| Terminal values |
|
|
| Justice | Justice entails fair treatment and equitable distribution of benefits and burdens, respecting individual rights and societal laws, as inspired by Rawls' concept of distributive justice (1999). This framework not only aims for fairness and equal liberties but also focusses on equity—adjusting benefits to address inequalities and historical injustices. Our empirical data supports that such a justice-based approach ensures all creators, especially the least advantaged, gain equitable access to protections and earnings, promoting a balanced system. This strategy helps uplift underrepresented artists, ensuring industry wealth benefits every member equitably. |
| Equity | Equity in music copyright management ensures that benefits match each member's input. Our study integrates this concept, emphasising equity beyond legal equality to address and correct disparities within the SCMMC, ensuring all creators' gain equitable opportunities from their work, regardless of popularity or location. |
| Fairness | Fairness emphasises equal access to fundamental rights and freedoms, promoting actions against discrimination to uphold justice in music copyright management. Rawls' Principles of Justice (1999) highlight the necessity of equal liberties, underscoring actions against discrimination that contradict fairness. Technologies in copyright management system must reflect this by avoiding biases that perpetuate injustice (Barocas & Selbst, 2016). For instance, issues like those faced by Blur's Dave Rowntree with PRS (Dredge, 2024), where royalties are misallocated due to flawed metadata, illustrate the urgent need for fairness in copyright distribution. |
| Equality | Equality is not about treating everyone identically, but rather about ensuring that everyone has genuine opportunities to achieve similar outcomes. Rawls (1999)'s emphasis on fair equality of opportunity and the use of the difference principle to address the disparities in social and economic starting points are central to creating a just society where equality is not just a formal declaration but a lived reality. According to Harris et al. (2009), this principle supports not only refraining from discriminatory practices but also proactively addressing systemic inequities. Engaging with diverse perspectives helps in creating systems that embody Rawlsian justice and effectively manage the complex balance between technological accuracy and justice for all involved in the music industry. |
|
| Instrumental values |
|
|
| Ownership and property | Ownership and property involve possessing, using, managing, and profiting from information. Global copyright laws protect these rights, enabling creators to control and benefit financially from their works (Honoré, 1961). However, these rights also entail responsibilities, especially in technology design, to avoid misusing ownership and ensure respect for others' rights. Our participants support this, referring to the secrecy in CMO tariff negotiations with DSPs, such as Spotify, that often defended for competitive reasons, which poses ethical dilemmas by compromising transparency and accountability, potentially leading to technology misuse. |
|
| The differing priorities of creators and publishers further complicate the governance of CMOs. While creators prioritise equitable compensation and recognition, publishers focus on optimising revenue streams and expanding market access (Kretschmer & Kawohl, 2004). This divergence creates tensions in royalty distribution, contractual agreements, and licencing models, with publishers often advocating for broader commercialisation, while creators emphasise the need for fairness and control over their works (Kretschmer et al., 1999; Hadziarapovic et al., 2021). This study confirms that current governance models within CMOs struggle to balance these competing priorities |
| Accountability | Accountability ensures that actions and decisions align with legal and ethical standards (van de Poel, 2013) and requires justification, particularly when impacting copyright holders (Floridi, 2013). Directive 2014/26/EU (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2014) aimed to enhance CMO governance and transparency, yet challenges remain in multi-territorial licencing and royalty distribution. Despite mandates for clearer reporting (Articles 7–10), rights holders cite ongoing opacity in royalty allocation and licencing agreements (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2014). Research confirms persistent transparency gaps, especially in algorithmic calculations (Yakubova, 2022). While the directive provides a governance framework, enforcement inconsistencies limit its impact. Accountability can be improved by identifying royalty distribution inefficiencies, promoting transparency, and ensuring equitable management (Ferguson, 2017). |
| Transparency | Transparency ensures that all decision-making processes are openly visible, promoting clarity and inclusivity that upholds ethical standards (Lepri et al., 2018). This openness challenges the usual opacity associated with proprietary algorithms, which can obscure essential processes and impact rights holders (Ferguson, 2017). Advocates like Van de Poel (2013) and Hayes et al. (2019) call for transparent technology development that includes diverse perspectives, particularly from underrepresented groups, to demystify algorithmic decisions and ensure fairness. |
| Accuracy | Accuracy in data, as emphasised by Fox et al. (1994) and Tayi & Ballou (1998), is fundamental for informed decision-making, ensuring data is complete, reliable, consistent, and timely. However, as McCue (2015) noted, challenges, such as poor data entry practices and design biases, complicate this accuracy, a statement supported by the findings in our empirical data. |
