The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB; ?) has submitted an interesting brief with respect to radio broadcasting to the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (?).
[See http://www.cab-acr.ca/english/research/08/sub_apr1808.pdf for the brief]
At issue is the question of whether copies that are made of music for the express and singular purpose of facilitating the broadcast of such music should be subject to additional royalty fees beyond those already paid for the right to broadcast the music. When broadcasting from a CD, no such claims exist. If broadcasting from a digital copy that has been made of the same track, claims are made that additional fees are due. This thinking is flawed. The digital intermediary (to borrow a term from film) has no additional real value and generates no additional revenue -- no additional payment should be due.
I've been worried for a while about this specific case, and the repercussions it has for Media 3.0. A fundamental premise of Media 3.0 is that value is derived from delivery of content and that appropriate payments should be made that reflect the benefit derived from the delivery of that content. To facilitate the world of Media 3.0, and fully exploit the potential that future technologies have to offer, it is essential that the reproduction of content that is done for the sole purpose of facilitating the delivery of said content be exempt from pile-on charges.
Optimal and cost-effective delivery of content in a non-broadcast world requires the deployment of content to multiple points (network nodes) in multiple formats for subsequent distribution. Value is only realized by the distributor when actual distribution takes place. The creation of distribution copies cause no incremental costs to the content owners and creators. Imposing fees on all of the copies required to facilitate this delivery in the most efficient manner is punitive, will stifle innovation, and will ultimately undermine the viability of those distributors who are encumbered by such fees. In a global marketplace, realistic distribution payment regimes will reward those who benefit from them, while unrealistic or misguided fees will put those subject to them out of business.
It's not unreasonable to assume that Canadian content distributors (broadcast and otherwise) are the ones most likely to promote Canadian talent. Putting these distributors at a competitive disadvantage relative to their global counterparts does a disservice to Canadian talent and is damaging to the entire Canadian media value chain.
In the long run, being flexible and realistic gives the potential for a lot more 'earned' revenue; being rigid and unrealistic will just further harm an already-damaged industry.
Leave a comment