In recent months, we at PlayRight have regularly received this question from our artists: I participated in a recording that was subsequently broadcast on television or radio and streamed. Why do I receive royalties for those broadcasts on radio and television, but not for streaming? Or YouTube?

It’s a fair question. Streaming has been the main way fans listen to, discover, and share music for years. But the same goes for audiovisual streaming platforms, like Netflix, which have become huge in the media world.

Performing artists undeniably add value to every recording. It is precisely to recognise this added value that neighbouring rights exist: the system that must guarantee that artists are properly remunerated when their performances are used.

Unfortunately, however, legislation is evolving much more slowly than technology, resulting in a loss of income for artists. This is once again evident in the European CDSM Directive and the way it has been transposed in Belgium. This CDSM Directive – virtually the entire subject of copyright is regulated at EU level – explicitly states in its introduction that performers must be properly remunerated for the online use of their performances on streaming services and UGC platforms (such as YouTube or TikTok).

However, despite this strong declaration of intent, the European text remains too vague. Fortunately, the previous federal government showed the necessary courage: in its law transposing the CDSM Directive into Belgian law, it resolutely opted in 2022 to have streaming services and UGC platforms pay a remuneration right to the collective management organisation for performing artists, i.e. PlayRight. This is the highest possible guarantee for fair and transparent remuneration.

This decision met with stubborn resistance from Big Tech and record producers. The new law came into force in August 2022. But the opponents did not accept this: they lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court to have the entire Belgian transposition law thrown out.

And the Belgian Constitutional Court proved less courageous than the government: in a ruling in September 2024, it referred no fewer than 13 preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg. Preliminary questions are formal questions that a national court asks the Court of Justice when European legislation is unclear. The Court then gives a binding interpretation so that the national court knows how to apply the European rules correctly. This court is therefore the only body that can confirm whether Belgium has correctly transposed the CDSM Directive.

We wachten sindsdien op een uitspraak. Heel Europa kijkt mee over onze schouders. Jullie rechten ondertussen afdwingen, blijkt in de praktijk moeilijk: de gebruikers van jullie repertoire beroepen zich op juridische onzekerheid en willen geen betalingen doen die later wel eens onverschuldigd zouden kunnen blijken te zijn. Enkel een duidelijke uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie kan deze impasse doorbreken. We verwachten dit rond de zomer van 2026.