Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 91-105 of 238
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Canadian Heritage committee  Artist resale right is a right for a visual artist. It allows for some form of gain on future sales of a particular work as its value accrues. It's usually done as a portion of the proceeds that comes out of the gallerist or the auction house that does the sale. As with all things in copyright, it's a challenging issue.

May 22nd, 2018Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Canadian Heritage committee  Thanks so much for the question. I agree that it's a lot to cover in a short period of time. Canada's term of protection for copyright is based on the type of work, but for most works it generally extends, as you indicated, to 50 years after the death of the creator. The term of protection for sound recordings and performances is slightly different.

May 22nd, 2018Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you. The Copyright Act is perhaps the widest ranging of all our intellectual property laws, impacting most Canadians every day. But as we look ahead beyond the horizon, users are increasingly able to become creators themselves. New technologies related to the fourth industrial revolution such as artificial intelligence, 3D printing, the Internet of Things, and augmented and virtual reality are also going to interact with copyright.

May 22nd, 2018Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Mark Schaan and I am the director general of the marketplace framework policy branch, at the Department of Industry. It is a pleasure to be here today to give you an overview of an important element of Canada's intellectual property framework: the Copyright Act.

May 22nd, 2018Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the invitation to appear before you. My name is Mark Schaan, and I serve as Director General of the Marketplace Framework Policy Branch in the Strategic and Innovation Policy Sector of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

February 14th, 2018Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  Again I would say we're agnostic on that view. The original reason the do-not-call list had the capacity to be brought under CASL was that our view was that voice over Internet protocol, which would constitute an electronic message, would necessarily bring messages sent through VoIP under CASL.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  I'll just say as a public servant, we don't have views on these sorts of issues. I think what we've heard from some stakeholders, and what ultimately led to the suspension of the PRA, is that we want the obligations in the act to be as clear as possible. Over the course of the testimony and this study, you'll likely hear about zones where people will want a greater degree of specificity.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  I think we all want to make sure that the act is understood, yes.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  From a policy perspective, as a public servant, I have no view.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  I'd have to go back to the original RIAS, but I think in the explanation for why the exemption was initially provided, the communications between politicians and their constituents were seen as vital and, therefore, not one to which one could consent because it was necessary for democracy.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  Go ahead.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  Super quickly and I know we're out of time. I just want to say that the original intent was an anticipation that voice-over Internet protocol calling would essentially replace telephone calls and that those would be considered electronic messages and therefore, come under CASL. That was the original intent for why the do-not-call suspension provisions are there.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  Yes, you're quite right. The phasing was essentially as I indicated: the original regulations, then the malware regulations, then the PRA. I think the concern on the PRA is particularly related to the possibility of class action suits and legal liability that may arise from compliance.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  I'll just quickly add—I'll give a shout-out for my colleagues at the office of consumer affairs—that the fightspam.gc.ca website has been a successful centralized point to receive consumer complaints as well as to provide information. They've received more than 1.1 million submissions.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan

Industry committee  I might start by saying that there was a task force working group originally on the Task Force on Spam in 2005 that tried to have a wide reach to get at this issue. It included.... I'll just note that the co-chairs were Roger Tassé and Michael Geist, but the member organizations were a broad range that included the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, Amazon, Bell Canada, the office of consumer affairs, the Privacy Commissioner, and PayPal.

September 26th, 2017Committee meeting

Mark Schaan