Proposal FAQ
1. Why was the proposal developed?
2. How was the proposal developed?
3. I don’t “file share”. Why should I have to pay?
4. I already pay a private copying levy. Why should I also be expected to pay for file sharing?
5. Shouldn’t the fee be a “sliding scale” based on bandwidth?
6. Why should everyone have to pay for the sins of the few?
7. What about film, TV and books?
8. Won’t this kill iTunes and other traditional methods of music distribution?
9. This is a pipe dream! It’ll never happen.
10. Is the proposal “set in stone”, and if not, what is still being reviewed?
11. Shouldn’t this be an international initiative?
12. Who else supports the proposal?
1. Why was the proposal developed?
Our proposal was developed to address music file sharing, the only music industry distribution system that has not yet been monetized. Each year billions of files are shared using Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks and other means, and songwriters, artists and rights holders are not being compensated for this use of their music.
2. How was the proposal developed?
The proposal was developed through input and consultation with consumer advocates and music industry experts including songwriters, artists, music publishers, independent record labels and music creator groups around the world. Rather than sue consumers for sharing music, or attempting to shut down this activity, we decided to embrace file sharing and find a way to monetize it.Our proposal is very much "market driven". People freely choose to share whatever songs they want from the entire world’s repertoire of music. The more a song is shared, the more will be paid to its creators and rights holders.
3. I don’t “file share”. Why should I have to pay?
Are you sure you’ve never done it? File sharing is more than just sharing music on P2P networks ... it’s also sending songs to a friend via email attachment, or giving someone a copy of a ripped CD.
4. I already pay a private copying levy. Why should I also be expected to pay for file sharing?
File sharing is about distributing music, while private copying is about copying music.The private copying levy was established to address the fact that music copying, which had always been the exclusive right of the creator, had become uncontrollable. As a remedy, music creators authorized consumers to copy their music in exchange for the right to be paid for it … as long as the copying was for private use only.In recent years, with the advent of P2P file sharing, the free distribution of music has also become uncontrollable. That left us with two choices: sue our fans, or make the activity legal and monetize it. We prefer the latter.
5. Shouldn’t the fee be a “sliding scale” based on bandwidth?
We’ve considered this idea. Granted, it appears more sophisticated in terms of consumer options, however there’s a risk it could diminish “net neutrality” by providing enhanced services based on the ability to pay. That being said, the option remains open.
6. Why should everyone have to pay for the sins of the few?
1. We don’t propose charging those who use “dial-up” internet services.
2. The fee will be on a “per account” basis, not “per person”. Because the majority of internet
accounts are used by more than one person, in most cases consumers would be able to share music
for a fraction of the “per account” fee.
3. The authorization of consumers to share files would cover much more than Peer-to-Peer
networks. It would also include music shared through email attachments, ripped CDs, cloned
drives etc.
7. What about film, TV and books?
1. The Music Industry has been more seriously affected than other entertainment sectors due to the
relative ease of transferring and sharing audio files (typically 4 Megabytes or smaller). DVD sales
have been impacted to a lesser degree, however film producers continue to aggressively pursue
unauthorized Bit-Torrent websites. Perhaps the film community will eventually adopt our
proposal.
2. Television revenues are primarily based on advertising, a self-contained, self-sustaining business
model. It's unlikely they would be interested in our initiative.
3. As for books, curling up with a computer simply doesn’t quite cut it! Book authors are far more
threatened by libraries than file sharing.
8. Won’t this kill iTunes and other traditional methods of music distribution?
We believe that music distribution systems like iTunes will continue to thrive. No doubt, over time, new models and uses will emerge that will require our attention. We’re not proposing changes to the way music is heard or shared … that has already changed and will continue to change. Instead, this proposal offers an opportunity for songwriters and music creators to be compensated for file-sharing activity, and for new uses of their works.
9. This is a pipe dream! It’ll never happen.
That’s what many of his fellow writers told Pierre-Augustin Beaumarchais (author of “The Barber of Seville” and “The Marriage of Figaro”) before he wrested ownership of his plays from the hands of the theatre production companies. By finessing Author’s Rights into law in France in 1793, Beaumarchais established the simple but profound principle that creators have inherent ownership and moral rights in their creations. This idea is at the very heart of copyright. Beaumarchais’ “pipe dream” became reality around the world!
10. Is the proposal “set in stone”, and if not, what is still being reviewed?
The proposal has been carefully developed over a 20-month period, with input from the various stakeholders. The initial framework of the proposal has remained unchanged, however the amount of the “monthly fee” is still under discussion. A template for the division of revenues will be determined at a future date, in consultation with all the copyright holders.
11. Shouldn’t this be an international initiative?
That’s been our intent from “day one”. As a result, we're in communication with our colleagues in the USA, Britain, Australia and other countries. They've been very supportive, and are encouraged by our proposal. The Swedish performing and mechanical rights society, STIM, has put forward a similar proposal for international adoption.
12. Who else supports the proposal?
We've received support from individual Canadian songwriters and artists, music publishers, independent record labels, legal experts and consumer advocates. The proposal has also been favourably received by music industry consultants and futurists. A great deal of support comes from independent singer/songwriters who believe file-sharing is the primary way their fans will access music in the future.In addition, the board of our proposed File Sharing Collective would include writers, performers, publishers and record label representatives in equal numbers. This presents a significant opportunity for the creators of music to control their own destiny!