Could $5 a month save the music industry?

[phishtaper]

Could $5 a month save the music industry?

Feb 20, 2008 04:30 AM

Greg Quill

The Songwriters Association of Canada proposes a $5 monthly fee on subscribers’ Internet bills that would make it legal to download music and hopefully save the failing music industry.

THE PROBLEM

Sales of CDs are down 20 per cent worldwide and 35 per cent in Canada, compared to 2006.

An estimated 1.6 billion music files are downloaded in Canada each year on "grey-market" peer-to-peer systems, representing $1.6 billion in lost revenue, using the iTunes price model of 99 cents per download.

The total number of purchased downloads in Canada was 38 million in 2005. The ratio of shared to paid downloads is 98:2 (98% shared files vs. 2% purchased downloads).

Virtually every song ever recorded is available through peer-to-peer file-sharing (more than 79 million recordings). Only 3 million songs are available on legal sites.

Sources: Songwriters Association of Canada; Canadian Record Industry Association; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLB

WHAT'S THE PLAN?

SAC is calling for the creation of the Right to Equitable Remuneration for Music File Sharing, which would make it legal to share music on peer-to-peer networks in exchange for the monthly fee. The fee – amounting to an estimated $500 million to $900 million annually in Canada – would be administered by a collective of artists, songwriters, music publishers and record labels. "Monetizing peer-to-peer file-sharing would generate significant new revenue for creators and the music industry," says acting SAC president Eddie Schwartz, "and re-establish revenue levels (for songwriters) that we haven't seen since 2000-2001."

THE FORUM

SAC, which represents the interests of Canadian music composers and lyricists, is advancing its radical proposal at a public forum tomorrow at 7 p.m. at Oakham House at Ryerson University. It hopes this will be the first step towards legitimizing peer-to-peer music file-sharing activity in this country – and perhaps eventually all over the world – while compensating music creators at the same time.

For more information go to songwriters.ca, or call 1-866-456-7664.

WHAT'S IN IT FOR CONSUMERS?

SAC argues the fee would remove the stigma of illegality from file-sharing and represents exceptional value to the consumer, since it would allow unlimited access to the majority of the world's repertoire of recorded music.

The plan renders digital rights management and the legal protection for digital locks, which prevent copying and file-sharing, "obsolete," Schwartz says. "The simple truth is that there's no way anyone can stop free file-sharing. It's exciting to discover new music and natural to want to share it. File-sharing isn't about the marketplace, it's social activity, a way to seek out like-minded people, and music has always been used that way. The SAC proposal may not be the silver bullet that saves the music industry, but it could be the greatest opportunity independent artists and music consumers have. There are no middlemen, no gatekeepers, no owners of the means of music distribution in this proposal. Consumers can interact directly with the creators of music."

WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES?

Internet Service Providers may resist adding $5 to customers' monthly bills.

The four major record labels, which have traditionally dominated music distribution, oppose all attempts to establish alternatives or competitors.

The federal government, which will have to be convinced of the merit of the changes in the Copyright Act, is reluctant to intervene in the marketplace unless in the public interest.

Songwriters and authors will have to give up their long-established right to approve or disapprove of the use and means of dissemination of their work. The only right they will have is the right to be paid for peer-to-peer downloads.

Internet users who do not download music – paid or otherwise – will balk at paying an extra $5 a month.

Source: David Fewer, staff counsel with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law

CHORUS OF SUPPORT

"I wholeheartedly believe that this model for file-sharing should be embraced in all countries. Let's get it rolling and it can be a template for other performing rights societies throughout the world. With dwindling record sales because of the thievery, this might be the new paradigm of income source for all songwriters."

–musician Randy Bachman

"The Canadian Music Creators Coalition endorses the Songwriters Association of Canada in pushing this proposal forward. We think the Canadian government should be facilitating discussion over the merits of this forward-thinking approach. This is the first progressive proposal we've seen in Canada to address file-sharing ... a made-in-Canada approach to (the issue).'' –Andrew Cash, spokesperson for the organization that monitors legal and policy issues affecting Canadian musicians

"With the Internet I have virtually unlimited access to millions of music files. Amazing, right? Well ... yes and no. I'm a songwriter. Songwriters create ideas. We're inventors. Think about the light bulb and the telephone. People don't mind paying for their telephone and electricity each month, but somehow they think music should be free. The truth is, music has value too. We believe access to online music should remain unlimited. We're just asking that the value of our music be acknowledged and that we be fairly compensated."

–Bryan Adams collaborator Jim Vallance

"I think if there was an ISP tax of some sort, we can say, `All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put it up your ass if you want, and it's $5 on your cable bill.'"

–Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails

last gasp effort of a dieing industry?

[The Chameleon]

I have heard of this plan in the works for a long time. I think this makes sense and is the way it will go.

The duty to collect and pay for the music we all download will fall on the Isp as they have the ability to track what type of files travel over thier lines.

I have no beef with this. I think it is fair and much like the way performance royalties are collected.

[AD]

people that don't download music will cause a ruckus, as i do when i get charged for a service i don't use. they need to figure that part out (if they haven't already).

[Dr. J]

Interesting concept.

Did i miss something? How does the money get distributed?

Don't know that I accept the argument that those who don't download music shouldn't have to pay. I suppose it's the same argument about your tax dollars being used to fund education (when you have no children) or subsidize daycare (when one parent stays at home) or bail out professional teams (when you have no interest in sports).

One has to look at what they're paying for. The $5.00 surcharge is not so you can download music, but rather so music will continue to be created....no matter how you access it or where you hear it....radio, TV, movies, internet, wherever....the only one who should be able to opt out would be someone who doesn't experience music in any way, shape or form....at any time.

[AD]

a surcharge on a cable bill is not the same as tax dollars for education. no-one is obligated to purchase cable.

your argument would hold if the surcharge went on the federal tax bill perhaps, but legislating charging extra for a commercial product doesn't really accomplish what you think the end-game should be.

i wouldn't pay a surcharge for clothing to make sure that my broccoli was fresh...

it's all speculation right now i guess, but until some of the kinks are worked out i have a few issues with this

[Dr. J]

I wouldn't pay a surcharge for clothing to make sure that my broccoli was fresh...

What if it was a fig leaf?

I agree Ad it's all speculation at this point, but I still think it's a step in the right direction. Tying the charge to the internet was, I assume, simply a way of trying to tie the means to the medium. Making it a federal tax would distance it even further from the source and the audience.

[AD]

Lots of people commenting on this here

[bouche]

these proposals never address one problem.

who gets the damn money? Why should some shitty musician who know one cares about get a share of money contributed by people downloading other music?

can anyone just put out a lowbudget piece of crap and get a piece of the action? I can't see some canadian christian folk singer getting money because 10 million people downloaded the latest radiohead album.

show me how that is captured and I might actually think this is a good idea.

[AD]

i refuse to subsidize terrible music.

and what is next - people steal movies, software, books, etc... surcharges for all that?

[phishtaper]

ridiculous? yes.

impossible? no. ... they've already done it with blank CDs.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

sounds like Drunken Frat Boys on Coke need to head to the studio soon

[Ol'Hickster]

I mean, this is a very interesting Topic because alot pf people either do or dont use the internet for music downloads, I would say as being a perosn who downloads alot of music and videos( and is looking for a exteral harddrive ) I would have no problem with the 5 bucks more I mean its 5 buck for jeeze sakes but I do understand for the peopl not using the service, because if someone asked me to pay a extra 5 bucks for something I didnt use I would be like Fuck off! lol

[Burnt]

who gets the damn money? Why should some shitty musician who know one cares about get a share of money contributed by people downloading other music?

I'll bet it's the Celine Dion's of the Canadian music scene that get the money and not the little acts. This would be my biggest beef with the proposal is that artists I don't give two sh*ts about will be getting my money.

[d_rawk]

Sorry if this has been addressed already - I skimmed

Downloading music is currently a legal grey area in Canada - we pay the levy, nobody has yet dared challenge it in court, since we are paying the imposed cost for private use on blank media it is assumed with (reasonable?) assumption that it is fair game. You can't charge someone money to compensate for them doing it *and* tell them that they can't do it all the same.

But the distribution method of that collected money to the artists sucks, and none of that money (from what I understand, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) goes towards US based production companies or artists. Wouldn't this additional $5 just exasperate the problem that already exists where Canadians feel entitled to download content, but most of the originators of that content - being non-Canadian in origin - never receive their fair dues?

It will be interesting to see the fight or proposals that the RIAA has in regard to this idea. And as AD mentioned, what happens next .. music is far from the only content pirated.

I would really, really like a model where I can easily pay, appropriate parties are compensated, the cost is fair, I don't have to deal with more physical clutter (I don't want to own /stuff/, I just want to hear your album!) and things aren't DRM crippled. But hell, wouldn't we all.

I don't think the idea of the ISPs regulating all of this would fly - for one it seems technologically infeasible, but perhaps more importantly, I can't see how this could be done without ISPs losing their common carrier status.

[Northern Wish]

Newspapers are working themselves into a business model to give away the product, making money on ads etc.

Why can't the music industry big wigs see that this is a good thing and can be sustainable?

Do they think Google is wrong in allowing freeware?

S

[phishtaper]

Newspapers are working themselves into a business model to give away the product, making money on ads etc.

Why can't the music industry big wigs see that this is a good thing and can be sustainable?

I can see the Rolling Stones re-recording, "I see a red door and I want to paint it black ... with Benjamin Moore's fabulous new Historic Cape Cod Collection"

[Dr. J]

I agree with Ad and d_jango and the others who say that the proposal is problematic particularly in regards to the management and distributiuon of revenue, but I still think it offers a place to initiate discussion. If they can deliver on this promise alone (and we have no proof they can)- "Consumers can interact directly with the creators of music" - then it merits attention. It would be like eliminating TicketMaster and their shit from the distribution of concert tickets.

It's unfortunate the Star has coloured the discussion with their stupid headline - "Could $5 A Month Save The Music Industry?"

I mean who the hell cares? Who wants to pay to save an industry that has fuckin' ripped off musicians and music fans for years. Nobody. Myself included. But I'd pay (a reasonable amount) to dismantle it.