Challenge To Graham Henderson: Please Point Out Who Believes Music Should Just Be A Hobby

from the we're-waiting... dept

There's been a bizarre shift lately in the recording industry's attempt to demonize people who believe in embracing new business models and new technologies in the music business. We just wrote about Universal Music's Jim Urie claiming that "copyleft" supporters don't care about art, and along those same lines, Zeropaid points us to Graham Henderson, the head of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA -- which is almost entirely dominated by foreign companies) going to Washington DC to lobby in favor of more draconian copyright laws.

We had just caught Henderson falsely claiming that the reason streaming music services won't come to Canada is because of the "piracy," there -- even though the same article where he made those claims showed a bunch of streaming music companies who want to launch in Canada, but can't because of the ridiculous licensing demands of the recording industry. It seems Henderson just can't stop making statements that appear to have little basis in reality. In making this push, Henderson, too, has decided to make up a total strawman of an "enemy," in the blogosphere:

"There is a certain set of bloggers out there who think music is nothing more than a hobby, that it should be free. But I think Canadians as a whole are more open to supporting their creative industry and so we're finally at the point where Ottawa is going to act. I refuse to believe that this brand-new digital era is going to make beggars of creators and send them back to the 1800s."

So, here's my challenge to Henderson: prove it. Or, in the parlance of Wikipedia: [citation needed]. Where are these bloggers who "think music is nothing more than a hobby?" I read most of the blogs of the folks I'm pretty sure you're talking about, and I don't know any of them who think that music is nothing more than a hobby (with the possible exception of Suzanne Lainson who is hardly your typical "copyleft" blogger -- in fact, she keeps saying she doesn't pay attention to copyright issues and thinks it's a waste to even pay attention to copyright policy discussions). Most of us, however, have spent an awful lot of time and effort trying to highlight great new ways to make money for musicians, such that we're seeing that musicians are actually able to make more money than they did in the past -- and we celebrate whenever we such news.

Of course, we all know what's really going on. Part of the reason many of these musicians who are embracing new technologies and new business models are making more money than before is because those business models route around the gatekeepers that make up the RIAA and the CRIA. And those companies have a long history of keeping money away from musicians rather than helping them make a living. Most of the bloggers that Henderson is slamming love to see artists making money. They love to see creative new business models that are fan friendly and that allow fans to support artists. We don't believe that music is just a hobby. We think, in fact, that there are many more opportunities for musicians to make money. It's just that, quite frequently, those methods involve not filtering the money through Henderson's corporate masters, where they take an excessive cut.

But, as these industry folks continue to lie to politicians and the press, it's important to keep calling them out. I've still not heard any response on my open challenge to Jim Urie to talk about this publicly, so I'll issue the same challenge to Graham Henderson. Please, point out who these bloggers are, and show me how their reasons for being against your attempt to put forth unnecessary, damaging and ever more draconian copyright laws is because they think that "music is nothing more than a hobby." I'd be perfectly happy to discuss this publicly with Henderson, where we can discuss great new ways to help musicians make more money.

If Henderson can't do that, then it should be clear that he knows he's lying to the public, to the press and to politicians.

Filed Under: business models, graham henderson, music
Companies: cria

Canadian Recording Industry Demands 45% Of Revenue; Then Blames 'Pirates' For No Streaming Music Services

from the wow dept

Ah, the recording industry. We've already discussed how ridiculously complex it is for a music startup to obtain the licenses it needs. Combine that with the ridiculously high rates demanded by the record labels and the fact that they demand licensing for things that shouldn't need additional licenses, and you understand why it's so difficult for music startups to survive, and why the market is so fragmented.

You hear it all the time. Spotify isn't available in the US. Pandora isn't available outside the US. And so on. Name the startup and there are serious restrictions on it. Things in Canada are pretty bad, where they basically don't have any of these music services, and it's because the Canadian recording industry is apparently demanding absolutely, positively insane fees -- such as 45% of gross revenue. Yes, gross revenues. If you know anything about the finances of these kinds of businesses, that's laughable. As Pandora's Tim Westergren notes, Canadian radio stations pay approximately 2.1% of gross revenue to the recording industry.

As I read the article, what struck me about it is that, for all the complaints about how Canada was supposed to be some evil "pirate haven," here was a clear case of how its ridiculous copyright situation was keeping new music services out. If copyright were really so weak in Canada, you wouldn't have this issue at all. And then I got to the end of the article, where the Canadian Recording Industry Association boss, Graham Henderson, made the following guffaw-inducing statement:

The music industry, meanwhile, says its fees are not the problem. It says music-related businesses are reluctant to enter Canada because of the country's reputation as a file-sharing haven where music fans can download songs illicitly without fear of penalty.

"Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?" said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which represents major record labels.

"[Canadians] just seem to have no appetite for a legal marketplace."

This comes after 26 paragraphs discussing all the different music services that want to enter the Canadian market, but can't because of the ridiculous rates that the recording industry wants to charge. It always shocks me that folks like Henderson can make such blatantly false statements like this and people don't call him on it. He gets away with it because no one points out that his statements make no sense.

Filed Under: canada, graham henderson, licensing, rates, streaming
Companies: cria

Canadian Recording Industry Claims That Canadian Copyright Proposal Is A $5k License To Infringe

from the how-out-of-touch-are-you? dept

Michael Geist points us to an article about the state of Canada's proposed copyright reform bill, C-32, which has significant problems in that it basically tries to export failed DMCA provisions to Canada, driven largely by US diplomatic pressure. However, with C-32, it seems that no one's particularly happy with the entire bill. The article quotes the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) boss, Graham Henderson, complaining about the provisions that limit liability for non-commercial copying (while applauding most of the rest of the bill):

"Once this bill is passed, you could go online and steal every movie that's ever made, every book, and every song, put them on your hard drive, admit liability, and write a $5,000 check. That would be the full extent of it -- and it would be the first rights holder who would get all the money. Nobody else would get a cent. It's close to saying that for people who want to steal stuff, there's a compulsory license of $5,000."

It's difficult to think of a sentence that shows anyone more out of touch than that. Would anyone really want to pay $5,000 (not an insignificant sum by any means) for purely a non-commercial compulsory license? Whenever various compulsory licenses have been discussed, they've usually been in the range of $5/month or so. To pretend that anyone will just pay up $5,000 for non-commercial copying is just silly.

Filed Under: c-32, canada, copyright, graham henderson, non-commercial, reform
Companies: cria