Today Sun Mon
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 11, 2012
Chance of Snow
-2°/-3°
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 12, 2012
Chance of Snow
2°/-5°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 10:00 PM EST on February 13, 2012
Partly Cloudy
3°/-2°

15 Comments

news

Songwriters Association Wants P2P Tollbooth

2008_02_21p2p.jpg
In the music industry’s latest attempt to lazily claw itself out of the grave, the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) is proposing a $5.00 per month licence fee on Canadian Internet accounts that would legalize music downloads. They’re calling it the Right to Equitable Remuneration for Music File Sharing, a “reasonable and unobtrusive system of compensation” that will allow consumers to fill their bellies full of all the music they can handle from any peer-to-peer network while creating added revenue for artists, publishers, and labels alike.
While imposing a fee on everybody with an Internet connection to subsidize a service that a lot of people never used to begin with isn’t particularly new or all that shocking, this would set a completely bonkers precedent with the potential for a deluge of other Internet levies from other groups of interest (the film industry, software programmers, etc.). Besides, Canadians already pay a levy on blank media (CD-Rs, cassettes, etc.) for basically the same reason. And it still holds true that not everyone uses those blank CDs exclusively to dub copies of Dance Mix ’94 in much the same way that not everyone uses an Internet connection to stick it to the man by illegally downloading it. So why pay for permission for something we don’t necessarily want permission to do? Isn’t this just collective punishment disguised as legal downloading?
Sure certain musicians should be more fairly compensated since we’re all such wads about stealing the fruits of their heavy hearts (according to the Toronto Star, CD sales in Canada have dropped 35% since 2006 with a shared to paid Internet download ratio of 98:2). But a flat rate forcing people to buy music whether or not they’re interested isn’t the best way to adapt to a changing industry.
Really the only positive thing about this proposal is the slow about-face the industry is having toward embracing technology instead of continuing to drop millions of dollars to halt it and carry on with a totally obsolete business model. Fat-brained consumers will always find new ways to steal, and the artists they’re stealing from will further experiment with alternate revenue sources until they hit on something and leave cute things like labels and the Songwriting Association in the ball pit. Unless, of course, the other guys figure it out first.
For now there’s virtually no way SAC’s non-optional fee proposal could ever go through, but if you feel the need to rabble-rabble in person about this sad scene, a public forum is taking place today at 7 p.m. at Ryerson’s Oakham House. Bring your autograph book because it’s moderated by Eddie Schwartz (AKA the dude who wrote Pat Benatar’s “Hit Me with Your Best Shot”).
Photo by s3a.

Comments

  • tommertron

    I was initially a fan of this idea, but didn’t realize it would be a mandatory fee for everyone. My mom doesn’t download music and shouldn’t have to pay because I do. But I’d gladly pay $5 a month for legal immunity for downloading music and $10 for immunity for downloading movies.

  • JonathanS

    I used to be a member of the SAC and their policies on these types of “modern” issues was one of the reasons I left.
    However, it’s an unfair and wholly inaccurate characterization to call it the “music industry’s latest attempt to lazily claw itself out of the grave.” For one, this is a songwriter’s collective, not the “industry.” It’s not a bunch of thieving executives; it’s the people that actually sit down and write the fucking songs. The difference being that THESE ARE ACTUALLY ARTISTS.
    That being said, this idea of theirs is ludicrous. An internet tax for everyone assumes everyone uses P2P and puts an undue onus on those who don’t. I also highly question the effectiveness of the distribution of collected funds. The distribution of those media levy fees you mentioned is a joke.

  • triplexpac

    So I pay $5 a month and I can have all the free music I want? Thanks songwriters!

  • AR

    $5 dollars per month is too much to pay, especially for those that don’t download illegal music, or those that don’t download Canadian music.
    Fortunately with downloading and the new generation of listeners increasing uninterested in any purchased music, music has the potential to return to a performance art, since it’ll be the only direct way to make money.

  • spacejack

    My theory is that revenues from music sales will be replaced by revenues from licensing for commercials.

  • Ninjabot

    Welcome to the world of taxation, where you pay for things you never use. I have company health care benefits taken straight out of my paycheque, whether I use it or not. Couple that with provincial health care and I’m paying for a LOT that I might never use.

  • rek

    I haven’t downloaded a song in over a year, why would I want to pay this? Besides, it’s already legal by default thanks to that 2004(?) supreme court ruling.
    Is Michael Geist going to rouse the rabble on this?

  • Marc Lostracco

    Movie studios, book publishers, and newspapers then jumping in and asking for their additional monthly fee in 5, 4, 3, 2…

  • iamnotdynamite

    does anyone know how exactly the funds would be dispersed among the artists? i skimmed their proposal but didn’t notice any info about it. obviously the SAC members would have widely varying amounts of people downloading their music, and it would seem at odds with the capitalist spirit of the whole thing if all of the artists got exactly the same amount. also, if i were paying an extra $5 dollars a month, i would at least want to know that my money is going towards the artists i download music from, and so in some way support, and not just anyone who happens to be a member of SAC.

  • rek

    Is it true the blank media levy hasn’t even started to be distributed among Canadian copyright holders?

  • scotus

    What about a monthly fee on internet connections to subsidize the adult magazine industry? This industry has also been devastated by the internet.
    Who decides who gets the money? What other defunct industries should we subsidize with taxes?

  • Ashley Carter

    Ninjabot – the difference being that health care was never considered illegal and actually benefits everyone. I don’t mind paying to have your face put back together, but I’d rather not have to pay for your BNL downloads.
    tyrannosaurus_rek – according to http://cpcc.ca/ “$96 million (of $145 million available) has been distributed to over 67, 000 rights holders” to date. So take that as you will.

  • naceonic

    Michael Geist says in his blog something along the lines of “headed in the right direction” check it out yourself.
    The copying levy is a completely different animal.
    That levy gives people the right to copy it for personal use.
    File sharing is about how you get the music in the first place.

  • Diisparishun

    A company with at least some ties to Toronto, Noank Media, has a voluntary spin on this — basically artists can sign up to be distributed through the service, and ISPs can sign up to make the service available to their subscribers.
    Because it’s a voluntary service on both sides, it doesn’t require legislative change. On the other hand, it does require convincing the rightsholders (artists or, when they’ve ceded their rights to them, record companies) to distribute their music through it. Interestingly, though, the founder is a Harvard law prof named Terry Fisher who — with others — is known for the idea (longer pdf) that SAC is describing.
    (That sounds a bit promotion-y, but — honest — I have no ties to the above and have never met anyone who does. I would be curious to know more about it, though.)
    Besides, it’s already legal by default thanks to that 2004(?) supreme court ruling.
    I’m not sure that’s so. Which ruling?

  • rek

    This more or less summarizes it. It’s quasi-de facto legal in Canada because there have been no successful attempts to criminalize it, while there has been one ruling (later set aside by the Court of Appeals) saying it’s not illegal to ‘make available’.