April 8th, 2004

Filed under:
Technology
6 Comments »

Helene Scherrer on Canadian Copyright

In response to this article (found on Slashdot), I wrote to the Honourable Helene Scherrer (and CC’d my local MP, the Prime Minister and the President of the Canadian Recording Industry Association). If you’re not down with our Heritage Minister’s comments, you should let her know too. Caution, this is a pretty long letter:

Dear Ms. Scherrer:


I agree with you. Copyright is
broken.




  • Because of how music is currently
    published and distributed, 80% of the world’s recorded music is out-of-print
    and unavailable for purchase. That’s four-fifths of our musical heritage that
    the average citizen has no access to.

  • Your government seeks to turn
    Bill B-8 into law, unreasonably extending copyright to unpublished works produced
    from 1930 to 1948.

  • Canadians already pay a significant
    media levy to reimburse artists copyright owners for infringement. The levy
    has raised $28 million in its first two years of operation.


Canada’s copyright laws need revising.
Every twenty years or so, innovations in technology and cultural change break
copyright, and so governments need to respond. However, your statements at the
Juno Awards opening ceremony suggest that you support an American approach to
the file-sharing issue. That is, legally harassing citizens into compliance.


I’m writing to offer a better
alternative.


First, though, I’d encourage to
ask some hard questions of the Canadian Recording Industry Association. In light
of the following points, how certain are they that file-sharing is to blame
for the recent struggles of their industry:



  • The major record labels claim
    that music sales are down because of file sharing. That may be true, but it
    may also be due to the decreasing quality of today’s music and growth of independent
    labels. More likely, it’s because of the emergence of other ways for young
    people to spend their time and money. Video game and Internet use have increased
    in proportion to the CRIA’s pleas about reduced sales. Last year, television
    viewership was down 20% among 18 to 24-year-old males. Isn’t it likely that
    album sales might reflect this attention diversification as well?

  • A study at the Harvard Business
    School found that “Internet music piracy has no negative effect on legitimate
    music sales.”

  • In 2003, the Australian music
    industry had its most profitable year ever—album sales exceeded 50 million
    for the first time ever.


Regardless of the state of Canadian
copyright law and the complaints of the record industry, Canada needs a new
approach to file sharing. For that approach, we need to look south of the border,
to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).


They want consumers to receive
the same kind of deal that radio stations enjoy. They want consumers to pay
a small, monthly ‘voluntary licensing fee’—say, $5—to the music industry. In
return, file-sharing music fans will be free to download whatever they like,
using whatever software works best for them.


This approach has appeal for everyone
involved. Consumers no longer have to fear litigation, and can build deeper,
more robust file-sharing networks than ever before. The RIAA receives brand-new,
recurring revenue, and doesn’t have to waste more resources penalizing their
customer base.


The EFF is throwing around some
pretty heady numbers. The estimated gross revenue of the recording industry
is about US $11 billion. If the 60 million Americans who currently use file-sharing
software paid US $5 a month, it would translate into $3 billion of pure profit—no
CDs to ship, no online retailers to cut in on the deal, no payola to radio conglomerates—for
the music industry. Clearly, not all 60 million people are going to opt in.
If one-third of file-sharing Americans bought into this service, that’s $1 billion
in net profit. People are willing to pay for music—they’ve been doing it for
100 years.


I’ll be watching your ministry
very carefully in the coming months, and evaluating how you address this difficult
issue. If you choose the low road, and advocate legal action against Canadian
citizens by the record industry, you can rest assured that I won’t be voting
for the Liberal Party in the next election.

Comments: 6 Responses so far

KevinG
April 9th, 2004
10:25 am

Good letter. No ranting, lots of facts, lucidly written, proposes alternatives, questions assumptions but, would you really de-select a political party based on their position on file sharing, or was that a bit of hyperbole?

[Reply]

Darren
April 9th, 2004
10:38 am

No, I probably wouldn’t vote elsewhere based solely on this issue. However, in letters of complaint like this, you want to make the consequences seem as dire as possible for the other party. That’s the best I could think of, really.

[Reply]

Charles Theriault
April 13th, 2004
9:38 am

Below is a rough copy of the e-mail I will send Sherrer. It is all I can say thus far considering the limited amount of time I have for this sort of thing, but I think it is enough. Read on, and all comments are welcomed.

“honourable” Sherrer,

Your views and actions regarding file-sharing are not only biased, but also very questionable considering the corruption that presently plagues the liberal party. I am already considering as to whether or not I should vote for the liberals in the coming election, and I then read an article regarding your biased perspective on this matter - this further reduces my decision to vote for your party. I urge you to research the matter (as I and many others have) and reconsider your position. It is a complicated matter, however public opinion is overwhelmingly against the monopoly the recording industry has had over artists and music fans for years.

Again, do your homework and look into this matter with equanimity before you choose a side. If you have in fact researched the matter, can you please send me the results of your findings? In all fairness, if you would like to see the evidence I have collected related to this matter, in the form of articles and recorded radio segments (downloaded from the CBC), feel free to ask and we can arrange it. You will find that both views are present; however those supporting the recording industry are few in number and their argument is very weak compared to proponents of file-sharing.

Charles Theriault.

[Reply]

Charles Theriault
April 13th, 2004
9:43 am

I would like to correct a typo. I used the word eqinamity in place of equity - long morning, sorry about that.

“Again, do your homework and look into this matter with equity before you choose a side.”

Charles.

[Reply]

Jason Snyder
April 14th, 2004
12:18 am

excellent letter…came across it while searching for scherrer’s email address within minutes after reading her stance in todays globe. when im feeling more coherent i plan to do the same but am wondering what effect it can possibly have. a government website allows you to post messages to her that are 10 lines or less and it says perhaps youll receive a follow up via post! if not its to be redirected to another department…she seems so friggin sure about whats right and must get a ton of daily mail - do they actually read this stuff? does it actually work?! nothing would make me more happy than to see someone like her finally work towards making canadian citizens want to reward artists whom they love, instead of conditioning them to want for free, and then persecuting them when they act on that urge.

jason

[Reply]

Charles Theriault
April 14th, 2004
8:12 am

This is the final form of my rant. I am going to send it to Sherrer. I wish I had more time to dedicate to this letter in order to solidify the argument, but the basic point is there.

“honourable” Sherrer,

Your views and actions regarding file-sharing are not only biased, but also very questionable considering the corruption that presently plagues the liberal party. I am already considering whether or not I should vote for the liberals in the coming election, and I then read an article regarding your narrow perspective on this matter; this further reduces my decision to vote for your party. I urge you to research the matter (as I and many others have) and reconsider your position. It is a complicated matter; however public opinion is overwhelmingly against the monopoly the recording industry has had over artists and music fans for years. Also, you have just sided with a group who are fighting technology and suppressing cultural advancement in order to sustain its existence only to make money. Do you not see the problem with this, or do you condone greed? Well, you are a liberal after all.

P2P downloading is an effective voice against the recording industry (RI) and in calling for change. The truth is that the RI is more concerned about money in its own pocket as opposed to the pockets of the artists, let’s face it. Although they claim that the artists suffer in all this, The RI does not care about the artists as much as their bottom line. Let’s not treat the general public like idiots, the truth of the matter is that they are just another greedy corporation simultaneously making money from and screwing the artists. If the latter is not true, then why are the record labels, in most cases, profiting more from an artist’s intellectual property then the artists themselves?

The old system has been lucrative, free money. Through technology, more money can end up in an artist’s pocket in a system that is managed with integrity, but this isn’t nearly as profitable for the recording industry. Technology can not only make more music available to listeners, but also expose more artists to the general public. As a result, artists and listeners will no longer be at the mercy of record labels who market the artists that they think will bring in the money. This is why the RI is fighting technology. I have no sympathy for the recording industry, for they rarely have had any sympathy or respect for the artists, the music, or music fans. In other words, it is more about money than the artists, their artwork and listeners. There are far more artists out there who make their money from royalties, selling concert tickets, merchandise and the rights to their songs (for commercials and such things) than artist who bring in money from CD sales. There are also a number of talented artists, ahead of their time, who do not get a fair chance due to the fact that they do not fit in RI’s money making formula. These very artists, shattered and discouraged, simply fade away, and our society is deprived of culture once again because of corporate greed. Think about it.

Furthermore, for many people the internet is more than just a source of free music; it is way of discovering new music. This new music is more than the insipid slop that the record executives serve to the masses in the hopes that they make tons of cash. For many of my age group (29), the music that is deemed “popular” is unappealing, so we seek music from a different medium other than radio and TV. If the internet is embraced as an effective medium (preferably by the artists, which would then render many of the major record labels useless), then perhaps this music (not recognized by pop-culture) will become more available to an unseen group who are willing to pay for music. Mind you, legitimate downloading will become more appealing to many more when the copyright restrictions and inconvenient technologies are removed from their product, making it easier to use. Nevertheless, because of this threat (as all the other threats in the past i.e. FM radio; cassettes; etc), the RI is also suppressing cultural advancement.

Again, do your homework and look into this matter with equity before you choose a side. If you have in fact researched the matter, can you please send me the source and results of your findings? In all fairness, if you would like to see the evidence I have collected related to this matter, in the form of articles and recorded radio segments (downloaded from the CBC), feel free to ask and we can arrange it. You will find that both views are present; however those supporting the recording industry are few in number and their argument is very weak compared to those who support file-sharing.

Finally, there are some interesting facts from a recent article found in the Globe and Mail (this occurrence is far from an anomaly); written by Jack Kapica on Tuesday, Apr. 13, 2004. The article is titled “Music industry appeals ruling” I urge you to read the entire article.
“The appeal comes at a time when news of the recording industry’s profits or losses have been highly contradictory.
Last week, the international recording industry association, IFPI, in it annual report on global record sales, reported a fourth year of falling global sales, reflecting a 7.6 per cent drop in 2003 sales over 2002.

Earlier this week, however, industry analysts at Nielsen SoundScan reported a gradual turnaround in U.S. music sales that began last fall and picked up in the first quarter of this year, resulting in the industry’s best domestic sales in years. Overall U.S. music sales of CDs, legal downloads, DVDs, and such rose 9.1 per cent in the first three months of the year over the same period in 2003. Album sales were up 9.2 per cent. Sales of CDs, which represent 96 per cent of album sales, rose 10.6 per cent.”

Such inaccuracies make me wonder.

If there wasn’t so much greed in the music industry (mostly on the part of the record labels, and politicians now that you are involved) not only would there be a wider range of music available to all, but artists would also be properly compensated for their hard work.

Charles Theriault

[Reply]

Add a comment