Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Certainly we've seen in recent court decisions in the United States that they've decided that circumvention for fair use, as they call it, circumvention of, say, a digital lock, is appropriate and that generally these fair use provisions—fair dealing here—are incredibly important

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I think we should be really clear that our concern is less about the past costs of academic materials than about protecting us from exorbitant future costs. Mr. McTeague's point about access and copyright--you can go before the Copyright Board--is certainly taken, but that isn't

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  That is ongoing right now. Certainly, if you want to get a lot of details about that, please go to Howard Knop's Excess Copyright blog. We are, in fact, intervenors in that proceeding right now. There's a decision being made about whether or not the existing tariff should be temp

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  We haven't made a presentation, we've made a submission. We are intervenors

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I don't believe we suggested that. I think we just suggested that we thought it was something that impeded learning and that your course materials were a component of your course, and you should be able to build upon that into the future.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Certainly we think that the education provisions are incredibly important. And this is certainly a positive new step in the long history around copyright. We would not want that to die on the order paper either.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I'm suggesting that the industry already exists.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes, absolutely. I think the key for us is linking circumvention to infringement and making sure that is very clear. We have no problem with digital locks for preventing infringement. That scene is totally reasonable to us. It's when it's a non-infringing purpose that it becomes

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Would that be the case for your industry? Sorry about the back and forth, but would that necessarily be the case? How many situations are we talking about where there's a fair dealing right to...? I don't know how much of a fair dealing right there is to playing Halo.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes, and I guess that's our point. That's where CCH has shown there's a balance that can then be struck by the courts. It's not simply an assertion of a fair dealing right that exists. It's something a lot more complicated than that.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  We have a report here that we can certainly circulate to the committee. You're talking about something in the order of $4.4 trillion in revenue--accounting for a one-sixth total of U.S. gross domestic product, employing 17 million workers--attributable to fair use industries in

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I think it's primarily a question of prevention of this massive overreach that's being contemplated by the collective licensing groups right now. That's where we think this exemption is going to work for students. It's going to prevent that tenfold or more increase for something

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes. I mean, that could easily be $16 million just on a strict institutional basis, which could be hundreds of professors in this country. We think that's a meaningful amount.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I think it's quite clear that, as CCH v. Law Society has shown and to paraphrase Dr. Geist, fair dealing is not free dealing. There's a balance that has to be struck. You have to make contextual decisions. It's important to recognize that CCH was a decision about the use of a lib

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes, actually. Yes, it is a fair balance, particularly because in this country you're not generally talking about individuals. You're talking about licensing collectives who absolutely have the capability to challenge the courts on behalf of individuals.