About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

IP Outreach Research > IP Use and Awareness

Reference

Title: An Overview of the Financial Impact of the Canadian Music Industry
Author: Douglas Hyatt [University of Toronto]
Source:

Ontario Media Development Corporation
http://www.omdc.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=6245

Year: 2008

Details

Subject/Type: IP Protection
Focus: Copyright, Economic / Financial Impact
Country/Territory: Canada
Objective: To measure the direct economic impact of the Canadian music industry and to collect information about Canadian music creators.
Sample: 700 musicians, songwriters and vocalists
Methodology: Web-based survey

Main Findings

Musicians are generally in favour of granting copyright owners a large degree of control over the use of their work: 67.3% believed that the artist should have complete control, 27% believed that they should have some control, and only 1.4% preferred very little control. The remaining 4.3% did not know.

Almost 71 percent of musicians viewed unauthorised music file sharing as either a "major threat" (37.6%) or a "minor threat" (33.3%) to the music industry. 15% believed it to be "no threat at all", and 14.1 percent responded that they did not know.

When asked about their attitude toward unauthorised file sharing services, slightly fewer than 40% of respondents agreed that those were "generally bad for artists because they allow people to copy or use an artist's work without getting permission or compensating the artist". About 15% expressed the opinion that file sharing "is not really bad for artists since it helps promote and distribute an artist's work to a broad audience". Agreeing with both statements, 34.4% of artists viewed unauthorised file sharing as both good and bad for musicians.

[Date Added: Aug 18, 2008 ]