BPI Deal on Streaming Reform is not a “Complete Reset”
This week in Parliament, Minister Chris Bryant announced the UK Government’s endorsement of the BPI’s new streaming code—a set of voluntary commitments made solely by the major record labels. It marks the culmination of a process that began with Parliament’s Culture Committee’s 2021 inquiry, which heard from a wide range of voices across the music industry—artists, songwriters, producers and managers—about the deep structural inequalities in streaming.
The Committee called for a “complete reset” of the streaming economy. Since then, the Government convened a series of roundtables with the industry. The Music Managers Forum has participated in this process alongside our colleagues in the Council of Music Makers (CMM) (FAC, MMF, MU, Ivors and MPG), advocating for real, meaningful reform to support those who actually make the music.
What’s been announced today is unfortunately not that.
Alongside our colleagues in the Council of Music Makers, the MMF will work with our community and our colleagues to actively test whether the commitments outlined in the BPI code are upheld in reality. This means gathering real-world evidence on how contract renegotiations are handled, how artists are treated when requesting fairer terms, and whether “good faith” truly translates into progress. Your experiences will be crucial in holding the industry to account.
This is not an industry-wide agreement
Let’s be clear: this BPI code is not an industry-agreed code. It was created by and for the BPI’s label members, not negotiated or agreed with the MMF or other members of the Council of Music Makers. It falls significantly short of the ambition shown by Parliament in 2021, and is couched in vague, non-binding language. It does not deliver the structural change required to fix the broken economics of music streaming. We are already seeing what appear to be exaggerated claims about how much more money artists will earn as a result of these proposals. We encourage our members to hold the labels to these bold figures and put these to the test.
What the BPI Code does not provide:
1. No guarantee of improved royalties
Under the new code, record labels have committed to respond to artist or manager requests to renegotiate outdated contracts within 60 days. But they are under no obligation to offer improved royalty terms. Discussions will be held “in good faith,” but without any measurable outcomes.
However, the MMF and the wider Council of Music Makers, will now be able to raise concerns directly with the BPI and the Government where these commitments are not being met.
If you want to test these promises now, we encourage you to use the CMM’s contract renegotiation resource, which includes practical tools and guidance for submitting requests with our support:
→ https://councilmusicmakers.org/contractrenegotiation
2. Rejection of modern royalty rates
Alongside our colleagues in the CMM, we have consistently called for contemporary, fair digital royalty rates for all artists. This ask has been rejected. For artists tied to outdated contracts, this refusal keeps them locked into a streaming economy that doesn’t work for them. Artists instead need to try to individually renegotiate rather than offering a fair rate to all, regardless of negotiating power.
3. Un-recouped balances “disregard”, lacks clarity
The majors have reaffirmed their 2022 commitment to disregard – not write off – un-recouped balances on pre-digital contracts—under certain conditions. Whilst Sony’s commitment is on a rolling basis, meaning new artists are eligible for pay through each year, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group refuse to match this best practice, which is also adopted by many independent labels. This means artists who signed contracts after 1st January 2000 will not be paid royalties until un-recouped balances are paid off from their (usually very low rate) royalties.
4. Per-diem payments for non-performing songwriters
Non-performing songwriters will now be able to receive small, non-recoupable per-diem payments for attending speculative writing sessions. Guidance on this will be issued by the Ivors Academy. This is a welcome step, but it does not materially change how streaming revenue is shared with songwriters. The major labels have committed to ensuring this cost is not paid by artists as a recoupable cost.
5. Session musicians’ fees increased (but unrelated to this process)
An increase in session musician fees from £130 to £182 is also included in the announcement. However, this with inflation increase, was already agreed with the MU and BPI prior to the streaming code and is not linked to streaming revenues. Conventionally it is also charged to the featured artist’s account, not the label share. The Musicians’ Union (MU) has made clear that session musicians continue to be excluded from any meaningful share of streaming income.
The MU, supported by the CMM, has launched a petition to get UK Parliament to Change the law to fix music streaming. Find out more and sign the petition here.
If you’re an MMF member and would like to discuss the Code and share any experiences with renegotiation/fair payment please email annabella@themmf.net