Honourable committee members, good morning.
My name is David Bussières. I am a singer-songwriter and member of the Alfa Rococo duo. I am also the founder and spokesperson of the Regroupement des artisans de la musique (RAM).
I would like to begin my speech with a fairly real and striking example of the inequity in the way creators and all stakeholders in the music industry in Canada and Quebec are remunerated in the context of the new way in which music is consumed, through streaming.
To answer the infamous and, shall we say, opaque question “how much is streaming worth?”, two years ago, I carried out a rigorous analysis of all the reports on my copyright and related rights royalties, as well as my artistic royalties for a given song, over a given period. I have identified all amounts received from SOCAN for copyright as a composer and from my record company. There was nothing to collect from SODRAC or SOPROQ, and I did not have performer's rights.
In the end, for the given period and for the song Lumière, which actually became quite popular, we received $10.80 for 30,000 plays on Spotify, or 0.036¢ per play. For 60,000 views on YouTube, we received $153.04, or 0.5¢ per play. I compared it to traditional commercial radio, where the song had reached fifth place on the charts after about 6,000 spins: we received $17,346.89, or about $2.89 per spin.
If there is a complete collapse of physical and digital record sales—which is happening—and music radio is eventually replaced by online music, copyright royalties for streaming would be really far from making up the current shortfall. Streaming is a perfect system for users. Who doesn't dream of having the world's record collection at their fingertips? However, the situation is quite different for our artists and our industry.
For an international star supported by a major music company that generates a billion or more plays per song, everything is still going well. But this is a very small minority of cases. In terms of local music being broadcast in Canada and French-language music being broadcast in Quebec—the latter example being even clearer—and knowing that people here love and listen to our local music but that even our biggest hits are struggling to generate a million streaming plays because of the modest size of our market, the situation is catastrophic. Streaming does not generate enough money for creators to make a living. In fact, it kills the middle class of creators, where a certain musical and artistic diversity is often to be found.
The reform of the Copyright Act is a matter of life and death for our artists. It should also be accompanied by a reform of the Telecommunications Act and an overhaul of the private copying system so that Internet service providers and device manufacturers are required to contribute to the remuneration of Canadian creators.
The Internet service providers are in fact the big winners when it comes to streaming music. To stream videos or music, we need them. On that front, major players offer packages in which streaming music, film or video leads to exceeding the amount of data allowed. They then charge significant overage fees, so consumers decide to increase their mobile data or home downloads package. In short, the Internet service provider captures the value.
Then comes the device manufacturer, which is also an essential link in the chain of access to music and audiovisual content. People want access to content anywhere, anytime of the day and on multiple devices: phones, tablets, computers, and so on. How much of the use of those devices is devoted to cultural content? It would be very interesting to do studies to find out.
Finally, the distribution channel takes its cut, while minimizing its risk. Consumers are told that it doesn't cost much to listen to the work, just $9.99 a month or even free. However, access to the distribution network is costly. In the end, customers still pay for the free or low-cost online content; they have just transferred some of the money they used to give to the record store or video store, money that used to make its way to the artists more easily.
That client has transferred that money to the Internet service provider and the device manufacturer.
Basically, how much do Canadians pay for access to streaming music?
On average, subscriptions to the platforms cost $9.99 per month. They are sometimes free. But a monthly subscription to a home Internet service costs at least $60, not counting overages and extras. Mobile phone access to the Internet costs at least $30, and the cost of the device itself varies depending on the plan and the device's quality. It is all very expensive. Not counting the devices, you can bank on $100 per month for access to streamed music or video.
From all that money, only a tiny part of the $9.99 subscription to the distribution platform goes to the creator, after going through all those middlemen. It comes to three cents per play, as I mentioned earlier.
In one of the focus statements of RAM's platform, three points sum up our position on the matter.
Point 7 asks for Internet service providers, ISPs, to be made responsible for paying royalties to the rights holders of the music to which they give access. We propose the elimination of paragraph 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act that deals with ISPs and frees them from the requirement to pay royalties if all they do is provide access. The paragraph is worded as follows:
(b) a person whose only act in respect of the communication of a work or other subject-matter to the public consists of providing the means of telecommunication necessary for another person to so communicate the work or other subject-matter does not communicate that work or other subject-matter to the public;
By eliminating this provision, it will be possible for the Copyright Board to impose a tariff on ISPs.
Point 8 asks for ISPs to contribute financially to the development of Canadian music. We propose that lawmakers amend the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act to enable ISPs to be obligated to develop and promote Canadian music and the visibility thereof. This is the good old notion of discoverability.
Point 9 asks for the private copying system to be extended to all digital media used to copy music. We propose that the government amend the Copyright Act so that it applies to all digital media, and to restrict the exemptions that allow private copying by users.
In conclusion, it can be said that artists unfortunately are the last ones in line, whereas their works form the very basis of an entire industry. It is wrong to say that there is no money in music. Actually, people have never paid as much to listen to music as they do today. It is just that the money goes to the wrong place. It is scooped up by companies before it gets to the creators.
Before the smallest fraction of a cent gets to the creators, the device manufacturers and Internet service providers will have made large profits, the streaming platforms will have paid their employees and seen their businesses flourish. The digital distributors will take their share before turning the remainder over to the record companies, which often benefit from subsidies, and which will also take a cut before giving the remaining scraps to the creators, the artists.
I believe that if you stopped people who consume music in the street and explained all this to them in detail, they would likely be outraged to learn that little or none of their money goes to the artists who created the works that thrill them.
It is not true that culture is only entertainment, only a business. Culture forms the soul of our society. If we neglect our creators, that soul will die, a sacrifice on the altar of globalization.
Thank you.