For legal reasons the RRCA will point out that this article is opinion besed on research of the author(s). All information was obtained via the public domain and is the responsibility of those author(s).

If you broadcast over the internet in Canada using Shoutcast, SAM, or any number of growing Audio Streaming technilogies, there is an issue brewing you should be aware of. You may want to be sure to contact your MP (Member of Parliament) if you are Canadian. Canada is poised to pass a hefty tax on audio broadcasts over the internet.

The proposal is generally referred to as "Tariff-22" and has been proposed by SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada; A performance copyright collective similar to ASCAP in the USA). It is a proposal they were hoping they could surprise us with over Christmas, but it didn't go all to plan.

SOCAN is in the process of hearings with the Canadian Copyrights Commission (aka Copyright Board of Canada; here-to known simply as CCC (not to confuse it with CBC the broadcaster)) to push through a bill known generically as Tariff-22 (now Tariff-22A). It is important to note: this is the 12th time this organization has brought this proposal to the CCC in as many years. They have failed all 11 past times, once even the Supreme Court got involved to quash the proposal! 12 TIMES! When does this stop? When does the waste of our tax dollars end, after-all the CCC and Supreme Court are paid by someone, right? Since this proposal has been rejected so many times it is obviously a bad request. When you add this proposal with the multitudes of other’s by other copyright collectives over the past few years, it leaves me scratching my head as to how one can do business in the future in this industry. Tariff-22(A) is a sweeping omnibus proposal with many components.

First let’s clear the air as to definitions. SOCAN, on their own website in the “Tariff-22A FAQ” section claim that this is not a “tax” and that they do not have the power to propose taxation, yet the very name of “Tariff” implies a taxation system. After-all, some parts of it would demand payment from music consuming organizations at a percentage of the operation’s income, or a per listener/per performance “levee”. I don’t know about you, but Tariff, levee, charges based on income?!? To us this like a tax in disguise.

If one wishes to avoid this “tax” then simply do not use SOCAN member music… problem is: where do you get the master list of members so that you know who to avoid. When I enquired about getting that list, “we can’t due to privacy rights” was cited. Well, if the list is private why does their own website list members they have lost communication with? And furthermore, I presume these members have registered their copyrights with CIPO and/or The National Library, if that’s the case then their information is already in the public domain. I am not asking for addresses & social security numbers here, just a list of composer names, band names, album titles, etc. By not making this list available are they not committing “Reverse Billing” that was deemed illegal back in the 1990’s when Roger’s Communications tried to bill customers for services without telling them they were using the services without express permission in advance?

Now let’s move on to the guts of it. This proposal asks to be “Retroactive”. First it is just patently wrong to outlaw or “tax” something tomorrow when the act was committed today. If it’s done today you got away with it, but if it’s committed AFTER the law is in place then fair enough. But they want to go back and charge users to 1996 when they were first proposing the Tariff-22 scheme. EXCUSE ME but who is SOCAN to punish the music consuming public so far back for their own inability to write a good law?!? They say they are not going after the small users but then this is prejudiced against the big ones!

Parts of Tariff-22 have already passed the CCC. Once such decision sees operations who sell MP3, such as Apple's "iTunes", and Bell’s "Puretracks" now potentially saddled with a hefty sales license fees. The passage of another section of this bill will see retailers who use music samples to entice sales saddled with similar licenses. Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding with these aforementioned organizations (which are listed at will at SOCAN’s website on the matter) is that they already pay the copyright holders for the music that is sold on-line through private agreements with them, why is SOCAN entitled to any of it? Is not SOCAN’s mandate to ensure their members are paid, well, from what I understand in these cases the members are paid via private contract, which much to SOCAN’s dismay despite repeated attempts to stop it, is legal. After-all the copyright owner owns the work and can assign rights to whomever he or she chooses. It seems like a blatant money grab to us and a close approximation of defying the copyright owner’s wishes. We are not talking about another occurrence of Napster here but legitimate business models that currently work.

The next part that is still before the Board is on-line audio streaming. I.e.: Radio on the internet. As you know, the CRTC has deregulated the Internet Broadcasting business back in 1999 by declaring that there will be no CANCON, no language restrictions, and no license fees. Essentially, SOCAN seems to want to reverse that policy, a policy put in place by a direct government agency some 8 years ago. Tariff-22 proposes that on-line broadcasters of music pay a yearly license fee to them as well as a per listener/per song played levee. Now I don’t propose that musicians continue to get nothing for their music played on-line, but I find the amounts and methods used to pay for them excessive. Furthermore, since this technology became commonplace an entire industry has started up, much of it based in Canada and by imposing such draconian measure it will drive the business out of Canada thus denying the government a tax base and perhaps sending Canadian music overseas to China or Russia where little copyright protection exists but this technology is also commonplace and cheap. Whether the audio stream comes from Moscow or Toronto, it can be received in Canadian homes all the same. The act of broadcast in itself is not a duplication in itself as it is not permanently archived, that occurs on the receiver’s end if they record the song. If such a scheme is to be implemented then surely there must be better protection for the industry with exemptions for college/University stations, start ups with under a certain number of listeners or sound quality, non-commercial/non-profit operations, technological development (i.e.: test stations), etc. And drop the yearly license fee altogether, that is nothing more than a money grab. It just seems to us that not enough time was taken to properly consider alternatives to a flat charge.

From what I understand also, radio stations that already have a regular antenna license will have to pay a separate license for audio streaming? Haven’t they paid for the right to broadcast the music once already?

Although SOCAN quite boldly points out that the CCC has rejected the idea that music should be broadcasted for free as an act of promotion, it is our contention that the CCC does not have the power to make such a statement, only the owner of the copyright does and there should be an outlet for that type of promotion to help independent labels and bands if the artist chooses. Currently the internet has succeeded well at that goal. Tariff-22 only protects the big players in music production, but does little for the small operators and artists in the end. Many of whom have stood up against the Tariff-22 proposals. Indeed, as you have probably witnessed in the newspaper and television news, thousands of people and much of the media corporations in Canada are signing petitions on Facebook, while other’s such as myself write articles and letters, and still more have held marches and rallies against the copyright proposals by this government.

IN SUMMARY:

• SOCAN has proposed Tariff-22A but refuses to call it a tax despite various forms of fees implemented for the use of music over the internet.
• The list of SOCAN members is not public so that music consumers may avoid the new rules if they choose to use their constitutional Freedom Of Choice.
• The Tax would cover even licensed MP3 sales, use of music for promotional of titles on sale in retail outlets, and on-line radio streaming, with too few exemptions to name just three.
• This proposal has been forwarded in various forms 12 times over as many years and has thus far been rejected each time. When is enough, enough?
• The proposal is to be “retroactive” to 1996.

IN CONCLUSION:
Back in the 1980's & 1990's when record companies with their big named artists were pushing us all to give up vinyl for the "new digital format", did they take one second to stop and think that perfect digital sound makes a perfect digital copy? The Internet is just the new "tape recorder". If you can record it, it can be un-recorded. They are simply reaping what they sewed. Although I believe duplication over the internet is wrong and has had an impact on the large record companies, it has in turn helped the independents. The impact of MP3 downloading is still in debate, many believing the impact isn't as pronounced as we are lead to believe. But such proposals as "Tariff-22" helps only those big guys get big money! Most independent bands we know (and we know many) don't care about radio royalties: they just want to get people hearing their music so they can make money selling their music at the store... a play on radio equals a free promo spot and there is a direct correlation between the amount an act gets play on radio and the amount of CDs they subsequently sell at stores! Make the cost of broadcast too high and the music won’t get played. Getting a direct license from each copyright holder to avoid SOCAN is possible, but not practical for broadcast. Nor does SOCAN make any effort of telling you this option is still available.

The big question is... how do you enforce this? The Internet has a very mobile and tech savvy population; it is a place where people can hide IP addresses, broadcast into and out of foreign jurisdictions, etc. Furthermore, as we discovered when high taxes were imposed on Booze and Cigarettes, what happened? Entire underground economies sprang up whereby the government got no tax revenue from people bootlegging. Tariff-22 will create an entire industry of underground clandestine pirate “Moonshine” operators; people who cook up their music broadcasts by the light of the silvery moon behind the barn or in their basements with little care to copyrights at all and hard to detect or catch! A fair proposal is to exempt small operations, at least from the license fee component of the tariff to keep our indie internet entertainment entrepreneurs here in Canada and obeying the law. A Fair compromise that gets everyone what they want, don’t you agree?

It's high time our government dealt with serious issues like defending our North, fixing Healthcare, keeping the economy strong, etc. and stopped playing with the Copyright law by inserting wordy passages and messy exceptions to suit foreign interests. The very name COPY RIGHT - the right to copy, over the years it seems that term has had a wider and wider meaning. The Copyrights work, they simply need better enforcement.

Click here to find your Member of Parliament (Canada - Federal).