Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • SOCAN Seeks Millions from YouTube, Facebook, Netflix, Apple & Sony in Interim Online Music Tariff

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

SOCAN Seeks Millions from YouTube, Facebook, Netflix, Apple & Sony in Interim Online Music Tariff

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Wednesday June 15, 2011
SOCAN has filed an application with the Copyright Board of Canada for interim tariff to cover royalties for the communication to the public by telecommunication of musical works in connection with movie/tv streaming and user generated content sites. The obvious targets of the interim tariff are some of the biggest names on the Internet - YouTube, Netflix, Apple, Sony, Vimeo and any other commercial site offering movies, television shows or audiovisual content that contains music. 

The SOCAN interim tariff application covers the years 2007 - 2012 so the dollar value will run into the millions (reminiscent of its 2009 attempt to keep its copyright consultation submission secret, SOCAN refused my request for a copy yesterday after it issued a press release on the filing. The Copyright Board sent one along immediately upon request). There are two interim tariffs at issue. The first (Tariff 22D) applies to services that offer streaming or downloadable movies or television programs. It cites Netflix, Apple TV, as well as Sony's Crackle and Qriocity as examples. The proposal raises payment schemes for subscription sites, pay-per-view sites, and ad-supported sites, all of which come in around 1.9% of gross revenues (there is a more complex model for ad-supported sites). This could lead to significant money as Netflix alone appears headed to generate at least $50 million in revenues in Canada this year, resulting in a SOCAN payment of nearly $1 million/year.

The second tariff (Tariff 22G) covers user generated content sites, but might as well be called the YouTube tariff since it is the obvious target (Facebook is a close second). SOCAN establishes a formula for payment that starts at 6.8 percent of ad revenue for music videos and 1.9 percent of ad revenues for other audiovisual content with music. How much is at stake?  Given that some estimates put YouTube revenues in the billions, the Canadian slice could be significant.

While the claims for an interim tariff are weak - there is no emergency here and no suggestion that the SOCAN won't be paid in full (with interest) once the legal proceedings conclude - the application signals that the Copyright Board's decision to award Access Copyright an interim tariff has opened the door to a steady stream of similar requests for payment months or years in advance of the conclusion of the legal process to determine what, if anything, should be payable. SOCAN's latest move means new legal and administrative costs to deal with the Copyright Board for many companies. For services thinking about the Canadian market, it may provide yet another reason to think again.
Comments (43)add comment

Glen Merrick said:

cash grab?
Presumeably, Netflix Canada would be paying the movie studios for this already as part of their ability to "rent" the videos in Canada.

As far as youtube goes, I do not believe that it has official operations in Canada, and there would already be some form of compensation in place in the United States where they are located.

sounds like socan is trying to justify it's existence like the RIAA and it's canadian counterpart.
June 15, 2011

Degen said:

...
And so I will ask again - don't we want Canadian workers and suppliers to be paid by foreign companies entering the Canadian market? Do we want to turn the Canadian market for e-services into an unregulated moneypool for off-shore businesses?

June 15, 2011

james said:

...
Yes we do want the internet to remain unregulated. Canadians who have REAL talent can make money on youtube without having to resort to tarrifs. Same thing with the movie industry. Artist welfare needs to stop.
June 15, 2011

end user said:

...
Degen said: And so I will ask again - don't we want Canadian workers and suppliers to be paid by foreign companies entering the Canadian market?

What does Neflix have to do with this? Since they already have contracts with certain sudios seems SOCAN is bottom feeding here for another tarrif which will be passed along to the Canadian consumer.

All this will lead to is content filtering by websites that lock out IP's from Canada. Will this tarrif affect SHAW/ROGERS/TELUS and their on demand services, after all they are based on internet/network streaming technology.

Basically all this tell other companies is that if you do business in Canada that will involve streaming something to Canaadians over the internet or let Canadian submit user generated content you're better off just ignoring Canada as a market. There's only 40+mil of us anyways so its a chump change anyways.

Maybe its time to artisticly paint my car and demand that the gov introduce a tariff of $.001 from every Canadian that sees my beautifully painted car drive by. After all I'm an artist and need to be paid perpetually.

I use to buy lots of music and movies from retail stores but everytime I see some starving media company or rights organizations demand yet antoher tariff on this and that, the more I could care less about supporting that industry.

June 15, 2011

IamME said:

Youtube, Netflix, et al
If the copyright board tries to force Youtube to pay that kind of money then I see Youtube going to a full out Geo-block of Canadian IP addresses, much like Hulu. It's what I would do. Why? Youtube is not a paid subscription service, so it's FAR easier to simply pull the plug than to deal with the red tape and pay millions in unjustified tariffs? What do you think their major shareholders will decided when faced with a 6.8% loss of revenue? What would you do? I'll miss Youtube. It's my main source for discovering new music and watching movie trailers.

Netflix is a different beast since it's a paid service. But THEY control the content!! Again, if I were a major shareholder, what I would be asking is whether we could simply remove any SOCAN related content. No content = no tariff.

@Degen
"Don't we want Canadian workers and suppliers to be paid by foreign companies entering the Canadian market? Do we want to turn the Canadian market for e-services into an unregulated moneypool for off-shore businesses?"

It's Canada's own fault we're in such a predicament!!! If it weren't for the CRTC, vertically integrated mega telecoms an money grabbing organizations like SOCAN and the CRIA looking for huge tariffs and levies, stifling innovation and progress, perhaps Canada would be a leader in the market, with money flowing in instead of out. Unfortunately we're many years behind the curve and have organizations like SOCAN fighting desperately to keep it there. I'll ask you a question, Why should "Canadian workers and suppliers be paid" for something they had nothing to do with? Canadian workers did nothing to create the business, they did nothing to create the company infrastructure. Canadian suppliers did nothing to deliver the content. Why should they be paid when they didn't do any of the work? I feel sorry for their plight but, unfortunately for them, due to the Internet and Canada's failure to adapt to changing technologies, their roles are becoming increasingly obsolete. It happens, and has happened all through history. Each new innovation creates a new job market, but often at the cost of another.
June 15, 2011

Degen said:

...
IamMe,

Well, I'm looking through the tariff application, and it appears to be for "royalties to be paid for the communication to the public by telecommunication of musical works in SOCAN’s repertoire, in connection with audiovisual webcasts (Tariff 22.D) and user generated content websites (Tariff 22.G)"

That does indeed sound like Canadian suppliers have content in the mix - far from being obsolete, they appear to be in demand. I ask again: don't we want Canadian workers and suppliers to be paid?
June 15, 2011

Crockett said:

...
It seems obvious to me, so possibly someone could clarify if I'm wrong here, but does Netflix not already pay the rights holders for the content they stream to Canada? What then would this proposed levy be compensating for, who would receive the funds, and why?

User generated content is a slightly different issue, but how would one quantify what is Canadian content, to what degree it is used as a percentage, is it sufficient to impinge upon the copy holder's rights? This is a broader issue which will most likely be addressed in the Bill C-32 redux, so to contemplate tariffs now seems premature.

And finally I will repeat what is obvious to many already, increased tariffs will only stifle innovation and not lead to greater income for artists, if anything it will hinder new services from coning into the Canadian market. The other loss to the Canadian industry will be people using the increasingly popular geo-unlocking services to access content from the USA & UK, paying their industry workers instead of ours.

Stifling innovation with poor regulations and lack of vision is not a recipe for success. Growing the digital economy, and compensating everyone fairly using market forces, is by far the better way to increase prosperity for everyone. Ill thought tariffs are a step backwards.
June 15, 2011

IamME said:

@Degen
"That does indeed sound like Canadian suppliers have content in the mix - far from being obsolete, they appear to be in demand. I ask again: don't we want Canadian workers and suppliers to be paid?"

Paid for what? Industry workers, and to even a lesser extent, suppliers have little or nothing to do with Netflix or Youtube? Artists deserved to be paid, yes, but ONLY when their content is used, NOT from an overarching tariff or levy. In demand or not, when faced with a 6.8% loss, higher if you consider the 1.9% for user generated stuff, what do you think Youtube shareholders are going to decide. How about you john, are willing to take an 8.7% salary cut to pay the starving artists? That's what we're asking Youtube to do. Do we HONESTLY thing that nearly 10% of the content on Youtube is Canadian?!!?!? I guarantee Youtube will pull out of Canada before submitting to this, and I WILL use geo-unblocking services to access it.

AGAIN, with Netflix, if I were a shareholder, I would ask the question about removing all SOCAN content from the site. Realistically it's the American TV shows and movies most people are after.
June 15, 2011

Arthur Goldsmith said:

Tarrifs for running a legitimate business
As far as I'm concerned all of these companies, with the exception of possibly Facebook, have paid for the rights to distribute the content available on their respective platforms. If this is the only way SOCAN is able to engage in business with these organizations, then the artists of SOCAN should voice to seriously reconsider the purpose of their collective and their role in todays changing landscape.
June 15, 2011

Crockett said:

...
I wonder if the rush now to push these tariffs is in anticipation of possible game changing legislation in C-32 redux?
June 15, 2011

IamME said:

RE: Artists
Arthur Said:
"If this is the only way SOCAN is able to engage in business with these organizations, then the artists of SOCAN should voice to seriously reconsider the purpose of their collective and their role in todays changing landscape."

That's the problem with many artists today, they're usually so far removed from the business and social aspects of things that they haven't got a clue anymore. Look at many European musicians, they go out of their way to make some sort of "connection" with their fans. Many have self maintained Facebook sites, blogs, message boards, or other services where you can follow what the band is doing or even contact the band directly. Many do their own self produced press releases on Youtube. Some, and I know it's a foreign concept on this side of the pond, are actually involved in their own fan clubs and make a serious effort to attend major fan club events. What a concept!!! And you know what, many of them still have "day jobs" when they're not touring to pay the bills since they don't usually have an artist "welfare" net to rely on like in Canada.
June 15, 2011

Jason K said:

...
I'm actually going to break off the norm here with the commentators on this blog. I actually think that it's about time companies like Youtube, Facebook etc start revenue sharing.

I don't think it'll be doom and gloom for the Canadian market, in fact quite the opposite. This could attract investors into the Canadian market, since revenue sharing will be set here. Innovators will now have a good idea on how much to pay in royalties, and probably flock to the Canadian market as other regional markets look to do the same thing, and possibly set higher royalty standards.

As a former innovator in media myself, the uncertainty of royalties based on internet content is what forced me to shut down. It didn't seem right for me to make money off of creative works without giving something back to the creators (even though I had the blessing of the labels and artists I was dealing with to go ahead in experimenting with revenue streams).

The ad market online is maturing. There's a lot more money now in online advertising then there was a few years ago. I also think that there is a general consensus with users, especially on youtube that youtube should be covering the costs of royalties so that users can generate content without the fear of being sued, or content taken down.

However, this approach does have its challenges. Important challenges that need to be solved the right way that balances users interests with creators. In other words, if sites like youtube pay out royalties, than the right for labels, and SOCAN to take video's down using US DMCA laws should be removed as well. If you expect to get paid for your work, you should be willing to give up some control of it.







June 15, 2011

Crockett said:

...
@Jason K "I actually think that it's about time companies like Youtube, Facebook etc start revenue sharing."

I also agree if an artists work is being used in a way that it generates profit for a 3rd party then there should be agreements in place on what & how much should be shared, that only seems fair ... I just don't think a levy is the best way to do that.

Certainly today with the ability to do electronic record keeping there is a way to quantify actual use. A blanket levy is by it's very nature imperfect and why continue using a model that does not serve anyone well?
June 15, 2011

IamME said:

Royalties
Royalties...YES!!! You hit it right on the head. Per use royalties, so that high use content makes more than low usage content...NOT a broad-based tariff that doesn't take the amount of usage in to account. We have the power to track usage. Just because it's there doesn't mean ANYONE is looking at it. Then we'll truly see exactly how much Canadian content is in demand.
June 15, 2011

Jason K said:

...
As far as geoblocking is concerned, it's like the online version of DRM for media. It doesn't work all that well (very easy to circumvent), and threatens sites like youtube especially if revenue sharing is involved. If more protectionist measures are put into place to punish Canadians for revenue sharing, there's a real risk that audiences would end up being fragmented and move off to sites that are underground and under the radar. I think for the most part that's already happened to some degree. Over the past few months, I've seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of geoblocking on youtube.

It was also a member and creator of the entertainment industry that showed me exactly how to get around the geoblocking on sites. Even those in the entertainment industry are circumventing geoblocking to get their media content fix online.
June 15, 2011

Degen said:

...
I am asking no-one to take a pay cut. I am expecting businesses to pay a fair price to their suppliers. And I'm astonished that anyone would expect otherwise. This blog is the epicentre of so much corporate bogeymanism (to the extent that commenters here often conflate artist collectives and corporations in their rush to judgement and scorn), it's just plain weird to see y'all defending Google (the owners of YouTube), the richest corporation on the planet.

Google can well afford to follow Canadian rules in order to service the Canadian market while adding to their profits with our advertisement eyes.
June 15, 2011

IamME said:

Follow-up to Royalties
As an aside, unless this is pushed by the American government, this type of royalty system will never happen. Again, while I think this sort of royalty is the right approach, I also think Youtube will opt to pull out before being forced to pay it, unless it's the US government leading the push.
June 15, 2011

Crockett said:

Read again ...
I don't see a lot of Google defense here, rather some I see some thoughtful discussion on the need for artists to be compensated for use of their work. It is exceedingly obvious that if a 3rd party is making profit from someone else's work that they should have an agreement to do so and a plan to share the profits.

What is in question here is not if this should be done but how, and as someone who has stated that tariffs are an imperfect solution then discussion on better mechanisms should really be the focus. The topic here is SOCAN's proposal for a tariff, so lets agree in principle that there should be some compensation for 3rd party profiteering and discuss if this proposal is the best way to do that.
June 15, 2011

Jason K said:

@Crockett
"Certainly today with the ability to do electronic record keeping there is a way to quantify actual use. A blanket levy is by it's very nature imperfect and why continue using a model that does not serve anyone well?"
I agree with this as well. Like I said before there is a lot of challenges that need to be worked out before this becomes a viable solution. Whether or not the Copyright Board is open enough to publically discuss this issue or whether or not public interest has adequate representation in these hearings, will determine the economic future of the Canadian media market. This may end up being a public policy issue that requires legislation to balance the interests of all parties, which is where I can see thing going considering the competency of those serving on the Copyright board. The impact on Canadian economics here is above the Copyright Board, and needs to be dealt with through publically debated legislation. Government intervention may be necessary here.
June 15, 2011

IamME said:

@ Degen: RE: Google
"Google can well afford to follow Canadian rules in order to service the Canadian market while adding to their profits with our advertisement eyes."

John, it's not a matter of can they afford it. Google is a publicly owned business. It's much more a matter of whether the major shareholders feel 8.7% is a fair price. The question is whether or not Canada generates more profit than they would lose by cutting them off.

According to Market watch 17.6M Canadians visit Youtube every month. Now, the revue produced by Youtube is estimated in the $1B range. So 8.7% of that is $87M. Even if every one of those 17.6M Canadians hit that site 1000 times a month each, which is outrageous, that means SOCAN is wanting .5 cents per site visit. What's the average going rate for a web ad on Youtube? 1/10 of a cent per hit...even less probably.

Canada is a small market and based on the above number I think $87M is substantially much more than Youtube would lose than if they simply cut us off.
June 15, 2011

Degen said:

...
It's funny, when Access Copyright asks for audit powers to track actual usage, they are compared to (insert evil historical figure here). Now suddenly everyone is all about tracking usage to avoid blanket tariffs.

I believe there is a universal identifier for creative content in the works and yes, when it comes about, actual per use tracking will be much easier for those who happily submit to it. In the meantime...
June 15, 2011

IamME said:

@Degen: AC
"It's funny, when Access Copyright asks for audit powers to track actual usage"

I don't mind them tracking actual usage. What I mind is them wanting to scan my e-mail for "potentially" infringing material. That is a privacy issue and an entirely different thing. Good try though.
June 15, 2011

Crockett said:

...
It is my understanding that AC was asking for access to emails, which if true (is it?) would be an over the top intrusion.

Tracking for usage is by far the more fair method and even possibly a better return mechanism for high use materials, is it not the best thing to reward talent? If usage tracking can be done in a non intrusive cost effective manner then I see no reason why anyone would object to it. An unevenly applied or overreaching levy on the other hand goes against the common sense.

I see a lot of jostling here from all sides; Google books and air 'lockers'; SOCAN & CPCC inappropriate levy proposals ($3 per media card used 99% for photos ... really?). The bitterness, animosity and opportunism should be dialed back so real workable solutions can be found, the problem is no one wants to blink first.
June 15, 2011

IamME said:

...
Everyone is trying to make a buck on the backs of the consumers and creators, and I mean the "actual" creators, those on the front-lines, not the greedy organizations that claim to represent their best interest or those which own the actual copyright. The cost is going to be our civil liberties and freedoms.

Big Brother, the intellectual property version, is coming to a living room near you.
June 15, 2011

Degen said:

...
AC's request was for audit privileges, which is an entirely different thing from intrusive scanning of e-mails. Without the ability to identify and track every use as it happens, after-the-fact audit sampling is necessary to determine usage amounts. The screams of privacy invasion are hyperbolic.

If you can invent a system where all publicly available material used in educational contexts is immediately tracked and reported for per-use licensing, I invite you to do so. Until that day, blanket tariffs and levies are the fairest, least intrusive solution.
June 15, 2011

JH said:

Artists should make money on concerts and tours...
not on infinitely reproducible digital copies

music should be free; if they want money, go play for people, like they used to have to do before the technology to record music was invented....
June 15, 2011

Jason K said:

@Degen
"It's funny, when Access Copyright asks for audit powers to track actual usage, they are compared to (insert evil historical figure here). Now suddenly everyone is all about tracking usage to avoid blanket tariffs."

There are fundamental differences between what access copyright proposed, and what's in place on youtube. Privacy issues and costs associated with AC's proposal are the main concern. Another fundamental difference is that youtube has a strong user base, while access copyright is starting to dwindle down to nil and taking its public reputation down with them. Why would anyone spend the money tracking for AC when currently the future of this organization remains in serious question
June 15, 2011

Gregg said:

So garage bands making a video, precedent will now be set.....
That they do not own the online copyright? YouTube will be taxed on user-generated music and have no recompense because they are unsigned?
Who is the dimwit that comes up with this stuff?
June 15, 2011

IamME said:

@Degen
"AC's request was for audit privileges, which is an entirely different thing from intrusive scanning of e-mails."

John, why do you make me do this? This is quoted directly out of the tariff proposal. (Section 14.4 - http://cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-ta...6-11-1.pdf)

"The Educational Institution shall give Access Copyright, on reasonable notice, right of access throughout the Educational Institution’s premises in order to organize and carry out an audit, including full access to the Secure Network and all Course Collections."

"Full access to the Secure Network"... There it is...in plain black and white. Guess what sits on most university's "secure networks". Among other things...E-MAIL!!!! FULL ACCESS implies access to e-mail since it resides on the network.

Whether we "think" they plan to do such scans is not is not a matter of discussion and it's your opinion that the fears are "hyperbolic". The language is clearly broad enough that they could demand it. Incidentally, if you look at the graph of a hyperbola, by their nature the vertexes point at each other, so perhaps your assertion that the "screams of privacy invasion are hyperbolic." makes sense in that one points to the other. ;-)

Why must you inject AC in to every discussion? As a reminder, this discussion is about SOCAN, whether their tariff request is reasonable and whether it will ultimately be hurtful to our digital economy as well as the artists is represent.
June 15, 2011

oldguy said:

...
..."If you can invent a system where all publicly available material used in educational contexts is immediately tracked and reported for per-use licensing"

It's already been done. See the various paywall systems, the distributors of software, etc, etc. For digital only content, the answers are already there. In the case of digital to analog conversions (printing), or analog to analog (photocopy), you still need traditional mechanisms. These mechanisms will continue to exist side by side for quite some time yet, but they are separate and need to be treated separately.

John, you are a creative sort, and tend to look at the expression and not the underlying technology. You might look at a paywall or software payment mechanism, see the news articles or the software for sale, and immediately disregard it because the "expression" of that technology isn't suited to your model. But the technology doesn't care about "expression", it just is. Bolt together the right pieces, tweak the result, and it will do what you want. There isn't just one technology that will do the job, there are dozens.

When you look at your Kobo, really look at it, what do you see? You probably see a sleek eReader. When someone with a technology background looks at it, they see a underlying linked set of technologies that come together in a certain form for a certain purpose. The same technologies used in your GPS, your smartphone, your car management system, your laptop, a web server, and many many other "devices". They see the technologies and how they can be (re)used in other devices, more than they see the form. They see how those same technologies can be used to create various other "forms" and brand new "function".
When you look at a fine analog watch, do you see an automatic assembly line? When you look at a jet engine, do you see a hydro-electric generating station? Technology oriented people "see" these things all the time.

The "challenge" you throw out is already done, from a technology perspective. If not 100%, at least 95%. I won't minimize the amount of work needed to select and bring the appropriate technologies together into a package that suits your purposes, but they do already exist.

June 15, 2011

oldguy said:

on topic

I have been pondering over the approach here of "creators" obtaining a percentage of the ad revenue for youtube, google, facebook, etc (I really don't see where netflix fits in).

There is a certain amount of justification for creators to get something, but it's hard to see a justification for a "percentage" of gross revenue, or even net revenue. The place where the creator's effort sits in these business models is more akin to a Walmart which plays music or videos in order to sell their products. Or escalator music in a mall. Or even closer, someone that generously plays their music loud enough for everyone to hear, on the bus. Walmart garners gross income, so does the mall, so does the bus line.

Does a creator deserve compensation for a primary use of their work? Certainly. Do they deserve compensation for secondary usage effects? That's a good question. If so, just how far does it go?

The application by SOCAN presents a very interesting dilemma. One in which a lot more is at stake than the simple question of more compensation for creators.
It brings in the whole question of user generated content in a business model. Likewise the whole area of secondary usage, where that usage is a simple ancillary (purposeful or accidental) to primary purpose of the business.

It throws the whole question of "how far should copyright extend" into stark contrast with all of society and all other business models.

June 15, 2011

db said:

...
"music should be free; if they want money, go play for people, like they used to have to do before the technology to record music was invented.... "

I disagree; musicians should have the right to decide if they want to charge for copies of their recordings, they should even be allowed to put DRM on those recordings. However, once they have sold that recording they purchaser should have the right to remove the DRM. The right to listen to it on whatever device they choose, however they want, whenever they want. The seller of the recording has no right to demand control of someone else’s device cause it might be used in ways they don't like. I agree public performances should be compensated... commercial public performance. i.e. a performance at a corporate setting, not a family picnic.
June 16, 2011

IamME said:

...
Jacob Glick, with Google Canada, tweeted that these proposed tariffs, in addition to talks for a “Netflix tax” that would charge over-the-top providers, would “make it pretty hard to be in the legal content business in Canada.”

http://ipolitics.ca/2011/06/15/socan-wants-its-cut-from-netflix-youtube/
June 16, 2011

Anonyme said:

SOCAN are idiots... or greedy
" YouTube, Netflix, Apple, Sony, Vimeo and any other commercial site offering movies, television shows or audiovisual content that contains music."

Ok, SOCAN asking youtube or daily motion money for copiright claims might make sense, but it does not when Netflix, Apple, Sony et al is involved.
Netflix because they are just redistributing content that already has the rights paid(if anny). Apple because not only they are allready paying royalty on music/music videos, but they are distributing content on wich the royalty was allready paid(movies/tv shows).

But the worst is probably Sony. Sony universal don't have the right to distribute their own content without paying an external group money?

PS: I don't have mutch love for Sony BMG but in this case I will side on Sony's side since SOCAN is acting as common thug in this mather.
June 16, 2011

Degen said:

...
IamMe,

What's that? Someone from Google is against paying for content? Shocking.

What you have quoted "directly" from the tariff makes absolutely no reference to scanning e-mails, yet you jump to the panicky conclusion that they intend to monitor your e-mails. I really don't know what else to say right now. I insist AC is asking for the right to audit. You prove my point with a quote about the right to audit. Um, thanks?

Do you know what an audit is? It happens all the time in business. Like, ALL the time.

Oldguy,

Okay, a paywall? On the entire Internet? AC's licences and now their tariff cover all publicly available material owned by their affiliates. They are not an aggregator; they are a licensor.

In all your patronizing talk about thinking outside the analog box, you have somehow failed to understand the basics of what AC does. Soooo, you know, try again.

June 16, 2011

oldguy said:

...
..."Okay, a paywall? On the entire Internet? AC's licences and now their tariff cover all publicly available material owned by their affiliates. They are not an aggregator; they are a licensor."

Yes, you may have hit on something I didn't realize. Let me see if I have this right. Please correct me if I have interpreted your words incorrectly.

- This material is publicly available for anyone to access from home, without a special license. All of it? Some of it? What percentage?
- If a student accesses this material on their own hook (google search?) everything is fine without a license from AC.
- If an educator references this publicly available material, then a license is required.

If the above is correct, then I can see where you have a problem. I can also see where an educator might have a few issues with that arrangement.
It would seem that if the material is "publicly available on the internet", there would already be some kind of mechanism in place to compensate the copyright holder. The educator requires an additional license on top of that compensation, to reference that same material.

Would it be "legal" if the educator supplied "google search terms" for student research rather, than a direct reference to the publicly accessible URL?

Is this how the AC repertoire is "expanding"?

June 17, 2011

BillG said:

...
You have to wonder when there will be a point when all of these tariffs, rules and regulations will approach the absurd and the point will be reached when the a majority of the Canadian public infringes either out of choice or ignorance of the complex and overbearing regulations.
June 17, 2011

IamME said:

@degen
"What's that? Someone from Google is against paying for content? Shocking."

The implication Glick makes here is that perhaps the legal content industry in Canada is going to be more difficult than it's worth. At least that's how I read it. Which is why I only posted the quote with no other comment, Admittedly, it's pure speculation on my part, but if it were me, I would pull the plug on Youtube and pursue larger markets before going through the hassle. There's a point at which when so much red tape is applied that it become a wall.

"What you have quoted "directly" from the tariff makes absolutely no reference to scanning e-mails, yet you jump to the panicky conclusion that they intend to monitor your e-mails. I really don't know what else to say right now. I insist AC is asking for the right to audit. You prove my point with a quote about the right to audit. Um, thanks?"

NO, you are absolutely correct, it doesn't make reference to e-mail, but in trying to prove your point, you've proved mine. While it doesn't mention e-mail as part of the audit, neither does it exclude e-mail as an option, only full access to secure servers. "Full access" John, do you understand what that means? As I said, whether they PLAN to go to such granularity is a matter of "opinion" and of little consequence since, as the tariff is written, the language is certainly broad enough that they could insist on it. As a database guy this isn't acceptable. If they don't plan to do it, as you insist, then it should be in there as an exception to make it official and binding.

The whole thing is reminiscent of the RIAA/CRIA fight to include anti-circumvention legislation in C-32, while at the same time insisting they plan to abandon the approach. Why fight so hard for something you don't plan to use? It's all a ploy. In the AC this case, if they don't plan to use it...put in an exception.

"Do you know what an audit is? It happens all the time in business. Like, ALL the time."

As I said I'm a database programmer, with over 12 years of industry experience. Part of my role is to maintain user data and control user access to the main production system. I, unfortunately, know all too well what technical audits are and the scope they can reach. Most likely better than you. Auditors often have to be reigned in for trying to overstep their bounds. When auditors are given "FULL ACCESS", they will use it!!!
June 17, 2011

Degen said:

...
IamMe,

Alright then, apparently I keep proving your point by being correct about the facts of the AC tariff. You're really kind of through the looking glass here. I guess it now makes sense to me that you say I avoid facts and only offer distraction on this blog.

You have rather fearfully read something into the tariff proposal that is not there. If you truly fear it, you should fight it with all the weird, unreality you can muster. Reign in those auditors, sir. In the meantime, why don't the rest of us sticks to the facts of the proposal.
June 17, 2011

IamME said:

...
Ahhh John, you're hopeless. That's why we all love you. ;-)
June 18, 2011

Jj said:

No!
I want artists to be paid but not through socan. Socan takes such a criminally huge fee for the service of collecting its almost criminal. So if your asking if you want to see artists to be paid i would have to no, not through soscam.
June 20, 2011

CS said:

Websites with background music
I'm confused on the whole tariff 22 sections. Which, if any, of the tariffs/tariff sections cover playing a background soundtrack on a website. For example, if I as a private citizen (not a business), create a website with my photos cycling to a song what do I have to pay SOCAN? Or is this a case still not covered under the law and free at this point?
June 28, 2011

CS said:

RE: Websites with background music
I guess it's bad form to reply to yourself but in case anyone else digs this post up with a search and is interested I contacted SOCAN and was informed that there is currently no tariff for the use I was describing. They told me I should check with CMRRA to see if there was a Synchronization License required... CMRRA asked the specific songs and based on my response told me to contact EMI Music Publishing and Universal Music Canada...

Now I've been a bit pedantic about the whole thing but how is an average person supposed to wade through all this mess of licensing requirements and such just to put a song as background for their photos or videos or e-mail or whatever.
June 29, 2011

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , , , , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: