On a recent flight to the start of a tour in America, I read Don Tapscott’s article [“The Rights Stuff,” October] in enRoute. It said, “Looser copyright legislation will give artists and musicians their fair share and promote creativity for all.” I couldn’t disagree more. As a songwriter, I depend on royalties and album sales not only to live but also to keep the industry investing in my future. Technology has enabled people to access free downloads, and I embrace that technology, but there is a legal way to use it. Frankly, I am unimpressed by his lack of knowledge of the music industry, so I thought I would share with Tapscott a few points that would serve him well for future articles.

First of all, sir, I’m not “gainfully employed” by a record company. I’m gainfully self-employed. I run a company. I have employees (well... bandmates) who are on a payroll. I can employ great Canadian musicians because my record company is committed to promoting me. Financial tour support is a loan from the record company that I repay through the sales of my albums. If I don’t sell albums, I don’t recoup those expenses and never see a penny from my album sales.

I disliked the way that you suggest that record companies aren’t struggling with dwindling sales. The suggestion is that only mega-rich people like Shania Twain and CEOs with expense accounts are affected. You can dis Shania all you like, but her success has paid for many young artists to have development deals, for scouting new talent and for promoting other artists already touring. Every CD that isn’t bought, every song downloaded for free, is money that isn’t spent developing musicians.

In my case, I have been fortunate enough to work with legendary musicians, such as Willie Nelson, Benmont Tench, James Burton and Bob Dylan. I’ve performed in historic rooms, like the Ryman Auditorium and the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, and worked in world-class recording studios. I’ve performed on the Late Show with David Letterman (three times) and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (twice). All of this wouldn’t have been possible without my record company’s investment. These experiences have impacted my life on such a level that I will forever be empowered to strive for creative excellence.

As for technology, most artists use streaming to make their songs available on their websites to listen to for free. (And for the record, Napster and others were making income off their sites through advertising, offering free music without a single penny going to the actual people who keep those sites running: the musicians.)

You have some of your work available online to view for free, but imagine if someone had put your work up without your consent or knowledge. That is your choice, just as it is my choice to allow Air Canada to play my songs on their inflight radio [enRoute FM]. I don’t get royalties for it. I consider it a promotional tool to get people to, hopefully, after hearing a song, buy an album or even download songs through iTunes or Puretracks.

I cringed at the part of your piece where you mentioned how you go on a website to check out reviews and download jazz tracks. You said, “God forbid, the visitor might even click on the ‘buy it now’ button.” And that is exactly my point, sir. Only one in three people will, and that goes for album sales as well. Consider this: In Canada, I have sold about 15,000 copies of my album Back to Me. But because of downloading and file sharing, my album sales could have been as many as 45,000 copies. Those [lost sales] mean that my record company will be less likely to do advertising and my budgets will be smaller for touring and promotional events. The record company will advance me less money for recording, which will also affect Canadian recording studios, engineers, session musicians and producers.

You say the [Canadian] government, in pushing for stiffer copyright laws, is simply bending “to pressure from major entertainment companies” and not expressing support for the “actual musician,” but again, I think you are so wrong. Canadian musicians have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars every year from different grant and funding programs aimed at breaking artists domestically and internationally. Is the government not entitled to protect its investment in the music industry?

Are people stealing music? Yes. Do you go to the pump and leave without paying? Do you wait to see if those jeans actually break in to your liking before you decide if they’re worth buying? What message do we teach our youth? Can you argue that kids can’t afford CDs, DVDs and books? No. How have they been able to afford the technology that allows them to illegally access it? Ultimately, downloading music for free is stealing. I hope that any parent who has kids file sharing or downloading music will explain the importance of paying for music, books or other copyrighted material.

I love what I do and feel very fortunate to be doing it, but that doesn’t mean I’m less entitled to make a living at it. Copyright is the right of multimillion-album-selling artists as well as the right of songwriters who play at the local bar for $50 a night.

While you might not “measure the health of the industry by total sales,” they are the very core of its existence and its future. And we are more than happy to use the technology on the market to stay in the game.

Kathleen Edwards
Toronto

Don Tapscott responds >>