Re:Sound is exercising its rights in the form of a new tariff on recorded music used to "accompany physical activities" in Canada.

(Wikimedia)

Re:Sound is exercising its rights in the form of a new tariff on recorded music used to "accompany physical activities" in Canada.There is now a tariff for the use of recorded music in thousands of gyms and other venues in Canada. No doubt, there will be attacks on this “tax” – as it will inevitably be called.

Five years and three months after this proposed Re:Sound “fitness” tariff was filed, and two years and two months after the hearing was finished, the Copyright Board has determined in its July 6, 2012 decision that none of the evidence submitted by a parade of expensive experts was sufficiently reliable to form the basis of a calculation for a tariff for fitness clubs, gyms, dance studios, etc. Still, the Board certified a tariff based upon a simple calculation flowing from some SOCAN agreements with various fitness centres and dance class providers, filed at the Board’s request. SOCAN represents composers, authors and publishers. Re:Sound (formerly NRCC) represents performers and record producers.

According to a just released decision by the Copyright Board: 

•  A fitness club that plays sound recordings in Re:Sound’s repertoire during fitness classes will pay a fee of $105.74 per year.
•  A fitness club that plays sound recordings in workout areas will pay according to the existing Re:Sound background music tariff, which is based on either attendance, capacity or floor area. Assuming attendance can be measured, it will pay 0.08¢ per attendee.
• A skating venue will pay 0.44 per cent of its revenues from admission, with a minimum fee of $38.18 per year. Venues with no admission revenues will pay the minimum fee
•    A venue that offers dance instruction or any other physical activity will pay a fee of $23.42 per year.

 Somebody will have to pay for these tariffs. It remains to be seen whether the thousands of establishments that are now liable for it pass the costs onto customers or absorb the costs remains to be seen. How much will these venues pay? According to the Board:

•  A small fitness centre with about 200 members and no fitness classes should pay about $16 per year if background music is played in its workout area.
•    A large fitness centre with 2,000 members that plays sound recordings both in its classes and as background music in its workout areas should pay about $280 per year
•   A dance instruction venue and any other physical activity venue will pay $23.42 per year
•  Skating venues with admission revenues will pay on average royalties of $60 per year. Venues with no admission revenues will pay the minimum fee of $38.18 per year.

How many fitness clubs are there in Canada and what are the revenues of the fitness club industry? Here’s what the Board says: 

•  According to the evidence filed, there are  5,047 fitness clubs in Canada. The total revenues of the fitness club industry were estimated at about $2 billion in 2008.

There’s a lot of money at stake here. In fact, the Board says that Re:Sound was seeking “roughly $86 million per year.”

Is this a “tax”? Here’s what the Board says – in a quite unusual anticipatory defence in a “Fact Sheet” of the inevitable comparison to the dance and wedding “tax”, the now defeated and defunct “iPod tax”,  as Ministers Moore and Clement called it:

Is this tariff a tax?

No. Taxes are introduced by government, collected by government and spent for government purposes. This tariff is a royalty, paid for the use of someone else’s intellectual property, to be collected by a not-for-profit collective and distributed to individual rights holders. The purpose of such royalties, established under the Copyright Act, is to provide fair compensation to performers and record labels for the use of their sound recordings.

However, it’s not quite that simple. For a tax to be a tax it does not necessarily have to be collected by government. Apparently, the “tax” issue was not raised by objectors.

However, Courts are increasingly looking at just what is and what is not a “tax” – and the consequences can be quite interesting. Who would have thought that Obamacare could be saved by a finding of the US Supreme Court that it is actually a “tax”?

In 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal came very close indeed  to agreeing with me (arguing on behalf of the Retail Council of Canada) that the CD levy was a “tax” under Canadian law, which would have rendered it illegal because, if it were a  “tax”, it had not been properly dealt with by Parliament.

This Government clearly thought that the proposed iPod “tax” was a “tax” and refused to allow it into the Copyright Act.

Another interesting aspect of this new tariff is that it is significantly retroactive – in fact, back to 2008. There is no reference to any jurisdictional objection to such retroactivity, although there are some potentially very interesting arguments that might have been made.

One of these days, there may be a serious challenge to the Board’s practice of imposing tariffs with a long retroactive reach. The reason that Board tariffs are retroactive is ultimately quite simple. It usually takes the Board a very long time to get to a hearing and then often at least another 18 months – in this case two years and two months – to render a decision. These are much longer timelines than we normally see in Courts. The Board’s Chairman, Justice Vancise, a very experienced appellate judge from Saskatchewan, has indicated that he is trying to do something about these long timelines.

In the end, and after all of the expert evidence that the Board found to be wanting, the Board  simply looked at some SOCAN agreements and discounted the average amounts it to account for Re:Sound’s limited eligible repertoire. It expressed a considerable lack of satisfaction with the result:

[172] We note that our decision comes after a

lengthy and difficult process made no easier by the

lack of reliable and relevant evidence. Our

preference is to set tariffs based on strong

economic evidence presented by the parties. In this

case we were not able to do so. As stated above, in

our opinion the 2008-2012 tariff for fitness

classes is transitional. The next time we examine

Re:Sound Tariff 6.B, it would be preferable to

also have SOCAN 19 before us. We would then

be able to consider all of the relevant economic

evidence and set both of these tariffs

simultaneously.

In fact, the Board considered setting “no tariff” on the basis that the expert evidence of both sides was rejected by it as “unreliable”. However, the Board did accept the factual evidence of the parties.  Accordingly, it believed that it must set a tariff, unlike in a recent SOCAN case where is declined to do so on the basis of lack of evidence. I and others argued that case in the Court of Appeal in support of the Board’s conclusion that it was not required to certify a tariff – even a “nominal” tariff - in the “absence of proper and reliable evidence”.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the mainstream medium to start calling this a “fitness tax” or an “exercise tax”.  

t will be also interesting to see whether there is judicial review (i.e. an “appeal”) of this “fitness” decision. There are 30 days from July 6, to serve and file a notice appeal here.

HPK

The Big Fat Canadian Wedding “Tax” – SOCAN + Re:Sound + AVLA - Pay Three Pipers and Double for Dancing

1566 The Wedding Dance by Pieter Brueghel the Elder

The Copyright Board has recently delivered reasons and a tariff for Re:Sound for the use of music at “live events”. Re:Sound represents record companies and performers. SOCAN has been getting paid for these types of “events” for many years. Re:Sound is now playing catch up. And the Copyright Board is letting it do so retroactively back to the beginning of 2008.

The tariff item that that is naturally getting the most attention is for weddings, which are considered to be “receptions”. There are numerous media references to this as a “tax” and to the fact that it’s retroactive. Indeed, the media focus on this tariff is remarkable, compared to most other Board tariffs .  The Board will presumably take note of all this media coverage, since it now has recently entered into a contract with a "newspaper clippings and reports services" provider. The new tariff also covers other live events such as parades, parks, fireworks displays, circuses and lots of other places. 

One odd thing about the wedding tariff is that it gets doubled if there is dancing. There aren’t many weddings without dancing.  It‘s not easy to figure out why dancing should double the tariff. This is why many may see this as a “dance tax” or even a “wedding tax”.  Depending on how many wedding guests are present, the “tax” payable to SOCAN and Re:Sound can be as much as $253.45, if recorded music is used. (If only live and no recorded music is used, Re:Sound needn't be paid). Presumably, SOCAN’s and Re:Sound’s roving inspectors don’t count as “guests”. And the Copyright Board is permitting and encouraging the sharing of information between SOCAN and Re:Sound.

But that’s not all folks. If you use a DJ, the DJ has to get a copyright license from AVLA – another music industry collective - for the privilege making mechanical reproductions (unless the DJ does not pre-record anything, which would be rare) – for which the DJ will certainly charge the happy couple either directly or indirectly.

It’s true that most people do not tend to get married very often. And many weddings cost $25,000 or more. So, some may not be too concerned about the macro or even microeconomic aspects this particular tariff item. It won’t likely harm Canada’s economy overall or even the institution of marriage. 

But these little tariffs add up. The little tariffs such as $0.29 for a blank CD or $5.16 per year for each K-12 student, or $253.45 for a wedding soon add up to about $500 million a year in Canada. One is tempted to say that "A half billion here, a half billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money."  Copyright Board tariffs siphon huge sums out of the educational system, the broadcasting and telecom industries, businesses of all kinds that use blank media for ordinary data storage and transfer purposes, etc.  

Sadly, very little of this money through gets to the artists that need it the most.  This is because the copyright collective system tracks and rewards commercial success. Celine Dion, U2,  Lady Gaga and their record and publishing companies do very well by the this system but emerging creators see very little of this money. The ones who really and consistently benefit the most are those who run the collectives, those who are consultants to the collectives, and the lawyers who punctually pursue new and higher Copyright Board tariffs using money raised from the previous tariffs and paid for ultimately by the Canadian public. Many if not most Copyright Board hearings generate millions of dollars in legal fees in order to generate average annual payments to creators that are typically much less than a junior lawyer’s hourly rate. 

Canada is notable and perhaps even unique in its propensity for encouraging multiple tariffs requiring multiple payments to multiple parties for the same transaction. The Copyright Board sees no problem with this approach. It values each right separately, which results in significant additional complexity, hearing costs, and overall license and royalty costs that are inevitably passed on to consumers and taxpayers. We don’t see this nearly as much in the USA, where the Courts and Congress have gone to some length to avoid this phenomenon.  Canada has six times as many copyright collectives as the USA and a copyright tribunal with more than five times the staff and up to two more members than its American counterpart.

There were about two dozen parties opposed to this Re:Sound “live events” tariff. The Board, to its credit, went to some length to allow late interventions, since it took a long time for the thousands of potentially affected parties to realize what was about to unfold. The fact is that very few of Canadians even know about the Copyright Board, much less spend hours every year monitoring the Canada Gazette or the Copyright Board websites, which is where notice is given of these proposed tariffs.  One of the oldest and most cynical observations in Ottawa is that the best way to keep a secret is to publish it in the Canada Gazette. Sadly, this is still true to a great extent – even in the age of the internet.

There was no oral hearing in this instance, which is perfectly understandable – since probably none of the institutional objectors or interveners could have afforded or justified the six or seven figure costs of getting that far. Cost is no problem, however, for Re:Sound – since it has huge cash flows from previous tariffs and it has only one mission – which is to establish and enforce new and higher tariffs. 

It is entirely possible that this “multiple tariff” and “layering” problems may be addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the eagerly awaited “pentalogy” of cases from the Copyright Board heard on December 6 and 7, 2011 – all of which emanate from the Copyright Board.

If not, this issue may rise to the top of the list of priorities for the next wave of copyright law reform. In an era of “no new taxes”, Canada’s copyright system is the gift that keeps giving to its more than three dozen copyright collective, their consultants and their counsel. And Canadian citizens from newlyweds to university presidents are beginning to take notice.

HPK 

PS - here's some coverage from CTV that has been updated to include some information about Re:Sound and its tariff revenues.