Should ISPs Pay Music Royalties?
This isn't a new argument, this debate actually goes back about six or seven years. Nor am I suggesting this as a final solution to the financial woes of the music industry.
But the question begs to be asked yet again: Should Internet Service Providers (ISPs) pay digital music royalties?
The above case has already gone to the Supreme Court Of Canada in 2004 where the court ruled 9-0 that companies providing wide access to the web are merely "intermediaries" who are not bound by federal copyright legislation.
So if this has already gone to court, why do I bring it up five years later?
Well, the other morning while I was sipping my coffee on the patio, I spotted a TELUS van parked across the street (pictured below) that made me think about this. TELUS is a national telecommunications company in Canada, one of the country's Top 4, that provides a wide range of communications products and services, and emblazoned across either side of the van was the following advertisement:
"hungry hungry
for music?
Get TELUS High Speed Internet." 
Seeing this ad, and the fact that TELUS is potentially winning new clients and profting because of this ad campaign made me think...is this fair to the music industry?
To put this argument in perspective, in Canada we have to pay a levy on blank, recordable media (CDRs and DVDs). In essence, the end-user is being taxed for something we may not even use for copyright infringing material. For example, if I want to burn a disc of photos for my parents, I still have to pay the recordable media levy to the government, who then passes it on to the Canadian music industry, via SOCAN (The Society Of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers Of Canada).
Why am I paying Bryan Adams and Celine Dion for giving a disc of photos to my family? It doesn't make sense.
In addition to this, any Canadian company or organization who plays music in their establishment has to pay an annual tariff to SOCAN for a "public performance" license for the right to play music for their customers. The monthly fee is based on the square footage of each establishment, 11.46 cents per square foot.
Meanwhile, Internet Service Providers are marketing, advertising, and promoting their high speed internet services via the promotion of music downloads...yet they are not taxed with a similar levy.
Doesn't seem fair does it?
Granted, ISPs are not suggesting their advertised music downloads be of the illegal variety, but it's a no-brainer that people will assume this. It's obvious that most people will translate the above advertisement as "Hook up with TELUS High Speed Internet and received fast Bit Torrent and Limewire downloads".
Yes, that's an assumption on my part. But let's be realistic, do you really think TELUS is implying that your iTunes downloads will be faster? I don't think so.
Of course I realize the ISP's services include access to legal music streaming sites, but the argument still remains...ISPs profit from music consumption, without having any costs associated with it.
Seems kind of one sided doesn't it?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that file trading should be illegal or that any kind of sanctions should be imposed on it. In fact, I suggest the exact opposite, free consumption for all. In addition, ISP's should be forced to cease and desist traffic throttling of P2P traffic (i.e., the war on net neutrality).
ISPs are obviously profiting from the digital trade of music, legal or otherwise. If your local Canadian coffee shop has to pay a licensing fee to add music to the environment of their place of business, why aren't the Internet Service Providers?
It appears as if the ISPs are the real winners here, while they continue to screw their customers with decreased traffic speeds when they access the very music the ISPs are advertising to get your business.
Wow.
The major telecommunication corporations continue to rake in the profits, while the end customer, and the music industry, continue to suffer.
The playing field needs to be leveled.
- written by Brian Thompson
