INDU/ Heritage Submissions
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX
1
TitleOrganization / Individual SubmittingArgument SummaryData Points
2
Sounding Like A Broken Record : Principled Copyright Recommendations From The Music IndustryCanadian Music Policy Coalition (CMPC)The CMPC makes the following 10 recommendations: 1) Amend the Copyright Act to extend the term of protection of musical works of the author to life plus 70 years. 2) Institute firm deadlines for Copyright Board decisions, specifically, that tariffs be certified no more than 12 months after the end of a hearing and an expedited approval process for settled and unopposed tariffs requiring that they be approved 6 months following their joint or unopposed submission to the Board. 3) Codify and clarify Copyright Board procedures through regulations that specify a clear and consistent set of practices, policies and procedures, rather than through the current approach of a general and unclear directive. Do this by looking at the best practices of copyright tribunals around the world. 4) Impose a well-defined and mandated guidance for the Copyright Board in setting tariff rates, as currently the only guiding criterion is that royalties be “fair and equitable” (section 66.91 of Copyright Act). 5) A Government review of the fair dealings purposes that were introduced in the 2012 Copyright Act and investigate revenue trends for creative industries from 2012 to the present in order to see the effect of that 2012 implementation of fair dealings procedures on individual artists/creators incomes. 6) Make more specific the language of the Copyright Act regarding Temporary Reproductions For Technological Processes. 7) Update the Copyright Act’s wording regarding charitable exemption to include the phrase “motive of gain,” so that religious, educational and charitable organizations can no longer exempt themselves from paying royalties to songwriters, record makers, and neighbouring rights holders for the public performance of their works. 8) Repeal the radio receiver exemption of the Copyright Act and thus require small restaurant and business owners to obtain a license in order to publicly perform music in their establishments. 9) Repeal the $1.25 Million Broadcaster Exemption. 10) Institute a legal recognition that ISPs do not simply provide means of communication but that they actively participate in the monetization of copyrighted material, and therefore they must exercise some measure of control to prevent infringing activities and by extension they must be legally obliged to obtain licensing agreements with rights holders. In 2014 the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage noted that the Canadian Music Sector contributes nearly $3 billion annually to the economy, employing over 10,000 people in the recording/concert sectors and over 30,000 professional songwriters. 2. Private Copying: the wording of the Copyright Act is not technologically neutral, meaning that it only applies CDs and not smartphones. Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) revenues totalled $38 million in 2004, but fell to under $3 million in 2014, as a result of CDs becoming obsolete in favour of new (p.15). Private copying doubled during 2004-2014. Canadians copied over 2 billion tracks of music in 2015-2016 (p. 15).
3
Backgrounder Presented to the Standing Committee on Canadian HeritageCanadian Independent Music Association (CIMAThe recommendations made by CIMA are basically identical to those made by the CMPC, namely to scrap the outdated and unnecessary $1.25 Million Broadcaster Exemption subsidy; amend the definition of “sound recording” in s. 2 of the Copyright Act so that performers and makers of sound recordings will enjoy the same protections as songwriters and publishers; extend copyright terms to life plus 70 years, to be in line with the EU, the US, etc; amend the Copyright to be truly technologically neutral so as to apply to electronic devices rather than just to blank cds; relatedly CIMA recommends the government establish a temporary, interim $40 million per year Private Copying Compensation Fund (PCCF) until a more permanent change is made through legislation;1.
The $1.25 Million Broadcaster Exemption was introduced in 1997 as a “special and transitional” exemption to provide temporary relief to commercial broadcasters in Canada, allowing them to pay only $100 in royalty fees on the first $1.25 million earned in advertising revenues. In the 20 years since the Exemption as enacted, the commercial radio industry in Canada has changed dramatically, is now dominated by a small number of large and very profitably corporations that post profits that are 8,300% of those in 1995.
The Exemption is extended only to commercial broadcasters. It does not extend to CBC, small medium or large businesses (restaurants, satellite radio, retailers, etc), all of which pay full royalties. However under a separate section of the Exemption legislation community radio stations pay only $100.
2.
Due to the wording in s. 2 of the Copyright Act, songwriters and publishers receive royalties when a song is publicly broadcast, however performers and makers do not, thereby costing performers and makers $45 million a year in lost revenue.
3.
Annual revenues from the private copying levy to music creators have plunged from a high of $38 million in 2004 to less than $3 million in 2016. However, private copying doubled in that same period. Canadians copied over 2 billion tracks of music in 2015-2016.
4
Submitted to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as part of the statutory review of the Copyright ActSACD-SCAMSACD-SCAM makes the following recommendations: 1) updating the Copyright Act to include the following definition of audio-visual work: “includes any cinematographic work and any other work that includes the embodiment of moving images, whether or not accompanied by sounds.” 2) updating and clarifying the Copyright Act’s definition of joint authorship with regards to screenwriters and directors of audio-visual works to include the following phrase: “An audiovisual work is a work of joint authorship and the screenwriter and director are deemed to be co-authors of the audiovisual work.” 3) Extend the copyright regime to be technologically neutral, ie to apply to all electronic devices, rather than solely to cassettes and CDs. 4) Ensuring that the digital sector contributes a percentage of its revenues towards funding culture (as the broadcasting sector does). 5) The government should impose sales tax on foreign e-commerce companies (Netflix, iTunes, etc) and to put some portion towards funding culture. 6) Extending copyright protection to life plus 70s years.
5
Memorandum presented to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the Remuneration Models for Artists and Creative Industries, Tuesday, June 12, 2018. SOCAN SOCAN makes the following recommendations: 1) amend the Copyright Act to extend the term of protection of musical works of the author to life plus 70 years. 2) recommends that the Government amend the Copyright Act to: (a) allow the private copying regime to apply to both audio recording media and devices; and (b) ensure that private copying levies are payable on both media and devices ie to make the language technologically neutral. 3) Clarifying the Exemption For Charitable Donations clause [32.2(3)]of the Copyright Act, so that religious, educational and charitable organizations are unable to exploit the current loophole whereby they exempt themselves from paying royalties to rights holders on the grounds that they are a charitable donation. 4) Repealing the $1.25 Million Broadcaster Exemption. 5) Update the definition of “sound recording” in the Copyright Act to offer protection to performers and makers who do not currently receive royalties when their work is used in film and tv soundtracks. Charitable Donation Exemption : SOCAN estimates that the annual royalties lost to the dubious/misused/bad faith application of the charitable exemption are between $850,000 to $1.7 million.
6
The Value Gap""Music CanadaRECOMMENDATIONS : Music Canada makes the following recommendations:
1) Review and adjust safe harbour laws and exceptions by recognizing through legislation that ISPs are not merely passive intermediaries, “dumb pipes,” but rather they actively track users’ browsing and streaming activities in order to harvest user data and sell advertising, and direct users towards content of their choosing.
2) Meaningful reform of the Copyright Act in ways that will respond to and benefit Canadian creatives.
3) Remove the $1.25 Million Broadcaster Royalty Exemption
4) Amend the definition of “sound recording” such that performers and record labels are not excluded from receiving royalties when their work is used in television and film soundtracks.
1. The Radio Royalty Exemption cost artists and labels nearly $140 million in lost revenue between 1997 to 2016 (p. 7).
2. Artists and record labels lose approx.. $45 million in revenue annually due to the definition of “sound recording” in the Copyright Act.
7
Brief to Standing Committee on Canadian HeritageRegroupement des artisans de la musique (RAM)1. Make it easier to discover Quebec music on online music service platforms by requiring that online music companies offer specialized playlists, that they include Quebec works in general, themed or international playlists, etc, and that they have a specialized curator familiar with Quebec music.
2. Improve access to Quebec music on online music service platforms by requiring them to offer home pages specific to Quebec consumers. This could include increasing the visibility and positioning of Quebec music on the home page, making it easier to access and search content, etc.
3. Amend the Copyright Act so that performers, just like authors and composers, receive fair compensation levies when music is incorporated into an audiovisual medium. Examples: YouTube or television, soundtracks of movies and Netflix series.
4. Ensure that the value of musical works is recognized and that rights holders receive adequate royalties when their work is broadcast through online music service platforms by amending the Copyright Act and also by working with collective societies to obtain an increase in royalties for rights holders. Examples: increase the SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) tariff, obtain a tariff for performing artists.
5. Impose provincial and federal taxes on sales and subscriptions to online music services, tax their profits made in Canada, and redirect a portion of the revenues from this tax to creating music.
6. Impose a contribution to funding the creation and distribution of Quebec music based on the company’s subscription revenues.
7. Remove the existing exception in the Copyright Act for ISPs (section 2.4(1)(b)), which currently exempts them from the responsibility to pay royalties if they act only as access providers. By removing this section, it will be possible to file a tariff with the Copyright Board for ISPs.
8. Amend both the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act to make it possible to impose obligations on Internet service providers to develop and promote Quebec music and increase its visibility.
9. Extend the private copying regime to all digital audio recording media used to copy music.
10. Remove the exemption in section 68.1(1)(a)(i) of the Copyright Act that limits the royalties paid by broadcasters on the first $1.25 million of revenues to $100.
11. We propose that CBC/Radio-Canada increase the presence of original Quebec music of all types in its television and radio programming and that it promote Quebec creators and performers.
12. Improve transparency for federal funding granted to companies through the sub-components of the Music Entrepreneur Component (MEC), Musicaction, and SODEC by requiring that artists countersign at each step of the funding process for the parts that apply to them, from the initial application through the annual financial statements to the final use report, before they are sent to (MEC),Musicaction, and SODEC.
13. Improve transparency for the budgets, revenues and expenses of record producers, record companies and show producers by requiring companies to inform artists of the amounts awarded in grants or funding, as well as expenses related to the production of sound recordings and shows.
14. Consider self-producing artists to be companies for SODEC programs. By removing the following from Part 3 of SODEC’s Programme d’aide aux entreprises en musique et variétés, so that self-producing artists could have access to funding for projects in the para-industrial sector as well as additional support when they are on tour.
15. Increase funding for CALQ research and creation programs.
16. Establish federal tax relief measures for producing sound recordings and shows available to producers and self-producing artists.
17. Ensure that all production and marketing budgets are approved by the artist by requiring that companies obtain budget approval and the artist’s signature before undertaking any production or marketing expenses.
18. Develop a model that allows artists to keep their master tapes at the end of the period provided for in the contract.
19. Collectively consider a new artist-centric model in which funding is provided in the artist’s name and the artist is a decision maker in how mandates are allocated to the various stakeholders.
20. Propose establishing a round table with music artists, broadcasting networks and performance venues in all regions of Quebec to reflect on concrete solutions to increase attendance, encourage diversity and improve event promotion.
21. Ensure that a sufficient number of seats be reserved for music artists on the various boards of directors, committees and juries of funding agencies such as Musicaction, FACTOR (Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Records), MEC (Music Entrepreneurs Component) through Canadian Heritage, CALQ and SODEC.
22. Offer an information, advice and referral service to the various services already offered to artists in the music sector by organizations working in the music sector (examples: UDA, SPACQ, GMMQ, SOCAN, SODRAC (Society for the Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada), Artisti, etc.).
23. Grant the OCCQ (Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec) the necessary funding to conduct an in-depth study of the sector to create a detailed socio-economic profile of music artists.
24. Promote the discovery and branding of Quebec music among youth in the form of shows, discovery, creation and practice workshops, encounters with artistic works and meetings with the artists.
8
As an individual Déziel, GuillaumeCreative Commons Licensing : Creative Commons (CC) licenses allow creators, also called licensors, to voluntarily relinquish parts of their copyright. In tune with the reality of the Web where copying rhymes with sharing, CC licenses allow works to be shared.

To incentivize creators and producers to adopt Creative Commons Licenses, develop a sliding grants scale according to how restrictive or permissive is the chosen permissive license. For instance: a more permissive license would yield greater financial aid, since the author would contribute more to culture vitality and the public domain’s wellbeing. Whereas, a restrictive license (© “All Rights Reserved”) would yield a lesser amount in grants, as the creator prefers to voluntarily limit the circulation of his or her work in order to control its monetization.

All Creative Commons licenses allow the sharing of works governed by such licenses. Such sharing represents an advantage for the community which benefits from a direct access to culture. This implicitly constitutes an advantage for internet service providers (ISPs) who make their living by “transporting” culture from point A to point B among the community.

The either full or partial copyright provision allows the community easy access to culture long before works become a part of the public domain. Such an advantage for the community also represents an advantage for ISPs who monetize cultural consumption. As such, taxpayer contributions used to finance creative culture (grants and funding) should entail certain demands: ensuring the community a better access to culture; more flexibility; and the possibility of sharing this culture without the risk of copyright infringement.

9
“IT’S ABOUT TIME! Terminating Copyright Assignments to Preserve Creator’s Rights A brief to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage dealing with the remuneration models for artists and creative industries.”Bryan Adams OC OBC, assisted by Mario BouchardOne amendment to the Copyright Act, which would then carry with it 3 conditions:
1) Canada should amend the Copyright Act to allow creators to terminate all copyright transfers 25 years after the date of transfer. This would be done by simply removing the word “death” from subsection 14(1) of the Copyright Act and replacing it by “assignment”. Therefore, all copyright assignments would end after 25 years.

i) Termination would be at the creator’s request.
ii) The creator would be required to give advance notice of this termination.
iii) A public notice of this termination must be made available.
1) “Copyright law is about balance, a balance which was and remains at risk between creators and intermediaries. Copyright law works not so much for creators as for intermediaries; extending the duration of copyright will benefit them, not creators.”
2) “Mechanical royalties, which used to be an important source of a composer’s music income, have almost disappeared…Uncertainty about future sources of income increases as the pace of change accelerates. Yet Canadian copyright law and copyright markets expect inexperienced creators to strike long-term bargains that will produce fair outcomes for as long as 100 years.”
3) “The value of most non-tangible creations (song, play, movie, book) usually materializes in a short time frame; so, intermediaries tend to focus on recent creations. They view their back catalogue as a source of income that requires little or no effort to promote, leaving creators unable to optimize these income streams for themselves.”
10
"SUBMISSION OF ALAC TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE ON REMUNERATION MODELS FOR ARTISTS AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES"ARTISTS AND LAWYERS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CREATIVITY (ALAC)1) Write the “three-step test” into the Copyright Act and make explicit its application to all limitations or exceptions to the copyright of authors and performers:
We recommend that the Copyright Act itself spell out this international obligation to “confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.”

i) Revise the “fair dealing” exception for the purpose of “education” or add regulations:
Schools, colleges and universities have used this 2012 amendment to the Act to arbitrarily decide what they think they should be able to copy, resulting in huge drop in royalty payments made to collective societies representing rightsholders.
ii) Give collective societies management of the “User-Generated Content” (“UGC”) exception:
Publicly disseminated UGC, such as a song mash-up or unauthorized sequel to a novel, could diminish or entirely scoop the value of the existing performance or work. UGC dissemination should be restricted to its creator’s own private circle. If not restricted to truly private communications (e.g., personal email), the original author or performer should receive royalties for commercial dissemination.
iii) Revise the definition of “sound recording” to get rid of the exclusion of soundtracks accompanying films and other audiovisual works, i.e., when exhibited in theatres or broadcast on television or streamed on or downloaded from the Internet.

2. Remove the $1.25 million tariff exemption:

3. Implement and ratify the Beijing Treaty, adopted internationally.
Canada should implement this treaty without further delay

4. Replace the current right of an author’s heirs to revert rights granted by the author to publishers and producers 25 years following the author’s death with a reversionary right exercisable by the author or author’s heirs a specified number of years following the grant by the author during lifetime:
i)
In the United States, authors or their statutory successors have the right to revert rights during a 5-year window beginning 35 years after the date of the author’s grant.
ii) The Society of Authors in the United Kingdom and renowned publisher Faber & Faber agreed decades ago that 20 years was the appropriate maximum duration of a book publishing contract.
iii) The Directive on Copyright in the Single Digital Market, approved in September 2018 by the EU Parliament,sets 20 years following publication for automatic expiry of authors’ digital grants to newspaper and magazine publishers. We also note that this new EU Directive will entitle authors (and performers) to request a “contract adjustment” when their original agreement is “disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.”

5. Get rid of caps and bars on statutory damages for infringements for non-commercial purposes:
Few authors and performers can afford to litigate to prove actual damages, and once a work or performance is disseminated on the Internet, there is no real remedy for its creator. Effective statutory damages are an essential deterrent to infringements, and infringements mean lost revenues.
A comment on the importance of collective societies in Canada:
1) Collective societies already play a vital role in the remuneration models available for creators, and will only continue to do so because:
i) Looking ahead, we foresee that many more artists will operate independently of traditional models to produce, market and sell their works and sound recordings by embracing various forms of self-publishing.
ii) In response to the increasing proliferation of self-publishing models, collective societies have harnessed technology – and continue to innovate – to minimize revenues lost to rightsholders because of third-party dissemination costs and lack of transparency and to maximize their ability to provide services for rightsholders.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Loading...