DR. JAMES SMITH (Chairman): Good morning, we will get underway. There is one more person coming. Mark Parent asked me, as Vice-Chairman, to act as Chairman, so that is the reason I am sitting here this morning. I want to thank everybody for coming. I know we all want to be in our constituencies, this is sort of like a Monday, so you can tell some of these members get nervous. I explained that to our guests, but I am sure we are looking forward to the presentation, and some pretty basic questions, I know from my point of view, from reading the literature you provided us.
Today, the part of our committee that meets with groups will be meeting with the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, SOCAN, if you would like to introduce yourselves. I know we have had some correspondence.
MS. GINI CORNELL: I am Gini Cornell, Manager for Atlantic Canada. To my right is Richard Albert, who is a Licensing Field Representative with SOCAN. We are expecting John Gracie, but I understand there was an accident on Portland Street, and I know he has to come down Portland Street.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There will probably be a few substitutions this morning. Barry, I think you are sitting in for someone. Mora, do you have the substitutions? Would you like to just read them off? You read them off, and then we will introduce ourselves.
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): We have, of course, Dr. Smith substituting for the Chairman in the Chairman position, but Mr. David Hendsbee is substituting for him as a member; Mr. Cecil Clarke is here for Mr. Timothy Olive; Mr. Cecil O'Donnell is here for Mr. Ronald Chisholm. That is what I have this morning.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we could go around the table and introduce ourselves to our guests. Then they will give their presentation.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have set until 11:00 a.m. aside, and if it is not necessary, we don't have to fill that time, but this just gives you an idea of how much time we have set aside for the committee. Ms. Cornell.
MS. CORNELL: Thank you very much for inviting us here today. It is a pleasure to be before you today, and maybe demystify what SOCAN does, what we are all about. Thank you, Mora, you put together a wonderful binder of information. Hopefully you will get a chance over the next week or so to look through it. I don't know if my business card is in the package or not, but I can leave some.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.
MS. CORNELL: If there are any questions that come up at any time after the presentation is over, please feel free to give me a call.
Royalties is what we are all about. It is how creators of music make their living. It is a simple enough idea, that everyone deserves to be paid for the work that they do, but sometimes it is actually not that easy to collect when your job is creating the music. We work for the composers, the lyricists, the songwriters and their publishers. Often it is people's assumption to think that music creators are part of the big-business recording industry. In actual fact, the composers are really independent people, out there, struggling for a living.
How do these music creators get paid? One penny at a time, basically. Every time a song is played in public, all the creators of that song, and not just the performer, are paid for that performance through a system of tariffs which is overseen by the Copyright Board of Canada. The licence fees paid by the person or organization playing the song work for mere fractions of a penny per song. That is why every time a song gets played, it is important that the people who created the music collect their licence fees. Their livelihoods depend on this. The collection of small amounts of money from many places over time is how they earn their living.
What does SOCAN have to do with this? We are a member-owned collective. Our membership is made up of more than 70,000 Canadian music creators, and these are the people who earn their living making music that fills our lives. On behalf of its members, SOCAN licences the people and organizations that use the music as part of their business. SOCAN provides the infrastructure to collect the licence fees from the music users and distributes that money as royalties to the music creators. Without the services that SOCAN
provides, Canada could be a much quieter country, but without the music, would it be such a great place to live?
Who are we? SOCAN sells access to one of the most commercial and culturally viable assets, the world's repertoire of music. As a Canadian Copyright Collective for the performance of musical works, we protect the performing right. That is just one of the many rights that a creator of music holds. As well as those from our affiliated international societies, we also distribute royalties received from our affiliated societies throughout the world to our members for the use of their music outside of Canada.
SOCAN is the founding partner of IMJV, which is the International Music Joint Venture. It is an integrated back office system service shared by the partners and, potentially, clients. IMJV reduces costs, improves efficiency, and shares expertise and IT investments of our partners. There are three major performing rights organizations involved with IMJV currently: ASCAP, which is in the United States, is the world's largest performing rights society; BUMA, which is in the Netherlands; and SOCAN.
Through our work, SOCAN ensures that the musical works of all creators are protected within Canada, and the rights of Canadian composers are protected globally. So, what do we do? We protect, preserve and promote the performing rights of our music creators. We also work to improve the status of our membership and copyright laws on a national and international basis. We do that by selling access to the world's repertoire to our customers, which are the music users, radio and television stations, cable systems, concert halls, exhibitions, movie theatres, offices, restaurants, bars, skating rinks, sports events, fitness clubs, airlines, just about anywhere where music is used. I shouldn't say just about, everywhere where live or recorded music is used in public.
We collect the licence fees as approved by the Copyright Board and distribute the royalties to our members and affiliated international societies, who in turn distribute to their members. We distribute the royalties we receive from the affiliated international societies that are collected for the performance of Canadian musical works around the world. We work closely with government at all levels to ensure that the decision makers are familiar with our activities and the concerns of our members.
We present seminars and workshops for the education and awareness of our members. We support other music industry events. We promote and celebrate our members' work. We publish a magazine, Words & Music, which is inserted in the package, and we distribute that both nationally and internationally. This helps us to showcase new events, news and profiles that are important to our members throughout the world.
We were established in 1990, through the merger of two previous performing rights societies, the Performing Rights Organization of Canada, PROCAN, and the Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada, CAPAC. Performing rights has been in
Canada for 76 years, so it is not something new since 1990. It has been around for a long time. The merger helped us to do a better, stronger voice and work for our members, which is what started the merger to happen. SOCAN is governed by a board of directors consisting of and elected by our members. Our current president at the time is Gilles Valiquette, but you will notice that also in the magazine are pictures and names and everything of the current board of directors.
In 1990, SOCAN collected more than $114 million in royalties for Canadian composers and our affiliated international societies. In addition to that $114 million, we collected $33 million in back payments from cable television stations. Twenty thousand Canadian composers benefited from these royalties. We are headquartered in Toronto, but we have offices in Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton and Dartmouth. The IMJV head office is in Hoofddorp, Netherlands.
Also in the handout, and I will just briefly go through it, is our new strategic plan. We have a new CEO that started, I believe, in February 2000, André LeBel. He put together an executive team and charted a new course for SOCAN. The key components of the strategic plan are to make SOCAN the collective of choice. We want to maximize the earnings in our members' pockets through the reduction of administration costs, efficient collection and the distribution of royalties.
This is already underway through initiatives like becoming the founding partner of IMJV. I also mentioned that IMJV is the company that is going to reduce our costs and efficiencies, and that sort of thing. The reason why that would happen is because currently each performing rights society has their own database as well, integrated to a certain extent. We are hoping, globally, eventually - and a lot of performing rights societies are jumping on-board - to have one database that holds the world's repertoire of music, to make it much faster for us to get the money back to our members, so we are not all paying, basically, to do the same type of job since we all interact anyway.
We also have formed WeDoItRight Canada Incorporated, which is the SOCAN-owned, Toronto-based subsidiary for the acquisition, conversion and processing of audiovisual musical information from production companies, broadcasters and others, on behalf of the IMJV clients and others.
We will deliver, in 2001, a suite of technology-enabled services. Our members will be able to get access to their catalogues on-line. We will have an on-line registration system for our members to register any of their new works. We will have, by fall, the on-line application for licence for the music users. We will also have an on-line payment system so our music users can pay their licence fees through the Web. We will lead co-operation among collective societies and generate commercial revenues for our members.
That is an overview of who we are and what we do. I am sure there are lots of other questions, but I have spoken enough. Richard has some information on the actual licensing system which he would like to provide.
MR. RICHARD ALBERT: We have 70,000 Canadian members - songwriters, creators of music and music publishers - who assign, to SOCAN, the right to represent them. We need, obviously, to go and licence and authorize the public performances of these people, of the music created by these people. We also represent, in Canada, like Gini said, the music from the world. In virtue of agreements that all the performing rights societies have around the world, the music created by Canadian people is also represented in any other country in the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. John Gracie. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record. It is good to see you. I guess most of you or all of you - anybody who doesn't, put up your hand - know John Gracie.
MS. CORNELL: Since we had Mrs. Gracie here, apparently a couple of weeks ago, we thought we would bring the other member of the family in today.
MR. ALBERT: In order to go and make sure that their music is properly licensed, SOCAN works on the tariffs that are approved by the Copyright Board in Ottawa, which is a government body created under the Canadian Copyright Act. SOCAN abides by tariffs that are approved on a yearly basis by the Copyright Board, and issues licences to music users in accordance with how the music is used. Music is used in radio stations; like Gini said, music is used virtually everywhere in this country, where there is some type of public performance of music. We just don't hear it anymore, we just don't listen to it anymore, but everywhere we go; except, obviously, in this room this morning, there is no music. If we take the bus, there is going to be some music somewhere; if we take a boat, board an aircraft, go to public skating, everywhere, the radio is there and somebody is paying SOCAN some fees for the public performance of the music on that radio station.
We licence the public performance of music in concert halls. Every time somebody goes to a concert, either at the Rebecca Cohn Auditorium or the Metro Centre or any other concert, there is a fee paid by the hall to SOCAN to compensate the creators of the music whose music is performed that night. It could be as low as $20, and the fees escalate on how the gate goes that night. By the way, if anybody has any questions at any time, please feel free to ask.
SOCAN will licence virtually, like I said, any type of public performance and any type of user. It is not how the music is performed as much as who performs the music and where the music is performed. The licence is never issued to the performers, the licence, in accordance with the Canadian Copyright Act, is always issued to the people, to the
organization where the music is presented. According to the law, they do authorize the public performance of music and, therefore, they have to obtain the licence.
The licence fees vary. It could be anywhere from $20 for a concert; it could be $20 for a sporting event; it could be $80 a year for a bar where live music is presented; it could be $90.38 per year where background music is performed in a commercial establishment; it could be $180 if you have a DJ in a bar. It could be anything. Do you have a question, because that is technical stuff.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We usually wait. If you get these guys going with questions, your whole presentation might go. We have to be a little more formal because we are being transcribed.
Mr. Dooks has a question for you.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: Is the presentation complete?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Why don't you go ahead then, if you have a question.
MR. DOOKS: No, I have a general question. I was just putting my name on the list.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The other thing, too, that I might mention as Chairman is that sometimes there are issues that you have, even at the federal level, of a legislative nature, regarding the Copyright Act or something like that. If there are things like that, or something you would like to see improved, that you feel either the provincial government or federal government could do, it may be a good idea to leave it with us here this morning and highlight that. I know most groups always have something on the go you would like to see improved, particularly relative to copyrights, I am sure there must be lots of controversies in that way.
I would just mention that this morning before we get into questions, if there are things of that nature that you think we maybe could be of help or at least should be aware of as provincial legislators, these are the people who help write the legislation in the province and are also interacting with their federal MPs at their own local levels. I would just mention that.
MR. ALBERT: I would have maybe just a short explanation of how we do things. We contact music users from the information we have everywhere, either newspapers, radio stations, Web sites, information provided to us by the members, and we do get in touch with all the music users in sending out pertinent information. We do get in touch with them after the fact, in providing them answers to their queries or more information as to what they might require.
There is staff in the office: there are four people in the office, and there are two people on the road to do the whole Atlantic Region. We do visit a lot of people and organizations, answering questions and meeting these people. Basically, this is how we do things.
MS. CORNELL: John, would you like to say a word about SOCAN?
MR. JOHN GRACIE: Sorry for being late. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Cornell, and for the record, we will introduce John Gracie, who you have graciously asked to speak. Again, welcome this morning, John. We know the traffic was heavy, because others were held up as well.
MR. GRACIE: I don't feel so bad now. It is nice to be here. As a singer/songwriter, part of my career is based on performing, and I get paid for that. The other part is songwriting and the ownership of my performing rights. I rely on SOCAN, solely, to collect monies for the uses of that music. For instance, if I make a CD and I sell it, somebody goes out and buys it retail, they could then, possibly, turn around and use that recorded music for public performance; for instance, they may play it in their gatherings or receptions.
I have a friend, actually, who is a DJ in Cape Breton, and he uses recorded music. There would be no way for me to collect any kind of stipend for the use of my recordings if it wasn't for SOCAN, because obviously it would be impossible for me to log or to keep track of all kinds of different uses from all over the country. Basically, as an artist, not the singer part but the performance part, we rely on SOCAN to collect those monies. Just recently, we were paid our quarterly. It can be quite a substantial part of your income for a performer.
When I first got in the business, I didn't really understand what SOCAN was all about until I got my first cheque, and then I realized (Interruption) It was money, absolutely, even later on down the road, as I learned how to present myself with SOCAN. For instance, I was doing a lot of concert performances and I wasn't registering my performances with SOCAN, and learning through the process that when you register and you let them know exactly what you are doing and how your music is being used, it becomes a real advantage to the performer and they start to see money from places that they would never have realized.
It is something that people who use music, I know sometimes have a hard time dealing with when they say, I bought the CD, I should be able to play it for anybody. It is the same kind of idea, if you go out and rent a movie you can't then charge people $5.00 to come into your hall and show the movie. When they use music to entice people into their halls, bars and activities, of course we all believe and know that the artist who has presented that art form should be compensated for that.
That is about all I have to say. It is one of those things where a lot of people are really in the dark about how SOCAN benefits an entire group of people, and those people are the songwriters and the creators of copyright material. I, for one, am a firm backer of SOCAN in the sense that they have always been very approachable. I have known Richard for years now and Gini, and they work very well with the community.
MS. CORNELL: We do urge our members to keep in touch with us and let us know if they are going to a foreign country or just what they are doing locally. We put it on a system and everything is tracked so that those pennies do start to add up to dollars.
MR. CHAIRMAN: In the times ahead, are you going to need any help in legislation? I don't want to dwell on that, but when we hear tell of the stealing of the CDs on the Internet and these sorts of things, are there things there that you are going to be looking for protection?
MS. CORNELL: We have an Internet tariff that states that the providers have to pay a fee to SOCAN, so much per subscriber to their service. Currently, because of other initiatives that we have taken on, we haven't really started enforcing that as yet. It is going to take a lot of policing and a lot of extra man-hours that we just don't have right now. It is coming. We are not so much involved with Napster or that sort of thing because of the fact - well, we discourage it because it almost makes our composers appear that it is free music. Where we only look after the performance right, we work with the mechanical rights people which is the people who look after the reproduction of music. Basically, the performance right has a different collective that looks after the reproduction right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I know that every committee works a little differently. This is my first time for chairing this one. I noticed the other day we went around the table, but I know Mr. Dooks has a question and if we want to work informally, is that okay with committee? If we just do it that way, I think it is maybe better. Mr. Dooks.
MR. DOOKS: I would like to welcome the visitors here today on this lovely morning. Just a couple of questions. In your presentation this morning you said that you have a very heavy workload. It must be awfully hard to police this. How many do you have on staff that serve the Atlantic Region?
MS. CORNELL: In Atlantic Canada, there are six of us.
MR. DOOKS: And you have to keep track, record, bill and pay out, does this take place in your office?
MS. CORNELL: In actual fact, most of our licences are blanket licences. So, yes, we do have to administer the proper tariff and collect the licence fee for each of the different venues that we provide a licence to. The ones that need more work done are like the concerts,
because we depend on the promoter or the concert presenter to provide repertoires to us. We also depend on our members when they present a concert to provide us with the repertoire and then the monies get divvied up accordingly. The divvying up of the royalties is based on the licence fees.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. DOOKS: Would you say SOCAN is being more aggressive in collecting fees now than maybe five years ago?
MS. CORNELL: I wouldn't call it aggressive. We may be seen as being a little more aggressive, or breaking into different areas that we didn't. We take it one step at a time. We feel comfortable right now in Atlantic Canada that all the bars, hotels, skating rinks and that sort of thing are all licensed and on line. There are always other music users, that if we want an even playing field, if one person is paying then everybody else should be paying.
MR. DOOKS: What action would you take if you found out, we'll say, a certain group or a bar wasn't reporting back? Have you charged anybody? What type of action would you have . . .
MS. CORNELL: There are documented court cases, that is for sure. We have had to go as far as federal court with quite a few people. We have quite a few people with judgments against them, that sort of thing. We choose not to do that, we prefer not to do that, of course. Our role is basically to get out and educate the music user and make them understand or hope that they will understand that they collect a salary for what they are doing and so should the composers. A lot of operations - you can't have skating without music, you draw people into your establishment with music, that sort of thing.
It is an education process, is how I like to look at it. We certainly make every attempt. We send them as much information as we can over a period of time. Our field representatives, that is part of their job. If it has gotten to a certain point where our communication isn't going that well, we do have field reps come in and sit with clients. We arrange meetings. I have spoken before committees of different boards for regional organizations and that sort of thing. Food and restaurant associations quite often will bring us in so they have a better understanding.
MR. DOOKS: You represent new artists, and Shania Twain, would you be involved in collecting her . . .
MS. CORNELL: Yes we are.
MR. ALBERT: But not as a performer, as a songwriter.
MR. DOOKS: As a songwriter. We'll say Mr. Gracie played in a bar in downtown Halifax tonight. The bar owner would record that song or how many songs were played . . .
MS. CORNELL: No.
MR. DOOKS: He would just pay a fee?
MS. CORNELL: They just pay a blanket licence, and those fees go back into what we call distribution pools. We do direct distributions from about five different tariffs, music used on aircraft, concerts, circuses and ice shows.
MR. DOOKS: Different categories.
MS. CORNELL: All the other ones, like the background music, the karaoke licences, the live entertainment in bars, cabaret-type licences, those are blanket licences. They pay based on the amount of usage. Each different tariff has different criteria to base the usage on. All that money goes into distribution pools. We do direct licensing from the sampling we do off the radio stations also, that is the other one. From the sampling, we have a very good idea of what is going on across the country. There are over 500 radio stations in the country covering every genre of music. So we base a lot of information on what is out there being used at the current time.
Just as an example of how the pool kicks in, with the concert there is a minimum licence fee of $20. From that $20, we distribute $75. Then it goes on a scale upward, when you licence fees of $300 or more, the composers of the music get the $300 plus percentages of the pools from the other.
MR. DOOKS: How much does an artist pay to belong to SOCAN?
MS. CORNELL: Nothing.
MR. DOOKS: They don't pay anything?
MS. CORNELL: No.
MR. DOOKS: Where do you gain your revenue for your operation?
MS. CORNELL: We are basically not-for-profit, except for the IMJV part of it. We are working to increase revenues for our members through IMJV. We retain what is a globally-recognized percentage. Performing rights societies cannot retain more than 20 per cent for operating costs; the other 80 per cent, usually plus - we are usually under the 20 per cent - goes back entirely to the composers and their publishers.
MR. DOOKS: I know there are probably a lot of questions here, and I don't want to take up all the time, but I have so many . . .
MS. CORNELL: These are good questions.
MR. DOOKS: If I had my own band and I was hired to play for an evening in a dance hall, and I was to sing, not from recorded music but vocally, how would I register to do that?
MS. CORNELL: If you wrote the music, you would become a member of SOCAN, but if you are just a band out there playing someone else's music, again, that is where the blanket licence comes in. The hall would pay us the fee for having you in there to provide that entertainment.
MR. DOOKS: A local Legion, we'll say on the Eastern Shore, doing a fundraiser to promote their Legion or the school cafeteria or whatever, hires a disc jockey; that disc jockey comes in and people pay $5.00 to get into the hall. How much would that person have to pay SOCAN for that operation?
MS. CORNELL: In that particular instance, it is a one-off event, and if it is a dance, it is $57.55 for the event.
MR. DOOKS: I am glad you answered that question. There are a lot of rumours out there, obviously there are some people who still don't understand the mechanics of this. I have heard rumours that if you do a function now you have to pay $200 and, therefore, we can't put the function on. Education is very important. Since I have had the benefit to sit on this committee, and we have had representation, I guess, of all the music industry at least in Nova Scotia or Atlantic Canada, it certainly has opened my eyes, with information I will be able to take back to my constituency. I guess I will have to give up the questions now to other members on the committee. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We could come back, if you have some more.
Mr. Steele, then Mr. Barnet.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Bill asked so many good questions, he has really touched on many of the ones I wanted to ask. Maybe I could ask you to just elaborate a little on some of your answers. First of all, going back to a question that the Chairman asked about the provincial role here. The Chairman was asking about legislation. Intellectual property is a federal subject matter, but what role, if any, does our provincial government have in the work that you do? What are they doing now, and is there anything they could be doing better?
MS. CORNELL: I would hope that as MLAs, having this knowledge, when people approach you in your community that you can say yes, I know about SOCAN, and yes, they are a legitimate organization, and there are 21 different tariffs they collect under, and don't panic about this misconception of $200 an event and that sort of thing. Basically, we are very open people, we will discuss the situation as to what kind of event they are having, and steer them in the right direction for the licence fees. A lot of people say $57.55 is too much to have a dance, but if you take that and divide it by the number of people who are attending that dance, and you wouldn't have the dance without the music, it is actually pennies per person.
MR. GRACIE: I will just interrupt for a second. I was reading this for the first time myself last night. (Interruptions) I don't follow rules very well.
I was reading this last night for the first time, and I realized that - I am surmising, reading this pamphlet - I think what they are trying to do is change the paradigm. They are trying to change people's way of thinking. People now think music is free. I can take my CD, I can use it anywhere. I can take this audio art and use it for my purposes. I can hold a dance, I can make money, and I don't have to pay for the music. The important thing that I guess we should be asking you to do is to help us change the paradigm, help us change people's way of thinking, that music is not free. If you are going to use the audio medium of art, there are people out there who are creating this music, who spend money out of their own pockets to create this music and to proliferate it through the population.
I think a good thing possibly for the committee to take home is to help us change the way people think, the way they begin to think. Their first instant thought is music is free. I bought the CD, I should be able to do anything I want with it. I believe that is true, so long as it is private and it is not used in order for them to make money through that medium. I think that is probably one of the big things that we are looking for, for politicians to help us change that way of thinking.
The first thing that comes to mind now should be that music is not free, we have to pay. For instance - this is a great example because I run into this all the time - somebody is putting on an event, well we are going to pay for the beer; the hall is going to charge us, whether it is minimal or not; the printer is going to charge us, whether they give us a deal or not, or if it is for a good cause, they are still going to charge us to print tickets. Everything is going to cost, cost, cost, but when it comes right down to it, the first thing they think of is let's get a band for nothing. It is a good cause; they will get some exposure; let's get free music. I see it all the time. There is nothing mean-spirited about it, it is just the way people think. Their initial thought is always, music is free. When I read this last night, I can see whoever wrote this is trying to change the way people think, initially, about music.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Gracie. Graham, do you have more?
MR. STEELE: Just one more for now, anyway. I want to follow up on a question that Bill Dooks asked. We come across a lot of organizations in our constituencies. They are definitely not-for-profit. Sometimes they are just performing for the sake of performing and sometimes it is to do a bit of a fundraiser. But I want to ask about a slightly different one than Bill did. I used to sing in a choir and it was mostly Christian music, but not entirely. We were singing copyrighted music. The musical director knew that we should have been doing something, but she didn't look very hard because she was kind of afraid of what the answer was going to be. This was a group that went around to different churches and sang in different churches, but we were singing copyrighted music. What advice would you give community organizations like that as far as SOCAN is concerned?
MR. ALBERT: We always come back to the misconception like John. Thank you for what you said. I have been in this business over 20 years at SOCAN and its predecessor. It is a reaction we get all the time. First of all, music is free. Why should we pay for music? We hear music everywhere. Why should we be concerned with that? There is also the misconception, and you brought that up about the $200 every time music is performed. First of all, people usually don't read the material we send when we first approach them. We send maybe, two, three, four or five letters sometimes with usually the same information. Most people, like you said, are scared of that. They don't want to even read it; therefore they have misconceptions.
When people call the office and we go and meet with people and say, okay, that is a nice event, it will cost you about $20. Usually the reaction is, only $20? We are scared and we panic in front of those issues, having to approach a licensing body, approach people who will authorize things on behalf of other people, although we go to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and say, okay, we have to renew the licence plate. It is still a permission, a licence and we go ahead of time. But when it comes to music, why should we? People are right. It is a North American attitude where everything should be free. Nobody should pay for anything, but, obviously, everybody pays.
If the music that you are talking about was performed within a service environment, a religious environment, not a concert as such, those events are free. If they are part of a service, that type of performance does not require royalties, but if the choir director makes copies of sheet music or scores, he or she obviously has to obtain permission to do that and that is a different right . . .
MR. STEELE: That is not SOCAN's right. That is different. That is the reproduction right . . .
MR. ALBERT: No, these are published rights; we don't deal with that.
MR. STEELE: . . . and the reproduction right is administered by whom?
MR. ALBERT: Usually, for that type of music, directly with the publishers of the music performed and then they have a cost based on the number of copies that would be made. SOCAN involvement in that will authorize the public performance on that night and it could be anywhere between $20 and the sky is the limit as far as the revenues are concerned.
MR. STEELE: The problem for a committee organization like that is it is tremendously difficult, even the paperwork of contacting say 10 or a dozen or 15 different music publishers, many of whom are international, for the sake of making say 20 copies for a local choir.
MS. CORNELL: There is a Christian licensing service if you are copying sheet music. There is one agency who actually looks after that, for Christian music and, actually, Mora has it in a handout, all the different organizations, the different collectives and what they do. I noticed when I was looking through the information, it is in there in that instance but, certainly, if you are copying sheet music at random - you can approach CANCOPY, out of Ottawa, depending on what exactly you are going to be doing with that handout of music.
Certainly, if anybody had a question about any of the other collectives, that is a service that we provide. We try to steer people in the right direction so they can get the proper information. Certainly none of this is meant to be a big secret, that the community can't get to, and most people actually do start with us first.
MR. BARRY BARNET: Just a couple of things. As elected officials we have all received calls from community halls and groups who have received a startling invoice they weren't aware was going to be coming from SOCAN. I think you are right, they don't read the material provided but just the same many of these groups are non-profit groups who are trying to keep the heat on and the doors open and suddenly are presented with an invoice for a couple of years back for performances that happened and often performances that happened not as a result of activities that they had but as a result of activities that people who rented or used their facilities had. I certainly don't know how to respond to those groups and organizations, especially if there is a bill in the mail for $2,000, or $1,500. I would normally try to refer them back to you guys. What are we supposed to say to those groups?
MS. CORNELL: First of all, we don't invoice people. They tell us what they have had going on. So they, at that point in time, would understand what they owe SOCAN so it is not a surprise invoice in the mail. By that point in time we have had meetings or telephone discussions with them. Generally, we do not go back in years to collect licence fees. We start at the point of when the people are aware of SOCAN and the obligations. The fact that maybe they have ignored four or five letters, the fact remains they were aware that they had to get a licence and if they choose not to get a licence for 2001 activities, they hold off and in 2002, all of a sudden they say, gee, maybe we should look into this. Then, yes, we have
done everything in our power to make them aware that they have an obligation and they are infringing on copyright without this licence.
I know, volunteer boards, it is a problem, they are changing all the time. Still, if you are sitting on a board you do have a responsibility to report to the board that, hey, I got this letter and maybe we should look into it. To say that they are surprised with a $1,500 or $2,000 invoice, I find that very hard to believe because most community activities are covered under an annual blanket licence and it is $150 for every bit of music that they have going on in that hall.
MR. BARNET: Yes, well, I guess what I am referring to is a particular group in my area. They actually operate two halls. I am not certain what the letter said, but I got a frantic call from one of the volunteers who said they received a letter and it was going to cost them a significant amount of money. I don't recall the exact amount. The halls that they operate, the group itself, the recreation association that operates these halls never host performances or events themselves. It is private birthday parties, it is scouting groups, it is sports teams, it is these types of teams who host these events. Even the odd time when there is a band coming in, the band, actually, is the one that normally will host the event.
The question put to me was, why isn't it they are not going to the people who are actually hosting the event instead of the people who own the facility or operate the facility? When it comes right down to it, to me, it would seem that it would make more sense to go to those who perform the music, like DJs and performers, and say, okay, you are going to perform and you have to contribute toward SOCAN. Wouldn't that be an easier process? In terms of the recorded music, I have always wondered why there weren't two versions of recorded music, one for public use and one for private use. The publicly used one, obviously, would be more expensive than the privately used one because you would be using it over and over again. It would seem that it would be a much simpler way of collecting royalties?
MS. CORNELL: Pardon me, two different CDs?
MR. BARNET: Exactly.
MS. CORNELL: That would be pretty hard to please because once a CD is out there, it is . . .
MR. BARNET: Well, in fact, they do it with audio. You can get two versions of audio, one for rebroadcast or replay and one for personal use.
MS. CORNELL: Yes, there is a difference in those recordings though, because of the fact that they are going on radio or TV, there is a whole different type of recording. Just to back up a little bit and go over your questions about . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could just interject, where members have substituted, they may not have this, there is a long list that has been included and, Barry, I think your group would be at the very end, number 21.
MS. CORNELL: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that ties in if you would like to have a look at that.
MR. BARNET: I will.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But it has a gross figure number of $15,000, I think, on that group.
MS. CORNELL: Yes. Just to back up, just to respond to part of your question there, in accordance to the Copyright Act, which is what regulates us, it is the people who are authorizing that performance to take place in their establishment who hold the licence and, in actual fact, it is not the community hall that is paying us. In order for them to be properly licenced, if they don't want to pay it themselves, then they collect it from the people who are having the events in their hall. So they can go with a per event licence under Tariff 8 and collect it from their clients who are coming in and using their hall or they can go with the annual licence fee. If they don't want to collect from each person, they can pay $180 a year for the licence fee and more or less be done with any administration that is behind it.
MR. BARNET: I just have one more quick question and then I will pass it on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
MR. BARNET: I do have some others actually. Are there other societies like SOCAN that operate in Canada?
MS. CORNELL: There are many collectives, but we are the only one that looks after the public performance of music.
MR. BARNET: Okay, so what is the likelihood of another collective coming to a hall and saying, now, here is another bill?
MS. CORNELL: None.
MR. BARNET: None, okay. I will pass and then I will come back.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that is a good point though, because it helps clear up some areas where MLAs, and there are always two sides to the story often, when we first hear it, it is often much worse than what it turns out to be eventually.
MS. CORNELL: Of course.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But I think that is part of the way we do business and I think it is part of what John Gracie said about the whole perception there.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, my questions were similar to Mr. Barnet's in regard to why not go after those who are using the facilities and not the facility provider. Now, why aren't the DJs required to be registered? They are the ones who play the music, get paid for it, and provide a service. They just have to use the hall, or whatever. I was deeply concerned about the community organizations receiving this bill. You are probably familiar with the Lawrencetown Community Centre situation?
MS. CORNELL: Absolutely. I have been to visit them and their committees.
MR. HENDSBEE: Yes, and that was just one of many organizations that had received such letters of notification and their reaction is probably quite similar to a lot of incidents in regard to where did this bill come from and why do we have to pay this and, you know, we are just a non-profit organization trying to keep these doors open for the community to have a facility. Stuff like that, you know, it is quite understandable that they see this as another bill, another tax, another invoice that they shouldn't have to deal with.
Is there another way, for instance, what Mr. Barnet was suggesting, like I understand the musicians' union will not play at certain functions or places, or facilities, if the owners are not paying the going rates, or paying the fees, or whatever the case may be. Is there a way that the performers, or the music providers would have to make sure that these facilities were "registered", that you have a sticker on the wall, this is a SOCAN-registered facility, when they pay their fee and like the annual fee is, you know, there has to be some way of identifying that the facility has paid for it when people go in and, if it has not been paid for, recognize perhaps the performers will have to, I wouldn't say boycott, but not be permitted to use that facility.
MS. CORNELL: Well, we are talking two different things here: (a) we have nothing to do with the union, and (b) you are talking about performers and not the composers of the music. Quite often cover bands are everywhere. They are performing someone else's intellectual property. It is the composers, the intellectual property owners, that SOCAN deals with.
MR. HENDSBEE: For instance, when Mr. Gracie plays, he registers and tells where he is playing and stuff. I am sure you are paying your union dues, for one thing. I am not sure if the facility has to be charged anything for the performance, except for the SOCAN fees. I see that. For instance, he is paying his union dues as one thing, but he is getting paid his SOCAN royalties because of the music being played at that facility and that facility would have been charged for it.
MS. CORNELL: Mr. Gracie is talented enough to be a performer and a composer, so he gets paid by the hall or the person who hires him for the performance. He could be performing someone else's music.
MR. GRACIE: That is why when I started off I said, I am a singer and a songwriter. The singer part is a separate entity altogether. It doesn't even deal with SOCAN. As a songwriter, as the owner of a copyright, that is where SOCAN kicks in for me. My performance has nothing to do really with SOCAN.
MR. HENDSBEE: Why don't the performers, the cover bands, for instance, if they are part of the union, have an affiliation with SOCAN, because there is a crossover there.
MS. CORNELL: We have nothing to do with the union, they represent the performers.
MR. HENDSBEE: I can understand that, but what I am trying to say is why isn't there a requirement that SOCAN has a registration fee or registration with the performers?
MS. CORNELL: Under federal legislation, the Copyright Act, which is what we have to follow, specifically says it is the people who are authorizing the public performance to take place who are responsible to ensure that the proper licences are in place. So that puts it on the venue, whether they pay for it themselves or whether they collect it from their clients and remit it to SOCAN, there still has to be a licence in place. Should the venue choose not to collect from their client, they ultimately are the ones that are responsible. But if they don't have the licence fees or don't want to do it that way, some places you are paying the SOCAN licence fee, but it is incorporated into the rental fee or the lessee fees. So you may not even realize that SOCAN is getting fees out of what you pay for that hall. But it is the venue that is ultimately responsible, according to federal legislation.
MR. HENDSBEE: But I just see it the other way in regard to not just the venue, but perhaps to the performer or the service provider, be it the DJ, be it the band, be it whatever the case may be. They should be paying a fee because they are performing the music. They are playing other people's work. I think that there should be a way that perhaps they are the ones . . .
MR. GRACIE: I think what Gini was saying is that if the hall chooses to pass that cost on to the client, for instance to the DJ, then that is solely up to them. For administration, I think what you are saying is that it is a blanket tariff.
MS. CORNELL: Yes.
MR. GRACIE: If they in turn choose to bounce that tariff off you coming in to do a dance, you are going to have to pay me, the hall owner, a little bit in order to make up for my tariff every year. That becomes their choice whether they do that or not.
MS. CORNELL: And they do have a choice between the two different tariffs.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Donnell.
MR. CECIL O'DONNELL: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up or for a clarification on one of the questions Mr. Steele asked. This Sunday night we are having a night of gospel singing in the local church to raise funds solely for the purpose of the upkeep of the church. Do I understand that there is no licence fee for this?
MS. CORNELL: Is it part of a religious service?
MR. O'DONNELL: Yes, it is. Well, no, I shouldn't say that. It is just a night of gospel singing.
MS. CORNELL: Okay, if it is a concert in a church, yes you do have to have a licence. You can provide to us the repertoire that you are going to perform and if it is not within copyright, if it is public domain, then, no, there is no licence fee due. Public domain means that the last known writing contributor to that song has been dead for 50 years or more. In some countries, it is 70 years or more, so we would have to run it through our computers to figure out whether it was public domain or not.
[10:00 p.m.]
MR. O'DONNELL: So, the licence fee would be at what rate?
MS. CORNELL: It is 2.5 per cent of the gross ticket sales. If the ticket sales are under $800, it works out to the minimum of $20.
MR. O'DONNELL: So if there are no ticket sales, just a freewill offering?
MS. CORNELL: It is the minimum, $20.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you didn't cost your church another $20. At least you are being Christian about it. Mr. Clarke.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: I am actually glad you administer this, because if the government did, we would be accused of levying another tax on people rather than a user fee.
MR. GRACIE: It would be more than $20. (Laughter)
MR. CLARKE: Within the confines, I understand specifically for ensuring royalties are received and distributed, but SOCAN doesn't get involved with any industry advocacy or lobbying, say with Canadian content - you do get involved with that? So your mandate goes beyond royalties?
MS. CORNELL: Yes, very much so. We were very much involved in getting Canadian content up to 35 per cent.
MR. CLARKE: Okay, so you do play a lobbying advocacy role for the industry?
MS. CORNELL: Absolutely. We have people before Copyright Board hearings continually in Ottawa.
MR. CLARKE: So, what would your role be with other industry associations then, because of that? Is it just a collective that you would do that as part of a wider Canadian . . .
MS. CORNELL: No, I go out to almost every industry trade show and panel that I can get on, again just to let people know who we are, what we do, why we do it; get out there and talk to our members to continually reinforce to them that this is a business and you have to let us know what you are doing so you can maximize on what we are doing.
MR. CLARKE: Now, with your fee structure as listed here, how often is this reviewed in terms of how you set it up?
MS. CORNELL: Every year. It is reviewed by the Copyright Board. They are a little behind right now because there were a lot of hearings on different issues for the cable TV tariff - it got them a little bit behind, you will see some of them haven't been approved since 1997 - but also, we haven't put in for any increases. So, they should get caught up soon. I know the hearings are ongoing right now in Ottawa. Our people are over there now. We have to put in before March 30th every year our proposed tariffs for the year and then they have - like the year prior. So we put in 2002's by March 30th of this year and that gives them the other nine months to get caught up, supposedly.
MR. CLARKE: One of the things that may become a legislative component in the future - and probably once again federally - is this whole management issue with regard to the Internet. I know you said it has kind of been something that SOCAN wants to get a handle on. Where is SOCAN specifically with the Internet and people accessing music, with Napster being the most noted site?
MS. CORNELL: Well, where we are a collective, we are interested in getting it licensed, of course, so that our members can benefit from the licence fees received from that. Basically, we are out there helping other collectives lobby because of the fact that we want
to get over this misconception that music is free and you can just go on the Internet and download it and use it whatever way you want. Certainly, we are behind that 100 per cent.
MR. CLARKE: I would see that as a bigger threat than someone doing a gospel music fundraiser for a church hall, in terms of administering.
MS. CORNELL: We have a lot of priorities, that is for sure. I wouldn't say that your concert is a priority, but we try to make it as even as we can. We don't specifically go seeking out church choirs or anything like that. We have bigger issues certainly.
MR. CLARKE: John, you may have the answer to this - this is just out of interest - what is the growth of royalties in Atlantic Canada? I know the interest in Atlantic Canadian music has been a positive increase. Is that being parallelled in the level of royalties coming back to people that are singers and songwriters?
MS. CORNELL: Yes, and the number of members is increasing in Atlantic Canada as well.
MR. CLARKE: Do you track that percentage-wise - like the growth, I know you have six employees serving your members.
MS. CORNELL: In Atlantic Canada, we have about 1,800 members.
MR. ALBERT: I can tell you, I was here in 1984 when the office was opened. I came down from Montreal to move to the Atlantic Region. I will never go away, by the way. I have seen the progression from two people working in an office and one person on the road for the whole Atlantic Region, to where we are now, to the level we have reached where we can give a service now. Everything we did back in 1985-86 was to extinguish fires, to go with the biggest accounts and that. We couldn't even try to work our way down because there was so much to do for two people. But we have expanded, we have grown, and now there are six people altogether and we have a much better picture of what is happening in the region and also what kinds of services we can give to the membership because, like Gini said, we collect royalties on one side, but we provide services to the authors. Gini said sometimes, in the first place, people will call.
We give workshops and seminars. I was in northern New Brunswick a couple of weeks ago. It is amazing, even in 2001, the kinds of questions people will ask you. People are not aware of their rights. I think part of our mandate in business is to go and spread the good news to these people.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Michel, you are the only one who hasn't had a question. Graham has a back-up question. We will go to Graham.
MR. STEELE: I think Barry wanted to go again before I did, as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Barnet.
MR. BARNET: Just a couple of quick things. Looking down the list on your tariff summary sheet, a couple of things came to my mind and tweaked my interest. There are particular agreements that are set aside for specific places, Canada's Wonderland being one and Ontario Place being another. Why is that?
MS. CORNELL: Based on the volumes of music, attendance. Canada's Wonderland may have more theatre type shows, that sort of thing, than a normal theme park would have.
MR. BARNET: My next question is, something that you said earlier tweaked my interest and that was the fact of music being played in fitness facilities. I am as guilty as everyone, you don't really attach a value to it. You are right. You go in there and it is background music and you hear it. Often, the fitness centre that I go to, the music is being transmitted either through a television set or through a radio. Obviously if it is coming through the radio, C100 will be submitting to SOCAN. So, in that case, does C100 submit and the fitness facility submit?
MS. CORNELL: We don't collect royalties from public performances from the radio or TV because they are already paid for by the radio or TV station.
MR. BARNET: If you apply your tariff sheet, you collect $2.14, on an average, per person per day.
MS. CORNELL: If it is taped or CD music. If they are using solely the radio or TV as fitness music, we don't collect from them.
MR. BARNET: But if they use both, then they pay both. Essentially, you collect from both.
MS. CORNELL: Yes, and we collect by room. If one room is all radio we wouldn't collect for that room, we would only collect for the room where they are using the tapes or CDs, but if it is combined then they have to pay for the music that they do use. That is $2.14 per person a year for that music.
MR. BARNET: For example, the Sackville Sports Stadium, I don't know what they pay, I am not going to try to guess at what their royalties are. They put 1,000 on average a day through their fitness centre, one room. They would obviously pay, as well, for the gymnasium room where they do the cardio-dancing or whatever it is, the kick boxing and all that kind of stuff, so they would pay for that room. Would they pay for the pool as well, because they have pool exercise?
MS. CORNELL: Yes.
MR. BARNET: So they would pay for all of their rooms, based on the average of all the rooms for $2.14.
MS. CORNELL: Yes.
MR. ALBERT: That is the annual licence.
MR. BARNET: That is their annual licence per visit, so it is not per person it is per visit. If one person visited . . .
MS. CORNELL: The average number of participants per week is how it is judged. If they have three months during the summer where they don't offer those classes, that still counts as an average.
MR. BARNET: For example, their fitness room, where they put through 1,000 - well, it is over 1,000, it is 100 people an hour, they are open 12 to 14 hours.
MS. CORNELL: I can tell you they are not paying for 1,000.
MR. BARNET: Would they divide that by the number of rooms?
MS. CORNELL: No, they pay per room. (Interruptions) You have to have a licence for each room.
MR. BARNET: The other side of this, in essence, what you may do is you may encourage the Sackville Sports Stadium - and I don't even know if they do taped music, I assume they do taped music, but they will just go to all prerecorded music or C100.
MS. CORNELL: If they buy their fitness tapes from, I think they are in Calgary, actually, who have developed tapes of non-copyright, like library music, if they are using that then we won't collect the licence fees for it. They just have to let us know what they are doing. If they choose to go that way - I mean I go to aerobics all the time and I know my instructors don't use non-copyright music. It changes with the times, whatever.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I would like to go back to something that you touched on a little bit and that is enforcement, which is a loaded word. We don't have to use the word enforcement. I wonder if you could take us through the steps by which you would bring to someone's attention, say a bar owner or a community hall, their obligations, right up to the end of the
road in the most difficult cases. I wonder if you could take us through, from the beginning to the end, that road.
MS. CORNELL: Absolutely. We send out what we call our introductory package, when we find out that music use is taking place somewhere. They receive this licensing brochure explaining who we are and what we do. The covering letter basically lets them know, please call us, there is a licence fee due for this. If we know they are having Tariff 3A, which is live entertainment taking place, we send to them the Canada Gazette, outlining the licence fees for that type of music use. We ask that they contact the office over the next 21 days, I believe. If we haven't heard back from them probably within 30, 35 days, we will send them out another letter and state we haven't heard back from you, you do need to have this licence, and if you have any questions, we always encourage them to call us.
At that point in time, another 30 days pass, we still don't hear from them, our licensing people make a telephone call, or if we have a field rep in the area a field rep will drop in and sit down and make arrangements to speak with the owners or managers, explain to them, again, in person, give them whatever information they may need to be fully informed. If that doesn't work we do send them another letter that explains to them what copyright infringement is and what may happen - damages and sue for profits made from the music, that sort of thing. It really becomes clear at that point in time, that is the fourth attempt to let them know that they are infringing on copyright. From there, we do make other attempts by telephone, field rep visits, probably another letter.
At this point in time, you have probably seen at least five months go by of us contacting them at least once a month. Then I will send them a letter stating that they should seek legal advice and that if we don't hear back from them or their lawyers within the next 30 days that we will have to turn the file over to our solicitors for pursuit. Our solicitors will review the situation - not everybody gets to this, it just depends - we have priority accounts of course, based on the amount of music that is taking place. There are certainly bigger infringers than some. Our lawyers will write a demand letter at that point in time and probably phone calls if their lawyers get involved. Our legal department takes it from there.
It does take a while to get things into federal court. There is a huge backup. Our legal department is very busy. We make every single attempt to advise them along the way. We encourage them to talk to their lawyers before they make a decision not to pay SOCAN. Usually after a year, it is in the hands of our solicitors.
MR. STEELE: I imagine one of the challenges you are facing is that you have a lot of people who owe a relatively small amount of money, which means that it doesn't really pay for lawyers to get involved on either side.
MS. CORNELL: Yes, exactly. It takes a lot of work before we can get something before a federal court.
MR. GRACIE: That is why I think it is a great benefit to SOCAN to continue to try to educate the general public because they are not industry people, so they shouldn't be expected to understand where we are coming from right away. At some point you get back to what I said earlier, which is changing the way people think. I think these small offenders, if you took them collectively and brought them together, it would be a large amount of money for the society. I think the important thing is changing the way people think, so that the first thought that comes to their head is, yes, I am using copyrighted material, I am using somebody's art form to generate revenue and not the other way around. The first thing that they think of now is, the music is free. We will pay for the catering, we will pay for this, we will pay for that, but the music is free.
MS. CORNELL: We are fairly fortunate. We don't have a lot of those types of infringers. Actually a lot of our problems come from the bigger people. Once you start talking to a music user and divide it up by 365 days of the year, the amount of the licence fees, they usually start to realize, this isn't so bad after all. It is the law and they have to do it. I have been with SOCAN for 13 years and I have never referred a small case, even if I keep writing them for three years, they usually do come around.
MR. STEELE: I have just one more question if I can, just because I am curious. I wonder if any of you know what the top two or three most-played songs are composed by a Nova Scotian?
MS. CORNELL: I have that information, not with me. Actually, I get that information quarterly.
MR. STEELE: Do you know historically the all-time, record-setting songs composed - not necessarily performed by a Nova Scotian, but composed by a Nova Scotian?
MS. CORNELL: It would be recognized at our SOCAN Awards. Anybody that is in the top radio airplay gets an award. Bruce Guthro got an award two years ago. He was top country airplay, but of all time, I can get that statistic for you, but I just . . .
MR. STEELE: It is just out of sheer curiosity. Don't go to a great deal of work to find it. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are in good time, but there is no need just to fill our time, if everyone feels that we have covered the area. If I could, as chairman, Gini, you mentioned other collectors and I don't want to go back to something fairly basic but, again, going back to a group, who else could they expect to be coming to collect from them other than composers, authors and publishers? You mentioned other collectors who might be coming to them, or I may have taken it out of context.
MS. CORNELL: No, there would be no other collectives coming to them for their events, to collect on the music. The other collectives handle things like synchronization rights licences, which means the person who wants to put music with a film would have to obtain a synchronization rights licence, like the TV stations have to obtain from the creators that licence. There is the reproduction right, which is called the mechanical rights, and that is for any reproduction of the music. If I wanted to record one of John's songs, John is due - what is it? - 1.7 cents per song per the number of tapes or CDs that I manufacture?
MR. GRACIE: I think it is more than that, but yes it is in there, like 3 cents or something, 3.6 cents.
MS. CORNELL: Yes, but that is handled by the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency.
MR. GRACIE: Yes.
MS. CORNELL: There are neighbouring rights.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, funny, I had it underlined in one of these fact books, and I was going to ask you what that meant.
MS. CORNELL: Yes. Neighbouring rights is a new collective and currently they are only collecting from radio stations. What they do is they actually pay a royalty to the actual songwriters, the performers and the producers of CDs. I will use an example, Celine Dion, her voice made a lot of songs very famous and the producer of the CD, the way he produced it certainly was a contributing factor to the production of that CD. They would collect a neighbouring right because she doesn't write her own material. Somebody else wrote it. She is performing. So every time the song that she is performing is used on radio or TV, that station pays to the neighbouring right collective. (Interruption)
It is a type of performing right, but it is for the actual performer and the producers of the CDs. They have filed other tariffs with the Copyright Board, but it is a new organization and they just don't have the manpower at this point in time to be doing it. I believe they only collect from radio stations that have revenues over $1 million at this point in time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Those are my short questions. Are there any other questions before we leave, or any comments?
MS. CORNELL: We are very approachable. We want to work with the music users to help them recognize the value of music and, you know, it really is cents per song that these composers get back for their music. Certainly if any of your constituents have any questions, please encourage them to call anyone at the SOCAN office.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that would be very helpful. This morning, we now have put faces on the people there and if there are questions, such as Mr. Barnet mentioned, a quick call. I want to thank our committee for . . .
MS. CORNELL: I hope I have cleared up misconceptions about $200 per event.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is sort of like most things that come to us, there are always two sides to the story, and I think that is so important. The challenges ahead are quite exciting. I think other members have alluded to that, that this whole issue of databases and accessing those and following the trail of how people are reimbursed, not only your group, but the performers themselves and how some of the initiatives pay into pensions and all the other issues, the whole formalization of a system that has grown over the years from a very informal system into something that is now becoming able to be monitored.
MS. CORNELL: We are part of the big industry that wants consumers to recognize the fact that culture is very important to our lives, but there is a value to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So as the fellow says, Cecil, from up the shore where I came from, there is a famous saying, it is no disgrace to be poor, but it is terribly inconvenient. I think, John, you said it, it is nice to share music, but it is also nice to have a respectable recognition and remuneration.
Thank you everybody. We have two more meetings: Tuesday, May 29th and Tuesday, June 12th.
We stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:26 a.m.]