Kevin Keller is General Counsel at Super, a Series B startup with business verticals in travel, fintech and commerce. Before Super, Keller worked at many notable technological companies, such as Facebook, Microsoft, Instacart and Amazon. He is a first-generation college graduate who obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from Brigham Young University and JD from New 91��ɫ School of Law. Keller generously offered his time to the IPilogue to discuss his experiences to inspire law students interested in supporting startup companies.

How has your background as a first-generation college graduate influenced your approach to your legal career?

Those of us who are first-generation graduates can fall into one or two groups; some may be overly cautious and conservative with their approach because they’ve gone so far, learned so much, secured the job, and obtained the education. They have already taken so much risk, going outside every expectation, that turning down a solid and more predictable path is one step too far. Then there’s a group of people who will take every chance because they have nothing to lose - you get a lot of entrepreneurs that are first-generation.

I started my career a little more conservative. But, as I went further along, I got more comfortable with risks and decided that I could lean on my own skills and experiences. Taking those risks has, by and large, led to greater outcomes for me and my career, but it can be hard to do as a first generation.

What’s the story behind how you became one of the founding members of InSITE, one of the world's first technology incubators/launchpads?

I realized mid-way through law school that there was a part of me that was entrepreneurial.

I shared this feeling with Alex Cohen from Columbia Law, and we decided that if something didn’t exist that gave us the opportunity, we would have to create it. We went to both the law and business schools of our schools and put up posters claiming that we were starting an elite group, with venture capitalists and the hottest startups in the city. We had none of that, but we decided that’s what we were going to have. We eventually got Fred Wilson on board and got some law firms to provide us with space and funding. It came together, partially through force of will because we wanted to create something that didn’t exist.

Oftentimes, when I’m looking at resumes during a hiring process, I look for whether in absence of something, [the applicant] created it - if they were entrepreneurial in some fashion.

You spent 11 years at Amazon and were the first attorney hired by Amazon’s Lab126. You were also named as an inventor on 17 issued and 6 pending Amazon patents. What was it like being a part of the legal and engineering team?

Lab126 was formed by Amazon to develop its hardware products. When I joined, I was sitting alongside everyone. It’s one of the things about joining a start-up that is kind of unique and fun for attorneys - you’re there in the thick of it with the rest of the employees. This environment led me to think of ideas for how the products could work together or how we could make something that might help us around a regulatory problem in a customer friendly way. I was super privileged to be able to participate in that creative process.

You have seen a lot of major tech companies in their initial stages of development. What key roles do you think the legal team had in ensuring the success of these companies?

It’s a fine balance. A good legal team will identify significant risks, but also allow start-ups to be start-ups - they’re going to take some risks and that’s ok. Even with experience, it’s still nerve-wracking as an attorney to know that there are rocks that you haven't overturned, but you have limited time and resources so it’s necessary for you to apply your judgment to best posit which are most likely to harbor significant risks.

Can you briefly describe your company Super? What advice would you give to students who are interested in pursuing a legal career in a start-up?

Super is a startup with business verticals in travel, fintech and commerce. Altogether, we have SuperCash, SuperTravel, and SuperShop, and they are all under the umbrella of “Super” with the overall mission to help people save and build credit.

For people who want to go into start-ups, you’re probably not going to be right out of law school. The first attorney, the start-up hires because they’re going to want someone who can jump in and do everything across the board. Even if you are that one person with experience, it’s difficult to have all that experience - employment, real estate, compliance, corporate, security, intellectual property… hopefully not bankruptcy. There’s a combination of classes that could be helpful: venture capital or corporate finance courses that talk about funding would be very helpful. Some general knowledge of IP would also help, it doesn’t have to be deep. I would consider myself an IP expert at this point in my career, and the only course I took in school was Trademarks.

I just hired someone in November who was largely in corporate security and M&As. Now she’s two months in supporting our marketing team, doing some trademarks analysis, dealing with consumer complaints, working on our end-user agreements and thinking about privacy and doing a great job of learning that stuff quickly. You’re not gonna have everything but you need to realize that even without everything, you have that one core skill set of being able to learn things fast, and that’s something valuable you can bring to the start-up.

Note from the Interviewer:

I would like to express my gratitude to Kevin Keller for taking the time to participate in this interview and sharing his valuable insights into his experiences across various roles within the tech and start-up industries.

The post Working In-House at a Start-up: an Interview with Kevin Keller appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Though Sangeetha has built a practice in intellectual property, she did not come into law school with the sole intention of becoming an IP lawyer. “I have a science background, but didn’t know much about the practice of law, or even intellectual property, before starting law school. I took all the foundational courses in first year to keep my options open, and was an RA for an Osgoode professor during my first year summer. I took a copyright course in second year with Professor Carys Craig, and that piqued my interest in IP and lead to courses in patents and trademarks. Those were the courses I enjoyed the most in law school. Also, during my second year summer, I worked at Parkdale Community Legal Services, which provided my first exposure to litigation. We had the opportunity to examine witnesses and make submissions at oral hearings. My litigation experience at Parkdale changed my legal path. I ended up articling at Dimock Stratton LLP, a boutique law firm that specialized in intellectual property litigation, and this experience launched my career in IP. I loved the work that I did during my articles and I really liked the people who were mentoring and teaching me.”

Sangeetha has appeared as counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court, the Ontario Court, the Trademarks Opposition Board, and the Competition Tribunal, and also has an active prosecution and opposition practice focused on global trademark portfolios. Even with years of experience, an intellectual property practice comes with its challenges: “IP is such a fun area of law. The hard part on the advisory and litigation front is that nothing is ever certain: you can give odds or a likelihood that a case will go in a certain direction but you never really know how the evidence will come out or how a Judge will decide. On the protection front, there is a view that IP protection will garner automatic commercial success but it doesn’t work that way. Sometimes IP is a sword, other times, it is a shield, and sometimes it is broader than a sword and shield. A good IP team can help businesses decide how to creatively protect and enforce key business assets.

Sangeetha also notes how the practice of IP law has evolved: “The practice of IP law has become increasingly global. Although laws are largely jurisdictional based, a more global approach is taken by clients both with litigation and prosecution matters. Canada may not be the key market for most clients, but we always play a role. In the future, I see IP law becoming even more collaborative with international players. Even with more international collaborations, any skilled practitioner has to know their own jurisdictional landscape and how to creatively and quickly adjust to challenges, and maximize the pros and cons of your jurisdiction within the global strategy.”

Though Sangeetha has already had nothing short of an exceptionally successful career in intellectual property, she defines success in the role of an IP lawyer and litigator as someone who has a continuous desire to learn and is supported by a great team. “Especially when it comes to patents, when you learn about a technology, you need to understand it as well as the inventor. It always comes down to hard work and learning about the client’s business to best advise them on their IP strategy. The most important thing that you bring as a lawyer is critical thinking, which is a learned skill.

As a student or junior lawyer interested in pursuing a career in intellectual property, Sangeetha encourages individuals to continue to learn about the area. “If you think you’re interested in IP, talk to IP practitioners, take IP courses, utilize the incredible IP Osgoode resources, join committees, give me a call! It’s important to learn as much as you can and have a desire to work hard. When I meet a candidate, I want to know why they want to work in IP and perhaps more importantly, who they are, their beliefs, and the challenges they have faced in their lives. At the end of the day, your legal practice is just one facet of your life, albeit a large one, and therefore you want to work with the best team possible.”

Written by Alessia Monastero, Intellectual Property and Branding Lawyer and IPilogue Senior Editor.

The post So You Want to be an IP Litigator? Interview with Sangeetha Punniyamoorthy of DLA Piper appeared first on IPOsgoode.

1. You’ve been asked to speak at Canadian Music Week this year. Could you give us a sneak peek of what you are going to talk about?

I will be speaking on two panels this year. One of the panels, titled “,” will be moderated by Rich Bengloff of A2IM (American Association of Independent Music) and is designed to bring together US and Canadian government representatives, lawyers and music industry players to compare and contrast the legal environment as well as business developments in each country applicable to the music industry. The first part of this panel will be geared towards addressing recent industry developments in the recording and music publishing industries in Canada and the US.�� Personally, I will tackle Canada’s music publishing industry and, more specifically, the recent that was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada a few years ago and its impact on royalty rates applicable to downloads and streams of music. ��The second part of this panel will focus on a compare and contrast of the United States’ and Canada’s copyright law regimes, including recent developments in each.�� We will cover differences between the two regimes, including their respective approaches to fair dealing/fair use, availability of neighbouring rights, ISP notice and notice versus notice and takedown regimes and other contrasting points. Again, I will be tackling the Canadian side of this discussion and Richard Steffens, Minister Counselor of Commercial Affairs at the US Department of Commerce will discuss the American perspective.

The second panel, titled “” will be presented by the International Association of Entertainment Lawyers (IAEL), of which I am a proud member, and moderated by its President, Jeff Liebenson. This will also compare the American and the Canadian approaches; however, the discussion will be more focused on trends in new income streams and business models given recent changes in the music industry. My job on this panel is to update the audience on legal developments in the Canadian music law scene, the copyright pentalogy, and further reforms such as the recent case decided by the Supreme Court – if I can get to it in the short time allotted! This panel is mainly populated with US-based lawyers so I will be holding down the fort for Canada.

2. Why do you think Canadian Music Week is important for Canadians? What can Canadian artists and individuals learn from this event?��

Considering that CMW addresses a wide range of areas, there are numerous benefits to having this event. Some obvious benefits include the awards, educative panels, music festivals and networking opportunities, both formal and informal.

Sure, the week is helpful because it discusses the nuts and bolts of the music industry and the current events related to the industry, both in Canada and internationally. However, I find that the real benefit comes from the opportunity it affords to step back and consider the big picture.

Finally, there is a real benefit to the networking opportunities at these events. CMW not only attracts experts from within Canada, but internationally as well. Many of the industry folk I talk to from around the world seem to know of and respect CMW. This international exposure has the benefit of attracting international experts to speak at CMW conferences and panels, and consequently creates a great networking opportunity for event attendees.

3. You’ve had a fantastic career in the entertainment law industry in such a short period of time. How do you think the music industry and its legal landscape have changed since you first began practising entertainment law in Canada?

The legal landscape has changed tremendously since I first started practising entertainment law in Canada. I had the benefit of starting my music law career at the beginning of the latest technological revolution in the mid-1990s so I witnessed the early stages of the transition from physical to digital output of music. At that time, the music industry was likely at its height in terms of record sales so I was really able to see everything unfold. For example, there was the emergence of Napster and the consequential business model changes to address the issue of illegal downloading. From a legal perspective it has truly been a fascinating industry in which to practice. Since then, there have certainly been ups and downs in addressing the difficult legal issues that have presented themselves due to changes in technology and, generally speaking, the music industry is confronting a different economy now that it was in the 90s. As far as the work for lawyers, however, it seems that the demand has stayed fairly consistent.

Other than the obvious changes to the business models, there have been major differences in how people work in the music industry. It used to be that people would work in silos according to their areas of expertise; for example, you were either a music lawyer, or a tv lawyer, or a film financing lawyer or a fine arts lawyer.�� The niche aspect of the silos made you even more valuable to your clients seeking that particular expertise. Nowadays, all these different areas of the industry have started to collapse into new and mixed-silo business models and so if you work in a silo you are actually doing your client a disservice. For example, there is now a tendency to focus on the brand of the artist, as opposed to their music alone, which can result in the need to deal in all kinds of rights, including name and likeness, music publishing, recording, merchandising, live performance and other rights.

4. Similarly, what do you think are the biggest issues facing Canada’s music industry today?

In my opinion, there are three main issues facing Canada's music industry today. The first is ensuring that��artists are compensated for their music so that the music industry doesn't turn into the realm of�� a mere hobby. The second issue is finding a way to cause consumers to appreciate the value of music while the industry satisfies consumer demand for wide and easy access to music. Finally, we need to protect and enforce copyright in today's digital age where infringers can easily hide behind their ISPs in cyberspace, while balancing that with the need to protect privacy in appropriate circumstances. Legislative reform has recently finally proven to be one practical way to tackle these issues, but the developments of new ways of doing business in this industry must go hand-in-hand with that to make it really work.

Susan H. Abramovitch is the Head of Gowlings' Entertainment Law Practice. Her��practice covers all aspects of transactions and disputes in the music, film, television, live theatre, multimedia, videogaming, branded entertainment and book publishing industries. Susan received her L.L.B. and B.C.L from McGill Law School ('91) and has since then been called to the Bar in Ontario ('96), New 91��ɫ ('94), and Quebec ('92).��

The post Gaining Insight into Canadian Music Week: An interview with Susan H. Abramovitch appeared first on IPOsgoode.

As the business world increasingly relies on an information-based economy, intellectual property (IP) will be more important than ever for entrepreneurs and lawyers alike. The Commercializing IP seminar course attempts to provide students with some insights��into the ramifications of IP in the��business world��by exploring the many ways in which a business can use their IP strategically to ensure successes and profitability.

Can you briefly give us some background on your current practices and how they relate to the commercialization of intellectual property?

EF: At my law firm , the intellectual property group is involved in practically all aspects of the IP field. My practice focuses on helping my clients accumulate, secure, and exploit their intellectual property rights. I also help my clients with other IP-related services, which can include technology transfer, patent maintenance, and portfolio management. I frequently work with clients to develop a strategy for commercializing their IP. These strategies involve different methods for leveraging IP in the marketplace, and can include licensing, selling IP or giving advice towards the acquisition of other IP portfolios. As an IP legal services provider, one of our fundamental tasks is to determine if the client has accumulated IP rights, and then make sure that they hold and maintain them in a way that they can have an advantageous use of it later on.

LG: At ,��we are commercializing a disruptive and game-changing remote pharmaceutical dispensing technology, initially in Europe and North America. As the General Counsel of a start-up company, I am heavily involved in the day-to-day business beyond the basic legal role. As a Business Lawyer in a “new economy” venture, IP issues abound, and are an important component of my practice. From the IP tasks associated with commercialization of our own technology, to the more strategic questions on offensive and defensive patenting strategies, IP issues figure heavily in our daily decision-making. IP issues become even more complex for a start-up business when multiple markets are considered – these include ensuring the business has freedom to operate in these new markets from a patent perspective, and deciding on what patent strategy works best in those markets (many of the issues are very different from one market to another). ��In the modern, digital world, IP commercialization is a critical component to many new ventures in the marketplace, and MedAvail is no exception.

How do you view the role of commercializing IP in both the business and legal world?

EF: My view is that, even in the sense of a legal practice, intellectual property really is a business asset. From a legal perspective, the work I do is to accumulate rights, whether that is patents, trade secrets etc., and then think; when the client gets to the marketplace with his product or service, how will they make money from it? Do you build the service yourself, or do you find partners though investments?

Whether it is better to secure good IP rights and then launch a product, or develop a good product and then build good IP around it, the legal rights are fundamentally intertwined with business affairs. If you think of commercializing IP in the business world, you might want to think about the fact that IP is a prime asset for some of the most valuable companies in the world. ��IP is important in these companies from both a balance sheet point of view and in being able to offer the best services and products to their customers.

LG: From a business perspective, most new ventures will involve some form of intellectual property.�� In the US marketplace in particular, patent issues associated with commercializing an IP-centric business are very complex – it is a very litigious environment and patent trolls abound.�� A business needs to be mindful of the many IP landmines that, if not careful, may derail a business on the eve of an important event such a financing, trade show or IPO. IP issues invariably involve a mix of business and legal decision-making, as IP strategies typically involve both a risk assessment, and a cost benefit analysis which, in a pre-revenue start-up with limited capital, are extremely important.�� As such, it is not uncommon to have a dedicated senior resource working inside these ventures, closely with management and the Board, to get in front of these issues and map out a plan that allows the business a chance to be successful commercially while avoiding a variety of IP traps.

��

How do you see Canada as a player in the commercializing IP space, and what do you think will be the effect of emerging multinational free-trade agreements like on this area?

EF: Canada is an interesting example of the marketplace. When you think of the commercializing IP space you fundamentally think about market size, and Canada certainly couldn’t be considered a large market globally. Yet, despite this, there are some very interesting and unique Canadian programs in the commercializing IP space. For example, there is the very important tax credit program to IP-based businesses that choose to do business in Canada. So there is certainly a lot of Canadian policy that is friendly to the development of IP, which supports businesses that otherwise have a hard time being successful in Canada due to our size in the marketplace.

Regarding multinational free-trade agreements like CETA, IP is not necessarily a large part of these very complex and intricate agreements. But if you think of Canada as a net-exporter of goods rather than a consumer, anytime you add the opportunity for free trade, this is good for the economy. Certainly the CETA agreement is probably going to be beneficial from this view point, and is probably the most important treaty in this area since NAFTA. Being beneficial on the export market, these agreements can help in the commercialization of products that are often based around IP rights.

LG: Canada has a rich history of innovation and IP commercialization – look at Nortel, Blackberry, Desire to Learn, and many other Canadian success stories.�� In recent years, we are seeing a re-emergence of technology businesses and the “knowledge economy” in Canada, with a growing culture of innovation.�� This is the result of a combination of factors – the availability of investment and venture funding (both foreign and domestic); a fertile ground of talent coming out of Canadian universities, and various government initiatives.�� Look at cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, Waterloo – many “clusters” are emerging in a variety of exciting futuristic technologies…. It is truly an exciting time to be a Canadian technology entrepreneur!�� Our company is in contact with investors and funding organizations globally, and many of them have had high praise for many Canadian ventures that have come on line in recent months/years.�� This is something Canadians should be very proud of.

On treaties, my view is that anything the government can do to promote Canadian businesses and talent globally should be encouraged.�� Canadian ventures have shown the world that we can compete on a global stage, and this is one of the reasons that Canadian venture funds have had to compete with many foreign investment sources in funding Canadian ventures in recent years.�� We have a reputation of excellence in technology and innovation, and it is great to see programs in place that facilitate exposure of our innovations on a worldwide stage.

��

What do you feel are the biggest misconceptions about the commercialization of IP?

EF: Although I probably wouldn’t consider this purely a misconception, I often see an undervaluing of what we can call the “sweat equity” IP. When we think of commercializing of IP, this is very far from IP rights in the abstract. The misconception is the sentiment that “I have a great idea, and I will get paid”. I am not sure that this is exactly true. There is a lot of sweat equity that goes into commercializing a product that may have some IP rights built around it. There is a tremendous amount of work that goes into securing and maintaining the IP rights themselves, and making a successful business from all of this is even more difficult. Thinking about the amount of work that is required is often lost in the early stages of brilliant ideas, and since commercializing IP is really about taking the idea into the marketplace, this consideration is something that should be at the forefront of any strategy.

LG: In Canada, while good progress has been made in promoting and cultivating innovation, the broader market place and related structures need to catch up with the rest of the world.�� A small yet important example is start-up funding.�� In the US, the JOBS Act was groundbreaking legislation that allowed up to a million dollars to be raised by start-ups from non-accredited investors.�� This enabled and fuelled the growth of such innovative funding programs like crowdfunding.�� By contrast, it took the Ontario regulators several additional years to bring forth something similar.�� In summary, the Canadian “business ecosystem” needs to do a better job of adapting to the new business realities, and the fact that much of the value and wealth to be created in the next 50 years will come from new technologies. We need to be more nimble in supporting these ventures and getting them off the ground.

��

What do you think is the most valuable piece of knowledge that students of the commercializing IP seminar can get out of the course? And why do you think this course is important for students?

EF: We view this course as a practical course, not a legal theory course. It is really looking at how the law impacts business enterprises, and more specifically, business enterprises that have significant IP. I think that this type of course is important for law students, as there is no shortage of legal theory courses that go over what the law is. For students, to understand how these laws affect the business world and the marketplace is something that is beneficial. This knowledge and perspective is something that can assist them in being good lawyers, if a legal career is what they are pursuing. Even if they are not��pursuing a career in law, understanding business concepts and the business reality that the law impacts can be a very valuable tool.�� The value for the student is applicable if they are from Osgoode Law, Schulich Business, or Lassonde Engineering. The value in this course is being able to see and understand business operation from the inception-stage forward, especially for a technology-driven business.

LG: Osgoode does an excellent job teaching students how to be good practitioners, understanding the rules, thinking outside the box, and being good technical lawyers. This IP Commercialization Course builds on those critical skill sets, providing students with a “cradle to grave” point of view on how to use IP legal and business skills in the business world.�� The course is cross-listed among Osgoode, the Schulich School of Business, and the Lassonde School of Engineering.�� Fortunately, in our inaugural year, we had representation from all 3 disciplines – Legal, Business and Engineering.�� I believe our class would agree that this multi-disciplined dynamic was a key element to the success of the course, as our discussions on current IP topics included the points of view from all 3 areas.

The course combined both traditional lecturing on core IP topics, and a thread of discussion and exchange that brought topical and current issues into the classroom.�� For example, students were asked to bring in a news article on a topic relevant to the commercialization of IP – throughout the Term, we discussed everything from the Apple/Samsung patent disputes, to Tesla’s patents on solar paneled car roofs, to the Duolingo language learning App, and a whole host of other current IP topics.�� During these presentations, the students were given an opportunity to understand how the commercialization of IP affects real world businesses every day.�� We had a very bright group of students this year, which was reflected in the caliber of the discussions…

Adam Falconi is an IPilogue Editor and a J.D. Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Getting Profits From Patents: An Interview with Ed Fan and Loreto Grimaldi appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Music Canada also runs the (i.e. certifying when a record has made platinum). Although famous for their efforts to strengthen copyright laws, copyright is not all that Music Canada does. For example, one of the initiatives Graham mentioned is in the area of ticketing/towing bylaws. When musicians play in clubs in Austin or Nashville, there are dedicated “artist loading zones” where the artists can park and load their equipment. The same is not true in Toronto. Many small clubs have very limited loading zones, and limited nearby parking. A single parking ticket can wipe out an entire night’s profit for some musicians, making it very difficult to practice their craft.

Another Music Canada concern is improving relations between the City of Toronto and the music industry to a similar level that the film industry has with the city. ��For instance, the helps arrange location permits, police presence, emergency medical services, tax credits, and other services for film and television shoots on fairly short notice. In comparison, no such program exists for the music industry.

For example, Graham told a story about how the held in Toronto attempted to obtain a permit for . The planning process was initiated 8 months before the concert date, and the final permits to use the square did not come through until 3 days before the concert. As one might imagine, by that point the acts had been booked, media announcements had been made, etc. The organizers were taking a massive risk - had the permit not come through, the concert would have had to be cancelled, and the organizers would still have been on the hook for all costs – without the associated profits.

“Music is one of the most open formats in the universe, for all the credit they get for it.”

When asked what the biggest accomplishment from the recent Canadian copyright reform initiatives was, Graham didn’t cite digital locks or TPM protection, or the new part of the legislation targeted at pirate sites. The greatest accomplishment, he said, was the fact that we passed a bill at all. While there may be disagreement on the content of the reform, one thing many agree on was that copyright reform itself was badly needed. After three previous failed attempts, the fact that Bill C-11 passed in a global political climate where other copyright focused bills crashed and burned (e.g., and ), was nothing short of miraculous. “Our government passed a bill when SOPA and ACTA failed.”

He pointed to that stated that if the government enacted the bill, DRM would “lock up” content. It has been months since bill C-11 came into force, even longer since it was passed, and this assertion has not been true, at least with respect to music. To this day, music remains one of the most open, consumer-friendly content industries, a fact that Graham thinks the music industry does not get enough credit for. Today, music is sold in one of the most open, flexible formats available. The restrictive DRM you may find on other types of media is not present here. When you buy a song on iTunes, or elsewhere, you can play it on any device you own, anywhere you want, at any time you want.

There are no complicated digital hoops to jump through in order to satisfy a DRM mechanism or prove that you have the right to use the content you paid for. There is no need to purchase a new device that supports the DRM format of the file you purchased. Moving a song from your computer to an iPod (or a cell phone, laptop, MP3 Player, tablet, etc.) is as simple as cutting and pasting a file. It is truly a consumer’s dream.

There were in the music industry, but they were uniformly abandoned. It all comes down to history and market expectations. When the CD was introduced back in 1982, it was in a DRM free format. Conversely, as Graham notes, “the first DVDs were locked up, and people accepted that. But how many times do you re-watch a DVD?” It’s hard to watch a movie while jogging, or when you’re at work. But the same isn’t true for music. Many people listen to music throughout their entire day, playing the same songs over and over again. They take their music with them everywhere they go. Such behaviour requires a level of flexibility and convenience that would be very hard, if not impossible, to achieve with DRM protected content.

But it’s not just consumers that benefit from the openness of the music industry, its other artists too. “When you publish a song, that is fair game to create a cover.” When was the last time anyone tried to create a cover of a movie? Or a TV show? Or even a book? Well, with a song, you can.

Another thing Graham says the Canadian music industry deserves credit for is their response to the problem of piracy. While the to sue consumers in the US, these types of lawsuits are notably absent in Canada. And Canadian consumers mainly have Graham to thank for that.

“My policy was, we shouldn’t be suing people while we’re waiting for legislation.”

When Graham took over CRIA (as Music Canada was then known), there were a few brief lawsuits that went through the federal court system. This resulted in that basically stated that downloading music was legal in Canada. These lawsuits were appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, not because of an intention to follow through with suing their customers, but as Graham noted “we simply had to appeal it to set the record straight.”

And they eventually did. The Federal Court of Appeal ended up . At that point, the music industry could have continued the lawsuits against the individual downloaders directly, however, they chose not to.

“The US did it to make a point. Because they had been polling people and practically everyone thought that downloading was OK. The objective was to make the point that, NO, it is illegal.” Similarly in Canada, there was pressure from a lot of sources, including independents and artists, to initiate a similar series of lawsuits, or otherwise send the message that downloading is illegal. But Graham decided to take a different route. “My policy was, we shouldn’t be suing people while we’re waiting for legislation.” Graham instead decided to focus on lobbying the government to pass copyright reform. It was hoped that a renewed message from Parliament, in the form of the passage of a new copyright bill and all the media coverage surrounding it, would send a message to Canadians that downloading music without compensation was not appropriate. To continue a lawsuit against consumers while lobbying for legislation would taint that process, attract undue notice and probably wouldn’t even work to curb downloading ().

Today, there are more ways to consume music than there ever was. From buying a CD in stores, to single song online retailers like , to digital radio services or even streaming subscription services like and , it has never been easier to get the music the music you want, how you want it, whenever you want.

“They are the canary, the first down the coal mine.”

The music industry has come a long way since it began. Usually it is on the forefront of the culture industries. Music was the first industry to switch to digital with . The MP3 player was the first digital media player. Digital download stores like iTunes started with music sales.

But with this innovation came its own set of problems. Graham joked that “they are the canary, the first down the coal mine.” Music had to forge its own path. And, for the most part, it has succeeded.

2013 marks the first year in over a decade that , and have even risen slightly. When asked for the reason for these changes, Graham cites many factors. Copyright reform is an issue, not just for any advantages the law provides, but for the fact that the law was actually passed. Canada is a law abiding country, and when the government sends a message that downloading is illegal, people take them at their word.

Digital music now , and labels are just getting better at marketing into this space. There are also more legal music services in Canada than ever before. As legal options for purchasing music are becoming easier and more convenient, consumers are changing their purchasing habits to include more paid music and less illegal downloads. But things are still not ideal for the music industry.

“There was a time when even if you never sold another CD anywhere else in the world, you could still make a living in a middle class life [in Canada].”

The addition of more legal services in Canada is a good thing, but they are contributing a very minute portion to the overall revenue picture as yet. For example, streaming services, at least as they exist today, do not represent a sustainable model. This unsustainability is due to the fact that streaming services usually only pay out fractions of a penny per stream.

He points to a now famous exchange between the band Grizzly Bear and their fans. In it, the band emphasises the fact that . While this generated the usual “your music stinks” or “go on tour” comments, many fans were also interested in how they could help. For those who are unaware, Grizzly Bear is a somewhat well known indie music band. They have played sold out shows at Radio City Music Hall yet .

“We have to build this back up for our young artists. They are aware that [older musicians] used to have homes, but now they can’t afford that.” Graham notes that many young artists are missing the same benefits given to artists in music’s heyday. “There was a time when even if you never sold another CD anywhere else in the world, you could still make a living in a middle class life [in Canada].”

One of the goals of Music Canada is to “create an environment where you can earn your living as a musician.” There are many ways to do this that fall outside the traditional realms of copyright and digital media. For example, ensuring that there areartist loading zones for bands as mentioned above. Cities and governments can also provide tax incentives to record albums in Canada, similar to the .

And it’s harder to earn a living as a musician today than it was a few decades ago. One of the main problems, of course, is copyright infringement.

“The musical middle class is at risk.”

Of course, copyright infringement has an effect on the industry, Graham noted. But the conversation needs to get away from copyright infringement or, as used in the popular vernacular, piracy. People don’t like to talk about piracy, but people care about artists. “I think the conversation needs to switch to… the effect of the digital age.”

One of the first policies Graham initiated as soon as he took over Music Canada was no lawsuits. So how else could they mitigate piracy? One way is to go after the pirate websites themselves. They do this by attacking their sources of funding. that advertise on pirate websites, and like MasterCard, Visa and PayPal.

When asked what message he would have for Canada’s youth, Graham’s message was simple: “support your artists.” As noted, there are fewer artists today that are able to own their own home and make a living in the industry. “The musical middle class is at risk.” Music plays a big part of our lives. Imagine games without music? Movies without music? When major events in your life happen, songs are playing. “Understand that the creation of music is not easy.” There are thousands of good jobs, where people go to work with nothing other than music and making careers work for people in their mind. “It will help you get through your depressions; it will help you get through your joy. To the government, it will create jobs, help the tax base and bring tourists to our great nation. Music can help you, and you can help music.”

Mark Kohras is an IP Osgoode alum and the current Features Editor for IP Osgoode. For more coverage of Graham Henderson and Music Canada, see our blog on Graham’s .

The post How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson appeared first on IPOsgoode.