OVER THE EDGE November 21-December 5, 2007 On the Digital Front | Jeremy Johnson - Staff Writer Canadian Recording Industry Association Trips Over Su Propaganda It’s always been the same drum beat from the Canadian Recording Industry Association. Sales are down! File-sharing destroying the industry! We must make it legal to sue Can- adian music fans! Canadian artists certainly didn’t wait for any study to tell them this was the wrong-headed approach when they (6 major Canadian record labels) left CRIA last year, some of which forming the Canadian Music Creators Coalition to tell the govern- ment that suing music fans is wrong, DRM is destructive and that there needs to be new and innovative ideas to carry culture through the 21* century. Ever since the dramatic de- bacles of yesteryear, it was clearly obvious that CRIA was little more than the foreign big four music record labels arm in Canada. More recently, it is increasingly the case that not only do major artists disagree with CRIA, but CRIA is alone on their stance of suing their own fans. Nevertheless, CRIA moves ahead, lobbying politicians to pass DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act — part of the United States copyright laws) citing that file-sharing is solely responsible for a major decline in music sales. While studies have been conducted in the past on these issues, helping both sides on the debate, there really hasn’t. been much in the way of unbiased independent and neutral studies in this field of research... until now. A study commissioned by Industry Canada concluded that (this is an important point that some online analysts and bloggers overlook) those who file-share are more likely to buy music CDs. The study also concludes that file-sharing has no effect on the sale of music CDs. Some look at the study an conclude that file-sharing increases music sales (in a couple of instances, go as far as to say “piracy in- creases music sales”) but this isn’t the case as there is a big difference between ‘file-shar- ing increases music sales’ (not what this study found) and ‘people who file-share are more likely to buy music’ (exactly what this study found). The study further elaborates (well, AwnbDREW KuRJATA-FEATURES AND O elaborates in pages and pages of findings, but in general) that for every 12 songs download- ed on P2P, a user typically. buys 0.44CD’s per year on average — bearing in mind, of course, that this is among the P2P user population. In general, throughout the general population, however, there was no eviderice that suggest- ed that file-sharing had any.effect, positive or negative, on music sales. This was the mis- step by the CRIA. On the heals of this revelation, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) launched a PR (Public Relations) assault on the CRIA with unanimous approval from their members over the Tariff 22 debacle currently sitting at the Copyright board. Essentially, the new tar- iff would grant SOCAN (Society of Compos- ers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) which is a royalty collective that collects roy- alties on behalf of major artists, retroactive royalties dating back to 1996. It is argued that this new fee is to compensate artists with the emergence of online radio, etc, on top of the royalties radio already pays. Some say that this new move is little more than racketeering against one of the few models that still work in CRIAs favour. It is said that the ruling is expected to affect the major radio stations and services via “common sense” (actual wording of the copyright board, though since when did the major record labels have a lot of common sense to begin with?) “The CAB will take all measures to publicly oppose this egregious and abusive demand by the record labels including taking action before Parliament, the Copyright Board and the courts.” CABs press release states, “The [CRIA] record labels are demanding an addi- tional payment close to $50 million annually for the right to make technical reproductions that are secondary to playing the music over the air — a right for which radio broadcasters already pay.” “The irony of the record labels’ demand is that private radio creates value for the record- ing industry. Private radio broadcasters are deeply concerned about the attempt by the re- cording industry to recoup its losses by claim- ing additional payments for music played on the air,” said CAB President & CEO Glenn O’Farrell. “While broadcasters recognize that artists, producers and other rights-holders should be fairly compensated for the use of their songs, our industry believes that this tar- iff proposal is a blatant abuse of the principles of the Copyright Act. This demand won’t help the record labels - it will only hurt one of the few areas that is still working well for them in the digital world.” CAB also noted that it is not up to them to compensate for losses CRIA is experiencing. It should be noted that CAB also represents a majority of the members represented by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of Amer- ica) so if there is going to be a court battle over this, it’s going to be a multi-billion dol- lar industry against a multi-billion dollar in- dustry - MPAA vs RIAA in Canada? Maybe. CRIA stumbles. If that weren’t enough, Statistics Canada re- leased a study that points out that the music industry isn’t “hemorrhaging” as CRIA has said countless times, it’s actually turning up healthy profits — from 0.1% profitability to 7%, Not exactly the dismal, doom and gloom, endless revenue/profit losses, thousands of jobs being slashes left and right picture CRIA has been pushing onto the public for years. If there are job losses, fine, just blame it on yourselves for a change and not blame every- one else in the process. CRIA flails in the air on the way down. So you’d think the fun ends there, but nope, some economist magically races in on the scene to denounce everything... from Texas. According to the Globe and Mail, Stan Lie- bowitz looked at the studies being conduct- ed and said that “the study has a number of methodological problems and also fails what he refers to as ‘the laugh test.”” He explained that they are, essentially, at odds with his study and other studies that were conducted by the major record labels — to which I found pretty funny in of itself. In the process, the Globe and Mail asked about a 2004 study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee of the Harvard Busi- ness School and University of North Carolina economist Koleman Strumpf who came to the same conclusion as the government study. The Texan economist said that... umm, err, that was flawed too! So the question is, do we believe a ‘study commissioned by the Canad- ian government on the Canadian music indus- try which has all of the findings out for all to see or do we believe a secret study by a Texan University professor likely paid by the major record labels and then utilized cherry-picked evidence to support the hypothesis of File- sharing being solely responsible for industry losses while ignoring things like the decline in the US economy, the Canadian dollar, chan- ging in consumer spending habits (electron- ics, video-games, etc.), sharp increases in gas prices (you’re going to be spending more at the pump and less on music after all when gas prices go up), bad PR, the fact that just about everyone targeted now has little more than a minimum wage part time job, the Wal-Mart effect, decline in mainstream radio, incline in independent radio and change in listening habits (a la iPod, etc.), increased competi- tion in the market (through alternative forms of music and ways of getting music through video-games, etc) just to name a few. I don’t know about you, but I’d say this is the point where CRIA landed flat on their faces. Despite all of this, I’d have to thank CRIA for the hilarious entertainment over, yet an- other botched attempt to spread RIAA (Re- cording Industry Association of America) propaganda in Canada. This latest fiasco should help Canada’s side on the copyright debate nicely. Hopefully, they haven’t paid enough MPs to stick their heads in the sand so we can actually have a fair and balanced copyright reform for a change. 1ONS EDITOR Any first-year philosophy student knows the basic tenets of Marxism: the bourgeoi- sie control the economy and, by extension, the culture of the society in which they live. This allows them to create a system that reinforces their dominance in all areas, while the poor, working-class proletariat toil away in a system that’s based on their exploitation. On a related note, two-thirds of the population is biologic- ally inclined to reach peak efficiency at 3 p.m. Bear the previous two paragraphs in mind as you consid- er the case of the Toronto District School Board, which has recently been talking about the possibility of having a later start time for its high schools—11:30. Though this may seem somewhat excessive, moving back the school day has long been supported by research: study after study has shown that the teenage brain is geared for a late-night, late-morning cycle. I could have told you that back when I was forcing myself to get up for 7:30 classes and yet still couldn’t manage to fall asleep until after 11. “STUDY AFTER STUDY HAS SHOWN THAT THE TEENAGE BRAIN IS GEARED FOR A LATE-NIGHT, LATE-MORNING CYCLE. 1 COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT BACK WHEN | WAS FORCING MYSELF TO GET UP FOR 7:30 CLASSES AND YET STILL COULDN’T MANAGE TO FALL ASLEEP UNTIL AFTER 717.” get used to it now. rises? And yet, in Toronto, as in many other places where a later pointing out that work days start at 8 or earlier and they better So when teenagers are designed to learn best after 11 and your average adult is more of a “night owl” than an “early bird,” why is so much of our society catered towards the 33% of those want to get up before the sun Now, I don’t hold it against them or anyone else if they feel the need to get such an early jump on their day. What gets me is the air of moral superiority that certain “early birds” have when it comes to comparing start times. There’s this myth of enhanced __ ing to rule our lives until eventually we all wake up and realize productivity that goes along with waking up early, as if some- start time has been suggested, the reaction has been predictable: parents and teach- ers complaining about catering to “lazy” teenagers, how the work done before 10 am is necessarily better than anything that gets done at four in the afternoon. If you work eight hours a day, who cares whether it’s from 9 til 5 or 11 til 7, so long as it gets done? The myth starts at a young age when, even though science shows sleeping in contributes to health and learning-capacity, children are taught maxims like “Early to bed and early to rise, makes one healthy, wealthy, and wise.” Then school starts, then university, then the workday, all designed on the mistaken belief that an early day is a better day. And when the research shows that we’d be better off otherwise, the cultural training kicks in. People suggesting later days are chided for being lazy and unmotivated. “The early bird gets the worm.” This sort of morality is go- “SO WHEN TEENAGERS ARE DESIGNED TO LEARN BEST AFTER 17 AND YOUR AVERAGE ADULT IS MORE OF A “NIGHT OWL” THAN AN “EARLY BIRD,” WHY IS SO MUCH OF OUR SOCIETY CATERED TOWARDS THE 33% OF THOSE WANT TO GET UP BEFORE THE SUN RISES?” no one really wants worms for breakfast anyways.