Canada’s P2P ‘download distraction’
p2pnet news view | Music:- The Songwriters Association of Canada proposal to fully legalize peer-to-peer file sharing by adding a $5 levy to the monthly Internet bill has generated considerable discussion over the past week.
Much of that discussion has been negative with many Canadians arguing that they don’t download music and should not be asked to pay $60 per year in order to do so [the National Post adds a lengthy editorial criticizing the proposal, citing, among other things, the reliance on statistics from "biased" sources, namely (the) CRIA].
For my part, I think the proposal suffers from some significant flaws. While we all pay for services we don’t use (my tax dollars support museums in other cities that I don’t visit or schools that my kids don’t attend), there are times when such systems are necessary for broader policy reasons.
In this instance, I don’t think we are there yet. Moreover, I suspect that this proposal would open the floodgates to dozens of other groups claiming similar fees. Perhaps most importantly, there are competing social goals – universally affordable broadband access is one – that could be undermined by this proposal.
Notwithstanding its shortcomings, I welcome the SAC’s attempt to broaden the debate. The calls for open consultation are precisely to enable all interested parties to participate in the development of copyright policies that work for Canada. Those calls have come from all sectors – education, consumer groups, business groups, creators, and the broader Canadian public.
With that in mind, I was struck by comments from the Canadian Recording Industry Association’s Graham Henderson, who previously called the proposal a "pipe dream." Henderson now says the "idea has a snowball’s chance in hell" and that it is "nothing more than a distraction."
The comments highlight that the divide between [the] CRIA and the emerging consensus on a balanced approach for copyright extends well beyond the substance of a future copyright bill. It also includes how we arrive at that bill. For the majority, we need discussion, debate, consultation, and the opportunity to present new approaches before a bill is introduced.
For [the] CRIA, these things are apparently viewed as nothing more than a distraction.
Michael Geist
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist[at]uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.]
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“the “idea has a snowball’s chance in hell”"
What has a snowball’s chance in hell is the idea that whatever is collected by any scheme involving a so called composer association (really publisher controlled organizations) reaches the songwriters.
If Iam correct, only about 5 percent of the money collected allegedly for songwriters reach the songwriters in the USA. I have no reason to beleive this is different elsewhere. The publishers keep about 95 percent.
If anyone has better numbers, please let us know,
February 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
It’s certainly true with the existing levy collected in Canada on recordable CDs – despite the rather hefty levy having been in place for years now, it seems very little of the cash is even getting to the labels, let alone trickling down to artists.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm
There is the link to the Canadian Copyright Collective.
It shows $199 million collected.
It has paid out only $129 million to date.