Search

This article analyses the statistical reporting of UK Music, the umbrella organization that provides a collective voice for British music industry trade bodies. It documents changes in methodology from the organization's earliest reports, which provide financial data for each industry sector and use the prosperity of the business as a platform from which to lobby, to the reports for the years of the COVID-19 pandemic, which turn away sectoral information to argue that the industry is an ecosystem and music is beneficial for national well-being. In the process, UK Music submerges evidence that record companies and music publishers fared well during the pandemic while music creators and live music industry workers suffered greatly. As well as uncovering this information, this article considers why it has been neglected. It has enabled UK Music to lobby for actions that work across the industry and sidestep arguments that music creators should receive a greater share of remuneration. It has also helped to keep UK Music intact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Britain, the Select Committee of the government department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has investigated the economics of streaming and recommended that the share of revenues for record companies should decrease so that songwriters can earn more. This article addresses lobbying activity that has resulted from this recommendation. To support their causes, songwriter representatives and record company organisations have made incorrect or misleading use of data from the report Music Creators' Earnings in the Digital Age. This article looks at the impact of these uses and provides corrections and alternatives to the statistics that have been employed. It also looks at the importance of the issues that have been raised. In conclusion, it addresses aspects of record company accounting that will need to be considered if an increase for songwriters is to be made at their expense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

British musicians receive “equitable remuneration” when their recordings are played in public or are broadcast. Performers’ rights are weaker than those of songwriters, however. This is largely because songwriters are the first owners of their copyrights, whereas performers rarely own the copyright in their sound recordings. This article concerns the remuneration of musicians’ labor. It looks at the legislative evolution of performers’ rights in the UK and addresses the influence that songwriters, record companies, and the Musicians’ Union have had on this area of copyright law. It argues that performers will only achieve legislative parity with songwriters if the ownership and conceptualization of sound recording copyright are reconfigured. This copyright should be awarded to performers for their creative labor, rather than to record companies for their financial and administrative endeavors. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Presents letters to the editor on medical topics as of January 12, 2002. Promotion of patient safety in primary care; Question of whether patients of the National Health Service of Great Britain should be allowed to pay extra for their care; Screening for Down's syndrome; Problems with temporary cardiac pacing; Mental health services for children and adolescents; More.

Purpose: To assess the effects of adjuvant hormone therapy (AHT) on survival and disease outcome in women with epithelial ovarian cancer., Patients and Methods: Participants were premenopausal and postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer (any International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage) 9 or fewer months previously. Ineligible patients included those with deliberately preserved ovarian function, with a history of a hormone-dependent malignancy, or with any contraindications to hormone-replacement therapy. Patients were centrally randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either AHT for 5 years after random assignment or no AHT (control). Main outcome measures were overall survival (OS), defined as time from random assignment to death (any cause), and relapse-free survival, defined as time from random assignment to relapse or death (any cause). Patients who continued, alive and relapse free, were censored at their last known follow-up., Results: A total of 150 patients (n = 75, AHT; n = 75, control) were randomly assigned from 1990 to 1995 from 19 centers in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Hungary; all patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses. The median follow-up in alive patients is currently 19.1 years. Of the 75 patients with AHT, 53 (71%) have died compared with 68 (91%) of 75 patients in the control group. OS was significantly improved in patients who were receiving AHT (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.90; P = .011). A similar effect was seen for relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.97; P = .032). Effects remained after adjustment for known prognostic factors., Conclusion: These results show that women who have severe menopausal symptoms after ovarian cancer treatment can safely take hormone-replacement therapy, and this may, in fact, infer benefits in terms of OS in addition to known advantages in terms of quality of life., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)