We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2014
As copyright is asked to perform a greater role in governing creative activity, its focus on economic values above all others raises concerns. Interviews conducted by the author with Canadian independent music labels suggest that the law and the norms governing labels’ operations are more diverse and include direct subsidies, or grants, from government and the private sector. These grants perform many of the functions expected from copyright. This study concludes that copyright law is often exotic, peripheral, and even irrelevant to those involved in the spheres of remunerative Canadian sound production considered here. This finding suggests a renewed focus on a Canadian narrative of copyright law that puts it in its place alongside other instruments regulating independent music production.
Alors que l’on demande au régime de droits d’auteur d’exécuter un rôle accru de gouvernance de l’activité créatrice, l’on s’inquiète notamment de son orientation excessive sur les simples valeurs économiques. Des entrevues menées par l’auteur auprès d’entreprises de production musicale indépendantes permettent de croire que les lois et normes gouvernant leurs activités sont plus diverses que prévu et incluent des subventions directes, ou contributions, des secteurs public et privé, et que ces contributions assurent un grand nombre de fonctions que l’on attendrait du régime de droit d’auteur. L’étude conclut que le régime de droit d’auteur est souvent étranger, secondaire, voire non pertinent aux yeux des intervenants du secteur de la production d’enregistrements rémunérée au Canada. Cette conclusion en appelle à une refonte du régime de droits d’auteur au Canada pour remettre celui-ci à sa juste place parmi d’autres outils de réglementation de production de musique indépendante.
1 Many thanks to Lucinda Tang, Amy Macdonald, and Noelle Sorbara for their research assistance. I would also like to thank Alana Klein, Laura Murray, Kirsty Robertson, Michael Geist, Robert Leckey, Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse, Gabriella Coleman, Desmond Manderson, the various labels interviewed, and the members of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at New York University for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
2 Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, 1st Sess, 41st Parl, 2012, online: Department of Justice Canada, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/2012_20.pdf [Copyright Modernization Act].
3 Ibid. at preamble.
4 Murray, Laura, Piper, Tina, and Robertson, Kirsty, Putting Intellectual Property in its Place (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
5 For example: Bannerman, Sara, The Struggle for Canadian Copyright: Imperialism to Internationalism, 1886–1971 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Coombe, Rosemary, The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation and the Law (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Koutouki, Konstantia, “A Legal Placebo: The Role of International Patent Law in the Protection of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge of Medicinal Plants,” Canadian Intellectual Property Review 26 (2010): 19Google Scholar; Matthew Herder, “Emerging Academic Scientists’ Exclusionary Encounters with Commercialization Law, Policy and Practice,” in Intellectual Property for the 21 stCentury: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Intellectual Property Law, ed. Courtney B. Doagoo, Mistrale Goudreau, Madelaine Saguinur, and Teresa Scassa (forthcoming), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2281609 .
6 Cohen, Julie E., “Creativity and Culture in Copyright Theory,” UC Davis Law Review 40 (2007): 1175.Google Scholar
7 Among other goals; Copyright Modernization Act at preamble.
8 Murray, Catherine, “Wellsprings of Knowledge: Beyond the CBC Policy Trap,” Canadian Journal of Communication 26, no. 1 (2001): 31–52Google Scholar; Sutherland, Richard and Straw, Will, “The Canadian Music Industry at a Crossroads,” in How Canadians Communicate II: Media, Globalization and Identity, ed. Taras, David, Bakardjieva, Maria, and Pannekoek, Frits (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2007).Google Scholar
9 Larry Lessig, “Free Culture” (keynote address delivered at the Open Source Convention, San Diego, California, July 24, 2002), excerpts available at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig, full text available at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html.
10 Hardt, Michael, “Affective Labor,” boundary 2 26, no. 2 (1999): 89–100.Google Scholar
11 Lord Evans, “The Economy of the Imagination,” New Statesman, July 2, 2001.
12 Osborne, Thomas, “Against ‘Creativity’: A Philistine Rant,” Economy and Society 32, no. 4 (2003): 507–25.Google Scholar
13 McRobbie, Angela, “‘Everyone is Creative’: Artists as the Pioneers of the New Economy?,” in Contemporary Culture and Everyday Life, ed. Silva, Elizabeth and Bennett, Tony (London: Routledge, 2004), 188.Google Scholar
14 Throsby, David, The Economics of Cultural Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 6.Google Scholar
15 Ibid.
16 Amanda Elizabeth Bill, “Creative Girls: Fashion Design Education and Governmentality” (PhD diss., University of Auckland, 2008).
17 Mirjam Gollmitzer and Catherine Murray, From Economy to Ecology: A Policy Framework for Creative Labour, report prepared for the Canadian Conference of the Arts, March 2008, 6, http://www.sfu.ca/cmns/faculty/murray_c/assets/documents/From-economy-to-ecology.pdf.
18 Songer, Donald, The Transformation of the Supreme Court of Canada: An Empirical Examination (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008).Google Scholar
19 No copyright cases were decided between 1980 and1990, and one case on copyright (as opposed to breach of contracts involving copyright) was decided between January 1, 1970 and January 1, 1980: Compo Co Ltd v Blue Crest Music et al, [1980] 1 SCR 357. Date: October 2, 1979.
20 Wilkinson, Margaret Ann, “The Context of the Supreme Court’s Copyright Cases,” in The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law, ed. Geist, Michael (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2013), 86.Google Scholar
21 CCH Canadian Limited v Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339 at para 16.
22 Ibid. at para 18.
23 Théberge v Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc, [2002] 2 SCR 336 at para 12.
24 Craig, Carys J., “Reconstructing the Author-Self: Some Feminist Lessons for Copyright Law,” American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 15 (2007): 208.Google Scholar
25 Craig, “Reconstructing the Author-Self,” 208.
26 Craig, Carys J., “The Canadian Public Domain: What, Where and to What End?,” Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 7 (2010): 221–41.Google Scholar
27 Robertson, Kirsty, “Embroidery Pirates and Fashion Victims: Textiles, Craft and Copyright,” Textile: The Journal of Cloth and Culture 8, no. 1 (2010): 86–111Google Scholar; Raustiala, Kal and Sprigman, Christopher, “The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design,” Virginia Law Review 92 (2006): 1687–1777,Google Scholarhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=878401.
28 Mgbeoji, Ikechi, Global Biopiracy: Patents, Plants, and Indigenous Knowledge (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006), 38.Google Scholar
29 Murray, Laura J. and Trosow, Samuel E., Canadian Copyright: A Citizen’s Guide (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2007)Google Scholar; Wilkinson, Margaret Ann, “Filtering the Flow from the Fountains of Knowledge: Access and Copyright in Education and Libraries,” in In the Public Interest, ed. Geist, Michael (Toronto: Irwin, 2005), 331–74.Google Scholar
30 Laura J. Murray, “Copyright Talk: Patterns and Pitfalls in Canadian Policy Discourses,” in Geist, In the Public Interest, 15–40; and Mira Sundara Rajan, “The ‘New Listener’ and the Virtual Performer: The Need for a New Approach to Performers’ Rights,” in Geist, In the Public Interest, 309–30.
31 Grant, Peter S. and Wood, Chris, Blockbusters and Trade Wars: Popular Culture in a Globalized World (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2004).Google Scholar
32 Which has led to numerous creative business models and initiatives undertaken by US artists summarized by Kristin Thomson at the Future of Music Coalition, http://futureofmusic.org/article/article/new-business-models.
33 Cowen, Tyler, Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).Google Scholar American artists often benefit from grants and direct subsidies in other countries (for example, when Canadian grants become available to Canadian labels that sign foreign artists); ibid., 92–93.
34 Ibid., 92.
35 This influence is deeply rooted in policy discussions, see especially Michael Geist’s blog entry of May 25, 2009, “The Conference Board of Canada’s Deceptive, Plagiarized Digital Economy Report,” http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4000/125/.
36 The Federal Court rejected CRIA’s efforts to undertake a similar (to note 150) litigation campaign in Canada in BMG Canada Inc v John Doe, 2004 FC 488 (aff’d/rev’d 2005 FCA 193) by rejecting a motion to disclose the IP addresses of peer-to-peer network users.
37 See, e.g., Copyright Modernization Act ss 11–14; s 17; s 47.
38 Dorland, Michael, ed., The Cultural Industries in Canada: Problems, Policies and Prospects (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1996), x.Google Scholar
39 Joseph Jackson and René Lemieux, The Arts and Canada’s Cultural Policy, Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, October 15, 1999, http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/933-e.htm. See also Grant and Wood, Blockbusters and Trade Wars.
40 Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences 1949–1951 (Ottawa: Edmond Cloutier, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P., Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, 1951) (“Massey Commission”).
41 Grant and Wood, Blockbusters and Trade Wars, 18.
42 Grant and Wood, Blockbusters and Trade Wars, 19. Grant and Wood note that these effects are largely independent of the quality of the work and the country of origin, so long as the appropriate conditions prevail.
43 Massey Commission.
44 Name changed in 1976 to the Canadian Radio-Televisions and Telecommunications Commission: Edwardson, Ryan, Canadian Content: Culture and the Quest for Nationhood (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 200.Google Scholar
45 Which required a song meet two of four points: “the instrumentation or lyrics were principally performed by a Canadian”; “the Music was composed by a Canadian”; “the Performance was wholly recorded in Canada,” and the “Lyrics were written by a Canadian” (M=music, A=artist, P= producer, and L=lyrics): ibid.
46 Evaluation Services Directorate, Corporate Review Branch, Summative Evaluation of the Canada Music Fund, Canadian Heritage, October 2007, http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/em-cr/evaltn/2007/2007-04/index-eng.cfm, 21.
47 Edwardson, Canadian Content, 228.
48 Charland, Maurice, “Technological Nationalism,” in Communication History in Canada, 2nd ed., ed. Robinson, Daniel J. (Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2009), 56.Google Scholar
49 “A lot of [the initiatives] were sort of sops to the CRTC, like contests, contributions to school bands, marching bands, Sunday choirs from churches . . . There was just a real dog’s breakfast of ways that we were essentially diluting whatever funds we had available.” Spalding, Eric, “Twice Born: The Origins of the Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent on Recordings (FACTOR), 1982–86,” Journal of Canadian Studies 42, no. 2 (2008): 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoting interview with Duff Roman.
50 Ibid., 142–43.
51 Report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee (Ottawa: Information Services, Department of Communications, Government of Canada, 1982), 352, recommendations 55 and 56.
52 Will Straw, “Sound Recording,” in Dorland, The Cultural Industries in Canada, 107.
53 Spalding, “Twice Born,” 153.
54 Established when the federal government revisited its Sound Recording Development Program in 2001.
55 Sutherland and Straw, “The Canadian Music Industry at a Crossroads,” 154.
56 While there are Québec-based funding agencies, some distinct (e.g., SODEC) and some Québec partners of Anglophone grantors (e.g., Musicaction, Québec’s FACTOR; FondsRadioStar, Québec’s Starmaker), interview respondents overwhelmingly referred to Anglophone funders, as the majority were Anglophones. That is why these granting agencies are surveyed here.
57 “Direct Board Approval for Sound Recordings” and the “Label, Manager and Distributor Business Development” program: FACTOR, accessed July 27, 2013, https://www.factor.ca/ourprograms#.UfQ9hbtaOKE.
58 “Frequently Asked Questions,” Starmaker, accessed July 27, 2013, https://www.starmaker.ca/about/faq/#question32.
59 By professional specialization, language, cultural diversity, Aboriginal background, geography, gender, and age.
60 “Peer Assessment: How the Council Makes its Decisions,” Canada Council for the Arts, accessed July 27, 2013, http://www.canadacouncil.ca/en/council/grants-and-prizes/how-the-council-makes-its-decisions.
61 FACTOR, 2009–2010 Activity Report, 45, available on request via http://old.factor.ca/AnnualReport.aspx.
62 “Funding Rules,” Starmaker, accessed July 27, 2013, https://www.starmaker.ca/about/funding.
63 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), Economic Impact Analysis of the Sound Recording Industry in Canada, Music Canada, April 12, 2012, available at http://www.musiccanada.com/research.aspx.
64 CIMA, Sound Analysis: An Examination of the Canadian Independent Music Industry (February 2013), prepared by Nordicity, available at http://www.cirpa.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=3319.
65 The big four are EMI Music, Universal Music, Sony BMG Music, and Warner Music: The Nielsen Company and Billboard’s 2012 Canadian Industry Report.
66 L’Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, Mémoire de l’Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ) soumis au ministère des Finances dans le cadre des consultations prébudgétaires effectuées par le ministère des Finances en vue de la préparation du budget 2004–2005 (January 16, 2004), 40, http://www.adisq.com/pdf/memoire-ADISQ-quebec.pdf.
67 Rodrigo Perez, “The Next Big Scene: Montréal,” Spin, February 2005.
68 In Sound Analysis, iv, CIMA provides an overview of the characteristics of independent music labels and finds that 46% of independent music labels are sole proprietorships.
69 Kirsty Robertson and Laura Murray’s study “Copyright and Communication Rights in Canada” aided in developing the interview questions for this study (in Marc Raboy and Jeremy Shtern, Media Divides: Communication Rights and the Right to Communicate in Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010) 196–218) as did Kristin Thomson at the Future of Music Coalition, whose Artist Revenue Streams project was a touchstone, available at http://futureofmusic.org/article/research/artist-revenue-streams.
70 Interviews were conducted in English and French, although mostly in English. I was accompanied by one research assistant at each interview. Interviews were recorded and subjects were granted permission for that recording and for the use of their anonymized or non-anonymized (their preference, reflected in the footnotes) information in this study. McGill University’s Research Ethics Board granted ethics approval for the study (REB File #: 72-0809).
71 These themes were: grants; making money; alternative business models and distribution; corporate structure; copyright and rights management; property; contracts; role/purpose of the label and artist management; label philosophy and branding; what is indie; community; interviewee background.
72 Piper, Tina, “An ‘Independent’ View of Bill C-32’s Copyright Reform,” in From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda, ed. Geist, Michael (Toronto: Irwin, 2010), 423–46.Google Scholar
73 In the case of one established label, it represented 60% of income.
74 CIRPA (now CIMA), “Comments on Copyright Reform Submitted by the Canadian Independent Record Production Association (CIRPA),” Copyright Consultations, Government of Canada, September 13, 2009, http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/008.nsf/eng/02665.html.
75 Note that many labels tend to associate “government” with grant making, even though FACTOR and Starmaker are both administered largely by private entities.
76 Throsby, The Economics of Cultural Policy; Towse, Ruth, “Why Has Cultural Economics Ignored Copyright?,” Journal of Cultural Economics 32 (2008): 243–59.Google Scholar
77 Towse, “Why Has Cultural Economics Ignored Copyright?,” ibid.
