Amend Copyright Bill, Music Industries Urge MPs

First Posted: 02/28/2012 3:50 pm Updated: 04/29/2012 5:12 am


Witnesses representing musicians, record labels and a small radio company asked MPs to amend the government's copyright reform bill when they appeared on Tuesday before a committee studying C-11.


The Canadian Federation of Musicians, Re:Sound Music Licencing Company and an Ontario radio company called Pineridge Broadcasting told the special legislative committee they support the government's efforts to modernize Canada's copyright law, but that the bill still needs some work.


Bill Skolnik, CEO of the Canadian Federation of Musicians, said its members are self-employed business owners who often earn less than $20,000 a year and that earning income depends on Canada having robust copyright laws and royalty rules.


"Just because digital technology has made it easy for works to be reproduced it doesn't mean that it should be free," he said. "Technological advances cannot be a rationale for diminishing or depriving creators and performers of their rights to be rewarded for reproducing and using their work. Music has value. Unfortunately, in too many places this bill removes the value."


Skolnik said the CFM takes issue with a number of provisions in C-11, including a proposal to reduce the penalties for those who break copyright laws for non-commercial purposes.


He said there haven't been cases where Canadians have had to pay exorbitant fines for infringing on copyright and there is no need to drop the fines, adding that it shouldn't matter whether the law was broken for commercial purposes or not.


"Such a distinction conveys the wrong message," he said.


Re:Sound, a non-profit organization that collects and distributes royalties for performers and record labels, has been lobbying the government to hear its case and recently sent letters to MPs asking them to support their proposed amendments.


The association argues that radio stations currently get a subsidy from the government because the royalty scheme, which is tied to advertising revenue, currently mandates that only $100 has to be paid to Re:Sound on the first $1.25 million in revenue.


The group says this exemption amounts to an estimated $8 million in lost revenue for musicians and record labels annually and that radio stations should be forced to pay more.


Ian MacKay, president of Re:Sound, said a handful of large, profitable radio companies are benefiting from the rules and that artists and record labels aren't getting fairly compensated.


'Serious market distortion'


"This is a serious market distortion that benefits a very profitable industry at the expense of those who create the content that drive that industry," he said.


A radio station president, Don Conway, said lifting the $100 exemption would "significantly impact" his business and that small companies like his are already under tremendous financial pressure.


"If I can't hire someone else, I can't grow my revenues. If I can't grow my revenues I can't pay the artist any more," he said when asked about the royalty rate.


Conway said his company, Pineridge Broadcasting, a private company operating in eastern Ontario, is being held back from expanding and from being good corporate citizens because of increasing tariff rates.


"We believe in supporting the artists who make the songs that allow us to put a product on the street, but we believe in fair play. And I don't think being forced to pay multiple times for the same thing is fair," he said.


The committee also heard from representatives from the education sector at Tuesday's meeting. They also expressed general support for C-11 but want to see some amendments made.


A provision in the bill that would require students and teachers in online education to destroy notes with copyright-protected material within 30 days of the course finishing is stirring strong reaction.


"This amendment is unreasonable and impractical," said Cynthia Andrew with the Canadian School Boards Association. "It does not reflect current practices in online learning, where teachers reuse their course materials each year that they teach the same course."


The committee will hear from more groups representing musicians and artists on Wednesday.


Related on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Digital Locks

    The Copyright Modernization Act, Bill C-11, will allow Canadians to copy content from one device to another, such as from a CD to a computer or an iPod. This provision, however, does not apply to content protected by a digital lock, which is any technological measure, such as encryption or digital signatures, that rights holders use to restrict access to or prevent the copying or playing of CDs, DVDs, e-books, digital files and other material. (Ryan Anson/AFP/Getty Images) <em>Slides use files from CBC</em>

  • Non-Commercial Recording

    The act will allow Canadians to record television, radio and internet broadcasts and listen to or view them later on whatever device they choose but not for the purposes of building up a library or for commercial use. This provision does not extend to content that is offered "on-demand" (streamed video, for example) or protected by a digital lock.

  • Backups

    The act will allow Canadians to make a backup copy of content to protect against loss or damage -- again unless that content is protected by a digital lock or offered as an on-demand service.

  • Mash-Ups

    The act will allow Canadians to incorporate legally acquired copyrighted content into their own user-generated work, as long as it's not for commercial gain and does not negatively impact the markets for the original material or the artist's reputation. An example would be the posting of your own mash-up of a Lady Gaga song and, say, a Beyoncé number on YouTube. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images for Clear Channel)

  • Education

    The act will allow Canadians to use copyrighted content for the purposes of education, satire or parody. This expands what is known as the fair dealing provisions of the existing law -- which until now covered only research, private study, criticism and news reporting. (Photo credit should read JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Book Burning?

    The act will allow Canadians to copy copyrighted material that is part of an online or distance learning course in order to listen to or view it at a later time. Under this provision, teachers can provide digital copies of copyrighted material to students as part of the course but only if they and the students destroy the course material within 30 days of the end of the course. Teachers are also expected to take reasonable measures to prevent the copying and distribution of the material other than for the purposes of the course. Critics have referred to this part of the Act as the "book burning" provisions. (Flickr: pcorreia)

  • Librarians

    The act will allow librarians to digitize print material and send a copy electronically to users, who can view the material on a computer or print one copy. (Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

  • Disabled People

    The act will allow consumers who are disabled to adapt copyrighted material to a format they can more easily use. (Pierre-Henry DESHAYES/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Banned Tech

    The act will prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of technologies, devices and services designed primarily for the purpose of breaking digital locks. This includes technology designed to allow you to play foreign-bought DVDs on your North American player, for example.

  • Breaking Locks

    The act will prohibit the circumventing of digital locks, even for legal purposes -- such as the education or satire uses protected by other sections of the Act. This is one of the most controversial parts of the legislation. Many experts have criticized the government for not including an exemption that would allow for the bypassing of digital locks for legitimate purposes, such as the copying of parts of digitally locked textbooks to view on another device or for use in an assignment.

  • Piracy

    The act will require internet service providers to notify their customers that they are violating the copyright law if a copyright holder informs the ISP of possible piracy. The ISP is required to retain "relevant information" about the user such as their identity, and that information could potentially be released to the copyright holder with a court order.

  • ISP Liability

    The act will exempt ISPs and search engines from liability for the copyright violations of their users if they are acting strictly as intermediaries in the hosting, caching or communication of copyrighted content.

  • Sharing Sites

    The act will prohibit a person to provide a service over the internet or another digital network that the person "knows or should have known is designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement." This clause is targeted at websites created for the purpose of distributing copyrighted content, such as the many popular peer-to-peer file-sharing sites used to swap video and audio, and is meant to "make liability for enabling of infringement clear."

  • Commercial vs. Personal

    The act will differentiate between a commercial violation of copyright law and an individual violation. Individuals found violating the law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA POLITICS

Filed by Michael Bolen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
02:42 AM on 03/13/2012
If you truly want ti kill bill C-11 dead then like any truly nasty illogical and twisted law or legislation follow the money and power ( who gets new powers or toys ) . Find out which companies , organizations , departments and individuals benefit both directly and indirectly and drag them out from behind their protective camouflage into the light of PUBLIC scrutiny. Let the Canadian public know under no uncertain terms that the same film company that makes that great new show , that band that came out with the new album rocketing up the chart , the politician they voted for are all paying for or working towards removing any sense of privacy they might currently enjoy on the internet or on the phone. Give the public the chance to express THEIR feelings directly to the puppet masters rather than the puppets
02:13 PM on 03/01/2012
These are the dying gasps of an old parasitic industry. So long record executives, you will not be missed.

Support the artists you like by going to see them live and buying some merch.
11:25 AM on 03/01/2012
Down with the Conservatives!

www.cananon.info
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
All Seeing Guy
Center of the storm
11:56 PM on 02/29/2012
Here come the small government cons to not only prop up a dead business model, They'll happily legislate a new one in establishing digital locks and forcing canucks to pay over and over and over again for the same content.
05:53 PM on 02/29/2012
If the music industry was really concerned about the well being of it's artists, they would stop squashing their faces into the dirt with severely unfavorable contracts. H'ere an example. An album sells for $20, of that the artist is entitled to $2. But there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the artists share that very often put the artist under water.. If the album does not sell enough, then the artist becomes indebted to the label. It's a dirty business, and the talent is constantly taken advantage of.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kritikos
Intelligence is not a science
05:48 PM on 02/29/2012
The days of major record company rules are over; ...and that's good, it was a hideous apparatus
05:26 PM on 02/29/2012
the sales figures for 2011 are a disaster nothing is selling. artists are starting to give music away for free online just hoping to get people out to shows. Thats the only way to make a living if you wana call it that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norma Ward
04:28 PM on 02/29/2012
The Harper government's latest stab at changing Canada’s copyright legislation is being dictated by the United States Trade Representative as shown here:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/06/piracy-and-counterfeiting-us-trade.html

So much for sovereignty. Canada's Prime Minister is slowly but surely giving it away.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgeorge
Paper Ballots WORK. Unverifiable e-voting doesn't
03:39 PM on 02/29/2012
This is just as bad as Toews' warrantless snooping bill.

Consumer property rights will be thrown out the window.

The entertainment industry failed to create adequate business models with the advent of new technology, and now expects the consumer to give up more of their rights.

Absolutely shameless and wrong.
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
02:04 PM on 02/29/2012
go back to analog product. Sell it online then ship it. It's the only way you're getting paid. If you can't understand digital then don't blame an entire country for your failed business plan.

For those successful in a digital age, musicians use sales and bootlegs to promote their concerts.

Mix and match to taste. But don't pull a Harper and think control in itself is a good thing.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
01:39 PM on 02/29/2012
"Technological advances cannot be a rationale for diminishing or depriving creators and performers of their rights to be rewarded for reproducing and using their work."

Someone needs to teach him how to use rationality a little bit better, then.

New technologies has always been a rationale for moving forward and doing away with old business models. The home printer put thousands of businesses under. If the printing industry had the zealous attitude of the music industry, then printing would have been made illegal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgeorge
Paper Ballots WORK. Unverifiable e-voting doesn't
03:41 PM on 02/29/2012
Fanned and Favourited!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warren Yuill
Jesus Built My Hot-Rod
11:35 AM on 02/29/2012
Imagine that.
People wanting to get paid for their work.
12:43 PM on 02/29/2012
Well, this isn't about getting paid for work since in most cases it is the music industry looking to get paid for the work the artists do. But that technically wasn't your point.

My rebuttal would be that this new legislation has nothing to do with piracy. What this new legislation will do, as it is currently written, is make it illegal for people who DO buy music legally to make back-up copies, transfer the music to their ipod, etc, as long as the music company puts a lock on it. You would have to buy one hard copy, one for your ipod, etc.

And I would also add that your flippant comment doesn't address the issue that current existing copyright law already puts a number of unfair and unreasonable restrictions on consumers - effectively punishing those who DO pay money to legally but music. If I buy a CD, and own a business, why can't I play that CD in my business? Current law says I can't and I have to pay regular fees or risk a fine. Why can't I even play my own, legally owned music at my wedding? The Music industry actually checks up on businesses who rent space for weddings and other gatherings to make sure people aren't playing music without paying them a fee. If you don't pay that fee, they can crash your wedding and fine you.

Do you think that is a fair way to treat people who legally buy music?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sdgreen
02:59 PM on 02/29/2012
And that is precisely what is totally wrong with the Copyright Act/Regulations npw in place and proposed. If I purchase a CD/DVD or on line, that by virtue has provided profit to both the Artist and the publisher. I should be able to use that resource as I see fit.
But it seems that the publishers just want to maximize their profits several times over on that single purchase.

The total copyright thrust is ignorant.
02:46 PM on 03/01/2012
What planet do you live on? And more importantly where do you find all that you're claiming in any copyright act? Arrested for music at weddings now? Are you ok?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgeorge
Paper Ballots WORK. Unverifiable e-voting doesn't
03:42 PM on 02/29/2012
Wrong analyses once again.

Fail.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warren Yuill
Jesus Built My Hot-Rod
05:57 PM on 02/29/2012
Really?
10:38 AM on 02/29/2012
Sorry, but they can go and pound salt. We have had to suffer through levies added onto blank physical media for years, even if said media was not used for copying and storing music or copyrighted material! They also wanted to have Canadian consumers pay extra when purchasing digital media platforms, like I-pods, etc.

Sorry, but you have gone to the well too many times already. Time to rethink your outdated and outmoded business models and get off of the back of the Canadian consumer!

P.S. If a Canadian artist produces work (be it a painting, composition, book, etc) that people value and are willing to pay for, they will make a living and will be duly compensated for their work. If they produce schlock, they won't be compensated for it in the market place and they should re-think the line of work they are in.
10:32 AM on 02/29/2012
I think their is ample room for fairer balance. Why is anyone entitled to take something for free because they find loopholes to do so. "This is not about some grandma who downloads one CD. Individuals commonly have thousands of downloads they do not pay for. Why is that okay? Every business deserves to make money for what they do. If you were running a company and paying the bills, do you think people should get your product for free just because there is a way to do so? I know someone who has all the better movies that come out, which he buys for $5. This is not right or honest. It does not matter if someone is doing it for commercial purposes or not. It is against the law to walk into a business and take something. There has been a sense of entitlement for a long time.
10:29 AM on 02/29/2012
Why are radio stations still paying money to play music. IT IS FREE ADVERTISING FOR MUSICIANS. If not for radio, how rich and successful would MOST of the top pop artists even be?

Second, this idea that copyright laws should be stronger to help artists who only make $20,000 a year is total and complete BS. Nobody is rushing out to burn the latest CD of some indie artist. And that artists certainly isn't getting radio play. If anyone is a fan and supports such an artist, it is likely by going to one of their shows and/or buying merchandise, which is where any musical group makes the majority of their money, and likely buying the cd online if not directly from the artist. All of this pretty much negated the music industry completely as the relationship is directly artist/fan. Copyright has little or nothing to do with this.

Finally, if you buy a cd you should be allowed to play it when you want where you want. This idea of a retailer buying a CD and then paying regular fees if they want to play that CD in their bar or restaurant or whatever is archaic. Again, it is free advertising for the artist, and if the restaurant if buying music the music industry should be bloody thankful, not demanding MORE money because customers are listening to free music in the background while they eat, talk, text, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ljkcan
I don't let geographical borders limit my thinking
12:26 PM on 02/29/2012
You would be surprised. Three years ago this governing body phoned our small business and asked the person who happened to answer the phone if we played music and the 19 year old said yes.

Next thing you know we were getting fined. I phoned them and asked why they did not contact the owners or the manager, we pay for the music and we cannot let employees put their own cd's in and play them. Trust me this is one governing body you don't want to fight with. The fine was dropped because we were not doing anything wrong.
02:39 PM on 03/01/2012
You write like you work in advertising and produce for radio stations and are a professional musician yourself.
Do you direct feature films and work in finance in your share time?
It's one thing to post an opinion, you however, carry-on like you're an authority on all topics. When in reality most of your points are wrong Mools, you either haven't read the Bills or you simply can not comprehend the legal language.
Best of luck to you