TorrentFreak points out that the much maligned Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) has apparently decided to change its name to Music Canada. I'm wondering if that's false advertising. The group represents the big record labels, not music. In fact, many of its policies are anti-musician. Of course, there are others who have pointed out that the "Canadian" bit of their name has been false advertising as well, since the group basically takes orders from the RIAA. So, if you have an organization that isn't really run by Canadian interests, and who doesn't represent music -- but a small group of middlemen who profit from screwing over musicians -- is it really fair to call yourself Music Canada?

Michael Geist has the news that last year, at some point, the recording industry filed a lawsuit against IsoHunt in Canada. There's already been an ongoing lawsuit against IsoHunt in the US, but not too many people realized there was a similar lawsuit in Canada. And that's for a specific reason: the recording industry did their best to keep it quiet. The lawsuit was filed just a few weeks before Canada's latest attempt at copyright reform was put forth and a big part of the narrative for why such a law was needed was because Canadian copyright laws weren't strong enough to go after a site like IsoHunt. So, making a big stink about a lawsuit -- under those existing copyright laws -- against IsoHunt would have hurt that story... Of course, this raises the question: if existing copyright laws were strong enough, why did politicians and industry lobbyists claim they were not?

There's been a bizarre shift lately in the recording industry's attempt to demonize people who believe in embracing new business models and new technologies in the music business. We just wrote about Universal Music's Jim Urie claiming that "copyleft" supporters don't care about art, and along those same lines, Zeropaid points us to Graham Henderson, the head of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA -- which is almost entirely dominated by foreign companies) going to Washington DC to lobby in favor of more draconian copyright laws.

We had just caught Henderson falsely claiming that the reason streaming music services won't come to Canada is because of the "piracy," there -- even though the same article where he made those claims showed a bunch of streaming music companies who want to launch in Canada, but can't because of the ridiculous licensing demands of the recording industry. It seems Henderson just can't stop making statements that appear to have little basis in reality. In making this push, Henderson, too, has decided to make up a total strawman of an "enemy," in the blogosphere:

"There is a certain set of bloggers out there who think music is nothing more than a hobby, that it should be free. But I think Canadians as a whole are more open to supporting their creative industry and so we're finally at the point where Ottawa is going to act. I refuse to believe that this brand-new digital era is going to make beggars of creators and send them back to the 1800s."

So, here's my challenge to Henderson: prove it. Or, in the parlance of Wikipedia: [citation needed]. Where are these bloggers who "think music is nothing more than a hobby?" I read most of the blogs of the folks I'm pretty sure you're talking about, and I don't know any of them who think that music is nothing more than a hobby (with the possible exception of Suzanne Lainson who is hardly your typical "copyleft" blogger -- in fact, she keeps saying she doesn't pay attention to copyright issues and thinks it's a waste to even pay attention to copyright policy discussions). Most of us, however, have spent an awful lot of time and effort trying to highlight great new ways to make money for musicians, such that we're seeing that musicians are actually able to make more money than they did in the past -- and we celebrate whenever we such news.

Of course, we all know what's really going on. Part of the reason many of these musicians who are embracing new technologies and new business models are making more money than before is because those business models route around the gatekeepers that make up the RIAA and the CRIA. And those companies have a long history of keeping money away from musicians rather than helping them make a living. Most of the bloggers that Henderson is slamming love to see artists making money. They love to see creative new business models that are fan friendly and that allow fans to support artists. We don't believe that music is just a hobby. We think, in fact, that there are many more opportunities for musicians to make money. It's just that, quite frequently, those methods involve not filtering the money through Henderson's corporate masters, where they take an excessive cut.

But, as these industry folks continue to lie to politicians and the press, it's important to keep calling them out. I've still not heard any response on my open challenge to Jim Urie to talk about this publicly, so I'll issue the same challenge to Graham Henderson. Please, point out who these bloggers are, and show me how their reasons for being against your attempt to put forth unnecessary, damaging and ever more draconian copyright laws is because they think that "music is nothing more than a hobby." I'd be perfectly happy to discuss this publicly with Henderson, where we can discuss great new ways to help musicians make more money.

If Henderson can't do that, then it should be clear that he knows he's lying to the public, to the press and to politicians.

Ah, the recording industry. We've already discussed how ridiculously complex it is for a music startup to obtain the licenses it needs. Combine that with the ridiculously high rates demanded by the record labels and the fact that they demand licensing for things that shouldn't need additional licenses, and you understand why it's so difficult for music startups to survive, and why the market is so fragmented.

You hear it all the time. Spotify isn't available in the US. Pandora isn't available outside the US. And so on. Name the startup and there are serious restrictions on it. Things in Canada are pretty bad, where they basically don't have any of these music services, and it's because the Canadian recording industry is apparently demanding absolutely, positively insane fees -- such as 45% of gross revenue. Yes, gross revenues. If you know anything about the finances of these kinds of businesses, that's laughable. As Pandora's Tim Westergren notes, Canadian radio stations pay approximately 2.1% of gross revenue to the recording industry.

As I read the article, what struck me about it is that, for all the complaints about how Canada was supposed to be some evil "pirate haven," here was a clear case of how its ridiculous copyright situation was keeping new music services out. If copyright were really so weak in Canada, you wouldn't have this issue at all. And then I got to the end of the article, where the Canadian Recording Industry Association boss, Graham Henderson, made the following guffaw-inducing statement:

The music industry, meanwhile, says its fees are not the problem. It says music-related businesses are reluctant to enter Canada because of the country's reputation as a file-sharing haven where music fans can download songs illicitly without fear of penalty.

"Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?" said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which represents major record labels.

"[Canadians] just seem to have no appetite for a legal marketplace."

This comes after 26 paragraphs discussing all the different music services that want to enter the Canadian market, but can't because of the ridiculous rates that the recording industry wants to charge. It always shocks me that folks like Henderson can make such blatantly false statements like this and people don't call him on it. He gets away with it because no one points out that his statements make no sense.

Michael Geist points us to an article about the state of Canada's proposed copyright reform bill, C-32, which has significant problems in that it basically tries to export failed DMCA provisions to Canada, driven largely by US diplomatic pressure. However, with C-32, it seems that no one's particularly happy with the entire bill. The article quotes the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) boss, Graham Henderson, complaining about the provisions that limit liability for non-commercial copying (while applauding most of the rest of the bill):

"Once this bill is passed, you could go online and steal every movie that's ever made, every book, and every song, put them on your hard drive, admit liability, and write a $5,000 check. That would be the full extent of it -- and it would be the first rights holder who would get all the money. Nobody else would get a cent. It's close to saying that for people who want to steal stuff, there's a compulsory license of $5,000."

It's difficult to think of a sentence that shows anyone more out of touch than that. Would anyone really want to pay $5,000 (not an insignificant sum by any means) for purely a non-commercial compulsory license? Whenever various compulsory licenses have been discussed, they've usually been in the range of $5/month or so. To pretend that anyone will just pay up $5,000 for non-commercial copying is just silly.

It didn't take long for people to see through the bogus astroturfing site, BalancedCopyrightForCanada.ca, designed to look like a grass roots site in support of the new Canadian DMCA law, Bill C-32. Pretty quickly, people suggested that the site was obviously a front for the big record labels who have been behind the push for a Canadian DMCA for years. The site started hiding some information, but now Michael Geist points out that the site has finally 'fessed up to the fact that it was funded by the CRIA, which is really just the RIAA in Canadian clothing. How very grassroots. It also seems noteworthy that on the advisory board for the site is Richard Owens, the copyright lawyer who, just before the new bill was introduced, got some media attention for his ridiculous attempt to smear the public for their input during last year's public consultation on copyright reform. Of course, those consultations showed an overwhelming majority of those who took part were against a ridiculous digital locks/anti-circumvention policy, which is found in the law. It seems downright laughable that a group pretending to be a "grassroots" group would put on its board a guy who went out of his way to mock and discount an actual grassroots effort.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) -- which is basically just a front for the RIAA -- has been pushing hard for increasingly strict copyright laws in Canada, for no good reason (or, rather, entirely made up reasons). To date, the group has had trouble getting the laws passed, as the public has been quick to speak up in defense of user rights -- something that few politicians seem interested in protecting. However, Michael Geist points out that the CRIA isn't stopping, and has put out a copyright reform FAQ. However, what's amazing is that almost every "answer" in the FAQ appears to be wrong. In talking about what copyright is, it only talks about the rights of the content creator, and not the user, nor the fact that copyright law has always been designed to "balance" both sets of rights. It also claims (incorrectly again) that "piracy" (loaded word) is no different than shoplifting, despite the fact that any ounce of logic would tell you the two are quite different -- even if both may break the law.

But, perhaps the most stunning claim is the one where the CRIA actually claims that it's "piracy" that has caused record stores to shut down, rather than the shift to buying (legally) things online:

Q: Does copyright piracy put your job at risk? A: Yes. Canadians who work in the copyright-related industries have seen numerous job losses - from the artists who create music to truck drivers who deliver CDs and DVDs to retailers. Since the advent of widespread P2P file sharing 10 years ago, retail sales of music have declined by more than half; this has forced ongoing job reductions and slashed funds available for Canadian artist development.

Does the CRIA actually think anyone believes that P2P file sharing is the reason for this? I don't do any file sharing at all, but haven't set foot in a physical "record store" in years -- because I buy all my CDs online (and, yes, I still buy CDs). To claim that the end of physical retailing can be blamed on file sharing is simply ridiculous.

You can read through the link above to see the other "questions and answers" including, Geist's refuting nearly every single one. What's sad, though, is that some in the press, and many politicians, will start using these as talking points as if they're factual.

You may remember that soon after the entertainment industry provided The Pirate Bay with a ton of free publicity by getting the site (oh so briefly) shut down, its next target was isoHunt, which similarly backfired. While isoHunt is still involved in litigation in the US with the MPAA, up in Canada, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) has sent it a threatening letter demanding that it shut down. Similar threats have worked against other BitTorrent tracker sites, but isoHunt feels that it's on pretty firm legal grounds, and has filed a lawsuit against the CRIA, asking for a declaratory judgment that its service doesn't infringe on copyrights. It's using a similar explanation as its US lawsuit, noting that it's no different than a search engine. It also points out that when given evidence of infringing content, it takes down the related trackers -- which again should help put the site on pretty strong legal ground. While Canadian copyright law is different than US law, this is an important case to watch.

For many years, the recording industry has been able to convince the Canadian government that it needs to add a "private copying levy" to various forms of blank media, to reimburse the industry for any "private copying" that happens on that media. This is pretty questionable for a number of reasons -- basically amounting to a government tax to support a private industry and its inability to adapt its business model to the market. At times, this private copying levy can be an astounding 70% of the cost of blank CDs. Once mp3 players (specifically the iPod) started to become popular, the recording industry fought to have the private levy attached to those players as well. In late 2003, the industry got its wish -- but with a catch. A ruling found that the devices could be taxed, but if they were, then downloading unauthorized content would be seen as legal (uploading unauthorized content would still be illegal). A judge later overturned the iPod levy, but some in the industry have kept fighting for it, and the Copyright Board of Canada supports extending the levy to iPods.

However, in a surprise move, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (basically, Canada's version of the RIAA -- controlled by American record labels, of course) has come out against extending the private copying levy to mp3 players, admitting that if the levy is extended (even though it will send millions of dollars directly into recording industry bank accounts), Canadians may (incorrectly, in the view of the CRIA) start to believe that downloading is legal. Of course, some people pointed out this loophole in the recording industry's efforts to extend the private copying levy years ago -- but it seems that it just occurred to the powers that be. Once again, it's a case for the industry to be careful what it wishes for. The private copying levy makes the industry a ton of money, but does so at the expense of anger from purchasers of any blank media. Still, that anger is probably better than the anger generated by thousands of lawsuits against file sharers based on flimsy evidence.