Liberal MP Dan McTeague Emerges As Unofficial CRIA Spokesperson

Last week, I reported on a major Canadian lawsuit filed by 26 record labels against isoHunt.  The legal action, filed in May 2010 without any press releases or public disclosure by CRIA, seeks millions in damages and an order shutting down the controversial website. At the same time as the labels filed the statement of claim, the four major labels responded to isoHunt’s effort to obtain a declaration that it operating lawfully in Canada. Their Statement of Defence (posted here – excuse the poor scan) also makes the case that isoHunt currently violates Canadian copyright law.

Notwithstanding a clear-cut case of how Canadian law can be used today to target infringing activity (supported by some of the strongest statutory damages found anywhere in the world), Liberal MP Dan McTeague rose on a point of order during last Thursday’s Bill C-32 hearing to make the following statement:

Chair, I realized with the previous witnesses that there has been some information that has been given, that’s been put forward – it’s been put in several papers by Prof. Michael Geist – that suggests somehow that the recording industry itself went after, legally, here in Canada, and I think one of our questioners here had the same view and opinion.
I want it clear for the record that that is clearly misleading and false. It is in fact isoHunt that went to court. CRIA and other organizations, from my understanding, had to respond to that call as a result of a court action undertaken by isoHunt. Call it a preemptive move, but it clearly does not underscore or in fact support the view that somehow the existing legislation provides sufficient support for the pirating that’s going on there.
I want that on the record because Mr. Geist has taken it upon himself to put my name attached to that position. I just want it clear for the record that isoHunt itself initiated this legal action, not the other way around as have been presented rather inaccurately by Mr. Geist.

Not only does McTeague wrongly call my column misleading and false, he followed up the comments with a letter to the editor in the Toronto Star in which he cherry picks a few statements to again argue that the timing of the lawsuits is somehow more relevant than the substance.

The McTeague comments – along with his positions at the C-32 committee – raise important questions about how the Liberal Opposition Critic for Consumer and Consular Affairs has emerged as the most anti-consumer MP on the committee from any party (a point noted in a follow-up letter to the editor). Even more troubling is evidence to suggest that McTeague’s comments are being actively fed by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, with McTeague using his platform on the committee to effectively become an unofficial spokesperson.

On the substance of McTeague’s response, it is worth emphasizing that the Canadian lawsuit against isoHunt is a stand alone suit that relies exclusively on current Canadian law to argue for damages and a judicially ordered shutdown of the site. While isoHunt may have filed the first suit, the response from the industry has been unequivocal in all court documents as it firmly argues that the site is not compliant with current Canadian law.

Rather than focusing on the timing of the suits, one would think that McTeague would be more interested in the substance. Yet the C-32 hearings to date suggest that he is not particularly interested in responses that veer from the CRIA script. For example, when I appeared before the committee on December 1st, he asked me about the enabler provision designed to target sites like isoHunt. In response to my comment that there are already laws in Canada that could be used to address the issue, McTeague stated:

I get that, Mr. Geist. It’s okay that people should take these matters to court and go through the process of standing up for their rights, but it would appear that the very existence of an isoHunt in Canada is problematic and is very much the result of what appears to be a legislative holiday for companies and other BitTorrent sites.

It is this inaccurate reference to a “legislative holiday” – which comes in the same sentence as the acknowledgement that parties can stand up for their rights in court – that was included in my column and which presumably led to his point of order.

In other discussions, he has offered up confusing comments about the impact of statutory damages reform on non-commercial infringement. In discussion with the Retail Council of Canada he asked:

You have members obviously who are in the retail industry who may be affected by this, so how are they going to stop the isoHunts and the BitTorrents of this world who are stealing information with very little legal impact, let alone a remedy as far as penalties are concerned?

RCC counsel Howard Knopf, responded:

Mr. McTeague, as Mr. Oakey said, the RCC in no way favours piracy in any way, shape, or form. I think that $5,000 is a lot of money for most Canadian households; it’s about a year’s tuition at university, as I understand it these days. It’s enough to make people notice. Some people think it should be eliminated. Only Canada and the United States, among major countries, even have statutory damage regimes, so we do have it. We’re not in any sense proposing its abolition, but $5,000 is a lot of money for most families.

McTeague then inaccurately responded by arguing that this activity is legal in Canada:

They may be making tens of thousands a day doing what they’re doing. It’s legal in Canada, illegal in other….

McTeague got the statutory damages issue wrong again in discussion with the Canadian Media Production Association when he stated:

We’ve had a number of examples of the $5,000 fine, but we have companies like The Pirate Bay that might be able to take a hit of $5,000 while they’re making tens of thousands of dollars.

This is simply wrong – the $5,000 non-commercial cap would clearly not apply to sites like the Pirate Bay or isoHunt.

Were this nothing more than an MP getting the law wrong, it would not be particularly noteworthy. More important is that McTeague’s recent comments appear to be coming directly from CRIA. The Toronto Star letter to the editor includes quotes from two old posts on my blog (here and here). The visitor log for my site reveals that only one party accessed both posts in the period between February 14th (when the column first appeared) and February 21st (when the letter to the editor appeared). That party was CRIA, suggesting that the McTeague letter may largely be a cut and paste of materials supplied by CRIA lobbyists.

This is hardly the first time the link between McTeague and CRIA has been made. In 2006, he wrote an op-ed in the Hill Times that observers noted could have been written by CRIA as it hauled out every claim in the book – no matter how disputed – to make the case that “our businesses, the police, and prosecutors are left saddled with an ineffectual legal regime that is the object of world condemnation.”

In 2007, he formed the IP and Anti-Counterfeiting Caucus, encouraging MPs to join by noting:

From the findings of these reports and from the views held by most independent observers; industry representatives; IP experts; and law enforcement officers, if Canada does not take action to protect IP and  combat the growing increase in counterfeiting and piracy throughout all sectors of our economy, then we will face very serious consequences.  Canada’s domestic economy will suffer; jobs will be lost; our ability to attract foreign investment will be impacted upon; our innovative capacity will be severely undermined; public safety will be compromised; and Canada’s image in the global community will be tarnished.

The first order of business for the caucus was a proposed trip to the Washington and later an invitation for U.S. embassy officials to appear before the caucus (I appeared before the caucus months later). 

In 2008, he appeared on a copyright panel that led to the following report from FYI Music, in which the reporter comments that “McTeague essentially read out a list of record industry talking points”:

The lobby for US-style copyrights in Canada, which CRIA appears to endorse, has gone into overdrive, recruiting Liberal heavyweight MP Dan McTeague to add political weight to an explosive topic that has deeply divided collectives representing the Arts and Industry.

At a copyright panel in Toronto last Wednesday, McTeague essentially read out a list of record industry talking points about Canada’s alleged status as a “pirate nation”, characterizing infringement as theft and questioning the legality of what many believed to be entrenched user rights, saying that Canada’s international reputation had been tarnished by its soft copyright laws.

McTeague is obviously entitled to his views and there is no one that disputes that Canadian law should be able to deal effectively with counterfeiting and infringement. Yet his eagerness to parrot CRIA claims while getting the law wrong is troubling for those that might expect a consumer affairs critic to actually take an interest in consumer concerns associated with copyright reform.


  1. I must protest …
    Someone, such as an MP of the Dominion of Canada, who has so many responsibilities and a full schedule should be excused for relying on understanding and opinions not his own. To expect such a person to dig deep into the complexities of the issues so as to get the facts straight is asking a bit much. MP McTeague is providing the people of Canada a service by representing the CRIA who in turn represents hundreds, if not thousands of underpaid artists.

    Our system of Parliament would fall apart if we expected our representatives to fully understand every issue that comes across their desk, so for goodness sake … Leave McTeague alone!

  2. 🙂
    For anyone not bright enough to realize it, Crockett’s entire message is sarcastic, and I might add that I quite like it !

  3. Disgraceful
    Unfortunately our side of the argument doesn’t have ready made propaganda to copy and paste into comment boxes so I’ll put some words of my own together.

    Relying on legitimate research and balanced reporting might be acceptable from time to time, but to blindly repeat the lies and misrepresentations of a dieing industry trying to sue itself to salvation is disrespectful of Canadians.

    The music industry will outlive the CRIA and we’ll all be better off for it as long as the law is kept fair and appropriate. For that to happen we need our MPs to take a step back and listen to the people of Canada.

    Besides, MPs have select portfolios and staff to handle research. I actually do expect them to be experts in everything the talk about. It’s meant to be a difficult job with a heavy moral burden not a walk in the park.

  4. If Mr. McTeague is speaking on *behalf* of CRIA doesn’t this make his a lobbyist?
    Doesn’t he have to be registered as such?

  5. Politics is not for everyone
    “Our system of Parliament would fall apart if we expected our representatives to fully understand every issue that comes across their desk, so for goodness sake … Leave McTeague alone!”

    If your do not understand an issue *thoroughly* you should not be talking about it in a public forum.

    If you are unable or unwilling to consider both sides of any situation you don’t belong in Politics.

    The “facts” of these companies are not rooted in business practices that belong in today’s economy. They can claim they are loosing money but its clear box office records are higher then ever.


  6. Doesn’t the fact that they only sued now when pushed just show that they could have done it any time and were only not doing it so they could pretend Canadian law wasn’t able to support a lawsuit? It seems obvious now they could have done it at any time and were just holding off to try to fake faults in the legal system.

  7. @Dan “Bullshit.”

    Dan, I hope you read between the lines of my post.


  8. Sandy Crawley says:

    Mr McTeague is doing his job, get over it!
    It is entirely appropriate for any member of any legislative committee to test the positions of one witness by confronting them with the positions of another. The attempts to demonize and commit character assassination of an MP who happens to challenge a particular bias are immature and will not help to resolve the issues. Or perhaps this blogger does not own up to biases in this discussion.

  9. @Sandy
    Funny. Only bias I’m seeing around here is coming outta your foul mouth.

  10. Sandy, no problem with that. You have heard me say before that open debate and various opinions is something I value. It’s just if you are going to go to the trouble of being on an important committee such as this that you should at least have your facts and figures straight. Or is that not something you think is important?

  11. @Sandy
    It is entirely appropriate to be honest and forthright. It is entirely appropriate to point out when politicians are attempting to mislead people. It is not entirely appropriate to intentionally mislead people when you are a politician .

  12. Oh, and conversely. It is not OK to ‘demonize’ a committee member but fine for that member to do the same to certain presenters via the media? Let’s be honest, it’s all a game for spin, regardless of who you are. Being ‘offended’ by such is just more of the same.

  13. @Sandy
    Those that express true unbiased opinions on independent research that has been done with respect to P2P, are calling for sites like ISO hunt to be legalized and monetized. Those that disagree present bias in this debate, which includes MG, McTeague, and yourself.

    It’s sad that virtually no one that presents an unbiased view has been called to be a whiteness in the C-32 committee proceedings.

  14. Sandy,

    There’s a long history of these tactics in the free culture camp. Everyone not on-side MUST have some secret connection to CRIA or some other industry bogeyman.

    Sarmite Bulte received similar treatment, as have most Heritage ministers… well, I would imagine any politican who dares to openly disagree with the professor can expect to be highlighted on the blog and thrown to the wolves in the comment section. Of course, the professor professes not to moderate his comment section, so he can’t be held responsible for any misinterpretations or embellishments down here.

    In fact, it was similar childish mud-slinging in his 2006 Hart House lecture that first revealed, to me, the difference between actual scholarship on copyright and what happenes over here.

  15. Oh brother …
    John, there is just as much mud slinging and if you’re not ‘on-side’-manship from yours and similar blogs. From the amount of print and vehemence that you spend on your blog towards ‘the professor’ you would think the man is Beelzebub himself. It is amusing for you to lambaste others for their (unjustly or not) behavior yet participate in the same.

  16. He’s still trying to mislead people whether he’s corrupt or not. Whats wrong with telling people the facts and actually letting them decide for themselves? Why does he have to try and trick people into thinking the reason for the lawsuit makes any difference to anything? If you ask me it’s the success or failure that matters as to whether Canadian law passes the test against ISOHunt, which hasn’t even been decided yet. It wouldn’t be too much of a leap to assume the labels should think they can win to sue though.

  17. Crockett,

    Yes… “I know you are but what am I” does tend to be an acceptable answer over here.

    Look, I made my first copyright-related blog posting for THIS Magazine in February of ’06. In it I wondered why the copyleft crowd hates Access Copyright so much. The posting immediately broke the record for comments on that blog, and most of them were shrill and insulting with mild to way-out-there corporate conspiracy overtones.

    Shortly after that harrowing experience, I attended Geist’s lecture and it became clear that the no-holds-barred, throw-as-much-mud-as-possible tactic flows from the top down. I decided at that time, that I would follow, report-on and challenge these terrible tactics whenever I saw them.

    BTW, I know you hate to contemplate a “free culture crowd” as an identifiable group, but most of the comments I’ve received on my blog and others since 2006 have been from the same 8 to 10 people. I never said it was a particularly big crowd, but it sure is there.

  18. ….
    Degen, copyright law is a relic from medieval times. It started as a monopoly and censorship tool. It still is. It should be abolished.

    Nap. 🙂

  19. Ta da!

    Er, or maybe Mr. Napalm was tryiong to give a representative example of the comments I was refering to?

  20. Wow
    What an absolute disgrace.

    The sheer fact that McTeague cannot understand the law correctly tells me that he shouldn’t be an MP. It does not seem right for someone who is supposed to be representing the people to not even understand the basic concepts. It’s the blind leading the blind.

  21. Ha ha Degen you’re biting. Nah, I was just showing you the other extreme POV.

    Now how about removing from C-32 anything that helps creating a monopoly or facilitates censorship?


  22. @Degen
    I know you’re all about throwing mud at the prof, but can you explain his central point that CRIA is apparently the sole source for his letter to the editor? Do you think that’s appropriate?

  23. I’ll get right on that, Mr. Napalm. Sandy and I will put the call in to government right after we check with CRIA… wait, I’ve said too much.

  24. I think that we should let Degen get back to his hard work as a public servant at the Ontario Arts Council dispensing money to his “constituency”, which may help some of them to have even more time and resources to lobby for even tougher copyright laws.

    BTW, since Degen mentioned Sam Bulte, one can’t help but wonder whether McTeague will follow in her footsteps to the same electoral result. He’s certainly off to a very good start.

  25. Hmm, not sure what’s wrong with having a constituency, but I guess folks over here can make anything sound sinister.

    And, for the record, grants I administer are for artistic creation, publishing and presentation. I worked until 10 p.m. last night, most of it unpaid, for my constituency. Go ahead, make that sound evil as well. You’re just proving my initial point in this stream.

    Someone disagrees with us! Attack! Attack!

  26. @Homer: “BTW, since Degen mentioned Sam Bulte, one can’t help but wonder whether McTeague will follow in her footsteps to the same electoral result. He’s certainly off to a very good start. ”

    Does this leave NDP as the only ones that didn’t shoot themselves in the foot yet re C-32?


  27. Chris Charabaruk says:

    Being my MP, McTeague’s lost my vote. Hopefully someone from my party will run here in the next election (not me!), else I wonder who the NDP will run…

  28. Watch out for that tree!!
    John, there is no doubt you work hard to voice your opinions, and good on you for that. But as for those ‘over here’, many of us work hard for our constituency too, even if it’s only for the average person on the street. You want to know what’s difficult? Try blogging on copyright issues with your cell phone while bumping up and down roads in rural Kenya 😉

  29. Oh John…
    I knew you come back to our rescue! I suppose that Geist mentioning the CRIA in any circumstance is your bat-signal to come here and spew more non-arguments. Interestingly as well is that you often seee to accompany Sandy after his mandatory “one post argument”. Hey John, instead of spending at this time posting text diarrhoea, how about you write a book, since you know, you’re (supposedly) an author an all that.

  30. A concerned Liberal says:

    Mr. McTeague has put his foot in it before, on other issues. This is of serious concern to me–and I’m a member of the party, and a donor. Though it’s hardly likely my piddly little donations make much difference, up against the power of the music industry lobby. I’ve voted NDP before, and may have to do so again. This issue is dear to my heart.

  31. Degen, the fact that you can dismiss previous criticism of Sarmite Bulte given her brazen conflict of interest (nevermind her idiotic labeling of Geist as an “extremist”, from which he is far-flung) seems to suggest that you aren’t really paying any attention, either to what legislators do or to what the “free culture camp” (kulturkampf?) is up to.

    I haven’t made up my mind about Dan McTeague, though my previous interaction with him in the days prior to this portfolio assignment convinced me he was pretty clueless in general, even taking into consideration my low expectations for competence in the House of Commons.

  32. Hey Dan – U are the sux

    The Internet

  33. You have to remember about MP’s
    Some of them have only basic high school education and at that no technology experience except to answer their iphones.

    Just saying…look at their backgrounds because most of them don’t understand the portfolios they deal with.

  34. Say what?!
    [I must protest …
    Someone, such as an MP of the Dominion of Canada, who has so many responsibilities and a full schedule should be excused for relying on understanding and opinions not his own. To expect such a person to dig deep into the complexities of the issues so as to get the facts straight is asking a bit much. MP McTeague is providing the people of Canada a service by representing the CRIA who in turn represents hundreds, if not thousands of underpaid artists.

    Our system of Parliament would fall apart if we expected our representatives to fully understand every issue that comes across their desk, so for goodness sake … Leave McTeague alone! ]

    Uh huh. So the MP should listen to only one side because listening to both is too hard for the poor little guy. Awwww… *pat pat* Maybe we should get an adult who can think for himself in this position?

    Seriously, you just came across as sounding like the MP SHOULDN’T work hard to understand what he’s talking about and thus be spoon fed words by the recording industry. Um…. a professional should fully understand what he’s arguing about and especially in his position as an elected representative. Getting advice from several parties offering different views, yes, but a one-sided view is usually a wrong sided view.

  35. Kirk Bannister says:

    heres my thought and complaint.
    Sadly we live in a world where Money exists, and because of that, Money talks. If money didnt exist, none of this bullshit with copyright infringement would be taking place. Its funny, considering the Internet was created for everyone to connect and share with one another, and now its becoming illegal just to do that online. If someone doesnt create a new version of Torrent software soon, one that isnt detectable, there is going to be no more torrents left for anyone. The Music and Motion Picture industry needs to stop being greedy pigs, and be thankful they are still making money, rather than trying to take our rights away, cause they didnt make as much as predicted. I dont see any difference in downloading movies/music than using a VCR/tape player and recording what we want on them, they werent able to stop that, so why this endless useless fight to try and stop this.

    As a canadian, I am really getting sick and tired of all this useless bantering and bullshit going on in our government, and lobbyists, trying to do everything they can to pay off our politicians to get what there company wants. I am sick of it. Everytime I turn around there is a new law being created in support of a corporation, never mind creating a law that can help protect someone. All the government is good for is being lap dogs to big companies with money. Eventually all our rights are going to be taken away, and we as good little citizens, will do nothing accept sit back and let it happen. As Canadians, it is our right, to basically overthrow our government and put a government in to do the job we want them to do, but noone has the balls to do it, why cause they pump fear and bullshit into our heads through media and society.

    This is not a future I want for my children, being afraid to listen to a song online or watch a movie, either online or at a friends place, cause they didnt pay for it, and being charged for copyright infringement, even if what they did wasnt technically illegal.

    If this bullshit keeps up, eventually everyone will be going bankrupt, cause of these corporations, cause they infringed in some way or another. Weather it be online, or something else. I truely fear for everyone future, if the government doesnt start giving a damn about us, rather than the CRIA, or the Motion picture association.

    Just my opinion.

  36. 0_o
    CndReader “Say what?!”

    Here is a helpful link for you:

  37. lawl
    That’s 2 people that still misunderstood Crockett’s message despite my follow up message.

    The internet is silly sometimes.

    Oh well I tried.

  38. I know that.
    Yup, I read all the posts.

    And some people will read the first post only without regard to the rest and assume that you weren’t being sarcastic because you didn’t say you were being so – just like I omitted and you assumed that I was serious.

    That’s MY point.

  39. @CdnCitizen
    Good point, that a lot of people tend to miss. Politicians go through a 3 step selection process. In order:

    1) They have to decide themselves if they want to put up with the crap that comes along with being a politician in Canada. This comes from the other politicians, the party, and the people. Lots of good candidates disqualify themselves at this point.
    2) If they are running for a party, they need to get selected as the candidate. Heck, even if they are selected by the constituency, the parties have the right to override the constituency and put their own candidate in, up to a certain percentage of the ridings (parties exist to govern in a democracy, not to practice it).
    3) They need to get selected by the people during a general or by-election. Most people I know don’t vote for the candidate but for either the party or leader.

    This is how we end up with cabinet ministers, for instance, that don’t understand the portfolio. If we, as citizens of Canada, want our MPs to have some sort of expertise in their areas of responsibility, we need to send a clear message to the parties that they need to recruit candidates with the experience needed.

  40. lol … OK then.
    In the future I’ll be sure to put a 0_o tag for the less perceptive.

  41. RE: Crockett
    Or a [/SARCASM] 😉

    Sandy Crawley, are you the Sandy Crawley who is Executive Director of PWAC and a member of the Board of Directors of Access Copyright?

  43. Dwight Williams says:

    Crockett’s first reply
    Right up there with anything you might see on Yes, Minister!

  44. Sandy Crawley says:

    Yes, Kevin, why do you ask?

  45. Sandy Crawley says:

    @Those calling for McTeague to note only fact, not opinion.
    It’s pretty rich for Qwerty and Jason and others to hold up the speaking of fact as a benchmark in the debate over C32. It’s even more ironic when you consider the acres of opinion appearing here that are positioned as facts. I am grateful that there are some, such as Crockett, who understand the nature of debate. It’s not the same as diatribe, folks…

  46. @Sandy
    Your statement is an opinion itself…

    Also love how Kevin’s question just flew over your head.


  47. Thanks for that, Sandy.

    Why do I ask? Because I like transparency, that’s why.

  48. Micheal Geist, you assume all men and women are legal fictions [persons] bound by contract to such a thing. Nothing cold be further from the truth. Watch and learn, a fairly good explanation of who most actually are:

    [related videos on same page are highly recommended as well]

    Anyone who studies Law diligently, comprehensively and is truly honorable will tell you he/she doesn’t need to understand ANYTHING the corporate [admiralty law / law of commerce] system says unless they are fool enough to fall into their traps / fraudulent contracts.
    *Understand = stand under = as in standing under slave master, parent, boss or tyrant … whatever the case may be.

    There’s a big difference between Lawful and Legal. Examples:

    All you are doing is sharing Your individual Sovereign files which you have paid for by paying for your internet … as an essential service, if you have a big ‘96′ all by itself on your bill.
    Notice that it looks like a cheque … which it is. So you are paying twice. Once out of your birth certificate account and second by your hard earned cash.
    Same/similar for Canada.

    As a sovereign they can’t touch you:
    Notice he is behind the fence and not in it. Also read description of clip for details.
    He’s exercising his Common Law Rights and Sovereign Rights. You might want to read up on them here: and History/a_new_beginning/a_history_of_commerce.htm

    Example: when a being is born how can he/she agree to an Account/Contract called a Birth Certificate and be bound by it for the rest of their life when they can’t comprehend it nor sign it? Hence this is a fraudulent act by those who perpetrated it.
    How can anyone be bound by CETA or any other contract when the original contract is a fiction/fraud?

    In any case, no matter what the situation they must, scratch that, they are “Obligated” to provide a Remedy. “Remedy” is a solution or fix for whatever the statute, legislation act etc. is. Which BTW are Not laws, Laws of the Land. They are all part of Commerce, which is Admiralty Law, or Law of Shipping / of the seas. They have no rights on Land … Zero, Nada, None! Hence they are a Fraud on Land.

    For more info see Winston Shout and similar. … at end of 3rd CD and start of 4th is explains in detail how Canadians became enslaved by British and other Bankers … a Must watch.
    Also look up “Freeman” , “Freeman on the Land” , Common Law Rights , Sovereign Rights , Natural Law , Universal Law and related in your favorite search engine to learn your actual Rights.

    If isoHunt has not made a contract with recording industry then they are not bound by their accusations.

    A question from retired banker / master accountant to see if you have done your diligent duty in these studies: How much does your account in your name, called a Birth Certificate, make per year in dividends?
    BTW: that’s each individuals money, registered via Birth Certificate [including each child], slated for essential services and more which you have a Right to Claim as you become responsible for your own account.

    A Minister is nothing but an “administrator” of accounts same as Prime Minister. They have no power over you if you don’t make a joiner to your account with your given and family names seen as all Capital letters in any legal document, verbal agreement or contract. You actually have the power over them as they are your servants. Be sure to ask them for their Oath of Office before speaking to them.

    I challenge you Micheal to prove me wrong.

  49. copyright is a false problem
    Copyright infringment is a false problem. Copyright, as are defined today, does not fit with internet which is a sharing platform. Netflix is a fasting groving company. Glee sold 22 million of their cover songs on iTunes. When legal services offer what people are illegally sharing for lack of service, they choose to pay. There are people who pay $10 dollars a month for getting illegal “files”. Much better for them paying for a legal file sharing service.