Oh, oh!
Evidence of meeting #119 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 music.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #119 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 music.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
But I think you're passionate and I think you're great.
I understand fairness, I really do, and what we have is an industry that needs fairness and we need legislative change. That's what I would agree with, and it has changed drastically.
You went back to the first one. You said greater detail. Did you get an opportunity to get that greater detail out when you were saying, “I hope I have time”. Did you get your opportunity to get the greater detail out? You were going in a very interesting direction.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Digital Culture Strategist, As an Individual
Yes.
We did not hear Mr. Shields' question. Could he ask it again?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
When you got started, you got into a bit, but you were talking about hoping to get into it in greater detail. I'm not sure I got the greater detail of where you were going.
11:40 a.m.
Digital Culture Strategist, As an Individual
Okay.
I will go over my three recommendations again.
The first is to recognize the existence of Creative Commons licences as a positive support for our cultural vitality and to make sure that the legal texts that deal with those licences are in compliance with Canadian law.
That said, creators must be compensated. To encourage our creators to get Creative Commons licences, because they benefit our culture, the grants have to be on a scale. This is about the community being more generous to creators, who are generous to the community with their rights. That is the second recommendation.
In this situation, there is more access to culture, and some types of Creative Commons licences allow use for commercial purposes. So we have to find a way to compensate creators who are even generous enough to provide the right to use their works commercially.
However, some types of licences do not allow use for commercial purposes. So what do we do to compensate the creators who demonstrate such great generosity? I feel that my two colleagues have said it this morning: we require Internet service providers to contribute to the culture, because they benefit from it in full measure by providing the transmission.
However, I would add one thing. Considering the political climate we are in—we all know that the tech sector lobbies are very strong—my third recommendation is to put in place a transitional measure as we wait for the new provisions to have the force of law. We know that reviewing legislation takes a long time. So we could have incentive programs under which Internet service providers could allow their end users to make a voluntary contribution to the culture they are consuming. That would not just by paying Spotify $9.99, but by adding a dollar to their Internet bill, an amount that the service provider would agree to match.
By doing so, we get a win-win situation whereby the consumers of culture and the Internet service providers contribute to the creation and regeneration of culture. Basically, we end up collecting revenue that can be redistributed in various ways. These could include general licences that can be negotiated between the Internet service providers and the various collective rights organizations, such as SOCAN, SOPROQ, SODRAC, Artisti, Ré:Sonne, and so on.
Those are my recommendations in a nutshell.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
This is the piece you've brought a different matrix to. We haven't seen an example of that. I think you brought a different side to this discussion than we've had from a few witnesses. You've supplemented what the witnesses have said, but you brought a different context to it. I think that matrix you've suggested as a possibility for the licence is something we haven't seen.
Have you had any reaction in the industry to this type of licensing and matrix?
11:45 a.m.
Digital Culture Strategist, As an Individual
These ideas come from consultations, or from a focus group called musiQCnumériQC. This group began discussions in 2010, when Christine St-Pierre, who was Quebec's Minister of Culture, Communications and the Status of Women at the time, launched a major conversation on the future of culture and journalism in the digital age.
In that context, we reflected on all kinds of solutions. One of them was that the State should be much more generous and should increase grants and subsidies to creators, who are much more generous to the public domain. That was one of the solutions proposed by the focus group musiQCnumériQC.
Those recommendations have been submitted. I am not a lobbyist and I do not knock on doors asking politicians to listen to me. The politicians invite me. But the same idea was submitted to the cabinet that Minister St-Pierre was part of and to the other cabinets that have followed.
It is one idea. Clearly, you have never heard of it.
My comments are ephemeral. My two colleagues in attendance are proposing to impose requirements on Internet service providers. That's fine by me. I am not opposed to Internet service providers contributing to the culture they carry.
However—and all my colleagues and the politicians around the table today can testify to this—in the days of the government preceding the Liberals, it was very difficult to hold Internet service providers responsible for the culture they were carrying. They were even relieved of responsibility by a copyright act that was reviewed by the Conservative government of the time. I am telling you this because you are a Conservative. I imagine you recall something along those lines.
In that context…
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I have to stop you because you have gone over the seven minutes you were given.
Go ahead, Mr. Nantel.
September 20th, 2018 / 11:45 a.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Déziel, Mr. Bussières, Ms. Mulholland, thank you for being here.
Mr. Déziel, you are right to say that, in terms of Internet service providers, we are facing a huge roadblock. The Liberal government has the same kind of problem. Recommendation 12 of the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage more than a year ago was swept out of the way by the Prime Minister, although it was just an update of the Cable Production Fund along the right lines, which was to distribute foreign signals. We told ourselves that it would be good to have local content and we asked ourselves how we could finance it. So we decided to set aside 5% of the revenue from cable distribution for local content.
It is very clear today that international content produced elsewhere is coming to us via the Internet.
Madam Mulholland, your flamboyant testimony this morning was crucial.
It's a very good thing that our chair has invited many artists to testify, and I think it's very important that we're reminded of your reality. You bring so much to the identity of the country. This is the heritage committee—we are not at industry committee—so it's our job to listen to you and to make sure you're protected. At the House, it may be different. At the House, we may want to protect consumers, because we're part of a party or whatever and we don't want to lose in the next election. However, here in this committee, our job is to protect and value the work of our artists and our culture.
Thank you very much for that.
Mr. Bussières, you are an artist who has taken the trouble—and that is rare indeed—to clearly document the revenue from your music sales by the various points of sale that consumers can use. That is why I am very pleased to get your table and your comparisons just now. It really speaks volumes. I am certainly going to ask you to give us more details about it, because I am not sure that the reality of it all is clear for everyone.
I am very pleased that we have been given the 29 recommendations in the action plan prepared by the Regroupement des artisans de la musique, or RAM. Ms. Mulholland is quite right. She mentioned raising the term of copyrighted works from 50 to 70 years, for artists as well as for producers and composers. She also raised three points that are also found in your ten. As it also available in English, I feel that it should be used as a kind of road map, indicating what must be done. The 10 or 11 points, plus Ms. Mulholland’s point about the term going from 50 to 70 years, are very clear.
At the outset, you rightly specified that something has to be done about online music services, and about giving some responsibility to Internet service providers—which is self-evident—in terms of the private copying system and of fair compensation. Of course, CBC/Radio-Canada are always the champions, and we also expect them to be so in our system.
Let me invite you to provide us with explanations, in as concrete terms as you can, given that the concepts are always very complex. One of the subjects you brought up was the ownership of the master tracks. Two days ago, Bryan Adams came here to talk to us about them. Of course, it is pretty impressive to see people such as Ms. Mulholland, yourself, or, especially Mr. Adams. But the fact remains that money that would let you continue creating is being taken away from you. That is the reality.
So I invite you to take us through one of your two documents, the one with your 29 recommendations, or, even more importantly, where you deal with the income you are losing.
11:50 a.m.
David Bussieres
If I may, I will start with this table.
11:50 a.m.
Founder and Spokesperson, Regroupement des artisans de la musique
During my presentation, I didn't specify certain things, because I didn't have the time. However, there is a kind of premise. Before I get to these figures, I want to explain to you that we own the full copyright on our songs. For this, we can take a look at the chart. Those who made the work, in other words those who wrote the lyrics and composed the music, have 50%. Justine Laberge, my colleague and spouse, and I have that 50%.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
I should point out that the percentage is initially only 50% because the producer takes 50%.
11:50 a.m.
Founder and Spokesperson, Regroupement des artisans de la musique
That's a maximum, yes. However, since we do the producing ourselves, we receive half of the 50% for production. Our share is 75%.
11:50 a.m.
Founder and Spokesperson, Regroupement des artisans de la musique
Indeed. And we're in a favourable situation, but the figures I mentioned don't really represent the situation of all artists. We do our own producing and write all our songs. As a result, we have a larger share of the pie. We are in a licensing structure. As I mentioned, we produce our own stuff. So we have the master tapes. Our label does the marketing, promoting, releasing and so on. In exchange, we rent our master tape to them for seven years. It's a contractual agreement.
Our contract stipulates that 60% of the streaming revenue comes back to us. In fact, the last page shows that the label keeps 60% of what the digital distributor gives it. I was going to say “for every hundred dollars”, but it was more like “for every dollar”. So for every dollar, the label keeps 60¢ and gives us back 40¢. It also receives the portion reserved for producing, the other 25%. We are talking about 25% for the production that goes to our label and 25% for the production that belongs to us, meaning that 50% of all copyright belongs to us. Our share of the pie is 75%.
Here, I have divided what we receive from management companies. SOCAN takes care of the songwriters, the ones who created the work. In this case, we receive 100% of the copyright on our songs. In the Spotify column, for streaming, we received 0.014¢. This is the copyright for the work.