Last week, the Vancouver Sun ran a lengthy article on the music industry. It was a reasonable piece – comments from CRIA, CIRPA, and many artists presented some (though not all) perspectives. That said, CRIA's Graham Henderson provided comments that merit a response. According to Henderson:
We want laws that offer choice. Right now we don't have any choice and we want the ability to be able to try our business model in a digital environment and have at least the majority of people respect our wishes, recognizing all along that there are going to be people who take from us.
Leaving aside the fact that much of the copying that Henderson characterizes as "taking from us" is covered by the private copying levy that has now generated nearly $200 million since the CPCC began collecting the levy in 2000, CRIA is effectively saying that the only way the industry can offer digital music online is with DRM supported by anti-circumvention legislation. Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with digital music in Canada recognizes that this is utter nonsense.
First, the evidence to date suggests that Henderson's own members are moving away from the use of DRM. EMI is offering DRM-free downloads, Universal will be conducting a similar experiment, and most suspect that Sony and Warner will soon follow. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of the Canadian music industry – the independent labels responsible for 90% of new Canadian music – never bothered with DRM to begin with.
Second, if anti-circumvention legislation really was a pre-requisite for offering new business models, then Canada wouldn't have an online music market. Of course, that isn't the case either – much like U.S. consumers, Canadians have their choice of sites that sell by song (iTunes, Puretracks, Zunior) and by subscription (Napster). Moreover, we have stores that offer online downloads (MuchMusic) and telcos that offer downloadable music as part of their services (Rogers, Bell, Telus). In fact, when SpiralFrog, the first industry-sanctioned free music download service launched, they did so first in Canada (that's right – a site that is wholly dependent on DRM which currently offers 700,000 songs in an ad-supported, DRM'd format launched first in a country without anti-circumvention legislation).
Third, not only is Canada home to a wide range of online music services, but the Canadian market is growing faster than either the U.S. or Europe. According to Neilsen Soundscan, the Canadian digital download market grew by 122 percent in 2006, far faster than either the U.S. (65 percent) or Europe (80 percent).
So that's the reality in Canada – an industry that collects tens of millions of dollars each year to cover private copying, launches a wide range of online music services, and experiences remarkable growth has one lobby group responsible for a fraction of new Canadian music diminishing all those efforts by claiming that we don't have laws that allow it to try out new business models.
Business models built on “theft”
Henderson is often heard alleging that other companies business models are built on theft, but seems unwilling to acknowledge that the new business models he wants to explore are actually based on theft.
The form of DRM he is proposing involves two locks: one of those locks may be on content his members own, the but the other lock is on things which they do not own (IE: the hardware/software used to access this content). Placing locks on things you don’t own should be clearly illegal, and some would suggest is far more analogous to “theft” than copyright infringement it.
[ link ]
> “Here we are, with a nation of people who do not really know what’s right and what’s wrong,” Henderson said.
Is it just me, or does that sound reminiscent of the arguments for prohibition ?
Surely the laws of the land should reflect the morals and values of the people who live there. Isn’t that kind of the point of democracy ? If the majority of Canadians believe that p2p is morally just (for whatever reason), our laws should reflect that.
Henderson’s quotes in that article are actually rather sad. The one Michael quoted is followed by “It’s far too early in this whole new revolution to decide that the old ways are dead because we just don’t know that.”. Reminds me of a three-year-old covering their ears because they don’t want to hear you telling them off.
Doesn’t it make sense to choose a business model that is suitable for the legal environment rather than change the law to suit your preferred business model ?
“Doesn’t it make sense to choose a business model that is suitable for the legal environment rather than change the law to suit your preferred business model?”
Hear, Hear!
It’s amazing how common sense eludes these people. But hey, these are corporate types. If they didn’t at least pretend like they were protecting the almighty buck they would just be fired.
To hear them say that their industry will die is beginning to get old. After nearly a decade of easy filesharing I still don’t see music artists staving in the gutters.
“To hear them say that their industry will die is beginning to get old. After nearly a decade of easy filesharing I still don’t see music artists staving in the gutters.”
It was never about the artists, it was about themselves. The whole thing was about the bonus’s of the ranks of upper managment that no longer do anything but take credit for their underlings work.
Graham Henderson and the CRIA staff are jackals. They are bottom feeders. I cannot say with any more clarity than that.