After years of blogging about proposed changes to Canadian Copyright legislation, and the ill-advised approach taken on behalf of “Canadian performers” by ACTRA, I’m happy to bring you a post about another group that has forwarded, what I believe to be, the first truly constructive approach to dealing with on-line file-sharing for musicians. The Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC), has put together a very thorough proposal on the dilemma of “Peer-to-Peer” (P2P) file-sharing, by countering with a “Business-to-Business” (B2B) model that would seek to monetize, rather than modify, consumer behavior.
I am not a member of SAC (I am a member of ACTRA), but I have been a songwriter for over a decade and I do have digital files of my music all over the internet (i.e. – iTunes, CDBaby, Rhapsody etc. etc.). In other words, I “have a dog in this fight”. I care about the content that I create and I care about my rights as a user. The fundamental difference that I see in SAC’s proposed model vs. ACTRA’s rhetoric is this: SAC comes to the table with empathy, understanding and, most important, a solution to the problem for its customers.
What SAC is proposing is not a “levy” or a tax. SAC is seeking a new licensing arrangement with Internet Service Providers that would allow would-be copyright infringers the opportunity to pay a license fee (based similarly on Cable TV premium subscription packages) while allowing those who don’t download to opt out. The key word here is: License. If an infringer chooses to opt out of paying the license fee and proceeds to download anyway – then they have to deal with the consequences. That said, I continue to put my money (or lack thereof) where my mouth is, as a content creator, and maintain the belief that “illegal downloading” is not the scourge that Music Canada (the entity formerly known as CRIA) would have you believe it is. But, I digress and don’t want you to confuse SAC with CRIA… I mean – Music Canada.
I encourage all those interested to check out SAC’s proposal here and here.
I’d like to take a moment to discuss SAC vs. ACTRA in the public realm in more detail. I’ve blogged at length on the need for ACTRA to take a back seat when it comes to being the public mouthpiece for Canadian artists and content creators, but for the uninitiated, here are a few points to consider:
1. ACTRA does not represent copyright holders the same way that SAC does: ACTRA represents “neighbouring rights” holders. Bearing in mind that “copyright” is technically a bundle of various rights and that ACTRA performers do indeed have a “copyright” on their performance: they *license* their performance (read: sign over their copyright for an agreed sum) the minute they sign an ACTRA contract. Terms of contract vary, but considering the fact that any jurisdiction ACTRA has over the matter has been signed over to the contracting Producer; it’s easy to see how ACTRA gets criticized for appearing to be speaking to the needs of Broadcasters & Distributors rather than Artists.
2. ACTRA RACS (Recording Artists’ Collecting Society) should be the umbrella under which ACTRA sends its representatives out into the public eye. As much as I love Eric Peterson and respect him as an actor, ACTRA shoots themselves in both feet when they let him (and others, like – Wendy Crewson, Leah Pinsent, Peter Keleghan – all fine artists who sign ACTRA contracts) go out in front of the cameras and equate watching their TV shows for free with motor vehicle theft. First of all, “illegal” copying is not the same as stealing a car and anyone who knows how to use the internet already knows that they can watch Canadian TV for free, on-line, by streaming it directly from the Broadcasters website. It’s difficult to understand how the average Canadian actor is hurt by file-sharing. ACTRA would be better off asking the likes of Michael Buble, K.D. Lang, K’nann or even Jason Collett to speak up instead. If they decline the offer to be a spokesperson on the topic, that answer should be instructive.
3. SAC’s membership is comprised solely of copyright holders. Some are signed to big labels while others are as independent as you can get. Some aren’t even performers. SAC’s membership is directly effected by downloading and they’re offering a solution. Even some within SAC make the mistake of equating “illegal” downloading with grand theft auto, but despite this fact, they bring forth a proposal that doesn’t require changing legislation. SAC’s proposal can go forward without re-writing Canada’s Copyright Act.
Ultimately, I don’t think that SAC’s proposal (as good as it is), will be embraced by ISP’s, Broadcasters and the like, for the same reason that I don’t think that ACTRA will be seeing any further support for the Private Copying Levy.
The reason: Studios & Labels stand to make much more money from suing “infringers” than they do from helping collection societies find revenue to support artist development.
There is a lot to unpack in this, some of which was discussed at the Supreme Court this week.
Some posts on this:
http://goo.gl/4MCSC
http://c11.ca/5383
One of the cases involved music downloads of previews, which in part hinged on the question of whether online music distribution is a communication by telecommunications, a distribution of copies, or both.
The labels have always argued it is a distribution of copies (with the distribution mechanism being by wired or wireless means being irrelevant). If this is true, then the fact that neighbouring rights holders (performers and makers/labels) have full copyright has allowed the labels to dominate this part of the industry.
If instead it was considered a communication, then the section 19 (communication) and section 80 (private copy) exceptions would come into play, meaning neighbouring rights holders would only have a right to remuneration. That right of remuneration is set with both of these exceptions where the percentages are far more fair to composers+performers than the pennies-on-the-dollar that the labels allow composers+performers in the market for “copies”. Then if SAC could convince the songwriter collectives to license these uses under reasonable terms, then their proposal could simply be implemented without needing the government to step in.
Unfortunately SOCAN was arguing at the Supreme Court that it was both, falsely believing that there was more money in having every possible legal theory apply in parallel. Essentially, by allowing the labels to continue to successfully argue that it is a distribution of a copy (and subject to label control in that marketplace), SOCAN was effectively taking money out of the pockets of songwriters.
*sigh*
With friends like this, do songwriters even need enemies?