Call file-sharing the “most efficient distribution system of the largest repertoire of music ever assembled” and therefore “don’t want to sue file-sharers” so long as a “person isn’t sharing for financial gain,” and those that opt out would have to agree to “predetermined amount of damages if they are caught file-sharing.”
As town hall meetings are conducted across Canada to discuss reform of the country’s copyright laws the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) is trying to remind people of its proposal for a voluntary music file-sharing tax.
The proposal is simple: in exchange for a monthly fee set by Canada’s copyright board Internet subscribers would be able to share music so long as its not for financial gain.
It wants the monthly fee to be voluntary since not everyone shares music online. However, subscribers would have to “sign an undertaking to pay a predetermined amount of damages if they are caught file-sharing.”
The SAC says the proposal is simply a matter of facing reality and trying to figure out a way to monetize P2P.
“The Songwriters Association of Canada believes—and Internet technical experts agree—that unauthorized file-sharing cannot be stopped without actually shutting down the Internet,” says Bill Henderson, VP of the SAC, in a op-ed for Straight.com. “Attempts to sue it out of existence are futile. They alienate our audience, and earn us no money.”
Precisely. It’s a mark of a rather poor business model when you begin suing your own customers in order to try to convince people they should hand you over their hard earned money.
Henderson doesn’t stop there.
“Canadian songwriters don’t want to sue file-sharers. In fact, we like file-sharing. It’s the most efficient distribution system of the largest repertoire of music ever assembled, and it’s available to virtually everyone. What’s not to love about that? We don’t want to stop it; we just want to get paid for the use of our work. We think that most music fans agree with that, and that millions of Canadians would welcome a legal way to share any and all music files,” he adds.
This is the latest revision to the original plan for the “monetization of the file-sharing of music” proposed back in October 2007. Since then the SAC has listened to people from all sides of the issue and decided upon three important changes:
- Internet and wireless subscribers may opt out
- Participation is voluntary for Creators and Rights holders
- Amount of license fee to be determined by a regulatory or judicial process
The SAC also puts a lot of careful thought into why each of the affected parties ought to agree to the proposal.
For ISPs:
- Monetization will dramatically lower bandwidth costs.
- Costs of infringement notification and responses would be eliminated.
- Creators and rights owners would be in a position to offer ISPs an administration fee (Some percentage of the collected license fee would go to the ISPs).
- Once music file sharing is monetized, other new business opportunities will present themselves to ISPs.
For consumers:
- Guilt free, low cost access to the world’s entire repertoire of music.
- Clean virus free files.
- Access to tens of millions of songs, many of which are not found in digital stores or anywhere else.
- Consumer can opt out.
For artists:
- Creators will finally be paid for this new and growing use of their work.
- The monetization of file sharing will create a low cost distribution system with equal entry for the works of creators at all levels.
- Fair distribution of the licensing fee “pool”.
- Once music file sharing is monetized, other new business opportunities will present themselves to creators.
For copyright holders:
- Rights owners will finally be paid for this new and growing use of their catalogues.
- Increased value of catalogue (Much of what is file shared is catalogue music that may have represented little value to rights owners in the past).
- Record labels and Music publishers will have the funds needed to develop aspiring artists and songwriters.
- Once music file sharing is monetized, other new business opportunities will present themselves to rights owners
For everyone:
Preservation of and Exposure to Legacy, Niche and Ethnic music and culture.
While many record labels have come and gone, music “fans” have stored and now share music that would not otherwise be available from commercial sources.
Talk about a plan that actually makes sense.
Eddie Schwartz, President of the SAC, and one of the apparent co-authors of the proposal, weighs in in the comments section of this story to emphasize how it will benefit emerging independent artists which in his estimation comprise some 30% of illegal downloads.
He writes:
Let me weigh in as President of the SAC and one of the authors of the proposal. Most of us who developed this proposal are performers and songwriters. Since something like 30% of music downloaded is independent artists, the small monthly license fee we suggest would be of tremendous benefit to independent artists, many of whom are at the beginning of their careers. Most of these artists cannot support themselves at this time and cannot afford to tour extensively. This would give them a free, world wide distribution system that paid them for their work. Please go to http://www.songwriters.ca/studio/proposal.php to read the full proposal.
Many thanks
Eddie Schwartz
My only concern would be other copyright holders like the motion picture industry, video game developers, e-book publishers, etc.. would want a similar voluntary P2P tax raising the “small” monthly fee to a substantial one.
That being said, considering customers can opt out of the deal it’s far less intrusive than other copyright reform proposals like content filtering, bandwidth throttling, and Internet disconnection.
If you agree with the SAC’s proposal go here and submit an “I agree” message, or you can submit your own comments to advocacy@songwriters.ca.
What do you think of the proposal?
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
.
NOTE: Story updated 9/1/09 10:33PST to include comments of Eddie Schwartz, President of the SAC and one of the co-authors of the proposal.
Related Posts
- Canadian Songwriters Want to Legalize P2P
- EFF’s Reference Guide for Voluntary ‘ISP Tax’
- Canadian Record Labels Call ISP Music Tax a ‘Pipe Dream’
- Canadian Music Creators Also Support Legalized P2P
- Aussie Net Filtering to be “Voluntary Mandatory”
Loading ...
“As town hall meetings are conducted across Canada to discuss reform of the country’s copyright laws”
There’s only two and the second one has already occurd.
If digital industry like the RIAA, SAC and MPAA manages to get a plan like this into place removing almost all the risk on their investment while permanently institutionalizing their monthly revenue stream and securing their very existence, it would be the greatest slam dunk right into the face of piracy ever.
SUBSCRIPTION payments and DAMAGES when caught.
Epic.
Man Sam do u even read? The fee would mean no lawsuit for copyright infringement so its one or the other.
SUBSCRIPTION = NO DAMAGES
Read please.
Also, they’ve already institutionalized their revenue stream via our outdated copyright laws.
“If digital industry like the RIAA, SAC and MPAA …”
Digital industry? You wish.
What’s with your conspicuous insertion of “SAC” in that list? Another attempt at trolling perhaps?
“.. manages to get a plan like this [...] risk on their investment while [...] and securing their very existence, …”
This is practically identical to something from your previous posts: utter drivel.
“… it would be the greatest slam dunk right into the face of piracy ever.”
No, this would ultimately end the idiotic Copyright lobbying (your thing) while file sharing would flourish.
Real piracy, however, would somewhat still exist.
“SUBSCRIPTION payments and DAMAGES when caught.”
You should have read the article before making an imbecile of yourself.
“Epic.”
Epic fail.
N.B.: ‘would’, not ‘will’
As in hypothetically.
These models still assume an inflated value for the products being offered, which will cause the plan to fail. It also centers on the mentality that every product has the same value and everyone should be compensated equally, which is a slap in the face to all known economic model. The reality is that music is almost valueless to a large percentage of people, but those people will still generate revenue for the band from merchandise and concert sales. If bands want to make money these days that is how to do it. People are just holding on to the old days thinking that possibility is still there, when its not, stop living in the past and move on. The music industry is no longer going to be taken over by a couple main players making millions. There is so much content now that its more like the book industry.
Interesting idea but if they want to *encourage* legitimate use they should start taking advantage of commercial music offerings like the Zune Music store, Amazon etc. Bring them all to Canada with a fair revenue model and Canadian music.
If >>>music is almost valueless to a large percentage of people<<>>a couple main players making millions<<<. There are artists, songwriters, musicians, engineers, producers, road managers, stage managers, booking agents, ticket takers, graphic artists, publicists, radio announcers, video makers, broadcasters, festival promoters, club owners, record stores selling old vinyl, web designers, digital distributors, niche labels, independent distributors… so on and so on…
If “music is almost valueless to a large percentage of people” then why do so many people listen to music?
Why do people wear headphones on the subway, play background music in restaurants and shopping malls, make playlists for their road trip and “mixed tapes” for their friends? Why do most TV shows and films feature music prominently, ie in their credits and often as some sort of plot development tool? Why do people put on music to ’set the mood’ when they have friends over? Why do dentist’s offices play satellite radio while patients are having their teeth cleaned? Why do people go to concerts?
Lots of people VALUE music, they just don’t know what it’s WORTH monetarily.
Incidentally, the “music industry” is comprised of more than “a couple main players making millions”. There are artists, songwriters, musicians, engineers, producers, road managers, stage managers, booking agents, ticket takers, graphic artists, publicists, radio announcers, video makers, broadcasters, festival promoters, club owners, record stores selling old vinyl, web designers, digital distributors, niche labels, independent distributors… so on and so on…
Digital music has a declining monetary value. People will always value music in the sense that it gives them pleasure to listen to, but not in the sense that it will hold the same economic value as it once did.
The era of $20cds died in 1999, and its still puzzling to think that record labels were allowed to get away with such excesses.
Its free everywhere you turn (P2P, streaming, etc..) and can neither be replaced when lost or deleted (iTunes doesnt offer warranties) nor legally given to others without permission of the copyright holder.
Pretty hard to value something so ephemeral.
Never said people don’t want to listen to music. It simply does not hold the same monetary value it once did, and considering the saturation of the market, the price is highly inflated. Maybe not so much for music geared to the baby boomers, but those that grew up with Napster generally don’t believe in the 1$ per song model. Artist need to find a way to offer music for free to this demographic, otherwise you will only be butting heads while demonizing a fan base.
Exactly. Its pretty hard to put a value on something that’s invisible to the naked eye, you’re unable to touch, and can be just easily found for free in a million other places outside of the legal channels currently available.
If people are holding on to the old days, they are holding on to the idea that there could be a group of professional songwriters that don’t perform their own compositions. Or, come to think of it, a class of professional musicians. The continuing decrease in paying venues and demand for live shows as well as file sharing have basically destroyed that particular profession, it’s in the death rattle stage. I think the SAC just wants to fulfill it’s pension obligations as it’s membership goes gray.
The book industry is actually controlled by a few players. In some ways it’s even more consolidated than the msuic business, and has been for longer. In some cases the companies are the same ones that control the dead music business and the soon to follow movie business. I guess it’s a good thing that most file sharers don’t read a lot.
“If people are holding on to the old days, they are holding on to the idea that there could be a group of professional songwriters that don’t perform their own compositions.”
Non sequitur.
“Or, come to think of it, a class of professional musicians. The continuing decrease in paying venues and demand for live shows as well as file sharing have basically destroyed that particular profession, it’s in the death rattle stage.”
You are just babbling nonsense again.
“I think the SAC just wants to fulfill it’s pension obligations as it’s membership goes gray.”
Your idiotic statement makes less sense than what you cut it out to be.
“The book industry is actually controlled by a few players. In some ways it’s even more consolidated than the msuic business, and has been for longer.”
Utter drivel.
“In some cases the companies are the same ones that control the dead music business and the soon to follow movie business.”
What the hell are you writing about?
“I guess it’s a good thing that most file sharers don’t read a lot.”
That’s actually yourself that you’re referring to, not file-sharers: your reading comprehension and literacy in general is an embarrassment.
are*
Let me weigh in as President of the SAC and one of the authors of the proposal. Most of us who developed this proposal are performers and songwriters. Since something like 30% of music downloaded is independent artists, the small monthly license fee we suggest would be of tremendous benefit to independent artists, many of whom are at the beginning of their careers. Most of these artists cannot support themselves at this time and cannot afford to tour extensively. This would give them a free, world wide distribution system that paid them for their work. Please go to http://www.songwriters.ca/studio/proposal.php to read the full proposal.
Many thanks
Eddie Schwartz
It’s really nice to see fellow Canadian artists putting forth such a sensible solution. I never believed the big copyright industry execs for a second that artists are just ‘too scared’ to put their opinion forward and they that they were representing artists opinions (particularly given the existence of CMCC in the first place)
While I’m not a member of SAC, I do like this proposal a lot.
Eddie, I appreciate your earnestness but doing the math for tax models like the one you put forward, I have to say there is every chance that your member’s incomes would be lower than a per-unit payment scheme, and independent artists who get little exposure anyway would either be in the same position or worse off because things like CD sales at concerts would disappear. Record companies won’t invest becuase people won’t invest in them, no one will invest in a business that is both high risk and low yield.
“[...] but doing the math for tax models like the one you put forward, …”
Show the calculations instead of merely stating “doing the math”.
“… I have to say there is every chance that your member’s incomes would be lower than a per-unit payment scheme, …”
Why would chance come into the equation, and why are you trying form a mathematical inequality between unknown income and an arbitrary payment scheme that is not a number? The fact that you wrote “lower” and not “smaller” is very much proof that you have no idea what you are writing with regards to numbers.
“… and independent artists who get little exposure anyway …”
So you assume that all independent artists receive little exposure.
“… would either be in the same position or worse off because things like CD sales at concerts would disappear.”
You stated that independent artists would remain in the same position, as if they were already in a bad one, according to your assumption.
As well, you claim that it is probable that they would be worse off; however, you do not describe how and the only thing you have provided is a speculation, which neither not logically follows as a consequence of a new tax nor lead to your unsound conclusion.
In short, you are driveling nonsense.
“Record companies won’t invest becuase people won’t invest in them, no one will invest in a business that is both high risk and low yield.”
How is this irrelevant statement significant enough to be verified for factual correctness?
“which neither not”
Should read
“which neither”
“nor lead”
Should read
“nor leads”
Seriously, just ignore sam he is just a troll zero validity and zero input.
I took him seriously once and wanted to hear what he had to say only it became more retarded the further the conversation went. I hear he is a person who works in light shows……yeah we are all downloading that crap and robbing him of his income.
listen sam I F?&K tard stop trolling
Hey, hey, be fair, I read that clearly and got it right.
“However, subscribers would have to “sign an undertaking to pay a predetermined amount of damages if they are caught file-sharing.””
Under this proposal you’d either have to agree to NOT fileshare, or pay subscription costs if you want to fileshare, or pay damages if you don’t subscribe and get caught filesharing.
The industry is guaranteed subscription paments or they’ll receive damages when you are caught dling w/o a subscription. I realize I used shorthand but still guys, that’s exactly what I said in the first place.
And my observation remains true, and Soul’s fears are right on. If the industry succeeds in compelling these kinds of so-called “solutions”, EVERY digital industry will eventually get their thumb into the pie, and be permanently enshrined forever. And the costs to consumers will be staggering. It’s radically unfair.
Some solution.
How about just paying for what you take when you take it? It’s worked for a thousand years.
Seems a lot more sensible to me.
The very first term in this article that uses the word ’subscribers’ is “Internet subscribers”.
Nobody subscribes to a tax.
“How about just paying for what you take when you take it? It’s worked for a thousand years.
Seems a lot more sensible to me.”
We would, if it weren’t for the fact that on the Internet, scarcity is technically nonexistent.
Nobody is “taking” they’re “sharing,” and recorded music is a relatively new phenomenon.
And it’s because of this “sharing” that scarcity is technically nonexistent.
And technically, you’re “taking” a copy from the person who’s “sharing” it, so…