Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-52—The Path Forward—Supporting Canadian and Indigenous audio content, SOCAN final submission

1. This is the final written submissions of SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) in response to Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-52 (“BNOC 2025-52”).
2. SOCAN supports and adopts the positions in the final submission of ACCORD.

Domestic Distribution Trends

3. Further to Chairperson Théberge’s request[1], SOCAN is pleased to provide further information below on domestic distribution trends for SOCAN writer members.
4. As previously mentioned, and as reported in SOCAN’s most recent financial report, in 2024 we collected $411.1M in performing rights revenue for the world’s repertoire of music used in Canada, of which $208.7M came from digital sources. These numbers are inclusive of online audio and online audiovisual services.
5. As a percentage, digital revenues made up 50.8% of SOCAN’s domestic revenues. However, SOCAN writer and composer members do not receive a proportional share of their royalties from digital sources. Instead, we see that for 2024, SOCAN writer and composer members received less than 20% of their distributions from digital sources (including online audio and audiovisual services). Put differently, notwithstanding that most of SOCAN’s revenues come from digital sources, SOCAN writer and composer members continue to rely on non-digital sources for over 80% of their domestic royalty distributions.
6. In reviewing our domestic distribution data, we see that the share for digital sources has grown from 4% of domestic royalty distributions in 2017 to 18.1% in 2024. There are year-over-year increases in domestic royalties distributed to SOCAN writer members from digital sources. However, a higher proportion of those domestic digital revenues are going to songwriters and composers outside Canada.

Clarification to SOCAN Data Methodology

7. We note in Spotify’s reply that they criticized SOCAN for using a methodology that “ignores all Canadian songwriters represented by publishers” in determining our Canadian stream share data.[2] This criticism is incorrect. The methodology used by SOCAN excludes all SOCAN publisher members, but includes all SOCAN writer members, inclusive of all songwriters and composers whether they are represented by publishers or not. As we noted, the purpose for excluding SOCAN publisher members is to exclude distributions for foreign songs that publishers may represent in Canada.[3]

SOCAN Supports “MAL” Definition of “Canadian Musical Selection”

8. In determining a new definition for “Canadian musical selection” SOCAN supports the Commission’s “MAL” proposal requiring two of three points be earned for either a Canadian composer, performing artist, or songwriter. SOCAN also reiterates its support for the ACCORD principles for redefining a Canadian musical selection.[4]
9. The “MAL” proposal is an evolution of the current “MAPL” system that provides the following benefits:
   • Broadcasters that have been complying with “MAPL” will be able to leverage the songwriter, composer and performing artist data that they are already using to comply with “MAL”:
   • The “MAL” proposal does not require broadcasters to obtain new data for criteria that did not previously exist;
   • The “MAL” proposal increases the number of Canadian songs that will qualify as Canadian musical selections based on the loosened requirements that allow collaboration with non-Canadians, providing a deeper pool of selections for broadcasters to choose from;[5]
   • The “MAL” proposal continues to recognize the distinction between songwriting and composing, awarding individual points for each activity; and
   • The “MAL” proposal requires that a Canadian musical selection have a Canadian connection to either the lyrics or musical composition to qualify.
10. The “MAL” proposal efficiently expands the Canadian musical selection definition to benefit both creators (who can collaborate with international contributors) and broadcasters (who will be able to utilize existing data and have a larger pool of songs to draw from to comply with presentation requirements).
11. We remind the Commission that SOCAN presented two clarifications to the “MAL” exception for solely instrumental works to ensure that it applies to (i) solely instrumental music, and (ii) requires a Canadian composer.[6]
12. As for the metadata issues raised by online audio services with the application of a Canadian musical selection definition, we support ACCORD’s position as expressed in its final written submission that the online audio services will be able to gather this information for, at a minimum, a smaller pool of the most-streamed songs on the online platforms, which reflects the majority of streaming done in Canada.

Opposition to Defining a Canadian Musical Selection Based Solely on the Contribution of a Canadian Performing Artist

13. SOCAN opposes the proposals put forward to allow a musical selection to be defined as Canadian solely based on the participation of a Canadian performing artist. This is the proposal preferred by virtually all broadcasters.
14. The Commission has already expressed that Canadian performing artists are the “most visible, easily recognizable and identifiable contributors for audiences” but the Canadian musical selection definition is designed to “support a variety of Canadian artists involved in the creation of musical selections.”[7] The Commission also noted that adopting a definition based solely on the participation of a performing artist could “fail to support the contributions of other artists (i.e., songwriters and composers)” and could “reduce the diversity in the selections broadcast.”[8]
15. The Canadian musical selection definition was designed to provide support for content that might otherwise not get made (and might otherwise not be broadcast) and to create a sustainable homegrown Canadian music industry. Changing this definition so that a musical selection could qualify as Canadian with only the contribution of a Canadian performing artist would be contrary to these purposes.
16. As a result, we strongly urge the Commission to reject this proposal.

Measuring “Clear” Promotion and Recommendation of Canadian Musical Selections

17. Over the past two years, SOCAN has provided data in these proceedings to approximate a Canadian stream share of music on the online audio services. We have outlined and disclosed the methodology for this data and the assumptions that were made in producing it.[9] The Canadian stream share measure that we were able to develop aligns with independent research performed by a variety of other interveners in this proceeding.[10]
18. There are two things for the Commission to take away from this data: (i) a Canadian stream share can be used as a relevant measure for determining if content is being clearly promoted and recommended; and (ii) that replicating this measure is possible based on the number of intervenors who were independently able to come up with their own Canadian stream share data.
19. That is, even if the Commission or others disagree with SOCAN’s methodology for determining a Canadian stream share, that is not enough to write off this measure as inappropriate. Rather, based on the numerous other intervenors who were able to determine a Canadian stream share, it appears that this is a simple measure to develop according to whatever methodology is deemed to be the most accurate.
20. As we suggest, the Canadian stream share is a relevant measure for the Commission as it is connected to how often Canadian music is being streamed on the online audio services, which would correlate with higher promotion and recommendation efforts by those platforms.

Parallels to Historical Commission Proceedings

21. As the Commission may be aware, SOCAN is celebrating its 100^th anniversary as an organization in 2025. As part of these celebrations, SOCAN has reviewed historical documents from our predecessor organizations, CAPAC and PROCAN, and we came upon a summary detailing the issues facing the Canadian music industry before the implementation of the Commission’s regulations in 1971.
22. CAPAC had identified an issue that, notwithstanding all the revenues it had collected for the use of music in Canada, hardly any of those revenues were staying in Canada and were being distributed outside the country to non-Canadian creators.
23. The problem at that time was that Canadian record companies were not recording Canadian music, because broadcasters relied almost exclusively on non-Canadian music. The position of the Canadian record companies was that there was no incentive to record Canadian music because the broadcasters would not play it. The position of the broadcasters in turn was that they would love to play Canadian music, but there was no Canadian music to broadcast. It was an industry stalemate.
24. Eventually, the Canadian content regulations as we know them were announced, and those rules provided space for Canadian record companies to record Canadian music (knowing that broadcasters would play these songs and expenses could be recouped through royalties) while providing enough music for broadcasters to fulfil their airplay requirements. This decision had the effect of creating a homegrown Canadian music industry that is the envy of other countries’ worldwide.
25. A similar problem exists today that parallels the issue in that prior proceeding: revenues are being generated in Canada from the online audio services for music use, but the vast majority of those revenues are being distributed to non-Canadians. While a Canadian music industry exists, its future in the current context is precarious.
26. This proceeding is important to define what the next generation of the Canadian music industry will look like. Although this is the same historical problem that the Commission has faced previously, the reality of on-demand music consumption may require new creative solutions.

Conclusion

27. SOCAN thanks the Commission for considering its final submission in this important consultation and we look forward to the Commission’s decision on this matter.

[1] CRTC 2025-52 Hearing Transcript (September 25, 2025), at lines 3054-3056.

[2] Spotify Reply (June 5, 2025) at paragraph 33.

[3] SOCAN Submission (May 5, 2025) Appendix 1, at paragraph 7.

[4] ACCORD Submission (May 5, 2025), at paragraph 4.

[5] See: SOCAN Submission at paragraph 11. Based on research conducted by SOCAN on the top 5,000 songs that include a SOCAN writer or composer member, and only determining eligibility based on the “M” and “L” points, under “MAPL” 2,814 of the top 5,000 songs qualified (56%), whereas under the “MAL” proposal this jumped to 3,706 of the top 5,000 songs (74%) qualifying as Canadian musical selections.

[6] Ibid., at paragraphs 14 to 19.

[7] Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2022-332 at paragraph 186.

[8] Ibid., at paragraph 186.

[9] SOCAN Submission, supra note 5, at Appendix A.

[10] For example: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2025-52 at paragraph 69 notes that the Department of Canadian Heritage identified a Canadian stream share of 10.2%; Hearing Transcript (September 18, 2025) at paragraph 41, Stingray confirmed around a 10% Canadian stream share from its internal data, Music Canada Submission (May 5, 2025) at Appendix A, Music Canada commissioned a study showing a 10.5% Canadian stream share out of the top 10,000 streamed songs in Canada, and in the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Submission (May 5, 2025) at paragraph 32 they refer to a  commissioned report showing a 7.6% Canadian stream share for the top 10,000 songs over an 11-week period.