Evidence of meeting #120 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 artists.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Nathalie Dorval  Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Association of Broadcasters
Paul Novotny  Screen Composer, Screen Composers Guild of Canada
Ari Posner  Screen Composer, Screen Composers Guild of Canada
Steven Blaney  Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC
Susan Wheeler  Chair, Copyright Committee, Canadian Association of Broadcasters
David Yurdiga  Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
Jayson Hilchie  President and Chief Executive Officer, Entertainment Software Association of Canada
Annie Francoeur  Vice-President, Legal and Business Affairs, Stingray Digital Group Inc.
Randy Boissonnault  Edmonton Centre, Lib.

11:55 a.m.

Screen Composer, Screen Composers Guild of Canada

Ari Posner

There has definitely been a decreasing trend in the revenue from SOCAN, which collects that advertising money. It's not rocket science why. That money is moving elsewhere. I do find now that a lot of the jobs that are coming my way—and this is significant—are shows that are going to be streaming, shows that are going to be on Netflix. A lot of the production that's happening in Toronto, where I live, are shows that are either going to be partnered with Netflix or going to be only on Netflix, and I'm thinking that I have to do the job. If I don't take Netflix jobs, I'm going to put myself out of business.

I have to do the job, but I now know that, okay, I'm going to be working for whatever I'm getting paid up front, and hopefully some small change that's going to come down later on. It's very troubling for someone in my position.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

So, if I understand you correctly, for 25 years, you have been working hard if not harder, but your revenues have decreased since the advent of digital content on the market. Is that correct?

11:55 a.m.

Screen Composer, Screen Composers Guild of Canada

Ari Posner

That's completely accurate, yes.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

Very well.

Ms. Dorval, I want to thank you as well for being here today.

Earlier, you gave a partial answer to Mr. Hogg regarding your recommendation. I just want to make sure I understand correctly. You are recommending that the Copyright Act not be changed, is that correct?

Here is the second part of my question. In 2012, when copyright was reformed, did you or your organization make the same recommendations as you are making today?

11:55 a.m.

Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Association of Broadcasters

Nathalie Dorval

Thank you for the question. First of all, we are saying the Copyright Act should not be touched because the proposals to eliminate the exemption in section 68.1 and to change the definition of “sound recording“ should not be implemented. A balance has been achieved and we believe it would be counterproductive for Canada, for radio stations, and for artists to change these provisions which have made it possible to achieve that balance.

In 2012, representatives of our industry did not necessarily appear before your committee. When people try to amend the Copyright Act, the positions are not necessarily antagonistic. We think it was a good job. When all the parties are not completely happy, we conclude that the process has been a success.

In short, we truly believe that a fair balance has been achieved as regards the contribution made by broadcasting.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

You have 30 seconds left.

Noon

Liberal

Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC

Thank you very much.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Okay.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. It was really interesting to hear what you had to say today.

We are going to suspend briefly while we change over to our next set of witnesses.

We'll start up again with presentations, just to make sure we have enough time to get to all of our questions and answers.

We now have with us Jayson Hilchie, from Entertainment Software Association of Canada; and Annie Francoeur, with Stingray Digital Group Inc.

We'll start with your presentation, please, Mr. Hilchie.

12:05 p.m.

Jayson Hilchie President and Chief Executive Officer, Entertainment Software Association of Canada

Madam Chair, good afternoon, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to participate in this study.

My name is Jayson Hilchie, and I'm the president and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada. We represent a number of leading video game companies with operations in this country, from multinational publishers and console makers to local distributors and Canadian-owned independent video game videos.

Canada's video game industry is one of the most dynamic and prolific in the world. It employs close to 22,000 full-time direct employees while supporting another 19,000 indirect jobs. Our industry's contribution to the Canadian GDP is close to $4 billion. That is not revenue but the salaries of our employees and those who our industry supports with their collective economic impact. Our impact is considerable. The average salary of a video game employee in Canada is $77,000 per year, which is more than double the Canadian average. To put all this into perspective, with 10% of the U.S. population, Canada's video game development is roughly half the size of the U.S. industry, which is the world's largest.

Of the 600 studios that span this country from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia, and all points in between, approximately 85% of them are Canadian-owned. But the Canadian industry is a mix of large multinational publishers and developers and Canadian-owned companies. This mix helps to diversify and strengthen our industry. I cannot stress enough how important Canada is within a global context with respect to the production and creation of video games. We attract investment from our industry's leading multinationals. They are the largest employers in the Canadian industry. Some of the most successful games globally are created by them right here in Canada.

Video game production is one of the fastest-growing industries globally, estimated to generate close to $140 billion in revenue in 2017. Canada is a creation powerhouse supporting this booming industry. However, you don't generate $140 billion in global revenue without being focused on commercial viability, and we are very much a business.

Our industry has matured and our products have evolved. Technology and user preferences have diversified our revenue streams. What used to be an industry that developed a game, put it on a cartridge or disk, packaged it in a box and then put it on a store shelf is now one that offers many different types of products and services in as many different forms. While physical retail still represents close to two-thirds of our revenue, direct-to-consumer digital sales have quickly grown to more than a third of all our revenue, and they continue to grow. Advances in broadband technology and processor speeds make it possible to transmit large files directly onto a PC, console or mobile device, giving consumers options on how they choose to consume our products.

Games are not necessarily finalized anymore when they are published for sale. Many games now live on long after the initial launch, with multiple updates, add-ons, expansions and improvements that allow players to extend their engagement with their favourite games beyond the traditional single-player campaign.

With the rise of the smart phone and its ubiquity, and the business opportunities that came with it, the video game industry went through somewhat of a renaissance that allowed small independent video game studios to develop a game and self-publish it on the App Store or Google Play. This resulted in a boom of new and innovative companies that were suddenly able to take large creative risks.

The business model for many of these mobile games was quite different from what consumers had been used to. While it took a lot of experimentation by many companies, ultimately the free-to-play model of games became most prominent. In this model, games are given away for free in some capacity with the option for players to enhance and customize their experience by purchasing different types of virtual items. In-game transactions that allow players to enhance and customize their experience are now becoming a major source of revenue for our industry. They are also creating more customized and personalized experiences for our players, and this is why they work.

It's important to note that the vast majority of mobile video games are not profitable. Discoverability remains a huge issue for many of these games. While the App Store has created the means for independent studios to self-publish their games, most do not have the resources to then promote them and market their games like the many you see advertised by using celebrities on television. In addition to in-game transactions, downloadable content that offers additional game content post-release is another way our industry has diversified its revenue stream. This content may include new maps, levels, characters, missions and storylines that allow players who love a certain game to continue their experience in all new ways.

As we continue to innovate and look for new ways for our players to enhance their experience, we've also had to pivot for other reasons. Some of the changes we implemented over the years were the result of consumer demand but also the growing necessity to combat piracy.

Piracy has evolved over time and for the most part now resides in an online digital form. One of the ways we have combatted piracy is to move to a model where most of the games we produce have some sort of online component, whether this involves simply creating an account that enables content to be downloaded from a central server or, more commonly, including a multiplayer mode in a game.

These types of games link all players through central servers and require players to be logged in through an account in order to access the online functionality. This is very effective in limiting the ability of counterfeiters to flourish, as pirated games are not able to access the online functions. In most cases, the only content the player accessing a pirated game will be able to use will be the single-player mode, which in our industry is becoming less and less common.

In addition to making games that have this online functionality I just spoke about, our industry uses technological protection measures to combat piracy, both in the form of software encryption technologies and physical hardware found in video game consoles.

These technological protection measures essentially do two things: They work to encrypt the data on a game, which thwarts copying it, and they make copied games unreadable on a hardware console. While in many cases these measures do eventually fall victim to committed pirates who work to crack the game, they do provide a window for a company to sell legitimate copies during a period of most demand, which is often the first 90 days.

As encryption technology improves, it's taking longer and longer for the pirates to crack the game, which improves and lengthens the window the company has to recoup their investment in their product. In some cases, those who sell what we refer to as “modchips” offer their services online with the promise to allow your console to circumvent the protections found within it and play pirated games. These circumvention devices were made illegal in Canada in 2012 as part of Canada's modernized copyright legislation.

In fact, just last year, Nintendo used Canada's copyright law to successfully challenge and sue a Waterloo, Ontario, man who was selling circumvention devices online. After a lengthy process, Nintendo was awarded over $12 million in damages, and multiple media outlets reported that the ruling in Federal Court confirmed Canada's copyright law as one of the strongest in the world.

In order to maintain its effectiveness, the law must continue to provide protections to content creators in the video game industry by maintaining the provisions that make circumvention devices illegal. As our economy moves increasingly to one that involves digital goods and services, those protections such as TPMs must remain.

Even in the face of challenges, our industry continues to innovate and experiment with even more novel revenue models and more choices for our consumers to engage with our products. Most recently, there have been moves toward subscription-style models that allow consumers to pay a monthly fee for access to hundreds of games, both recent and back-catalogued, that can be downloaded or directly streamed over the Internet.

An example of a streaming service is PlayStation Now, which for a monthly fee allows customers to access over 650 video game titles over the Internet through a central server. While PlayStation offers multiple subscription options for its service, in Canada you can subscribe for about one year for about $100.

Just recently, Microsoft announced its new Xbox All Access service, which is different from PlayStation Now in that it offers a bundle of items that includes the Xbox console itself, an Xbox Live membership that enables online and community functionality and an Xbox game pass that offers access to more than 100 games available for direct digital download. Microsoft is offering this service for a monthly subscription fee in a variety of forms.

As you can see, the video game industry is constantly evolving the way it engages with its consumers by working to find the best ways to give players the ability to choose, because it really is all about choice when it comes to commercial success. There is a direct connection between remuneration models in our industry and how consumers want to access our content. Video game consumers don't want the industry to tell them how to access our products. We have learned over the years to listen to them and to successfully adapt our products accordingly.

While there is still more to learn, our industry is proud of the way we put our players first, and this has certainly helped create gameplay experiences that are what the players want, as well as remunerative models that work for our industry.

Thank you.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Now we will go to Annie Francoeur from Stingray Digital Group, please.

September 25th, 2018 / 12:15 p.m.

Annie Francoeur Vice-President, Legal and Business Affairs, Stingray Digital Group Inc.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen.

On behalf of Stingray Music Canada, I would like to thank you for inviting us to take part in the discussion on the remuneration of artists and creative industries in connection with copyright, and more specifically with music, which is our industry.

Founded in 2007, Stingray is a Canadian company headquartered in Montreal that currently employs 340 people in Canada.

We distribute our services both in Canada and abroad. Considering all our services, we we reach an estimated 400 million subscribers or homes in 156 countries. We also serve 12,000 business clients, which represent 78,000 commercial establishments.

For the 2018 fiscal year, approximately 47% of Stingray's revenues were Canadian. The more successful Stingray is abroad, the more Canadian artists benefit from this success.

Stingray's service portfolio in Canada includes an audio music service called Stingray Music, which includes about 2,000 audio music channels offering a hundred or so genres of music. We also offer various on-demand services, including video clips, karaoke, concerts, various products available individually, as well as tens of linear channels on television such as Stingray Classica, Stingray Festival 4K, Stingray Ambiance, and so forth.

We also offer music and digital display services to commercial establishments through our Stingray Business division.

Our services are available on various digital platforms and devices, including cable and satellite television, the Internet, mobile applications, video game consoles, in flight or train entertainment systems, smart cars, WiFi systems such as Sonos, and so forth.

More than 100 music experts right around the world are responsible for programming Stingray's various services and channels. This distinguishes Stingray from various other music services, which use algorithms to select content for their clients. The programming on Stingray's channels is also tailored to the local market and to the demographics of that market.

By necessity, Stingray is also a technology company. The demands of managing a large digital catalogue and distributing that content on various platforms and in various markets require Stingray to stay on top of and at the forefront of technology. Stingray accordingly invests several millions of dollars every year in research and development to remain competitive and retain its clients.

Stingray is committed to encouraging Canadian talent and artists and it participates actively in the development and promotion of Canadian content. During the last broadcast year, Stingray has spent approximately $379,000 in Canadian content development, CCD, initiatives, which include payments to associations such as FACTOR, Musicaction and the Community Radio Fund of Canada, but also awards at music events and festivals, artist performance fees, workshops, educational sessions, and so on.

In addition to such CCD initiatives, after Stingray's IPO in 2015, the CRTC approved the change of ownership and effective control of Stingray, but it required that Stingray pay tangible benefits corresponding to an amount of $5.5 million over a period of seven years.

In addition to those regulatory obligations, Stingray also contributes voluntarily in many other ways to the promotion and development of Canadian artists. Very recently, Stingray partnered with ADISQ to create a new music video channel made available through television operators in Canada, named PalmarèsADISQ par Stingray.

Pursuant to Stingray's desire to invest in young talent, a portion of the profits generated by such channels will be invested in local music video production through existing third party funds such as Fonds RadioStar. Through this initiative, Stingray will finance the production of music videos broadcast on its channels but will also help develop the career of up and coming Quebec and Canadian directors and artists.

Each year, Stingray also gives certain amounts to events of partners involved in the development and promotion of Canadian talent. For example, Stingray has been a regular sponsor of panels at les Rencontres de l'ADISQ and other similar events.

Stingray also produces the series PausePlay, which consists of exclusive interviews and intimate performances of popular and emerging artists recorded live to promote their new album or tour. Such recordings are then made available by Stingray on social media platforms and channels to offer important exposure for these artists. We also offer editorial coverage on the Stingray blog about album reviews, concert reviews, etc.

Stingray is not here today to ask anything of the committee. Stingray appears before the committee to propose a solution, or at least part of a solution, to help Canadian artists.

We believe that some unregulated industries should be regulated. For example, the Stingray services that are offered through television are subject to Canadian content minimum requirements, as are the commercial radio stations. If we want to promote and encourage the visibility of our Canadian artists, Stingray believes that commercial background music services should be included in the Broadcasting Act and be subject to similar requirements. Such measures would apply to Stingray, because Stingray is one of the biggest background music suppliers in Canada right now.

Let's think about it. Why would the communication of music in a retail outlet that uses the services of a background music supplier be treated any differently than another outlet that plays radio as background music, or any differently than when such a person listens to a TV music channel in his home?

We submit that no such distinction should be made, and we made the same submission before the CRTC in our comments on future programming distribution models in February 2018.

We strongly believe that our proposal can provide Canadian artists with excellent promotional platforms as well as additional revenues.

Thank you.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you.

We will now proceed to our question period. I yield the floor to Mr. Boissonnault.

12:20 p.m.

Randy Boissonnault Edmonton Centre, Lib.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll begin with the representative from Stingray Digital Group Inc.

Ms. Francoeur, thank you for your presentation. It's rare that people come to the committee without making demands, but rather to propose a solution.

We did some calculations regarding what artists receive from YouTube and other streaming services. I also did this exercise myself. To obtain a minimum salary of $2,400 per month, you need 16.8 million views per month on YouTube. On another platform, you need 9.7 million clicks to arrive at the same salary. It takes a lot of these clicks in a year for an artist to be able to survive.

Can you tell us what the equivalent would be on Stingray?

12:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Legal and Business Affairs, Stingray Digital Group Inc.

Annie Francoeur

Unfortunately, we don't have that information. Stingray is not a completely interactive service like YouTube or Spotify, and we don't deal directly with the rights holders. We pay our royalties through collective management companies.

We have no way of knowing how SOCAN or Ré:Sonne, Re:Sound, then distribute the revenues among their members. I don't know what royalties the artist receives, ultimately, for using our services.

12:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre, Lib.

Randy Boissonnault

Has the ripping, or digital extraction, phenomenon lead to consequences for Stingray?

12:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Legal and Business Affairs, Stingray Digital Group Inc.

Annie Francoeur

No, not at the moment.

I have done some reading about it, but up till now we have not seen any consequences.

We do not even know if there has been any ripping from our platforms.

12:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre, Lib.

Randy Boissonnault

More specifically, with regard to the recommendation you have made today, how would that actually put more money in the pockets of artists who are using the Stingray platform?

12:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Legal and Business Affairs, Stingray Digital Group Inc.

Annie Francoeur

At the present time, our Stingray Music service for television must offer a Canadian channel for every non-Canadian channel that is made available.

On Canadian channels, 35% of the content has to be Canadian. Here I am setting aside other requirements concerning French-language content. There is no obligation currently for background music service providers to offer Canadian content.

If a provision were put in place, as Stingray suggests, 35% of the content we hear in stores would be made up of Canadian content. Royalties would necessarily then be paid to SOCAN and Re:Sound, and would be distributed to their members.

12:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre, Lib.

Randy Boissonnault

According to your experience, do you think that francophone artists receive more money than anglophone artists thanks to Quebec programs?

12:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Legal and Business Affairs, Stingray Digital Group Inc.

Annie Francoeur

I do not have that information.

12:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre, Lib.

Randy Boissonnault

Thank you.

Mr. Hilchie, I come from Edmonton. I'm the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre. I know the doctors who started BioWare, and then went on to great fame after that. You know, you can go from video games to running a microbrewery. I mean, that's what one of my colleagues did.

12:25 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Entertainment Software Association of Canada

Jayson Hilchie

That's what Greg did.

12:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre, Lib.

Randy Boissonnault

Yes, that's what Greg did.

When musical works are used in video games, how are artists remunerated? Is it industry standard, and if not, how could it be improved?

12:25 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Entertainment Software Association of Canada

Jayson Hilchie

Each video game company would have their own agreements with the music they would license, but they would all go through licensing that music and paying for it up front, before the game is made in most cases. It would all be done through agencies and rights-holders groups and things like that. Very rarely would it be done in an informal capacity.

It would be best to speak to individual companies about what they do, but I know, for instance, that if they have music in a game, it is licensed and it's done through a proper process.

12:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre, Lib.

Randy Boissonnault

Do you have statistics on the number of people the video game industry employs in Canada? If not, could you send those to us?