Canadian songwriters want to share their music

The Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) have revealed a new proposal that would allow all Canadian citizens to download as much unauthorized music as they please for the low, flat-rate of $5 CAD per month.

The new proposal, which will require federal approval to pass, will add a $5 CAD surcharge to your monthly ISP bill but allow unlimited music downloading from sources of your choice.

"That's a very reasonable amount of money to legally, without fear of any legal repercussions, to be able to download that and share it with [whomever] you want to and as many times as you want," said Eddie Schwartz, president of the songwriters' group. "On iTunes to download one album, it's $10. This is half of that and this is pretty reasonable to have access to the entire repertoire of Western music."

The organization plans to meet at Toronto's Ryerson University to launch the proposal while asking for an immediate amendment to the Canadian Copyright Act. The new right will be called the Right to Equitable Reenumeration for Music File Sharing and would allow the songwriters to collect fees from all Internet subscribers.

The group went on to say that the new proposal would bring the SAC, and the songwriters, composers and lyricists behind it between $500 million and $900 million CAD per year.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 24 Feb 2008 18:15

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

33 comments

dude845

Fine with me.. :).

24.2.2008 18:28 #1

vinny13

Hey, if only $5 a month will save me from the CRC guys busting down my door I'm fine with that :)

24.2.2008 20:01 #2

aldan

hell yeah bring it on.

24.2.2008 21:04 #3

david89

not bad this another good idea and price isn't way to much more. to bad usa can't do this and drop all the law suits and none senes oh well wishful thinking. plus they should make it cover movies allso so they can stop crying.

24.2.2008 22:23 #4

cfultz

Originally posted by david89: not bad this another good idea and price isn't way to much more. to bad usa can't do this and drop all the law suits and none senes oh well wishful thinking. plus they should make it cover movies allso so they can stop crying.i agree but it probably wont happen. and really, this goes to show that the artist really want to share what they make (music). concerts are bigger money makers now than music sales by far.

24.2.2008 22:47 #5

engage16

a hint to the US govenment.... read the article above!!!!

i'd have no problem paying the $5 a month... add it as an optional charge. and then prosecute the people who are downloading and are not paying the 5 bucks... within reason of course, not talking about someone who downloads a cd once in a while... i'm talking about those who max out their bandwidth 24/7 with file transfers...

Custom built AMD XP 2200+, 80gb HDD, 200gb HDD, 764mb RAM, SONY CD-RW 52x CRX230E, SONY DVD-RW 16x DL DRU-800A, ATI Raedon 9600 128mb
Laptop- 1.46 Dualcore Pentium, 2gb ddr2 533 mhz, 80 gb hd, intel x3100 graphics, 8x DVD-DL Burner, 15.4 widescreen HD
V9 PS2 with clear blue fliptop& swapmagic 3.6
At&t V9 Razr2
30gb Black Video iPod

24.2.2008 23:31 #6

Tecbot

that $60 a year is more than probably 50% of the people actually spend on music a year anyway seems like a no brainer to me.

With file sharing the way it has been for the last 5+ years this is probably the smartest answer ive read about to bring a universal pay service at a decent rate so far. $10 for a album on itunes...I can go to a store 5 minutes away and pay $5 for that same album probably nothing really convient about that type of pay service when apple is taking those kind of commisions per cd/song.

25.2.2008 02:21 #7

nobrainer

This is a terrible idea, WHO GET THE MONEY real artists or manufactured crap that the RIAA labels constantly churn out, what if you only purchase very selective music from trusted artists, are you expected to give away money FREELY to the RIAA, what's to stop artists slowing down on releasing quality albums if they have already got paid?

The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

How do you stop anti consumer = its easy purchase only second hand media and avoid their propertarian hobbled by DRM hardware! http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

25.2.2008 04:21 #8

vinny13

Well according to this article it sounds like the artists would seeing its the govorment and it doesn't mention the companies... Plus most of them are small and the RIAA is american so they can't really do as much as they would want...

25.2.2008 08:04 #9

donewell

I Live in Canada and what You guys are missing is they want to charge everyone's internet $5 a month even if you never download anything, It sucks, just a money grab. Hope the gov. does not allow. Not a bad idea if its an option.

25.2.2008 08:08 #10

jdempsey

On first read I like it. But..

Is it optional? My 70 year old grandmother should not have to pay for other people downloading music. Are they are going to remove the hidden tax on CDR's if they pass this?

$60/year to download crappy quality music and I still have to pay for a CD if I want real quality. Artists I never listen to will get a cut of my money even though I never wanted to support them.

After thinking it over this almost sounds like extortion. Pay a fee ahead of time to make sure you don't get sued. your not paying for the product, your paying for protection.

But having said all that, its the best solution I've seen so far.

25.2.2008 08:10 #11

nobrainer

@ vinny13

the CRIA is the RIAA, just as is the IFPI, and the BPI in the UK, the same as the other organisations around the world that represent the Record Companies(The Big Four). They are the companies that do the big fours bidding so the media companies do not get all the bad press and lose sales due to their illegal price fixing anti consumer activities, kind of a smoke screen or anonymous, bearding, camouflaged, concealed, disguised, hidden, masked, obscure, unknown, unrecognised and so on!

25.2.2008 08:34 #12

varnull

If these artists really wanted to "share" they would fund a site like mp3lizard between them and have a billing system like pay per click advertising.. users register with something like a pay-pal account (or one of those pay debit cards that are about now) and you only pay for what you actually download.. I would go for that.. there is no way I am going to subsidise some useless talentless (c)rapper or other ****** **** kind of stuff that I never even listen to, let alone buy.

What would they need to charge?

Well the site could easily be self funding by paid advertising.. that doesn't generate much income, but aD manages to survive with that sort of revenue.. downloads could be through a p2p system like vuze and spocats tv so they don't need massive bandwidth.. and as for cost per song.. what do they make now? $0.01 per item (6-12 tracks on a cd?) so how about $0.05 per song.. 5x what they are getting now, and no record companies/riaa or any of em..
Can't you just tell I'm owed royalties by the riaa?

Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work.... Commercial "pay for" software = made by software developers who want paying... see where I'm going with this?

25.2.2008 09:35 #13

doodledoo

Makes so much sense doubt it'll happen in Canada. Not a hope in hell's chance in the UK.

25.2.2008 13:17 #14

mackdl

Concept seems fine until you take into account the number of internet users:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/ca.htm

At $5 a month, that's a heck of a lot of revenue.

25.2.2008 14:03 #15

kujejones

I don't think this is a very good idea for 2 reasons:
(1) Not everyone downloads music. It is wrong to charge those people for a service they do not take a part of. If there were some way to opt for this option that would be a much better idea than charging everyone.
(2) What about college students on a campus network? Are the ISP's gonna charge the college $5 for every student? Some schools have 40,000 plus students x $5 a month is $200,000 a month? $2.4 million a year? Thats a lot. I remember a few months ago (maybe longer) that the RIAA/MPAA (I think cant remember) was sending letters to colleges asking them to deal with students who were downloading massive amounts of content. Now I know that was in the US but I'm sure it is not too different from Canada.

25.2.2008 16:32 #16

ikari

Good idea.

However, that 5 CAD charge is just for music. What about movies? games? TV shows? If it passes then every other organization is going to want it as well.

25.2.2008 16:39 #17

DVDdoug

The performers and performance copyright holders (record companies) seem to have been left out of this. The songwriter can sell or give-away the lyrics and sheet music, but they have no right to to sell or give-away recordings. The performers don't have a right to do this either if they've signed a contract with a record company! Until the performers and record companies agree, this is going nowhere.

If the writer is getting $5, the performer is going to want $10 and the record company is going to want $50.

25.2.2008 17:12 #18

ZippyDSM

Originally posted by nobrainer: This is a terrible idea, WHO GET THE MONEY real artists or manufactured crap that the RIAA labels constantly churn out, what if you only purchase very selective music from trusted artists, are you expected to give away money FREELY to the RIAA, what's to stop artists slowing down on releasing quality albums if they have already got paid?
Its a pretty good idea its a optional tax system, I'd run it as a non profit dolling out a even presentage to the media firms and indavendaul artists who do not use the media firms.

25.2.2008 18:57 #19

Icanbe

This isn't such a bad idea, only if the money goes to the artists that I download and not to the one's I don't.
I'm sure they can track what you download and make sure you only those people get the money.

Otherwise forget it, I don't want my money going to bands and artists that I have no interest in, which is most of them.

26.2.2008 08:39 #20

jdempsey

Originally posted by Icanbe: This isn't such a bad idea, only if the money goes to the artists that I download and not to the one's I don't.
I'm sure they can track what you download and make sure you only those people get the money.

Otherwise forget it, I don't want my money going to bands and artists that I have no interest in, which is most of them.How would they track what you download? It says from sources of your choice. Do you really want some organization tracking everything you download and cataloging the artist. they would have to run some type of client on your machine or keep tabs through the ISP on every user that pays the $5

No Thanks

26.2.2008 12:15 #21

Icanbe

Quote:Originally posted by Icanbe: This isn't such a bad idea, only if the money goes to the artists that I download and not to the one's I don't.
I'm sure they can track what you download and make sure you only those people get the money.

Otherwise forget it, I don't want my money going to bands and artists that I have no interest in, which is most of them.How would they track what you download? It says from sources of your choice. Do you really want some organization tracking everything you download and cataloging the artist. they would have to run some type of client on your machine or keep tabs through the ISP on every user that pays the $5

No ThanksIt was just a rough idea.

26.2.2008 12:54 #22

jdempsey

Quote:Quote:Originally posted by Icanbe: This isn't such a bad idea, only if the money goes to the artists that I download and not to the one's I don't.
I'm sure they can track what you download and make sure you only those people get the money.

Otherwise forget it, I don't want my money going to bands and artists that I have no interest in, which is most of them.How would they track what you download? It says from sources of your choice. Do you really want some organization tracking everything you download and cataloging the artist. they would have to run some type of client on your machine or keep tabs through the ISP on every user that pays the $5

No ThanksIt was just a rough idea.Its wasn't a bad idea I just don't see any way of making it work. I also don't want my money going to artists I didn't want to support. But I want private/govt groups tracking my surfing/downloading even less. Makes my skin crawl.

26.2.2008 14:04 #23

Icanbe

Quote:Quote:Quote:Originally posted by Icanbe: This isn't such a bad idea, only if the money goes to the artists that I download and not to the one's I don't.
I'm sure they can track what you download and make sure you only those people get the money.

Otherwise forget it, I don't want my money going to bands and artists that I have no interest in, which is most of them.How would they track what you download? It says from sources of your choice. Do you really want some organization tracking everything you download and cataloging the artist. they would have to run some type of client on your machine or keep tabs through the ISP on every user that pays the $5

No ThanksIt was just a rough idea.Its wasn't a bad idea I just don't see any way of making it work. I also don't want my money going to artists I didn't want to support. But I want private/govt groups tracking my surfing/downloading even less. Makes my skin crawl.True enough, That seems to be a common theme here, the money not going to artists people don't like or want to support.

26.2.2008 16:40 #24

EIMB1999

So, lemme get this straight:

The government will pass a law that will allow Canadian songwriters and musicians to force you to pay them $5 a month as a surcharge to your internet service, whether you want their stupid lame "music" or not.

This is outrageous. These idiot songwriters can't sell their garbage legitimately, so they go to the government to force you to pay for it, so they don't have to engage in the free market system to pawn their junk.

Absolutely unbelievable that we now live in such a lame and lazy society that anyone could even THINK of proposing such insanity.

The fools that actually agree to this (and there are a LOT of you, based on the comments on this forum)deserve to allow themselves to be bilked like this, but why should those of us who don't WANT their trash be forced to pay for it?

This is the result of the Canadian welfare state socialist mentality that's polluted our society. Thank you Pierre Idiot Trudeau.

On the other hand, maybe I should get in on it. Let's pass a bill that forces all of you to pay a dime every time you buy anything made of plastic to be funnelled to guys like me who build models for a living so whe don't have to worry about actually selling our work and EARNING our money. Think anybody'd go for that one?

If this bill goes through it'll prove beyond any doubt that we truly are a nation of complete idiots.

29.2.2008 08:31 #25

Icanbe

@eimb1999

I really don't think people link being called "fools"

You are entitled to your opinion, But I don't think there is any need
for name calling.

29.2.2008 08:41 #26

EIMB1999

And you're entitled to be stupid. Anyone who agrees that people should be taxed (because that's what that "surcharge" really is) and therefore be forced to pay for an industry that's already boiling over with wealth (compared to most of us) by the heavy hand of government IS a damned fool.

That's not name calling, that's accurately and factually describing their condition. Deal with it.

29.2.2008 09:17 #27

Icanbe

Where in my post did I agree to anything?

All I said was, That I would not have a problem with paying $5 tax, surcharge, whatever they or you want to call it, as long as it could go to bands that I like and would have no problem supporting.

And I don't listen to mainstream bands anyway, Because you are right on that part, most of it is trash.

29.2.2008 09:28 #28

EIMB1999

Originally posted by Icanbe: Where in my post did I agree to anything?

All I said was, That I would not have a problem with paying $5 tax, surcharge, whatever they or you want to call it, as long as it could go to bands that I like and would have no problem supporting.You asked and answered your own question! You think it's OK to FORCE people who just want internet access (most people who have internat access do NOT download illegal music) to pay for the bands that you like. And you don't think that's a dumb idea?

Look, do yourself a favour. Get out of your pyjamas, get a shower, crawl out of your monmmie's basement, go out and get a job, and in your spare time go study the philosophies of people who fought to make a country free. No, not "free healthcare", I mean a free nation. If you have half a brain, you'd quickly realize that it's the free MARKET backed up with property rights that allows people to be free, NOT an all encroaching government that soaks everyone to pay everyone. That's called socialism, and it's been a complete disaster everywhere it's tried.

Now, get off that computer turn off your ipod and go learn something useful. So far, you're a drag on our society.

29.2.2008 09:58 #29

nprfan

Yes, yes, yes, this is the TICKET!

As they used to do with a "tax" on cassettes - as long as the price is reasonable anywhere in the world, I would gladly play a flat-rate fee to access good music for download so that the artist (not the corpos) would get a good share! Really great idea.

Now, lossless is what should be considered not MP3, which is so early 'oughts and 20'th century!

Of course, the odds that this would really work out in the favor of customers/listeners and artists is terribly slim, but we can dream, can't we?

;-)

29.2.2008 13:22 #30

Icanbe

Quote:You think it's OK to FORCE people who just want internet access (most people who have internat access do NOT download illegal music) to pay for the bands that you like. And you don't think that's a dumb idea?Yes, I think it is a very dumb idea to force people to pay for something they are not going to use.

What I should have said the only way I would consider agreeing to this kind of idea is if it was an optional charge on your isp bill.

And for your information, I work everyday to pay for my Home, my car, my taxes and bills and so on.(I think you get the point)

O yeah one more thing I don't own an ipod, I purchase my music legally and listen to it on my home stereo system, which I worked very hard to pay for.

Have a nice day

29.2.2008 13:22 #31

nprfan

Forgot to add that this is similar to what happens at radio stations, at least in the U.S. Based on airplay, artists are compensated through an organization for the number of times their work is played on the air.

By giving them a percentage of the surcharge, it amounts to something similar, and would encourage artists to make their work attractive to downloaders - this means independent production of the audio, graphics, lyric presentation and multi-media get more fans to get their stuff.

This would amount to a more equitable and varied version of music distribution than the old days. We'd all have our virtual "radio stations" and the ability to download music we can then convert to the format/media of our choice!

This, if correctly implemented, could really make sense. But, again the cynic in me senses that it will not work our right.

29.2.2008 13:30 #32

borhan9

Quote:The Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) have revealed a new proposal that would allow all Canadian citizens to download as much unauthorized music as they please for the low, flat-rate of $5 CAD per month.

The new proposal, which will require federal approval to pass, will add a $5 CAD surcharge to your monthly ISP bill but allow unlimited music downloading from sources of your choice.I like this idea its the best i have heard so far. This idea should be implemented and become worldwide.

19.4.2008 19:09 #33

AfterDawn: News