4. The Canadian Music Industry

This section provides a concise overview of the music industry in Canada, including its structure, trends and outlook. It was prepared in order to provide a context for the evaluation findings presented in Section 5.

4.1 Definition

Statistics Canada, as well as other federal government departments/agencies, has defined the sound recording industry, for the purposes of data collection, as those companies involved in:.

  • The production of master sound recordings.
  • The duplication/replication, releasing, promotion, and distribution of sound recordings.
  • Music publishing.
  • Sound recording facilities.
  • Other sound recording activities.[14]

This definition, while providing consistency and clarity for the purposes of data collection, does not fully describe the full spectrum of activities that comprise the Canadian music industry. As noted in the program profile, the objectives of the June 2001 Canadian Sound Recording policy were intended to affect music artists as well as cultural entrepreneurs, in addition to the Canadian public.[15] The broader industry includes individual artists, activities as varied as live music performances and digital distribution of ring tones, and merchandising of ancillary goods associated with music.

In fact, as discussed further below, since the current Sound Recording Policy was established in 2001, the traditional roles of industry participants have blurred, and more income is being derived from non‑traditional sources. As a result, it is necessary when assessing the industry and in evaluating policy, to look beyond traditional industry definitions.

4.2 History and Environment

In response to the domination of Canadian airwaves and music sales by American companies and artists, in 1971 the CRTC adopted rules requiring radio stations to include 25% made‑in‑Canada music on their playlists, with songs being certified as Canadian under the MAPL classification system if two of the following four characteristics were met:[16]

  • Music composed entirely by a Canadian;
  • Artist is Canadian;
  • Produced in Canada;
  • Lyrics written entirely by a Canadian.

The percentage was increased to 30 per cent in the 1980s, and to 35 per cent in the 1990s, where it remains today in light of the CRTC's Commercial Radio Policy Review issued in December 2006.

When the CRTC's Canadian‑content MAPL regulations were established, the impact was felt immediately. Sam Sniderman, known as "Sam the Record Man", a prominent music retailer, stated that as a result of the CRTC requirement his sales of Canadian music on long playing record albums, cassettes, and 8‑track tapes increased 25 per cent in 1971; 36 Canadian singles made American top 100 lists that year.[17] Although industry sales have declined in recent years, the subject of Canadian content regulations has not been without controversy.

The debate has largely focused on how regulations should be adapted to reflect the changing technology and marketplace, rather than whether or not there should be content regulations in the first place. During the CRTC's Commercial Radio Policy Review, industry players, ranging from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters [18] to independent artists [19] argued in favour of retaining content rules to contend with the onslaught of media from across the border.

This support for Cancon rules seems to be echoed by the public; a study last year by IpsosReid found that 85 per cent of Canadians believe it's important that there be Canadian content on radio, and 65 per cent believe there should be minimum levels of Canadian content on radio, with more than half (52 per cent) believing that current regulations requiring that radio stations play a minimum of 35 per cent Canadian songs is about the right amount. [20]


Top of Page

4.3 Structure and Composition

Technology has not only changed how music is delivered, creating new digital pathways and altering the face of retail, but also the roles played by various industry participants. It is now possible to self‑record, self‑publish and self‑promote music; as a result, while there has always been a degree of crossover in the roles performed by various players in the industry, these lines are becoming increasingly blurred.  Thus, although the following section describes music industry functions individually, multiple functions may be performed by a single person or entity, with individual companies often working across multiple categories of function.

4.3.1 Composers, Lyricists, Musicians

The creative backbone of the industry is the artist who, singly or together, writes and performs the music and words that comprise Canadian music. Canadian artists, especially in the field of popular music, have become widely recognized and respected for their craft, both at home and abroad, with both French language and English language artists earning global respect.

4.3.2 Publishers

A music publisher acts on behalf of a songwriter to exploit works created by that songwriter, for example, by encouraging other artists to perform songs, placing songs in film or television, and overseeing publication of a song in various markets (with those markets defined by geography as well as technology). A publisher manages the income a songwriter earns through the three main types of income streams, consisting of mechanical, performance, and synchronization royalties.

Publishers are not currently a major focus of the CMF, an issue discussed further in the findings section of this report.

4.3.3 Managers

The role of the manager is to represent the legal and business interests of his or her client, the artist. The manager's key responsibility is to negotiate business matters on behalf of the artist, which may include those related to booking, making touring arrangements, handling copyright issues, marketing and promotion, negotiating performance, recording, and performance contracts, and financial and business management and planning.

Managers are not a current focus of the CMF, which is discussed later in this report.

4.3.4 Labels

Today, the term "label" [21] generally refers to companies that manufacture, promote, and distribute audio recordings on compact discs, records, DVD‑audio, SACD and cassettes; these companies may also enforce copyright and have artist development functions, commonly referred to as "A&R" (for "artist and repertoire") for scouting, signing, and developing talent for the record company. A single corporate parent may own multiple labels, each with a particular focus/genre.

4.3.5 Producers

A music producer essentially functions as a project manager to oversee the recording of music. The producer's responsibilities may include arranging a recording session, identifying and contracting for "session" musicians (musicians to accompany the central artist), and providing artistic input into the recording and post‑production of the recording, such as the mixing and mastering of the music, the arrangements of the music, or the instrumentation.

4.3.6 Studios

Studios are facilities used to record music, built mindful of acoustics, and fitted with necessary equipment including recording devices, mixers to integrate multiple sound sources, synthesizers, samplers, microphones, amplifiers, and other similar equipment, ultimately producing a "master" recording. Digital technology and computer equipment commonly play a large role in modern studios.

4.3.7 Manufacturers

Manufacturers take master recordings, and transform them onto mass produced media such as compact discs. This may take place through duplication, whereby the original content is "burned" or copied to a recordable CD (typically used for smaller runs), or replication, a manufacturing process which creates CDs by using a "stamper" copy of a disc to imprint data on a moulded CD. In addition to duplication and replication services, manufacturers may offer other services such as in‑house mastering, graphic design for packaging and discs, production of special promotional CDs such as shaped discs, and the creation and manufacture of posters.

4.3.8 Retailers

Once predominated by specialized vendors who carried deep and broad inventories of recordings, delivery of recorded music to consumers now takes place through myriad pathways, both physical and virtual, ranging from specialized to general retailers, and from virtual to physical stores. Consumers' options now include large "box" retailers such as Wal‑Mart and Costco; electronics‑focused vendors such as Future Shop and Best Buy; media‑specialized vendors such as Indigo and HMV – all of which have both physical and virtual retail outlets. Other options are exclusively virtual retailers, such as Amazon.ca, which will ship physical media, and Apple's iTunes, which provides downloads, as well as Puretracks, HearSay.ca, Mymusic.ca, and Archambaultzik.ca, and even coffee shops, such as Starbucks.

4.3.9 Distributors

A distributor's role is to get pre‑recorded music into retail stores. Often working closely with record labels, they will offer advertising support, free promotional copies, and persuasive argument in an effort to convince retailers to stock the product. Distributors may be general distributors, carrying a wide variety of product ("one stop"), specialized retailers carrying limited selections of popular product ("rack jobbers"), or independent distributors, carrying product for labels unaffiliated with large multinational companies. Distributors receive little assistance under the CMF.


Top of Page

4.3.10  Concert Promoters

A concert promoter is responsible for producing live performance events, ranging from a one‑off show to a national or international tour, and is responsible for assuming the financial risk of staging the event, and negotiating and overseeing the services and vendors needed to make the performance possible. Concert promoters are not a focus of the current CMF.

4.3.11  Industry Associations

A variety of industry associations represent segments of the Canadian music industry, ranging from CRIA, representing foreign multi‑nationals and major independent music companies, the Canadian Independent Record Production Association (CIRPA), representing independent Canadian companies, provincial industry associations, such as Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la video (ADISQ), or the Alberta Recording Industries Association, and associations representing musicians, publishers, and creators, at both the national and provincial levels, such as the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, La Société Professionnelle des Auteurs et des Compositeurs du Québec (SPACQ) and the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC).

4.3.12  Broadcasters

Radio broadcasters have always been an important outlet for music. Using an advertising‑based business model, radio broadcasters have been a vehicle through which artists can reach audiences, stimulate demand, and become exposed to new markets. Just as other aspects of the music industry have been affected by digital technology, so too has radio broadcasting. In June 2006 the CRTC licensed satellite radio broadcasters in Canada, offering consumers the choice of subscribing to fee‑based services that offer greater fidelity than terrestrial radio, greater reception coverage, a multitude of channels per carrier, and additional information that can be transmitted with the radio signal.

4.3.13  Copyright Collective

A copyright collective (also known as copyright collecting agency or collecting society) is an organization created by private agreements or by copyright law that collects royalty payments from various individuals and groups for copyright holders. A copyright collective is authorized to license works and collect royalties, its authority derived either from statute or under an agreement with copyright owners. A copyright collective offers an efficient way of managing a group of rights, where the limited economic value of individual rights would not make it financially feasible to negotiate individual licences.

A mechanical royalty is earned for the manufacture and distribution of any "recording", virtual or physical, such as compact discs, tapes, vinyl and digital downloads. A performance royalty is paid when a copyrighted song is performed live in public, or broadcast on radio, television, in a film, or over the internet. A synchronization royalty is paid when the song is synchronized with visual media, such as television programs, commercials, and films, and becomes part of that audiovisual work.

4.3.14  "Other"

There are a range of players who do not neatly fit into any of the traditional roles, or play collective roles – companies specializing in aspects of the virtual delivery of music, ranging from those that provide "back end" services to enable artists to efficiently deliver their works to radio stations (such as Ontario's Musicrypt Digital Media Distribution System), to software companies such as RealNetworks, Inc., a creator of digital media services and software used to find, play, purchase and manage free and paid‑for music. There are also service providers that provide supporting functions, as are required by any industry, including accounting, legal, and engineering services. Finally, there are professional guilds and support service providers that also play important roles.

4.4 Trends in Music Sales

4.4.1 Sales Globally and in Canada

Overall sales activity in Canada is disproportionately generated by the foreign‑controlled record labels. These larger labels earn some 85 per cent of total industry revenue in Canada, control distribution to most retail outlets (except in Quebec), have a broad catalogue, and can better absorb losses and provide a higher level of marketing support to their artists than can Canadian labels.

Worldwide trends in the music industry have been reflected in Canada: sales of pre‑recorded music have declined in Canada since 1999. At the same time, however, sales by Canadian artists have risen, both in absolute and relative terms, as has income to Canadian songwriters and music publishers. Canadian recording labels, on the other hand, have been struggling in the face of erratic year‑to‑year sales, coupled with low profit margins.

Global sales of physical pre‑recorded media took a sharp downturn starting in 1999, a decline that was also reflected in Canada. Sales by the large multinational, foreign‑controlled companies represented by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) fell in Canada as they did globally. The dollar volume of CD sales for CRIA members fell from $699.9 million in 1999 to $544.1 million in 2005, a decrease of 22 per cent. Although there was an upturn in both unit sales and sales dollars in 2004, which may in part have been the result of price declines, 2005 represented another decline in sales volume for large multinational companies, pushing the net value of sales to their lowest level since 1998. [22] This decline continued into 2006, as unit sales for CRIA members declined by 7 per cent, while the value of shipments fell by 12 per cent. And in the first five months of 2007, CRIA members reported a 19 per cent decline in unit shipments and a 23 per cent decline in sales income.

At the same time, however, overall unit sales in Canada (for all companies) have not suffered as dramatic a decline, due in part to the resilience of sales by Canadian artists, as discussed below.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which calculates sales differently than does CRIA, reported that retail music sales in Canada in 2005 totalled $886 million, dropping from $901.9 in 2004, a decline of 1.8 per cent. [23] The value of shipments dropped another 9 per cent in 2006.

There is insignificant historical data to conduct a trend analysis of digital download activity. However, according to IFPI, worldwide sales of digital music "are estimated to have almost doubled in value worldwide in 2006, reaching an estimated trade value of around US$2 billion." On a percentage basis, sales of digital music accounted for an estimated 10 per cent of music sales in 2006 (in Quebec, the percentage is much lower, about 1 per cent). [24] Canada is the world's seventh largest market for legal digital downloads, with 2005 sales volume of $18 million, 71 per cent of which was an online market, vs. 29% per cent which was comprised of mobile sales. [25]


Top of Page

4.4.2 Sales of Canadian Artists

While overall sales for large companies in Canada have been declining in recent years, Canadian artists have been steadily growing their presence on the sales charts. A review of available data, especially the sales of "top 2000" albums as reported by Nielsen SoundScan, illustrates the increasing strength of Canada's own artists in their home market.

Nielsen SoundScan is an information system that tracks sales of music and music video products throughout the United States and Canada. Sales data from point‑of‑sale cash registers is collected weekly from over 14,000 retail, mass merchant and non‑traditional (on‑line stores, venues, etc.) outlets. Weekly data is compiled and made available every Wednesday. Nielsen SoundScan is the generally recognized standard for tracking sales, and is the information source for other data compilations accepted as industry standard, such as Billboard magazine's music charts.

PCH made available a compilation of SoundScan data for sales in Canada of the top 2,000 selling titles for the period 2001‑2005, with corresponding unit sales, and an accompanying classification of titles foreign vs. Canadian.

Over the 2001‑2005 period, Canadian artists have accounted for a steadily increasing number of top 2000 titles, from 331 in 2001 (16 per cent of the top 2000) to 413 titles in 2005 (22.9 per cent of the top 2000), an increase of 25 per cent (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Number of Top 2000 Albums, Canadian and Foreign Titles, 2001‑2005

Number of Top 2000 Albums, Canadian and Foreign Titles, 2001-2005

Put another way, Canadian artists had 331 of the top 2000 albums in 2001, but an average of 390 albums in the following years, an increase of 17.8 per cent overall, or 59 titles per year.

Over the 2001‑2005 period, total unit sales for the top 2000 albums in Canada fell from 33.7 million to 30.5 million, a decrease of 9.5 per cent. However, while overall unit sales were declining, unit sales by Canadian artists increased, from 6.8 million to 7.7 million, an increase of 13.7 per cent. This was a remarkable increase in a declining market. The most significant annual increase in sales, 916,000 units, occurred in 2002.

In the post‑2001 period, Canadian unit sales have not fallen below a floor of approximately 7.65 million units. Put another way, Canadian artists sold 6.8 million units of the top 2000 Albums in 2001, and an average of 7.9 million units in each of the following years, for average annual increase of 1.1 million units, or 16 per cent (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Canadian and Foreign Unit Sales, Top 2000 Albums, 2001‑2005

Canadian and Foreign Unit Sales, Top 2000 Albums, 2001-2005

4.5 Government Support in Other Countries

Appendix E summarizes the government support programs provided by several countries around the world.

By far the most comprehensive survey available of international music support programs is produced by PCH; the most recent update was published in 2004. [26] As noted in this report, governments use a wide variety of programs to support music, some of which are targeted towards industry, others of which are more oriented towards art or performance rather than industry per se. And yet, for every rule, there is an exception; in Jamaica, the music industry has blossomed despite a complete lack of government support. Some of the key themes are the following:

  • Governments provide both direct and indirect support, which may be delivered through a variety of agencies and affiliated administrators.
  • Support tends to be provided in a number of common areas, including performing assistance, recording assistance, promotional activities, support for creativity and innovation, professional hiring and development, music events, touring support, business planning, and export.
  • In addition to funding, tax incentives may be used to support the sector, as well as export assistance.
  • These supports are complemented in some cases by programming obligations such as music quotas, or blank tape levies which are used to compensate artists for the recording of their music for personal use.

What is evident is that in many cases support programs reflect the fragmented and diverse nature of the music sector itself. While an array of support programs provides assistance to the various elements of the sector, it is not clear that such an approach supports development of an industry, and there continues to be discussion within many national industries as to the best support policy.


Top of Page

4.6 Outlook

Technology continues to reshape the music landscape. In June 2001, when the current Canadian Sound Recording Policy was established, the effects of still emerging technology were uncertain. Music files were being freely copied on peer‑to‑peer networks, CD sales were in free fall, and the courts were grappling with how to interpret copyright law in the face of new technologies. Today, while new technology continues to shape the music sector –more so than in other cultural sectors due to the relative ease with which music files can be stored, transmitted, and manipulated – some clear trends have emerged that will continue into the foreseeable future.

4.6.1 Technology and Business Models

Since June 2001, the technology that unleashed digital music has been used to try to control it. A rash of devices has been created by electronics manufacturers to receive, store, manipulate, forward, and play back digital music, both devices dedicated to music, as well as "convergent" devices, such as the LG VX8500 cell phone, designed to function as both an iPod and cell phone, or the latest iteration of Apple's iPod, which combines audio and video capability. Digital rights management systems (DRMs) have been implemented in an effort to create new business models.

As a result, there has been a proliferation of new sources from where consumers can obtain music, including satellite radio, internet radio and music download services, both free and for pay, all of which, unlike the peer to peer networks, respect copyright. Technology has also offered artists new ways to publicize music, especially blogs and podcasts.

While these technologies and business models have created opportunities for smaller or unsigned artists, who now have the tools to reach the public without having large companies funding their efforts, they have also created an explosion of content on the internet.

But while technology offers consumers and artists new ways to create, distribute, and consume music, a new series of challenges are likely to present themselves to independent Canadian artists, including the difficulty of being found amidst the internet clutter. This was confirmed by the expert panel. In fact, studies and statistics indicate that the preference consumers have for recognizable brands (large or well established media companies and service providers) is shaping the internet, with large or dominant companies accounting for an increasing share of traffic in various categories, and consumers reporting that they have a much higher level of trust for media online that is published by "established" media companies.[27] Furthermore, in the music sector, the large multinationals, having struggled with the decline in sales of physical media, have consolidated and scaled back their efforts to identify and sign new and upcoming artists.[28] Thus, it appears that the independent music companies will be more important than ever for Canadian artists.

The major issue facing the industry, however, is the basic issue of getting paid for its music. The industry's embrace of digital media formats led, somewhat ironically, to the publication of vast catalogues of music without any form of copy protection. At the same time, evolving technology, along with a continual and dedicated effort to defeat copy protection on the part of a technically‑sophisticated, loosely‑affiliated anti‑copy movement, has made it increasingly difficult for copyright owners to control – and charge for – the copying and use of their music, which once published, tends to freely circulate in digital format.

Debate over whether or not the distribution and use of music can be controlled in today's technological environment continues. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer, which has been credited with making possible the first widespread Digital Rights Management (DRM)‑controlled music system, questioned the effectiveness of such systems in an open letter published in February 2007. While Apple's position may in part be influenced by legal challenges to its DRM system by European regulators, his voice will certainly cast new doubts on the industry's efforts to control the use of their music, as noted in his letter:

"Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven't worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That's right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.[29]"

If DRM and technological controls are abandoned, the opportunity for consumers to copy music without payment will only rise, further hastening the efforts of producers, artists and other parties to seek diverse income streams for their works.

As a result, differing digital music business models have emerged in recent years, including free, a‑la‑carte and subscription, although in some cases service providers are combining these models under a single service:

  • "Free" music. An economist would say that there is no free lunch – or free music. Of course, "free" music services are in fact advertising‑supported business models that allow consumers to listen to music without financially paying for the music – consumers instead pay with their time. As noted in a recent report by IFPI, "…advertising supported (business) models such as video licensing on Yahoo! Music and MSN emerged as a potentially exciting revenue stream for record companies."[30]

  • A‑la‑carte downloads – Under a‑la‑carte business models, the consumer can download or stream single songs, paying for the songs that are used. The advantage of this system is that users have flexibility to consume and pay for the specific music they seek, and are freed from traditional music industry practices where music was "bundled" into albums, forcing consumers to pay for music they did not want. Service providers compete on the basis of price, the catalogue they offer consumers, usage rights, and additional "special" materials that may be available on the service. Ringtones and truetones are most commonly supplied under pay‑per‑use terms. Revenues charged to consumers are then shared by the service providers with rights holders.

  • Subscription – Just as consumers pay a fee to their ISPs to access the internet, subscription‑based business models require consumers to pay a fee in order to receive access to a library of content. As in the case of a‑la‑carte services, subscription services compete on the basis of the catalogue they offer consumers, usage rights, and additional "special" materials that may be available on the service.

  • Diversification – There is evidence suggesting that the unleashing of digital content is leading to increases in music industry revenues from ancillary or non‑traditional sources. A recent study undertaken under the auspices of the US National Bureau of Economic Research examined sales and concert data for a large group of musicians over a ten year period. The study's preliminary conclusion was that "while sales of recorded music declined after the introduction of file‑sharing, concert revenues and the number of artists performing concerts increased dramatically. Overall, the patterns in the data suggest that while file‑sharing may have eroded profits from CD sales, it has also increased the profitability of live performances."[31] And royalty income for songwriters has risen in recent years as their works have been licensed for television, movies, and ringtones, also suggesting that diversification of income is a potential path for artists to offset the decline in retail sales of music.


Top of Page

4.6.2 Legal and Regulatory Environment

When the current Canadian Sound Recording Policy was established in 2001, the legal battle over new technology and music was fully engaged in the United States; an injunction against Napster had been issued on March 5, 2001, and by July of that year Napster shut down its system to comply with the court injunction.

That battle was joined in Canada in February 2004, when CRIA filed motions in the Federal Court of Canada to require five Canadian internet service providers to disclose the identities of individuals engaged in voluminous music file copying over peer to peer networks. The ISPs objected on privacy grounds and on the basis that there was no underlying claim. In denying the request of CRIA to compel identification of file sharers, the Federal Court of Canada noted, in passing, that file sharing does not infringe copyright, the judge stating that no evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories, which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service.[32] CRIA appealed this ruling, and the appeal was dismissed on May 19, 2005, although the Court did so without prejudice to the appellants' right to commence a further application for disclosure of the identity of the 'users' .[33]

The central issues at stake in this case – the legality of peer to peer file copying – would have been addressed by legislation proposed in 2005. Bill C‑60, first read in June 2005, was intended to amend the Canadian Copyright Act, changing Canadian law to address aspects of new technologies that concern music (as well as other things). The bill would have provided protections for digital rights management systems ("Technical Protection Measures") and rights management information (RMIs are used to identify content and often work with DRM systems), and clarified the obligations of network service providers, search engines, as well as the right to copy content using a peer to peer system. The bill effectively died when the Government was dissolved, and it has not yet been re‑proposed.

Technology, however, has often demonstrated an ability to "jump ahead" of law and regulation, as it has in the case of digital music. Thus, while passage of copyright legislation could, for better or worse, alter the position of artists and other industry players, it is unlikely to create a definitive "status quo" given the continued evolution in the industry.

4.7 Summary

The Canadian music industry, like its counterparts in many countries around the world, is a very diverse sector comprising individuals and groups from many different backgrounds, performing a wide variety of functions. Nearly everyone in the industry has been affected dramatically in recent years by the advent of new technologies that have changed the creation, recording, distribution and consumption of music.

In addition to the challenges and opportunities provided by new technology, the Canadian music industry, like other media sectors, must contend with the presence in its home market of large multinational media companies, which derive most of their income from the distribution of non‑Canadian artists, as well as with a porous shared border with the United States, which allows for the easy movement of music from the South. As a result, Canada's independent labels are viewed as essential for Canada's artists. This, in turn, provides support for the Government's continued intervention via the financial support provided by the Canada Music Fund, a subject discussed further in Section 5.

Notes:

  • [14] For example, see the reporting guidelines issued by Statistics Canada to compile information on Sound Recording for the 2005 Survey of Service Industries(PDF, 181 KB)

  • [15] The policy was intended to affect the Canadian public by increasing their access to a diverse range of Canadian music choices through existing and emerging media.

  • [16] A fuller description of the MAPL system can be found at the CRTC web site; , accessed on October 18, 2006.

  • [17] "Where are the Canadian Stars?", The CBC Digital Archives Website, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Last updated: 16 Jan. 2004.. Accessed Sept. 27, 2006.

  • [18] See, for example, the CAB's submission to the CRTC of June 12, 2006, with respect to the Review of the Commercial Radio Policy, in which the CAB supports Cancon rules, but argues in favor of a more flexible, bonus‑based system to encourage airtime for new and emerging artists, and reduce overplay, or "burn", of well‑established, popular artists who qualify as Cancon;

  • [19] For example, Gregg Terrence, the president and one of the founders of Indie Pool, an organization that represents independent Canadian artists, was quoted on December 28, 2005 by the The Tyee (a daily newspaper in Vancouver), as stating "We feel that Canadian content is a good thing, that it was good for Canada, that we should keep Canadian content rules…". He goes on to argue for changes in the system rather than its abolition; in other articles, he articulates those changes as a requirement for airtime for new and developing artists. See this, accessed on October 18, 2006.

  • [20] Study conducted for FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting, released September 5, 2005; see here.

  • [21] The term "label" originated with the paper label traditionally affixed to the centre of a phonograph record. The label contained information about the recording, and usually prominently featured the name of the company that manufactured, promoted, and distributed the record.

  • [22] Data from CRIA website, accessed on October 3, 2006; see here. Using CRIA data, the average net value for a CD shipped by CRIA members declined from $11.43 in 2003, to $10.95 in 2004, to $10.80 in 2005.

  • [23] IFPI has a disclaimer in its 2005 report that states: "IFPI figures for national markets may differ from National Group figures as a result of adjustments for non‑reported sales and small differences in category definitions." See IFPI Publications, which provides world sales data for 2005 and previous years.

  • [24] IFPI. (PDF Version, 181 KB)

  • [25] IFPI (PDF Version, 40.5 KB).

  • [26] This summary relies extensively upon a survey of international support mechanisms, International Review of Support Measures for Sound Recording: 2004, prepared by Donna Mandeville, updating a paper originally prepared by Heather De Santis/Erin Cassidy, and subsequently updated by Liudmila Kirpitchenko, the Socio‑Cultural and International Comparative Research Group, Strategic Research and Analysis, Department of Canadian Heritage, January, 2005, Reference SRA‑928.

  • [27] For data on trust in media, see Year Four (2004) of the Internet Report, University of Southern California Center for the Digital Future, usage statistics for user‑generated video sites reported by Hitwise, which show that two companies, YouTube and MySpace, account for 66% of the web site traffic for the category, see here; accessed December 13, 2006.

  • [28] As one prominent entertainment attorney put it, "The music business is generating more income and more capital than ever before, but the people getting the money are not the record labels. The people who are getting the money are the people creating the computers, manufacturing the MP3 players and the companies providing the high‑speed Internet connections. That has lead to labels dropping artists and downsizing employees and generally cutting back on the process of creating and marketing new music." Steve Gordon, as published in "Music Connection", December 5, 2005 – January 1, 2006, page 12. Mr. Gordon is also author of the book, "The Future of the Music Business"

  • [29] Steve Jobs Thoughts on Music.

  • [30] Digital Music Report (PDF Version, 5.60 MB)

  • [31] See Supply Responses to Digital Distribution  :Recorded Music and Live Performances, Julie Holland Mortimer, Harvard University and NBER, and Alan Sorenson, Stanford University and NBER, December 29, 2005. Registration may be required to access this report, which can be found here.

  • [32] BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe (F.C.), 2004 FC 488 (CanLII), [26]

  • [33] BMG Canada Inc. v. Doe, 2005 FCA 193 (CanLII)

Note:

To access the Portable Document Format (PDF) version you must have a PDF reader installed. If you do not already have such a reader, there are numerous PDF readers available for free download or for purchase on the Internet:

Please note that all saveable and fillable PDF forms require Adobe Acrobat Reader version 8.1 or higher.

[ Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page ]