Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  [Inaudible--Editor]...pass legislation with amendments such as we've been hearing about. A lot of them are very sensible that are coming from this side of the floor, and they're coming from us. I think the key here is to just start talking about what a package would look like.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Our artists are a huge part of what “brand Canada” is. Countries are always looking to differentiate themselves from other countries. There's mass competition. We buy German goods because we know if it's made in Germany it means it's.... When people think about Canada around the world, they think of people like Loreena and Maïa.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  It also generates revenue and taxes.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Right. I'm not so sure; it's litigation. J.P., you could talk more about that than I can.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  They fire a volley; you fire a volley back. It's like Bleak House. It's like Charles Dickens, only worse.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  What the government seems to be concerned about is individuals being dinged for millions of dollars. Well, if that's the concern, it is easily addressed with the current wording, and then you just add in some discretion in the case of personal use by an individual in their basement.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  We can do it. We can do it.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Well, as I said, I think that at a very base minimum there has to be a policy to deal with repeat infringers. I mean, if we can identify people who are again and again going back to the well--this happens—and downloading Loreena's entire catalogue, and taking Maïa's record before it has even hit the streets, over and over....

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Well, there's nothing in the bill. I think what we're saying is that there needs to be.... If you look at legislation around the world, there is something in all of the legislation that deals with this issue. Nobody should be getting a free pass.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  The history of isoHunt is that they've been in Canada for a long time. They've been sued in the United States; they're subject to a gigantic court judgment. They're trying to build themselves a lifeboat, I think, up in Canada so that they can sort of escape the long arm of the law.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  When somebody comes into your house, you're going to fight back with absolutely...and remember, Charlie, they're burning our house down. So we're fighting back with absolutely every weapon at our disposal. And yes, did we counter-sue them? Sure we counter-sued them. That doesn't mean that the law is going to support our countersuit.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I would echo Mr. Dexter's point. Having listened to this committee now for a couple of months, my sense is that there is an evolving consensus out there. I hear it from...either there's been very specific changes that you've sought, many of which are in Mr. Dexter's document, and I keep hearing from this side that they're prepared to make amendments.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Perhaps I could just quickly answer. I think often it is forgotten that there are a slew of exceptions already built into the legislation. Also lost in the discussion is the fact that there is a power to make regulations. If, down the road, someone has an issue relating to a TPM, there's nothing to stop them under the existing....

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  [Inaudible--Editor]...suggestion. If the goal is to provide flexibility here to judges to take private purposes into account, I think that's what the concern is. A good way to do this would be to leave the statutory damages provision exactly as it is, but to make infringement for private purposes a special case under proposed subsection 38.1(3), which would let judges reduce the damages to zero if it was appropriate.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes.