figure 1 is a visual presentation of stakeholders' core values, Values' interactions, and possible value tensions and shows how each identified value supports, is supported by, or has tensions with other values within the context of collective management of music copyrights. The figure is supported by the analysis of qualitative data as outlined in Table 2 ⁽¹⁾ .

Figure 1.

SCMMC values and their relations. SCMMC, system of collective management of music copyrights.

In subsections 4.1 and 4.2, the first two objectives are examined. For the third objective and RQ3 (How can prioritised core values be operationalised into institutional and technological system requirements?), this study develops a structured framework based on Van de Poel's (2013) approach. The framework provides a systematic method for integrating stakeholder values into SCMMC governance and technological design. By structuring values into norms and system requirements, it offers a practical reference for decision-makers, regulators, and system designers, aiming to embed values in SCMMC yet its effectiveness ultimately relies on how institutions and industry stakeholders engage with it in practice.

Table 3 presents the conceptual synthesis of our empirical findings. It translates the identified values into norms and corresponding system requirements, providing a structured foundation for VSD's technical investigation and integrating values into SCMMC governance and design. To ensure consistency in formulating norms in Table 3, each norm was structured to be clearly actionable, specific in its application, aligned with the core value for clarity, and directly linked to the responsibilities or benefits of relevant stakeholders (Sadek et al., 2024).

This study contributes to research on collective music copyright management by applying a VSD approach to governance and technological challenges. While previous work on equitable remuneration in SCMMC has primarily focussed on legal and economic dimensions (e.g., Kretschmer et al., 1999; Gervais, 2019; Watt, 2016), this study integrates stakeholder values into both institutional and technological frameworks. In doing so, it extends discussions on governance models by operationalising values, such as justice, equity, fairness, and transparency, into structured norms and system requirements.

A key contribution of this research is its empirical focus on stakeholder perspectives within SCMMC. Prior studies (Bulayenko et al., 2021; Nagel & Kranz, 2021) have examined collective licencing through economic and legal lenses but have rarely incorporated multi-stakeholder qualitative analysis. By conducting semi-structured interviews with composers, publishers, CMO representatives, and legal experts, this study captures values and value tensions that emerge in governance, including, but not limited to conflicts between transparency and ownership and between equity and efficiency.

Additionally, our study contributes to the applicability and validity of Van de Poel's values' hierarchy approach for VSD's technical investigation. It builds on Van de Poel's (2013) methodology by structuring values into prescriptive norms that guide governance decisions. Unlike previous studies that focus solely on policy recommendations, this framework provides actionable design principles that can be integrated into SCMMC institutions and operations. The findings highlight the need for context-aware technological solutions to balance efficiency with equitable rights distribution.

Furthermore, this study contributes to the ongoing debate surrounding Directive 2014/26/EU and Directive 2019/790/EU by illustrating how regulatory competition may undermine CMOs' ability to uphold fundamental values. While previous research (European Commission, 2021; Yakubova, 2022) has critiqued the uneven enforcement of these directives, this study provides empirical evidence from rights holders who experience governance inconsistencies firsthand.

These findings emphasise that regulatory frameworks must account for the real-world complexities of SCMMC rather than assume that competition alone enhances fairness and efficiency.

This study examined the integration of stakeholder values into the governance and technological framework of collective music copyright management (SCMMC) in the Netherlands. Through qualitative analysis using a VSD approach, we identified and structured core values—justice, equity, fairness, transparency, ownership, accountability, and accuracy—into a framework of norms and system requirements. This framework serves as a conceptual tool for refining governance practices and technological implementations in digital rights management.

Our findings highlight persistent governance challenges in SCMMC, particularly concerning value tensions. For instance, while transparency is a key value for rights holders, its implementation is often constrained by proprietary rights and competitive pressures in licencing. Similarly, the push for efficiency in collective rights management may inadvertently compromise fairness and accountability, especially for smaller rights holders. This study also underscores the unintended consequences of regulatory reforms, such as Directive 2014/26/EU, which, while aiming to enhance competition, has placed significant operational burdens on CMOs, affecting their ability to uphold fundamental values.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. One key constraint is its reliance on qualitative data from a select group of participants, limiting the generalisability of findings to other contexts. Additionally, this study focussed primarily on publishers, CMO representatives, and rights holders, while independent artists, record labels, DSPs, and other indirect stakeholders were underrepresented. Future research should aim for a more balanced representation to develop a comprehensive understanding of SCMMC governance.

Another limitation concerns the ethical framework employed. While Rawls' Theory of Justice (1999) provided a strong foundation for assessing fairness and equity, it may overlook other critical values, such as trust, autonomy, privacy, and security. Future research should examine alternative ethical and governance models to assess how different theoretical frameworks influence the identification and prioritisation of values in SCMMC. To improve generalisability, future studies should incorporate quantitative validation methods alongside qualitative insights. Expanding the research scope to include diverse stakeholder groups and cross-regional comparisons would further enhance the applicability of findings in developing equitable and transparent digital copyright management systems.

Finally, while this study presents a structured foundation for understanding and operationalising stakeholder values in SCMMC governance, further research is required to refine its applicability. Future investigations should focus on translating these insights into concrete institutional and technological system requirements, ensuring that proposed governance mechanisms remain both practical and adaptable to evolving industry conditions. The next phase of research will centre on the technical investigations of VSD, testing and refining the frameworks alignment with real-world constraints. Additionally, as the digital music landscape continues to evolve, future research should assess how CMOs and policymakers can leverage this approach to evaluate regulatory and technological interventions.

Despite its limitations, by proposing a structured framework that operationalises stakeholder values into system design and governance, this study bridges the gap between policy aspirations and real-world challenges. Ensuring a just, transparent, and efficient SCMMC requires a balanced approach that aligns technological advancements with ethical considerations. Policymakers and industry stakeholders must work collaboratively to integrate these values into governance and technology, fostering a more equitable and sustainable digital copyright ecosystem. Additionally, actively involving rights holders in decision-making processes will be essential to ensure that their interests are represented in future regulatory and technological developments. The future of collective music rights management will not be shaped by technology alone, but by the values we embed within it. True progress lies not just in efficiency alone, but also in ensuring that every creator is seen, heard, and fairly compensated.