backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by Macelind.. on Jan 31 at 1:23 PM

Advocacy is growing in the U.S.'s northern neighbor to make sharing legal

In the U.S., suggesting that legislation be past to legalize music sharing is likely a ticket to getting laughed out of town. The U.S.'s northern neighbor, Canada, is used to looking at things a bit differently.  Canada often breaks with its neighbor and tradition in terms of social policy and other issues.

Canada is now experiencing an intriguing grassroots movements among its music artists to legalize music downloading.  The Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC), a songwriters guild which features such artists as Joni Mitchell, Jean-Pierre Ferland, David Clayton-Thomas, Marc Hamilton, and Haydaine Neale, just released a proposal that may turn a few heads in the international music community.

The group proposed that the Canadian government legalize file sharing, while enacting a flat fee of $5 per home Internet connection to provide royalties to artists.  The SAC estimates that the legal music market in Canada amounts to about $2.13 million CDN in revenue, while being dwarfed by illegal downloading.  About 22% of Canada's population downloaded music last year according to a research study last year representing about 7.5 million active downloaders.  If the flat fee was imposed, this could increase music revenues to almost $37 million CDN.

While many of the details about how the royalties would be distributed remain to be seen, the SAC's efforts represent a landmark effort by musicians to make their music available to the public for a reasonable rate.  The SAC states that, "Canada has given the world some of the greatest music ever produced. We believe that implementing a fair way of compensating Canada’s music creators for the online sharing of their music will usher in a new Golden Age of creativity."

On its site, an online petition that can be completed by Canadian citizens, which will help bring the issue before Canada's Parliament.

While Canada may be experiencing an artist-driven movement towards legal file sharing, here in the U.S. such ideas are met with a mix of trepidation and enthusiasm.  Some artists like Trent Reznor and Radiohead are strong advocates of working out a more fair system that allows users to distribute music, while providing artists with some compensation.  Other artists like former Kiss member Gene Simmons laugh off such ideas and say that college students who download music should lose their "houses and cars".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Quid pro quo
By Chris Peredun on 1/29/2008 10:04:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"Canada has given the world some of the greatest music ever produced."

Maybe so, but Canada also gave the world Celine Dion.




RE: Quid pro quo
By wordsworm on 1/29/2008 10:14:31 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Maybe so, but Canada also gave the world Celine Dion.


It's revenge for Britney Spears.


RE: Quid pro quo
By BruceLeet on 1/29/2008 1:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
We gave Celine's Vocals for the nude scene in Titanic, not a bad trade (for us Canadians)

Quid Pro Quo


RE: Quid pro quo
By wordsworm on 1/29/2008 10:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
It could be worse. We could've given them Rita MacNeil. (Dear neighbors to the South: don't look for photographs. Wikipedia is safe: no photos). We also punished the US with Brian Adams.

The only truly great musical talent out of Canada is Weird Al as far as I can tell. Can you think of another musician that wrote a song about computers? "All about the Pentium!" And who can forget that he made "Gangsta's Paradise" better with "Amish Paradise"?


RE: Quid pro quo
By Gul Westfale on 1/29/2008 11:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
no matter how you put it, i'm NOT paying $5 for avril lavigne and celine dion. no sir.


RE: Quid pro quo
By wordsworm on 1/30/2008 6:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
That's not how it would work anyways. Those two artists have talent, regardless of whether or not either of us can stomach them. Trust me, that would go against Canadian government policy. The way it would work, more likely, is the money would go to whomever was spewing patriotic garbage.


RE: Quid pro quo
By killerroach on 1/30/2008 10:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
Except that Weird Al is from southern California. Sorry.


RE: Quid pro quo
By wordsworm on 1/30/2008 12:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
Damn... you're right. Then what talent are they talking about? Ok... we do have Jeff Healey, but he stopped making albums when he started doing some (albeit great) jazz. Someone help me find some patriotism please!


RE: Quid pro quo
By siberus on 1/29/2008 12:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure we already apologized for it as well.


RE: Quid pro quo
By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/29/2008 1:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
Can anyone enlighten me why it's not the first time I hear from Americans jokes towards her.
Here in Europe she is regarded as one of the most beautiful voices ever.
People have different tastes in music but her songs like

Celine Dion - The Power Of Love
Celine Dion- Because You Loved Me

Were very popular, and still today.
And I don't think anyone in their mind would even compare her to Britney Spears.


RE: Quid pro quo
By JakLee on 1/29/2008 2:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
Because here in the states we like to make fun of people who are popular. She may have a beautiful voice but I am tone deaf & don't really notice. However anyone that gets popular fast is often relegated to fad status regardless of talent.... and of course there is the whole Titanic thing....
:)


RE: Quid pro quo
By sdifox on 1/29/2008 2:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
fast??? She has been in the music business forever. She worked damn hard to get where she is. You can say you don't like her music, but you have to respect her dedication. She is not a fad.


RE: Quid pro quo
By rcc on 1/30/2008 11:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's the kid mentality here in the states, and elsewhere. Anything that has understandable lyrics and a melody is old hat, and deserves to be made fun of. It's also generational, as they get older most of them will change their, umm, tunes.

When you've been around long enough to watch a couple, few generations pass, it's actually quite entertaining.

I still get a kick out of the fact that music academia has lumped rap in the same category as gregorian chant. And didn't that just piss off a bunch of people. : )


RE: Quid pro quo
By Ringold on 1/29/2008 5:13:08 PM , Rating: 3
Christina Aguilera has a killer voice, too. Doesn't mean American's have to like her.

Besides, that setup with her husband was, frankly, somewhat creepy.


RE: Quid pro quo
By GTVic on 1/29/2008 5:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think partially it is over exposure for her and her songs. When someone or a song is popular, their songs get overplayed and eventually many people find that irritating.

Also, with Celine Dion, she has a very eccentric (or maybe excessive) personality. She says that is her personality but if I was around all those winks, high fives, thumbs ups and strange facial expressions all day they would drive me nuts.

In short I think the whole package is over done and over exposed and that is why there is the backlash.


RE: Quid pro quo
By VitalyTheUnknown on 1/29/2008 7:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
After reading your reply I have stumbled upon this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQrcNujVTPA

At least now I understand what could possibly irritate people and what you meant by saying that she is eccentric personality, but for me she's just having fun.


RE: Quid pro quo
By winterspan on 1/29/2008 9:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think alot of people get annoyed with nearly any very popular actress/singer/celebrity because of the insane level of exposure/media attention/gossip/etc thats goes on in America about Hollywood & the entertainment industry. It's grotesque.

That said, there are MANY who will try to ridicule anyone and everyone who is famous and successful, regardless of the person in question (not pointing fingers). Apparently, it is much easier to just speak negatively about everyone instead of actually contributing something meaningful. I think it makes them feel better about their own inadequacies and mundane existence.


RE: Quid pro quo
By Zelvek on 1/29/2008 5:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
She is part of a larger problem...

...Quebec


RE: Quid pro quo
By Samus on 1/31/2008 1:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
All that matters in the end is Jim Carrey and Rush. lol.


Well, I'm in!
By anotherdude on 1/29/2008 10:08:21 AM , Rating: 3
But from EVERY home with an Internet connection? Sounds good to me, since I would be a heavy user, but I suspect a lot of people would be unhappy with giving $5 a month if they are not going to DL. I do like the general concept.

I already pay Rhapsody $15 a month.

Throw movies and software into the deal and I'm in for sure. How will the proposed system deal with that I wonder?




RE: Well, I'm in!
By Hieyeck on 1/29/2008 10:23:28 AM , Rating: 1
QFT. A flat fee to cover intellectual property would be the way to go. However, I'd do more of a flex fee, where it's based on your downstream. People with more bandwidth are more likely to download more stuff, so maybe $1-$1.50 per megabit? On top of that, it's PURE profit, for the companies, since it'll still those music and movie files will still be downloaded from outside/3rd party sources. I'm not against paying for movies, but I don't like paying middlemen and especially when there are more effective means to obtain something. Why take a bus to wherever the hell to buy/rent a movie when I can do it from my own home. It's why netflix works - a few clicks and bang, you have movie after movie shipped to your doorstep.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By Chris Peredun on 1/29/2008 10:28:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
... I suspect a lot of people would be unhappy with giving $5 a month if they are not going to DL.

Don't forget that Canada already has a "blank media levy" on CDs as well - regardless of their intended use - of $0.21 per disc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#...
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/certified/c1205200...


RE: Well, I'm in!
By Polynikes on 1/29/2008 10:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like that, or this new proposal. It screws people who aren't file sharing.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By Salisme on 1/29/2008 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
Agree.

I've honestly bought two songs in the past two years for 99 cents each. And no, I don't look for other means of acquiring music, there just isn't a product I'm interested in.

The industry needs to understand that they might not be as popular as they think they are. They might need to actually consider that piracy might not be the reason for the drop in sales, it might actually be the product sucks! And me giving them a flat fee every month is going to do nothing but anger me more.

If musicians want to make money then they need to get off their lazy asses and go to work like the rest of the world, not just sit back and collect a monthly stipend from the population that cares nothing about them for work they did years ago.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By Chris Peredun on 1/29/2008 10:53:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If musicians want to make money then they need to get off their lazy asses and go to work like the rest of the world


Or, as a radical alternative to the current industry pablum - put out some music that's worth buying - whether it be $0.99 a song from iTunes, or an entire album.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By sinjinx on 1/29/2008 11:43:32 AM , Rating: 5
Sadly, we have only the American public to blame for the lack of quality music on the air . There is plenty of good music out there, but it requires some time and effort to locate.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By Macelind on 1/31/2008 1:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you might as well blame the American public for EVERYTHING else that is wrong while you're at it.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By AntiM on 1/29/2008 10:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Why should a person that has no interest in downloading music be forced to pay a monthly fee. I think subscription based services are the best answer. At least it makes it voluntary. That also somewhat solves the problem of making sure the money is going to the right places.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By elegault on 1/29/2008 10:52:20 AM , Rating: 1
Most Canadians aren't selfish. That's the Canadian way.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By Ringold on 1/29/2008 11:08:56 AM , Rating: 1
I don't see how not wanting to be punished pursued by others in a given month is selfish.

Heck, they might as well cut right to the chase; raise marginal income taxes by a wee little bit, and make musicians government employees. That's the Canadian/European way.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By jconan on 1/29/2008 11:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
i agree. also some people just don't listen to music. that would be penalizing them to subsidize the people that do. quite unfair since it's only recreation/past time and not really something beneficial for everyone. whatever happened to all that peace and quiet.


RE: Well, I'm in!
By omnicronx on 1/29/2008 3:21:16 PM , Rating: 3
5$ a household is nothing. And that 20% is definatly low, i think i read somewhere that only a few of the Scandinavian countries more households with high speed internet per capita. Being from Toronto, i can tell you that most kids over the age of 13 download songs at least once a year.

5$ a month is a small price to pay to basically be allowed to download whatever you want. It will also entice those who are currently not downloading to do so, as it will not be illegal.


Finally
By drebo on 1/29/2008 10:03:53 AM , Rating: 3
Finally, a logical approach to the problem. I would gladly pay $5/mo, or even $10/mo, flat fee to legalize audio file-sharing.

My only issue is that the artists would likely receive none of it. And if that's the case, why bother? I realize that some artists do suffer because of the negative images cast by their producers and the RIAA as a whole, and I think that needs to stop. Perhaps this could be a way to make peace with the recording industry, and we could cease our boycott on American music.

On the other hand, all this sharing has DRASTICALLY lowered the price of CDs. Hell, even 3 years ago paying $20 for a CD was the norm. Now they're down to $10-$12, and I'd hate to see that change. Could be that the price drop is due to an uncommonly high number of independed studios as well. The world may never know.




RE: Finally
By lukasbradley on 1/29/2008 10:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
In all media industries, we are seeing a degradation in the importance of large production companies. In truth, they operate as middlemen, providing advertisement, marketing and distribution. As access to the Internet has increased, advertisement and self promotion is easier, and brick-and-mortal distribution is marginalized.

As this continues to happen, the distribution channels will become streamlined, and the contributing artists will receive a much greater share of the wealth.

The RIAA will wake up one day, and shift their focus. Or, they will be marginalized out of existence.


RE: Finally
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/29/2008 10:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
$20 cds?? You my friend need to find a good used cd retailer! ;)

I agree, the essential thing is that the money goes to the artists. Thats where the tricky part would come in, and developing an equitable distribution scheme based on d/l tracking or something.

Honestly I think the cd price drop in recent years is mainly due to
a) lagging interest in big label acts combined with independent labels willing to sell at lower prices
b) large consumer electronics retailers like Best Buy and Circuit City undercutting each others prices and trying to offer the cheapest cds to lure customers in to purchase expensive electronics

Interesting thoughts, though, definitely!


RE: Finally
By mmntech on 1/29/2008 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
He's right. A lot of new releases are almost $20 a CD in Canada. We're always screwed up here when it comes to prices. That's at major music stores and places like Best Buy.

I like the idea but only if it's optional. If it's not, it just becomes an internet tax.


RE: Finally
By Ringold on 1/29/2008 11:11:06 AM , Rating: 2
Out of curiosity, what's the math look like on whats making up the prices in Canada?

NAFTA means its almost assuredly not a tariff issue. Local taxes?


RE: Finally
By Hieyeck on 1/29/2008 11:51:15 AM , Rating: 1
Stores too retarded to realize that 8 years of Bush destroying the US economy means a stronger Canadian dollar.

The $20 is before taxes.


RE: Finally
By treehugger87 on 1/29/2008 3:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we havent even seen an adjustement in the price of many consumer goods, some electronics have come down in price, but items like cars are still ridiculously more expensive than in the US. I think its the fact that we have decreased consumption due to decreased tourism from Americans and theyre weak greenbacks. So the stores are moving less goods thereby they have to retain their prices to keep profits.


RE: Finally
By johnbuk on 1/30/2008 10:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'd be interested to see data showing how badly tourism has dropped in Canada (if it has). Personally, I live in the U.S. and for 10 years I spent at least a week every year in Atlantic Canada. Last year I couldn't afford it due to a weak dollar and the fact that Canada dropped the GST rebates for visitors and won't be going again this year for the same reasons. If prices there had gone down some because of a stronger Canadian dollar and the GST rebate for visitors was still available, I'd still be going there every year.


Altruism? I don't think so!
By mindless1 on 1/29/2008 1:19:54 PM , Rating: 3
I do not accept the idea that they're trying to be fair nor trying to make their music available. I think it's a lot easier to explain that they're greedy and feel they will get more money under the proposed system than they otherwise would.

In an ironic twist, this would make the artists leeches of the system that formerly left the recording industry as leeches sucking the public and (most) artists. Lots of artists simply should not be able to make a living because their target audience simply does not value their work.

This was true before filesharing ever happened but in an earlier era such an artist could not become a financial burden to this proposed system which doesn't, didn't exist then. Today it is different, artists whose music a free market chooses not to support because it is undesirable would be supported and remove the incentive for quality music that meets the consumer demand.

How about the opposite? Artists pay ISPs $5 per account for distribution as a promotional expense and this is discounted from the account owner's bill for listening to the music it is assumed they must if they were to be fairly charged the $5 the other way around. The truth is, people in Canada do buy music, coming up with some idea that simply generates more revenue is con, because any industry could just claim the same that if only everyone were taxed enough that industry too would be subsidized.

It could be extended to all industries where all your money is taken and you get what the communist government decides you get to have (or less, as with the case of downloading music you are quite *free* to not take what you don't want to have).

Canadian artists, send me $5 too even though I'm not Canadian. Maybe I'll listen to your plea if you make an MP3 out of it.




RE: Altruism? I don't think so!
By mindless1 on 1/29/2008 1:36:55 PM , Rating: 4
I almost forgot the summary:

Artists, you aren't ENTITLED to earn a living doing anything, including being an artist, that the consumer isn't willing to pay you for. Do feel free to find another line of work if the pay isn't good enough, as it is the case with everyone on this earth that if they can't make enough money to suit them while doing only what they want to do most, they have to do something they don't want to do as much to make that money.

Obviously these artists don't need the money as they would have quickly enough figured this out if they were losing their possessions or starving. Don't get me wrong, we as a society need art but this proposed subsidy is not the answer.


Would love to get free money
By viperpa on 1/29/2008 10:46:42 AM , Rating: 3
If I don't download music the record companies would still get free money, I love that concept. Wish I could get money from the things I do. It would be a good idea if it was not mandatory but of course that's not the case.

I always here people say that the artists won't get the money. If the artists were so worried about it, they wouldn't be resigning up with there record labels.




By Darkskypoet on 1/29/2008 11:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point, at first the record companies would get the money for their artists... However in the long run, these sorts of systems remove the necessity for the record company. They simple are not needed. One doesn't have to sign, they can simply produce... If it gets downloaded, and heard, and gets popular, they get money... if not, then keep the day job.

Besides, do you really think your tax dollars are not already heading to the record companies? Every suit they launch to sue someone costs money, time, and institutional resources to handle. The court system takes the brunt of this. Shouldn't judges be deciding more important cases? Court rooms used for more important matters? The drain on society is already present, and it doesn't stimulate small player participation, creativity, or any thing of the sort in the music industry. This sort of system, however imperfect, does.

It also serves to remove some of the power and clout that groups like the RIAA have over the industry, and that as well is a good thing. I would also submit, that the quality of music (given the ever declining cost of producing technically good recordings) would rise, as the focus on promoting crap till its popular would fall away, and instead we would have a far more grass roots sort of music creation market form. Less Corporate, more artist. As it stands, much of the indy scene is far better then the commercial crap, and perhaps this would allow that scene to flourish even more so then it does now.


Count me out!!!
By masa77 on 1/29/2008 11:17:09 AM , Rating: 3
That's a great system for the Canadian music industry, but not a viable solution for the taxpayer. If you don't download music why should you be paying for a service you don't use? Just because you use the Internet doesn't mean you download music. I imagine it will only include Canadian artists as well and fact that the number of quality artists is few and far between compared to our American counterparts translates into a big, fat 'no thanks'.

I hope they shoot down this proposal. It's an obvious cash grab by the music industry and a bandaid at best for the problem at the expense of the taxpayer.




RE: Count me out!!!
By Screwballl on 1/29/2008 12:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
agreed... the technology is there now so that ISPs should be able to put monitors on their systems that notify the billing side if a P2P or torrent sharing setup is used and THEN implement the extra billing charges. Only in the case of a business that uses this for legal file sharing can go through the red tape and get an exemption.


Well now, if it were legal...
By Darkskypoet on 1/29/2008 10:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Then various distribution players could drop the DRM (already on the way out seemingly), and simply watermark / track the music as its downloaded. Simply put, x number of unique Individual downloads out of y total downloads gets you z% of the pie.

Care would have to be taken to determine criteria for measuring authentic downloads, as in unique individuals downloading as opposed to just being able to falsely run up the numbers.

Further, this fee could be levied only on the higher speed connections, for instance grandma and grandpa utilizing a lite DSL connection or dial up wouldn't be hit with the levy (or perhaps maybe a fractional levy) whereas those with the Massive Big Bandwidth Lightening Extreme(tm) package, could pay a larger fee.

It certainly helps the independents gain some stable sources of income with little overhead. It is not surprising that this is being pushed by the Songwriters Association of Canada, they were also the ones supporting the move against the recent proposed changes to Canadian copyright law that would have resulted in some quite Draconian protection measures.

As artists are in the unique position of being screwed by the formal recording co business model, and by their pirating fans... It would make sense for them to adopt a middle ground which enables: an income, not being subject to work for hire laws, and greater control of their finished product, naming rights, etc.

Considering past laws aimed at protecting Canadian content in broadcasting, I could see the government even ponying up some cash to add to the pot for Canadian artists. A subsidy promoting the production, and dissemination of Canadian Content, that would be in line with many CRTC policies, and mandates.

However, with the current Conservative government in power, I doubt this sort of framework would be adopted. Considering they tried, and failed to find enough support, to pass said new draconian copyright laws, I doubt there will be much movement on this issue until either side (lib's or conservatives) has a majority in Parliament.




By Darkskypoet on 1/29/2008 9:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
Just so we understand each other... This applies to US, and other artists as well. They are all registered, there is a means to pay the company / org / artist whatever royalties accrue. And In this case, they too would get their share of the monies raised, and as such would be unable to sue those downloading the music. Same formula would apply, except for any extra monies granted annually to support Canadian Content (of course that would go to Canadian Artists). Honestly, I could see Quebec granting extra bonus dollars for French artists, etc.

Some royalties based on downloads in exchange for an end to the threat of legal action. I'd be surprised if other jurisdictions don't think of imposing the same thing. (non-US that is)


By Thanato on 1/29/2008 12:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
The best way I see it for home users is to integrate it with ISP packages. IE the ISP is allowed to block peer to peer and music downloading for non-subscribers regardless of the content they are downloading. If they pay the $5 premium, then it is the typical unmonitored/filtered traffic we receive in Canada already. I would opt in for that even if I haven't downloaded music in.. ages.




Old news
By SirHomeALot on 1/29/2008 3:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
This proposal wasn't just released. It is from November 2007.




Define Artist
By Chaotic42 on 1/29/2008 5:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
How do I get on this bandwagon? What defines who gets how much? If there's a list of "artists" who get paid from this, can I give the list-keeper 15% of my gross income to put me on the list?




That's nice...
By MrDiSante on 1/29/2008 8:34:44 PM , Rating: 1
Except file-sharing is already legal. It is perfectly legal to download files, so long as you don't upload them. And honestly, it's so hard to come after uploaders, they don't bother anyhow. As for the levy - nah, it got trashed recently. Anyhow, it won't happen, much as the IFPI/RIAA enjoy sticking their dirty noses in our business, they don't have much clout here.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki