News Sections
Group proposes $5 monthly unlimited song downloads
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(108)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Thu. Feb. 21 2008 5:31 PM ET
Under a proposal designed to help musicians cash in on the millions of song downloads every year, one group is proposing that all Canadian broadband users pay a $5 monthly fee for unlimited music downloads.
Eddie Schwartz, of the Songwriters Association of Canada, revealed the plan on CTV's Canada AM on Thursday. He says the fee is small, but multiplied many times over it would create a substantial pool of cash to compensate musicians when their songs are downloaded.
He pointed out that the $5 fee amounts to just 16 cents per day.
"You keep the cost very low per household, but it actually creates a pretty sizeable pool of money," Schwartz said. "We believe between $500 million and $900 million per year, which is a reasonable amount of money, given how many songs are being downloaded and how many people need to be compensated."
However, many Internet users are opposed to the proposal because the fee would be applied to all broadband users, even those who never download music illegally and those who don't download music at all.Under the plan, those who subscribe to dial-up Internet access, and are therefore less likely to be downloading music, could be exempt from the fee, Schwartz said.
A poll on CanadaAM.ctv.ca generated dozens of responses, the majority of which were opposed to the proposal.
- Paul Blayney wrote: "Why should I pay for something I do not use? It is absolutely ludicrous to think that people should be charged like that. (Schwartz) stated they could tell how many downloads are completed -- charge those people who take advantage, not those of us who continue to purchase the CD's we want to listen to.
- Brian wrote: "If my carrier imposed a mandatory $5 per month I would cancel that service and go elsewhere. I like the pay-as-you-go through iTunes. You select what you like and pay for it."
- Jackie wrote: "I've never downloaded a song, let alone know HOW to download a song. It's absolutely ridiculous to think I should be paying for someone else's illegal actions."
- Not all agreed, however. Karen wrote: "I would pay $5 a month for unlimited music downloads, I don't believe in illegal downloads and with two teenagers with iPods with about 100 to 300 songs each I certainly cannot afford $1 per song from iTunes. A flat rate sound good to me."
Schwartz maintained musicians deserve compensation for the 100 million songs that are available for free on the Internet -- translating to 40 billion illegal file shares per year in North America.
"Less than 2 per cent of activity on the Internet is authorized activity. So that 40 billion downloads is 98 per cent of what goes on," he said.
"For all of that activity, creative people are being paid zero, so we're trying to address that 98 per cent."
The Songwriters Association would ask Internet Service Providers to charge the additional $5 fee to broadband users. The money would then go to a collective which would redistribute it musicians based on the number of downloads.
The proposal would require federal approval.
User Tools
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(108)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
JK
said
Volodya
said
Downloading child porn is also illegal (all of it, not just 98%). Will Mr.Schwartz support a "flat jail term", say a couple of weeks a year for everybody, just because somebody does download child porn? This will include him being in jail as well.
Getreel
said
Susan
said
Furthermore, are they then going to provide a database with every song available so that you can download what you want and not have to worry about quality or viruses? How are they going to track who's work is being downloaded more often, in order to pay out royalties or to divide the $5/month. Who does the money go to?
I can not foresee this idea working, and I can not foresee forcing people to pay. If you want compensation, offer a subscription service for $5/month and allow unlimited downloads, but don't try and tack it on to everyone's bill.
BK
said
DW
said
Vince M.
said
This is like the government takng our money and giving us unlimited access to TV shows nobody wants to watch... oh wait ... "Little Mosque On The Prarie"...
Crobar
said
Chas
said
1. Join the songwriters association
2. Write and record a song and upload it.
3. Generate an automated download program and download my song millions of times.
4. Receive royalties
Mark G.
said
RM
said
In Australia, a Deaf man successfully sued his cellphone carrier since he did not use the phone mode, just the SMS and text, yet the carrier charged him for phone services. His fees were refunded to him along with refunds made to thousands of other Deaf Australians. Just be warned!
Ironically, the Internet does not have enough captioning for videos and films posted on the web. Music videos as well!!!
Imposing the fees is just a slap to the Deaf community of Canada. And if they think--oh Deaf people will be exempt--think again..We have a right to protect our identity and personal information. Think again!
Michael Taylor
said
To add even more than this by a broadband levy creates only one question:
Why can't the Canadian music industry stand on it's own?
Perhaps it's time we cut the apron strings and let it die if there's no support.
If a CFL player has to have a second job to pay his rent, there's no reason an artist can't be expected to do the same.
Vince M.
said
Now they want me to pay for Internet access which I use for everything except music downloading?
Al
said
lynnh
said
Roscoe Yates
said
Ralph.
said
MP3
said
I hope ISP fight this.
J-F (Ottawa)
said
Who can argue with $5 a year?
Bev
said
Charge the ones that are downloading and leave the rest of us alone.
Here In The Concious World
said
Alan Lukachko
said
This is just another 'tax' to enrich big business. That money wouldn't get to the writers and performers.
If I'm going to download and pay for music from the internet, I want to do it from the performer or songwriters website. Cut out the middle man and give it directly to the person who deserves it.
L-P Comire
said
Broadband is already extremely expensive, let's not add a fee for "what if's".
marty d
said
RK
said
Brad B
said
Tom (Ottawa)
said
How does adding $5.- to all broadband users make sense, what about business and those who have a home network.
All this is saying is that broadband users have nothing better to do other than steal music, forget about online gaming which is one of the biggest markets compared to music or movies, home networks, etc...
This is nonsensical argument. Hope nothing comes of it.
Another Nanny State suggestion?
said
In her case, and for people in similar circumstances, it sounds like a good deal.
I really agree with Jackie who wrote: "I've never downloaded a song, let alone know HOW to download a song. It's absolutely ridiculous to think I should be paying for someone else's illegal actions."
I'm in Jackie's category: I just don't use the Internet for downloading songs and/or movies; I'm not into gaming - I basically use the Internet as a source of information.
Why should I be forced to contribute to starving musicians whose products I don't use?
angry user
said
And what level of song quality do I get for paying this price? Are they going to give a website to download songs with good bitrates for this $5 a month? I think not.
This is another example of the pure greed in the recording industry, and why they deserve to get screwed over.
Robert Newton
said
Brenda
said
Joe Average
said
I would also like to see the proof behind the illegal download allegations. If the numbers are coming from organizations like the RIAA, I would be deeply suspect about their validity.
Sierra
said
It's also completely unfair to other users such as gamers or even businesses who do not download music at all.
Respectfully Mr Schwartz needs to get a clue. You can't charge people for services they might use!
Copyright Criminal
said
Let's say if you could only charge those who download and not those who don't. And there are no loopholes or strings attached. I think $3 a month is a more reasonable surcharge. This, I would pay if it went straight to the artist and not the record company.
Record companies need to realize that once a piece of music/video/art is free, transferrable, and reproduceable with no loss in quality nobody will ever PAY for it ever again! It's time to revamp your business model and change how you make your money.
Also, we need to take a closer look at our laws and make sure they are in touch with reality. Younger generations download music, pirate movies, and smoke pot. Does this really constitute criminal activity? If so, we are raising a generation where laws mean nothing and everybody is a criminal.
What does this tell a young person? Some laws should be followed and some shouldn't depending on how I feel? I didn't hurt anybody so it must be ok?
Days of paying for music is over. Let's not punish everyone for an archaic business model.
N
said
mike
said
I have 4 children and on average i would think
each of them uses at least $75.00 a year in I-Tune cards.
musicians have been getting the stolen from
for far to long.
small price to pay for such a great thing...music is one of the greatest joys of life.
DRD in Manitoba
said
Sam
said
Dan Mann
said
Eddy
said
Geoffrey Grew
said
We seem to have a different approach to music than any other media. When I buy a book I am free to dispose of as I see fit or lend it to one hundred people. same for a magazine or newspaper. The writers seem satisfied with their royalties why not the music writers.
Thank you for a chance to respond
Jeff Robillard
said
Brian
said
How are they proposing to force the Music sites that charge currently, to stop charging and make their sites free for all Canadians? Then there is all the American pay-per-file sites, how will they force them to not charge Canadians? I doubt that they can do it, therefore this proposal should be contingent on getting 98% of all pay sites to agree that Canadians will not be charged, ever. I know we will never get 100% agreement.
DON
said
GerryEDM
said
Steve K
said
There is obviously logical problems with this. If they can collect the money and distribute it knowing what people are downloading (which is a technological marvel and they cannot do it) then it means they could also just charge the ones downloading the music.
Make it an option, a website that offers unlimited downloads for $5. Make it accessible and who wouldnt pay for that over hours of crawling the net for music. The ones that dont pay would make up a small percentage.
This is a total lie no doubt. I bet most of the money will go to the top, the musicians are made to believe they will get something and they wont get very much. Of the $5, $4 alone would probably be the "administration" fee.
hahaahahah what a joke.
SHAME ON CTV
said
BTW, why should everyone pay this?
Not everyone downloads music.
By charging everyone, you assume everyone is a thief! Even those who pay for their downloads.
Graham Day-Myron
said
"100 million songs available for free on the internet", uh yeah, sure there is and I bet that way less than 50,000 of them ever get downloaded.
As for this suggestion being tabled to help poor Canadian songwriters, baloney. It's an attempted big cash grab to help folks like Mr.Schwartz improve their income as I can't honestly see more than more than .00001% of those downloads being Canadian.
Mr.Schwartz must be dreaming in Technicolor if he thinks that Canadian songwriters could ever generate nearly a billion dollars in revenue each year.
May I ask what percentage he envisions for himself?
This is preposterous greed defined to a tee, and I for one will fight this tooth and nail.
Liz MacRae
said
Liz MacRae
said
BJK
said
Brad
said
Krista
said
I agree that if they can tell who downloads music you should get them to pay and leave the people alone who have never done anything wrong in the first place.
C. Lavergne
said
I would not mind at all.
If we all illegally download music, artists will eventually quit writing. I work full time, if someone would grab my salary,I'd be pissed off! 5$ a month is fair for all. The artists get cash, we get whatever we want.
Steve
said
What about copyright issues with American Music?
There seem to be a lot of questions and not very many answers.
On the other hand, if this were a globally accepted phenomon with a very efficient and closely monitored administative process then it would provide some compensation for illegal downloading.
Illegal downloading will never stop. It is as simple as you lending your friend a cd or dvd, so lets just accept it as a fact and try to find a solution to the problem.
R.M.H
said
C. Lavergne
said
Greg
said
The artists are already receiving payments from all radio/TV stations in the country for playing songs. They also receive money from CPCC - at the rate of $0.24 for audio tapes and $0.21 for CD's. This means every blank tape and CD sold in Canada has a tax embedded in it. (This fee is higher than the actual retail cost of the blanks). CPCC is attempting to increase this fee to $.029 for each CD. CPCC is also attempting to have a levy charged against all recorders in Canada (to be included in the price you pay at purchase time).
If one wants to not pay these fees they must register with CPCC for $60/yr fee and then be allowed to purchase blanks within these fees. However, the individual or company must provide an accounting of their purchases each year.
I operate a small business and I frequently provide quotes for business, which takes many hours of my time, and I fail to get the business. IS someone going to compensate me for all my missed income??
The music industry needs to become more responsible and stop crying the blues. Our present system rewards poor quality performers and instills a level of content against all Canadians.
TSI Marc
said
R/H
said
gene
said
I'd happily pay 5 dollars a month if I could download any music.
Maybe the Canadian Government can work out a deal with Steve Jobs so I can pay 5 dollars a month so I can download as many DRM-free songs as I want each month. I'm sure Apple would go for it...
Now if this is 5 dollars to download Stompin' Tom, and the Tea Party...no thanks...
R/H
said
That's $5.00 per month NOT per year. Read it again and you will see that this is a STUPID, CRIMINAL idea.
Rob
said
That was his claim this morning, money gathered on the backs of pepole like myself that go to the music store and pay the CD once, and according to him get to pay for it again when I pay my internet bill because others choose to perform illegal activities. I think NOT!!
The whole industry needs to re-evaluate its priorities as well as the choice of representation.
Vince M.
said
Apart from the obvious question "Is it even possible to download $60 a year's worth of quality Canadian music?", do you really want to buy Celine Dion another ivory back scratcher?
W Ng
said
Allan
said
Rape me! I'm Canadian.
Steve Holt
said
Rene
said
Why not instead of attacking this as a problem, see it as an opportunity to educate John Q Public on the values that our society wants to portray. Why not teach respect of self, along with that of others.
If everybody respected themselves and valued their own efforts, there wouldn't be an underground downloading industry. Instead people would value the creative efforts of our artists and be willing to pay for their efforts.
Maybe the "industry" itself doesn't value its own artists, which propagates the idea that the average person also doesn't have to value them.
Just a thought ...
Derek
said
FreakAlert
said
I agree with you, Eddie Schwartz' let's spread the wealth fairly.
cclf
said
Marcus F.
said
This is as ridiculous as having a monthly charge on automobiles to compensate the horse and buggy industry for lost business. It's not the job of the government to subsidize obsolete industries. The music industry must adapt or die, I for one refuse to accept a new tax to pay for corporate welfare for record company executives.
chris in Ottawa
said
But it it should be done on a voluntary basis.
What I mean is, if someone downloads music for free off the internet and is not paying that fee, then they can be charged or taken to court, whatever.
And those paying the fee would be exempt.
I'm guessing a heck of a lot more people download music illegally than pay for it, so if most of these people paid that $5 fee, then that would still be a lot of money.
Ed
said
Would it be shared proportionately with the amount of radio play each track achieves? Or according to the volume of sales through record stores? That would not be fair. Some artists' music is neither played on the radio, nor sold in record stores, so they would receive nothing. This is already what happens to them with the blank media levy. These artists receive nothing, even though their music is known to be illegally downloaded. Yet their music sells quite well through other channels, such as iTunes. So if the royalties were to be divided according to iTunes sales, the plan might be fairer to all music industry participants.
But it's still not fair to the general public, as many people never download songs illegally, and would never listen to the kind of music promoted by the Canadian music industry. I for one still prefer to purchase CDs.
Unfortunately, the people for whom the present situation is most unfair are the recording artists, songwriters, publishers, and record labels. They suffer enormously from rampant Internet theft, yet they cannot simply phone the police and prosecute the thieves, as any other business could. Schwartz and his team deserve to be commended for a good effort. Perhaps if they can refine the idea somehow, it might fly.
Evan
said
Other reasons could be noted that there are hundreds, possibly thousands of artists in the world today. I would imagine most of their music is available either legally or illegally on the World Wide Web. This is like paying to enter a library. I can go to the library every day to read the same book over and over again if I wanted.
J. Voorberg
said
How stupid is this idea! Maybe if the price of CD's were a little more reasonable the music industry would be in better shape. Or.....maybe if some of the music was listenable the industry might be in better shape. Just another stupid scheme to get more fingers in my wallet.
steve
said
robert
said
I was just robbed $800 by someone. I demand all Canadian pay me back $1. :-)
Jim in Victoria
said
Instead of trying to rescue a dead business model it would be a breath of fresh air to see the music industry actually investigate the use of technology so that those of us who just want to listen to music can pay a reasonable fee to the artist based on the music we actually play on our various devices. The days of the CD are over - time to embrace downloading instead of condemning it.
jean
said
james
said
Chris
said
Music artists and record labels have to start producing singles and not albums!
People don't want to listen to $20 dollars worth of one hit plus a dozen crap tunes. Make singles, charge 50 cents for each, not a dollar, and still cash in a profit.
Here's an idea:
Produce vending machines in malls so that you insert 50 cents, plug in your memory stick, and download your song. Set up security measures such as anti-virus and anti-malware on these vendors and you are set!!! Its that simple!!!!
penny
said
As a senior I do not and never would download music ,PLUS I have no idea how to ,this is an outrageous idea. why should I pay for the sins of someone else.????
Annette
said
Eric
said
The fees that exist on blank media and flash players is exactly what this is for and doesn't need any mucking around.
Frankie
said
Wes
said
Andrew
said
It is not illegal in Canada to download music. Period. The supreme court of Canada ruled on this years ago. We pay a recordable-media levy on blank media, and that is supposed to be collected and distributed to canadian rights holders. To date, the Canadian music industry leaders have collected 100's of millions through this levy, and have distributed absolutely none to their members.
The current collection system as it is works just fine for collecting money for rightsholders. It's the music industry that's corrupt and broken.
Want to know more? Go read Michael Geist's writings. http://michaelgeist.ca/
Dan Marr
said
Seb
said
MS
said
Most internet users have much more than $5 in credit from artists.. and would be willing to return it. This would allow the ridiculous media fees to be lifted too.
JE
said
And $5 is way too much!
So is $0.99 per iTunes song - it's just a money grab.
Brett G
said
What they can track is the protocol being used to transfer files, such as bit-torrents or other file sharing clients. However, these sites are used for perfectly legal services such as movie rentals, game downloads, and open source software.
The best way to deal with this situation is quite simple. Sit everyone in the music industry down, tie them to the chair, and then smack the crap out of them for however long it takes to make them realize... Music is human condition, we all have a right to hear, sing and play it. STOP STEALING MUSIC FROM HUMANITY. Stop holding us hostage over a song.
Art is subjective, and trying to put a single price on all art is ridiculous. Besides, we all know that this is just another way to con artists into joining their dying unions and coalitions. "Join our union and you might see some money from blank cd sales or government grants or ISP tax's" or, you might see nothing.
Get real.
Mike
said
ONLY 2% of activity is authorized. 40 BILLION
DOWNLOADS.
Unfortunatly it would only hurt the honest people because the people who steal it now will find a way to keep on doing it.
If it had an effect on YOUR PAYCHECK you sure would be crying the BLUES... No I am not a musician.
Marty
said
The game is over I say we all start downloading and downloading until they realize who is in control.
Steve B.
said
Don
said
Do Re sign ME up.
said
Hey, why not make a portion of it help new emerging musicians, as well as give a good shot in the arm for high-school music programs?
Steve
said
Anon
said
And what of the lesser known artists? That too, is greed. Their idolization of the corrupt and biased mass media as the definition of success for an artist has clouded their vision from focusing on their music. I'm sure if you spent more time on your music than complaining about money then you'd be able to produce something that people will actually WANT to buy.
tldr; People care more about money than they do about making quality music, and then wonder why people don't pay for it.
Bart Metcalf
said
I once heard on a news spot that artist get .07 cents per song of the $1 per song. Who really is profiting in this call for proper remuneration?
How much money would go to the artist of this proposed $5 fee? I think that this is often a grab on the part of the industry mascaraded as an altruistic motive.
As a person who never downloads music on the internet and one who only loads purchased cds onto my computer I would never accept such an unfair fee. (The only other music on my computer are the sample pieces factory loaded.)
Let's be just about this!!!
Marc
said
It is ??????????
Where is this law that I may or may not be breaking ?
Moris
said
ed jones
said
Sam
said
Menno Fieguth
said
I do not use downloads, and this would most likely subsidize mediocrity and not help quaility, while taxing the honest and the non-users.
Ian.
said
Major labels took advantage of artists, they took advantage of the purchasing public, they treated ANY new technologies as a threat to their existence. Boo hoo.
Real Itty
said