Evidence of meeting #7 for Bill C-11 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was copyright.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:15 p.m.
President, Executive Producer, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Epitome Pictures Inc.
Yes.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
It seems to me it is pretty clear that this would absolutely not be allowed.
6:15 p.m.
President, Executive Producer, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Epitome Pictures Inc.
I think there's a very clear question there, and obviously you're interpreting it one way. Another person might say that the single infringement, the one act of uploading it onto YouTube, does not in and of itself cause a substantial deleterious impact on the market for Degrassi.
If it's uploaded to Megaupload and then downloaded several other times, or even if it's uploaded to YouTube and is then viewed a number of times, at some point it will start to have that deleterious impact, but the initial person didn't do anything except one single tiny little infringement, or non-infringement, under the provision now.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I don't know. I can only read it so many times, but if somebody put a full 10 episodes of your show on YouTube, which was your example, it would be pretty easy to argue before the courts that this had a substantial adverse effect on your potential exploitation of the existing work. I think it's pretty clear in the bill that this would not be allowed.
6:15 p.m.
President, Executive Producer, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Epitome Pictures Inc.
We simply agree to disagree. To me it's not clear that....
I think it could be argued the other way. You may be right; I hope you are.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
The nice thing about this process is that many lawyers will be watching and paying attention to what you and I are saying right now—
6:15 p.m.
National Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Directors Guild of Canada
That's right.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
—and if there's a problem, we'll get submissions from them.
6:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:15 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Lake and Mr. Stohn.
Mr. Benskin, you have five minutres.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I wanted to return to the mashup and monetization, and the link between them.
In the early days of television, advertisers drove the financing of shows, and that's still the case. The licensing agreements and the licence fees at television stations are derived from advertisers, who put their money where the hottest shows are. We all have heard the wild amounts of money that advertisers will pay for 30 seconds in the Super Bowl.
When we go to advertising on the Internet and look at YouTube and those user-generated sites, which have banners and advertising, we see that YouTube is making money off that. I would assume that they're going to charge more for pieces with a higher number of hits, just as a good business practice.
With respect to monetization of the infringed or unlicensed works that are being used, would it be possible to derive an agreement under which money would be paid from the advertising pot that would be created?
6:15 p.m.
President, Executive Producer, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Epitome Pictures Inc.
Absolutely, and I think that is a good thing. I don't care ab initio about receiving money from those mashups because they serve a wonderful purpose without receiving money. However, if somebody who has no relation to creating the mashup—either the fan who spent hours compiling it or those who produced the underlying work being mashed up—is making some money, I'd like to share in it. It only seems fair.
6:15 p.m.
Chair, National Directors Division, Directors Guild of Canada
The Directors Guild of Canada represents directors of dramas and documentaries alike. We have an interesting internal debate. Documentary directors are copyleft. They want to use materials in the world, in all forms, in order to assemble film-based arguments in their own voice. They want the building blocks to create new films. They would like access to those original materials so that they can make new films at a reasonable cost.
On the other hand, the drama directors say they can't have their materials at any cost, other than the one that they negotiate. That's the market. They can't use part of a feature film for their purposes without paying for it. On top of that, there is a moral rights issue surrounding the purpose for which the film is being used.
I've had this experience. I made a film called One Dead Indian, and an actress in the film made a fantastic documentary portraying the Ipperwash crisis. She reportrayed it, using large chunks of my film. My only discomfort in all this is that it seemed as if my film represented the truth in her documentary, whereas in my film it was just one point of view, so the entire debate about the use or reuse of materials is a fascinating one within our organization.
As for the economic impact, I didn't need her to pay me, but if she had made a whole lot of money on it, I think I would have wanted her to pay, and my producers would have too. They would have flowed that money to me.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
The issue of reciprocity has come up before with WIPO compliance. I think it was you, Gerry, who said that there's money collected on behalf of Canadians in Europe, but there's no reciprocity within the copyright agreement, so work done by European artists here in Canada cannot be collected on their behalf and sent to them.
What would be your suggestion be?
6:20 p.m.
National Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Directors Guild of Canada
You've stated it exactly correctly, and this has been true for some time.
I happen to know, because I've certainly been copied on the correspondence, that it's one of the reasons that the collecting societies in Europe have been complaining rather bitterly to the chief negotiator in the Canada-Europe trade talks: directors in Europe are disadvantaged by the fact that in Canada there is not sufficient clarity around directors' copyright claims to enable the directors' rights collective in Canada to collect—
6:20 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Thank you, Mr. Barr and Mr. Benskin.
Mr. Lake has the last five minutes.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hollingshead, I think I'll start this one with a point on which we agree.
I would think that everybody around the table would agree with the statement that creators should be paid for their work. I think that's something we all agree on. What we're debating right now is what that looks like.
Really, that's what this bill is all about: creating an environment where creators can get paid for their work.
Are you currently an English professor at the University of Alberta?
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
You are; okay. Do you remember what anthology you were using or what reading materials you were using when you did your last class?
6:20 p.m.
Chair, Writers' Union of Canada
In my last class, I was teaching creative writing, so I wasn't using that. When I was teaching the 18th century, it was Tillotson et al.
6:20 p.m.
Chair, Writers' Union of Canada
It cost a fortune. It was over $100 even then.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
That's the point I was going to make. As a student at the University of Alberta, which is where I went, I remember having to purchase a hardcover anthology. I can't remember what it was. It was very expensive and it meant many of hours of work for me.