Could $5 a month save the music industry?

[- jigz -]

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

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/305082

[User6060]

I'm down.

[- jigz -]

same here.. $5/month.. all the music you can have.. good ol' canada...

[PL_ Veteran]

Sounds great to me :D

[revvo]

On our ISP bill? Is it a mandatory tax to all subscribers? It would have to be an option, and I'd be down with that option :cool:

Here's a tip on how you can save the music industry. Kill the RIAA which takes almost all the profits off each CD/Music media, or deal with them to get a bigger percentage. The amount of money they're putting into endless lawsuits and efforts trying to kill digital transfers of music is what they could give to their beloved artists.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I'm cool with that. :p

[sundayx Veteran]

Well...

[Chode]

Didn't DVDJon propose this aaaaaages ago?

[Quillz]

If this really did completely legalize file sharing, then I think it's a good idea. But I think it's unfair to say that file sharing is the sole reason CD sales are on a downward slope. Maybe the music industry should consider, you know, the quality of music these days? I have a real problem, for example, spending $15 on horrible gangster rap that preaches hate and degrading of women.

[CelticWhisper]

I favor this as long as it's a means of connecting customers with musicians like they say it is. The CA government will have to be very careful not to allow record companies to get their fingers into the pie.

If this helps musicians make more money and break free of major record labels, then great. If, however, it winds up being a $5-per-internet-user windfall for Sony, EMI, Warner, Universal, and company, then it needs to die quickly.

We're making good progress in destroying these record companies through piracy, boycotts, and used CD sales. If this helps to kill their businesses while giving more money directly to musicians at the same time, then great. If, however, it's a booster shot for the music industry instead of people who create music and allows the big music companies to keep doing business (possibly making it harder for the users to starve them of money) then I want nothing to do with it.

Also, I listen to a lot of European music (metal mostly). If these bands aren't signed with SAC, ASCAP, or the like, how do I know that the money will go to them and not to other musicians whose work I don't ever hear? What about musicians in my country who simply are not (or at least not yet) signed on with the association? Think local garage bands and such who post their music online? Would I then be paying $5 for nothing if theirs is the only music I'm interested in?

[Colin-uk Veteran]

Good idea. They should do this in the UK too, instead of threatening to spy on our surfing and cut our connection if they think were doing something they dont like.

[zeroday]

I don't download/listen to music, so I wouldn't wanna pay for something extra like this. If it was films...then :shiftyninja:

But overall, this is a good idea.

[giantpotato]

WHAT? I thought it was already legal to download songs because of the levy paid on blank media.

[That Guy Veteran]

I agree with AudioBoxer - one example that stands out is a band that I really like but just can't for the life of me find anywhere to buy their CD's into the UK from. And then my friend BitTorrent gave me a tap on the shoulder...

[Venturas]

If this really did completely legalize file sharing, then I think it's a good idea. But I think it's unfair to say that file sharing is the sole reason CD sales are on a downward slope. Maybe the music industry should consider, you know, the quality of music these days? I have a real problem, for example, spending $15 on horrible gangster rap that preaches hate and degrading of women.

Let me break it down in more understandable terms for you to:

People still listen to music, but download it rather than pay for it?...Got it?

gezzz...

[Nicholas-c Veteran]

i would pay extra on top of ISP bill if we could download films, music etc for free

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

If this really did completely legalize file sharing, then I think it's a good idea. But I think it's unfair to say that file sharing is the sole reason CD sales are on a downward slope. Maybe the music industry should consider, you know, the quality of music these days? I have a real problem, for example, spending $15 on horrible gangster rap that preaches hate and degrading of women.

That is why you buy the cds you're interested in.

No one tells you what to buy... what a stupid point.

Music is for listening to and enjoying, not fighting over. I never understand people who go out their way to tell OTHERS what to listen to. It's an individual experience for everyone.

That's not saying I don't joke at genres/artists/bands from time to time (although I usually do that with my mates, who have similar tastes), but I never pin it directly on people (especially people I don't know) and say "hey you're a moron for what you listen to, MY tastes are better than yours!!!".

Waste of the earths precious oxygen those arguments.

But I think it's unfair to say that file sharing is the sole reason CD sales are on a downward slope.

Nope it's primarily filesharing, and secondly pricing in some cases. Not all cds are overpriced, some are cheap and come with a ton of extra content.

[BrainDedd]

The "industry" can die for all I care, as long as the artists stick around.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

i would pay extra on top of ISP bill if we could download films, music etc for free

It won't happen with movies I don't think.

People download movies not released on DVD/HD yet - In other words cams from the cinema. That is just plain and simply illegal, you couldn't justify downloading them.

The way things work, movies go to cinema first, we can't change that. Maybe DVD/HD releases could be bumped up a bit (some do take a far too long...), but for movies im desperate to see I have no issue paying to go to the cinema - It's not costly, plus I see the movie on a screen 50x the size of mine, with some atmosphere and with a kick ass sound system.

[k311]

That is why you buy the cds you're interested in.

No one tells you what to buy... what a stupid point.

if i only bought the cd's i thought were worth buying and never listened to anything else, id have the cds of 5-10 artists in my collection. I think the point is that there isnt enough 'great' music out there, and i'd agree. The RIAA wouldn't be in such a bind if music wasn't recycled trash for the most part today.

Theyd still have a problem, but they ALWAYS will, and tbh, i dont feel sorry for a group of people who exist solely to collect revenue based off of other people's work. they do extremely little to protect their artists, why in the heck should i feel for them?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

if i only bought the cd's i thought were worth buying and never listened to anything else, id have the cds of 5-10 artists in my collection. I think the point is that there isnt enough 'great' music out there, and i'd agree. The RIAA wouldn't be in such a bind if music wasn't recycled trash for the most part today.

Theyd still have a problem, but they ALWAYS will, and tbh, i dont feel sorry for a group of people who exist solely to collect revenue based off of other people's work. they do extremely little to protect their artists, why in the heck should i feel for them?

:no:

I can't believe people could actually say that.

I myself can't stop finding new artists and styles of music I like, and trust me it's not as if I have "low" standards.

Maybe it's because when I listen to something, I don't think oh my what will my friends think, how cool will this make me look, am I the only person who listens to this song/artist? Music for me is a personal experience, and truely, my life would be lacking greatly without music and the collection I have. If my ears like it, I like it.

I do respect though, that not all music can be offloaded publicly, I do listen to some things I wouldn't for example go to a house party with and play - I play appropriate music at a house party :p

I actually get frustrated thinking there is artists/songs/albums out there right now I haven't heard, that I could love. That is why im constantly searching for new music, and downloading just about everything.

If you truely believe that, then the problem is with you yourself. You're not looking and exploring enough.

Maybe you're not fully to blame, as one of my points earlier was collections of music at your fingertips in a catalog like OiNK doesn't exist outside of torrents.

[k311]

Maybe it's because when I listen to something, I don't think oh my what will my friends think, how cool will this make me look, am I the only person who listens to this song/artist?

that's an awful generalization.

Myself, i happen to hate when people act like music snobs. i like some things that i tell the world about and some that i wouldnt tell anybody :lol: but i think overall, most of the music i have, i would choose to not pay for and not have if it werent free.

[Dazog]

So my grandma has to pay this as well?

Alot of people who don't don't download music have to pay this tax?

They vote and pay taxes, I bet the won't be voting for the government dumb enough to put this forward.

[lhnz]

I can't really see this happening, but I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Dom]

I think its pretty normal...,

Im up for it...