The BPI is calling on the government to give them (well, their members) a break. Or, to be more precise, a tax break, which is possibly the best kind of break. And why should the record labels get such a break? For spending so much money breaking new bands, of course. Surely offering bands their big break deserves a big (tax) break? If only to stop the labels from going broke. Mmm, I think I've confused myself here.
Anyway, the UK record label trade body has responded to the government's recent review of the creative sector by saying that the tax credit scheme offered to companies who invest some of their profits into 'research and development' programmes should also be offered to record labels who invest some 17% of their turnover into trying out and honing (or, you might argue, researching and developing) new talent. Such creative R&D isn't, alas, currently eligible for preferential tax treatment.
Commenting on the issue, BPI boss Peter Jamieson told CMU: "We believe the time is right for government, together with industry, to consider closely a tax credit regime for A&R, which is the music business' research and development. Such a system would create incentives for greater investment in our industry, and would put the development of British intellectual property on the same footing as in other industries."
This is not a new viewpoint from the BPI, who have been pushing for tax friendly recognition of creative R&D for a while. The new statement on the matter comes in response to the government's Creative Economy Programme, part of their plans to make the UK "the world's creative hub", whatever that means.
In that regard, the BPI has also expressed concern that the government's 'programme' seems to concern itself too much with what the trade organisation calls 'micro-management' issues in the creative sector rather than more strategic matters which would help create the 'structure' and 'frameworks' those companies already operating in the creative industries need to survive and grow. To that end the BPI is proposing the creation of a Creative Industries Strategy Group, which would concern itself with such structures and frameworks.
Jamieson: "We believe that the government should focus on creating frameworks not micro-managing intervention. We want to see the government develop the appropriate structures for investors, policy makers and IP education and enforcement. Many of the seven CEP working groups noted the need for a new body to co-ordinate policy making and statistical gathering. We agree and recommend the formation of Creative Industries Strategy Group which be a standing body to allow interaction and co-ordination between relevant people in government and the industry."