topleft
topright

Latest Research

A2K_in_Africa

Digital Music 2010

Property Law '09

 

 

Global IP Policy '09


Search

Podcasters and Peer-producers Won't Pay Music Tariff Print E-mail

 

Should amateur podcasters, peer-producers, social networks, video-sharing hubs and "all other sites" pay copyright royalties for the music they communicate? The Copyright Board says no. Or at least not yet.

 

In a long-awaited decision released today the Copyright Board of Canada declined to set a tariff of royalties for a miscellany of web sites that transmit music in one way or another. Among those exempted are Facebook, MySpace and YouTube, as well as hundreds of thousands of other businesses whose sites incorporate some music. Amateur podcasters are also off the hook for payment of this tariff.

 

SOCAN, the collecting society that administers authors’ and composers’ performing rights in Canada, had sought to charge at least $60 annually to amateur podcasters who use music for less than a fifth of their content. "Other" sites like those listed above might have paid up to 7% of gross revenues or expenses, whichever was greater.

 

But the Board said it would’ve been unfair to require podcasters and web site operators to back-pay royalties to 1996, which is the effective date of this tariff. The Board also pointed out that any royalty rate would be somewhat arbitrary because there’s no proximate benchmark price for this kind of music use. It was not immaterial for the Board that imposing a tariff that might potentially be applied to thousands (more likely millions, I think) of users putting music into their peer-produced videos and onto their social networks could have “deleterious” effects. Ultimately, a lack of evidence about this novel phenomenon led the Board to conclude it simply couldn’t rationalize a tariff to cover what SOCAN had broadly categorized as “other” web sites.

 

Here’s where it is important to bear in mind the history of this whole proceeding. This is the latest instalment in the infamous “Tariff 22,” originally filed in 1996 to target internet service providers. When the Supreme Court of Canada decided that ISPs weren’t normally liable for music transmitted through their networks, SOCAN refilled the tariff to target music-using sites directly.

 

It isn’t clear from the Board’s reasons whether or not SOCAN again expected to collect its tariff at a chokepoint—like YouTube or Facebook—or from end users who upload and share content using those sites. Implicitly, the Board seemed worried that it might be both the sites and the users affected by the proposed tariff. It is somewhat paradoxical that SOCAN's unsuccessful efforts to target the original Tariff 22 at intermediaries led to the new proposal aimed at individual sites and services, yet the breadth  and generality of the reformulated Tariff seems now to be its Achilles' heel.

 

The decision not to certify this part of SOCAN’s tariff is certainly controversial. A dissenting opinion of one Board member points out that the effect of this decision is to allow web sites that use significant amounts of music and generate impressive revenues free access to SOCAN’s repertoire of music.

 

That point is compelling, but warrants clarification. Simply because there’s no SOCAN tariff doesn’t mean that copyright holders are powerless and these sites are off scot-free. In fact, social networks, online video sites and amateur podcasts might be worse off without a tariff, because it means they could get sued for what they’re doing. Paying a tariff would’ve protected them against an infringement action. So the sort of litigation over peer-production that I've written about in articles here and here remains a real possibility in Canada.

 

I don’t want anyone to get the impression that today’s Board decision is only about podcasters and peer-producers. Indeed there’s much more to the decision than that. The Board DID set a tariff for webcasts and simulcasts from radio and television broadcasters, as well as new online-only radio sites and video game sites. Those aspects of the decision are noteworthy, but certainly not what got my attention.

 


Print | E-mail

Be first to comment this article
RSS comments

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved

Last Updated on Thursday, 06 November 2008
 

About Me

I am an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. My expertise is in the area of technology and intellectual property law. Read more details or follow me on twitter.

Login Here



Classroom 'casts

Stream or download 'casts of property classes here.

Mindmaps

Mindmaps for classes and presentations are online here.

Publications


Creative Commons License

This site is made available under a Creative Commons license.
Joomla Template by Joomlashack
Joomla Templates by JoomlaShack Joomla Templates