Evidence of meeting #111 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was copyright.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dominic Trudel  Chief Executive Officer, Conseil québécois de la musique
Graham Henderson  President and Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada
Andrew Morrison  The Jerry Cans
Lyette Bouchard  Chair, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Lisa Freeman  Executive Director, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Alan Willaert  Vice-President, Canada, Canadian Federation of Musicians
Benoit Henry  Chief Executive Officer, Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale
Jean-Pierre Caissie  Administrator, Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Welcome, everyone, to the 111th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are today continuing with our study of remuneration models for artists and creative industries.

We have with us in the room Graham Henderson, from Music Canada;

Mr. Dominic Trudel, from the Conseil québécois de la musique, who is joining us by videoconference

and we are waiting for our two witnesses from The Jerry Cans. We'll get started and hopefully they can join us.

It would probably be better to start with Mr. Trudel, given that we sometimes have technical problems with videoconferences.

Mr. Trudel, you may start your presentation.

8:45 a.m.

Dominic Trudel Chief Executive Officer, Conseil québécois de la musique

Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this meeting. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Conseil québécois de la musique, the CQM. Our organization is made up of professional concert musicians, that is, those who play classical, jazz, contemporary and world music, which distinguishes us from those who play popular music.

My presentation is mainly based on a document commissioned by the CQM, and written by Guillaume Sirois, an independent researcher in Montreal. We asked him to write a literature review, titled Le développement de contenus numériques dans le domaine de la musique de concert. My presentation will consist in me reading you excerpts from this document.

Of all the arts, music has probably been the one most deeply and quickly affected by the arrival of digital technologies. Right from the early 2000s, the music industry began a cycle of changes that continued through a succession of new technological innovations. Peer-to-peer file sharing, online music piracy, the arrival of legal download sites, and, finally, music streaming platforms have all, in turn, caused great turmoil in an industry that is continually striving to adapt to the many technological changes in order to maintain its production abilities and its vitality.

The digital shift has come with many promises over the years. We were told, for instance, that it would cut out the middleman from the production and distribution chain, and establish a direct link between creators and their fans. Others believed that we would witness a kind of golden age for revenue from stage performances, and that, in terms of sales, these performances would replace sound recordings as industry drivers. From this perspective, sound recordings would be reduced to a type of loss leader to boost concert ticket sales. For the majority of artists in the music industry, all of these promises made by the digital revolutionaries have fallen flat. A number of these artists still struggle to convert digital opportunities into significant revenue.

All of these problems of introducing digital technologies into the world of music are largely studied from the perspective of popular music. However, a certain number of specific problems arise in the field of concert music.

As the voice for this field, the Conseil québécois de la musique is particularly concerned with all of these problems, because they directly affect all of our members.

Though musicians view enforcing copyright and collecting royalties as key issues in the digital era, they are also deeply affected by the digital revolution in terms of their ability to produce, distribute and promote their music. Therefore, throughout the creative process, creators have seen a change in how they are compensated.

The impacts of these technologies on music consumption habits are changing rapidly, as new options become available to consumers. Sound recording sales are going down, streaming revenue is going up, but musicians are getting hardly any of it, and concert ticket sales revenue is not compensating for lost music sales revenue. The market is highly globalized, with music travelling quickly between America and Europe, and increasingly towards Asia, where the demand for cultural products is soaring.

The new music platforms are almost exclusively developed for popular music, and are sometimes ill-adapted to the realities of classical music. A good example of this is how hard it is to correctly identify the composers, performers and various elements of any given classical music recording. Also, it is hard for these systems to appropriately process pieces with a number of movements—generally recorded on different tracks—specifically when they create playlists, suggested or otherwise. It is hard to correctly catalogue composers and performers, as their names are sometimes spelled differently from one recording to the next. Furthermore, there is insufficient knowledge of classical music's different genres, eras and currents; the platforms process it as one homogenous whole.

I'll add that the remuneration models of these streaming websites, generally speaking, put classical musicians at a disadvantage. These sites generally pay artists a minuscule fixed sum, fractions of a penny, every time a piece is played. The model is based on the number of plays of the same piece, which can generate revenue for musicians in the long run. However, since classical pieces are, on average, much longer than pop songs, the same listening time can generate very different revenue depending on what kind of music is played.

Following this logic, a classical music fan and a popular music fan, both spending an hour listening to their favourite music on one of these sites, would generate different royalties. The first, having listened to a more limited number of pieces, would generate fewer royalty payments, whereas the second, having had the time to consume a larger number of pieces, would generate a higher number of royalty payments.

Furthermore, since classical music audiences are still far smaller than popular music ones, streaming platforms only generate very little revenue with classical music, for now. Ironically, it often takes more musicians to create these pieces.

In this type of market where revenue is generally going down, it becomes harder and harder to finance content production of concert music. Yet, musicians and orchestras are increasingly feeling the need to have their performances heard online, because it is becoming an essential aspect of any form of career progression in this field.

With this in mind, Radio-Canada's decision, taken three years ago, to significantly cut back on the number of concerts it records has only added to the challenges faced by Quebec musicians in producing quality digital content and promoting it to audiences interested in this type of production.

The development of affordable digital technologies that provide increasingly higher quality recordings has somewhat democratized the production of digital concert music content. However, a number of artists also point out that the explosion of digital technologies in the arts has caused certain difficulties for them, specifically in terms of identifying the technologies that meet their needs, and the opportunities these tools provide.

Nevertheless, artists who wish to produce content for the digital world now have a range of possibilities. They can go with the traditional model, where record labels take charge of every step of the production and marketing process, but, more and more of them are now choosing self-production instead, and are even signing risk-sharing contracts with production companies.

This reconfiguration of the production and distribution chain for digital content also raises some important questions about state funding for these types of activities. Until now, all state funding for producing content went directly to the producers, who were the only ones able to provide this service. However, what do we do now that production has become much less centralized, and can be done by many different people? Given that traditional producers are losing ground, that artists now feel more pressure to be their own producers, that a higher number of artists are now doing just that, do we not need to review how state funding is channelled to support this industry?

For concert musicians, producing digital content goes hand in hand with broadcasting and distributing it.

We need to take into account the culture of free access that dominates the digital content market. It is increasingly harder to develop business models that require consumers to pay for cultural content. This is particularly true with emerging art forms. Hugely famous artists and producers can easily count on consumers to pay a certain amount to access their content, given that they know how popular it is. However, emerging artists have no reputation to fall back on, so it's harder for them to profit from their content.

This whole discussion on how the digital world provides vast opportunities for visibility largely rests on the link between digital content distribution and concert attendance. Marketing experts call this “fan-based marketing”. Truth be told, this magic formula has only yielded results for a handful of musicians; it remains out of reach for most of them.

On the topic of discoverability, concert musicians face a sizeable challenge: How do we ensure that audio and video files uploaded by Quebec musicians become discoverable by their audiences, knowing that these files have now entered a competitive space, featuring not only the local scene, but musicians and orchestras from all around the world? In a field like classical music, which is largely based on a common repertoire, how can Quebec musicians distinguish themselves in the digital world, which probably already features a number of versions of the same piece they offer their fans?

This issue is even more concerning for concert musicians, because, like in most of the arts, the role experts play in recommending cultural products is dwindling away.

In closing, it seems that, nowadays, releasing simple audio files with musical performances is increasingly inadequate to meet consumers' high expectations. They increasingly want an added value: something that allows them to see, experience and understand the music. That appetite leads to an explosion of digital products, which can be expensive to produce, and provide little returns: event footage, educational and utility apps, virtual reality, sound installations, and so on.

Here are the main, possible solutions that have emerged from our investigation.

The first is about production funding. We need a reform on how public funding is distributed, in order to better reflect the production costs and the costs associated with current production structures. Then, Internet service providers must be required to contribute to production funds for cultural digital content. We suggest putting a culture tax on devices that play digital content, as well as reforming the music industry's taxation to include tax credits, like those offered in the film industry.

We recommend having a copyright reform on royalty payments, and introducing a uniform system of data collection that would allow people to identify right holders.

Furthermore, we need education on copyrights. We need to inform musicians of their rights and responsibilities, and raise public awareness about the repercussions their online actions have on the arts and culture, and about responsible consumption in this sector.

Lastly, we need promotion initiatives to spread awareness for content available on the large, international platforms.

Thank you.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you very much.

I just wanted everyone to know that we are now joined by Andrew Morrison of The Jerry Cans. Welcome.

Just to let you settle in, we will go next to Graham Henderson from Music Canada, please.

8:55 a.m.

Graham Henderson President and Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada

Thank you.

That was an excellent presentation, by the way. Thank you, Mr. Trudel.

My name is Graham Henderson, and I'm the President and CEO of Music Canada, and we're passionate advocates for those who create music and for the music itself.

I'm very pleased to see the heritage committee studying remuneration models for artists in creative industries. This is an aspect of the music industry system that I, and Music Canada, have for years been working to modernize. Creating a functioning marketplace, where creators receive fair compensation for the use of their works, forms the bedrock of our mission.

However, the reality for Canadian creators is that there are provisions in our own Copyright Act that prevent them from receiving fair market value for their work. I believe the best way this committee can assist in creating that marketplace, one that is transparent and supports Canadian creators, is by providing the government with straightforward and accessible solutions to address what we call the “value gap”. Music Canada has produced a comprehensive report on the value gap in Canada, which you will find in French and English in front of you. It's one-of-a-kind in the world, in fact. There's a tear-away sheet on the front that defines the value gap for you as the “significant disparity between the value of creative content that is accessed and enjoyed by consumers, and the revenues that are returned to the people and businesses who create it”.

Today, more music is consumed than at any time in history. However, the remuneration for that content has not kept pace with the record levels of consumption. I was pleased to hear Minister Joly recognize this point earlier in the year when she stated, “The benefits of the digital economy have not been shared equally. Too many creators, journalists, artists have been left behind...”.

The origins of the value gap extend back more than two decades to a time when countries around the world, including Canada, began adapting and interpreting laws created in another era to protect common carrier telephone companies in the then-dawning digital marketplace. Around the world, those laws understood the Internet as a series of “dumb”—and that's the term that was used—pipes where your browsing habits were anonymous and the data travelling between sites was so vast it was unknowable. Twenty years later, we know that the Internet is composed of the smartest pipes humankind has ever made. Your web habits are meticulously tracked and metadata that it generates is collected, analyzed, and sold every second of the day.

While well-intentioned when they were created, the impact of these laws today is that wealth has been diverted from creators into the pockets of massive digital entities, intermediaries. What little is left over for creators is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. As a result, the creative middle class is disappearing, if it hasn't disappeared already, and with it numerous jobs and opportunities.

There's no need to point fingers. No one planned for the creative middle class to suffer. The important thing at this juncture is to move forward purposefully and without delay to get the rules right. You should make absolutely certain that Canada's Copyright Act ensures the creator's rights to be fairly remunerated when their work is commercialized by others.

The foundation of the value gap is outdated safe-harbour policies and exceptions all around the world. A safe harbour, by the way, is a way to limit the liability of an intermediary and allow music to be consumed without payment. I know that Minister Joly and Minister Bains are working on this issue and having conversations with their counterparts around the world to find a solution. Here in Canada there are particular laws that exacerbate the value gap by effectively requiring—and think about this—creators, individual creators, to subsidize billion-dollar commercial technology companies.

Here are four steps that this committee could recommend immediately that would help creators immediately and would harmonize Canadian policy with international standards.

First, remove the $1.25-million radio royalty exemption. Since 1997, commercial radio stations have been exempted from paying royalties on their first $1.25 million in advertising revenue. It amounts to an $8-million annual cross-subsidy paid by artists and their recording industry partners to large, vertically integrated, and highly profitable media companies. Internationally, no other country has a similar subsidy. The exemption does not apply for songwriter and publisher royalties, meaning that performers and record labels are the only rights holders whose royalties are used to subsidize the commercial radio industry. This is unjustifiable and it should be eliminated.

Second, amend the definition of sound recording in the Copyright Act. The current definition of sound recording excludes performers and record labels—here we go again—from receiving royalties for the use of their work in television and film soundtracks. This exception is unique to television and film soundtracks, and does not apply to composers, songwriters, or music publishers. It is inequitable and unjustified, particularly in light of the profound role music plays in soundtracks. It is costly to artists and record labels, who continue to subsidize those who exploit their recordings to the tune of $55 million a year.

Third, amend the term of copyright for musical works. The term of copyright protection in Canada for the authors of musical works is out of line with international copyright norms. Under the Copyright Act, protection for musical work subsists for the duration of the author's life, plus a further 50 years. By contrast, the majority of Canada's largest trading partners recognize longer copyright terms, and the general standard of life plus 70 has emerged. I note that the vice-chair of this committee, Mr. Van Loan, introduced a private member's bill on this issue, and we thank you for that.

Fourth, renew support for music creators. Various decisions have limited the private copying levy, originally intended to be technologically neutral, to media that are effectively obsolete. This important source of earned income for over 100,000 music creators is now in jeopardy unless the regime is updated. Music creators are asking for the creation of an interim four-year fund of $40 million per year. This will ensure that music creators continue to receive fair compensation for private copies made until a permanent, long-term solution can be enacted.

Each of these changes removes an unfair subsidy, harmonizes the laws within our industries, and brings us to international standards. They can be enacted today.

As the creative community anxiously awaits this review of the Copyright Act, an organization called Focus on Creators sent Minister Joly a letter that has now been signed by more than 3,650 Canadian creators. In that letter, creators discussed their concerns with the value gap and how it is causing middle-class artists to disappear in Canada. The creators' letter concludes with a message that I hope you will take to heart: “We know you understand the cultural significance of our work; we hope you also see its value and crucial place in Canada's economy. We ask that you put creators at the heart of future policy.”

Thank you.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you.

Next we have Andrew Morrison from The Jerry Cans, and I understand you had concerts here in Ottawa just recently?

9:05 a.m.

Andrew Morrison The Jerry Cans

Last night, actually, at A Taste of the Arctic.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Congratulations.

9:05 a.m.

The Jerry Cans

Andrew Morrison

Finding parking was the biggest challenge of all.

9:05 a.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

9:05 a.m.

The Jerry Cans

Andrew Morrison

The little country boy from Nunavut. I come from Iqaluit, where we can park wherever we want. It's a bit of a different context.

I'm a bit out of my element today. I'm an artist first and foremost. We're from Iqaluit, Nunavut, so we're in a unique position within the music industry in Canada. As artists, we're not.... I want to agree with everything Graham just said. I'll steal his notes and read them again.

We sing in Inuktitut. That's part of what we do as The Jerry Cans. It's part of a very important music trend in Canada, the indigenous music scene and what's happening there. I have a lot of things to say about the music industry, but in terms of copyright, I think it's very important to understand the relationship between copyright law and indigenous music forms. It is a unique situation that should be acknowledged within any new legislation that comes out.

We incorporate throat singing, and we are very wary because throat singing is now becoming an internationally known art form, with Tanya Tagaq and her collaborations with The Jerry Cans and a few other artists. We wonder how that throat singing could be used and how traditional art forms should be protected and be ensured compensation when they're performed on international scales. That's what I wanted to bring in my presentation; it's not much more than that.

I also think that as artists, we struggle because of what's happening in the music industry right now. Our music production—the songs we make and songs that we produce—is such a small part of our income generation now, and we don't necessarily see.... I think that's because of what's happening in the copyright world. We're losing so much control and power over our own music and creative forms.

We're very confused about what to do about it, because we feel a bit powerless about where our money's coming from. We perform to make money. A new song that we create is more of a business card than any form of making a hit single or anything like that, so I am hopeful that we can figure out a way.

We've toured with some international artists who see Canada as a very special place. They think the support for music in this country is very strong, and I think we need to keep it that way. I also think we need to figure out how to more properly compensate artists for their music specifically, because touring is tiring—as you can see. I played a show until midnight last night. I do think it's important to present the artist's perspective. We sometimes get lost in the conversations, because these things are quite complex, and we struggle to understand the world of copyright.

I think there's a lot to be done. Also, when Graham was talking about middle-class artists, I was like, “I want to be one of those” because of the situation we find ourselves in. If we pie-chart out our revenue, what comes from copyright is so little now. I'm a young artist, and the older generation is telling me about the glory days of getting royalty cheques. I say, “Sweet. What's that? I'll buy you a coffee with mine.”

I do think there's potential to figure it out. I don't know about these specific situations, but I think it's important to hear from artists and realize that the way we think about copyright is changing a lot. We don't necessarily see releasing a song as a way to pay for the rent or whatever. I also want to reiterate that it's important to acknowledge the importance of understanding how indigenous art forms fit into copyright law in Canada. I'll leave it at that.

Coming from Nunavut, it's especially difficult because it's so expensive up north, but I think it's one of the most important music trends in Canada right now. Figuring out how to support that properly is something I'll leave up to you.

Thank you. Qujannamiik.

Come visit us in Nunavut.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

All right.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations.

I think we're going to be getting a lot of interesting questions on this panel coming up.

We will start with Mr. Breton.

Mr. Breton, you have the floor for seven minutes.

May 29th, 2018 / 9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their excellent presentations and recommendations.

My first question is for you, Mr. Trudel.

Essentially, it seems to me that the focus of the Conseil québécois de la musique is concert music. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you explain what challenges concert musicians face, regarding remuneration, as compared to other types of musicians? Can you tell us how this affects your field more than other fields?

9:10 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Conseil québécois de la musique

Dominic Trudel

Concert music is unique in that ensembles vary in size. Symphony orchestras can have more than 100 musicians, but there are much smaller ensembles, such as quartets. Therefore, it's these small groups that could be compared to other small, pop bands, although, it's often not only about one performer. Classical music has some great soloists, but their popularity cannot be compared to that of pop singers.

Another unique thing about concert music is that it's a niche market. You first need to find an audience that is willing to pay to listen to concert music. It is a very special, niche audience.

The other thing about classical music is that all orchestras share the same repertoire of internationally renowned composers, making it very hard to stand out in the digital landscape.

With all of these changes happening right now, it's very difficult for classical music groups to distinguish themselves on the Internet, to reach their audiences, and to get the royalties they are entitled to, yet get hardly any of.

Perhaps what is truly unique with concert music, compared to popular music, is that it is niche music, and reaching audiences is much harder than with other types of music.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

You gave us some of your recommendations. You might have others, but can you tell us which are the two main ones that you would like to see included in our report, those that are truly worthy of our in-depth study?

9:10 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Conseil québécois de la musique

Dominic Trudel

Copyright royalties are important, and I believe that we should absolutely have a uniform system of data collection. Metadata are used to identify composers, artists and performers from the pieces so that right holders can be recognized worldwide and genuinely get paid. Already, from the outset, it is paramount that the current study of the reform of the Copyright Act include ways to identify performers from around the world.

The other thing is that consumers nowadays are no longer paying for content, but rather for access to it. It's rather nonsensical to say that consumers have access to many things, but that they don't have to pay for the products. Multinationals that grant this access absolutely need to pay more for content. We need to find a way to ensure higher copyright royalties than we have today.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

Thank you.

I have a question for the representative from Music Canada.

Mr. Henderson, can you tell us more about how the value gap affects the Canadian music industry? You are part of this industry, and your mission seems to be focused on this. So, we would like to hear what you have to say.

9:15 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada

Graham Henderson

Sure. You could think back to 1999, when the music industry in Canada was at its peak. Today, it's a mere shell of itself. While there have been a couple of years of modest growth, there was a period of sustained decline. If you take inflation into account, we're only back to 50% of where we were then, and that doesn't take into account the explosion in consumption.

The time spent listening to music today has doubled or tripled. It's absolutely staggering, but we're not getting paid for it. We had an economist look at it, and we've estimated that between 1999 and today, in music alone in Canada $12 billion is missing. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why this man has trouble getting into the middle class.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

Mr. Morrison, do you have anything to add to what Mr. Henderson just said?

9:15 a.m.

The Jerry Cans

Andrew Morrison

I agree. When we're touring or when we're networking with older musicians, they talk about a very different time 10 or 15 years ago in the music industry, and we don't know what that means. They say how different it was and how the process of making a career in music was such a different way of doing things.

You could release a song and make money from that and nowadays, as you said, we're all on Spotify. We're consuming music through streaming. When we look at our numbers we have to laugh because it's so challenging for us to see our life, our blood, our work consumed for very little. It's basically for free.

We've grown up in that context so that's our normal but there was a time when artists would be getting paid fairly and properly for that same consumption, and so I think some inequalities are happening. I know it from my own experience, I would love some more money.

9:15 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada

Graham Henderson

You said it, instead of subsidizing major corporations.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Van Loan for seven minutes, please.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Music Canada, one of your specific recommendations is to remove the $1.25-million radio royalty exemption, which has been in place since 1997. First, if I understand it correctly, in 1997 broadcast compensation to others, songwriter and publisher royalties, kicked in but there was an exemption applied to the—

9:15 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada

Graham Henderson

The songwriters had always had it. It was the performers who didn't have it, and that's when it kicked in for the performers.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Let me just get to the point. What was the rationale behind the $1.25-million royalty exemption? My guess is that you wanted to support, or there was an objective to support, small-town radio stations so they had a critical base.

If that was the rationale, why does that no longer apply?

9:20 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada

Graham Henderson

We didn't have any input at all. This was a last-minute amendment that was added at 12 seconds to midnight so there was no real input. The rationale was that small, individual radio stations—mom-and-pop, as they were described—would be crippled by the addition of having to pay royalties on this first $1.25 million, even though the amount of money was minimal, to say the least. Nonetheless, that went in. It was intended to be transitional, and what was intended to be transitional has become semi-permanent.

Also, the landscape has completely changed. Radio in that day was not as profitable by any stretch of the imagination, and now it's vertically integrated. While there might have been a rationale for a subsidy then—which is what it is, when you create an exemption, creators are subsidizing somebody—today it does not exist and to the extent that there are small stations, community stations, and so forth, we continue to exempt them.