Bill C-11 Committee on March 12th, 2012

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

If we are ready to move into the amendment we will do that now.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

I don't think there is any further discussion on the clause. I asked that question twice.

So now we'll move. You're moving that amendment?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, we're going to move on to our amendment NDP-3.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Amendment NDP-3, page 9 for those who are following along.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'll turn it over to my colleagues, Mr. Benskin and Mr. Labelle, to speak.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment ensures the protection of artists' moral rights within the user-generated content of mashups. Mashups are a sign of the times, the creation of new work based on the work that other artists have done.

The moral rights of an artist really need to be codified in this bill. The moral rights are that an artist should have the right to say how his or her work is used. They should have the right to say whether or not a song is used in a particular political campaign, as was the case with K'naan asking a Republican candidate to not play his song as part of the candidate's walk-on music. Something that has never really been codified as strongly as it should be is the moral right of a performer.

We're seeing the remuneration of performers being whittled down and we think it's really important that the moral right of a performer be protected and strengthened, especially in terms of mashups. Being able to use a performer's work or a combination of performers' works to generate your own thoughts, positive or negative.... As a performer myself, I should have the right to say, I don't want that to be used in that way.

Basically, this amendment goes to further protection of that in this clause.

I will....

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Ladies and gentlemen, the NDP is committed to protecting the rights of creators. Our party does not want the integrity of moral rights to be affected by the proposed clause 22. The integrity of the work or of copyright is not targeted by this amendment. Having said that, it makes sense for moral rights to remain full and inalienable.

Earlier this year, we saw the perfect example of how moral rights were used and protected during the Republican nomination campaign in the United States, where works are often used for partisan gatherings. The Canadian artist K'Naan refused to let Mitt Romney use his song during a Republican gathering in Florida. It is his right not to want his song to be associated with a right-wing party. I wouldn't want any of my songs to be associated with the Conservatives. The idea was that K'Naan's work was being used for a cause that he thought would taint his reputation, and he won.

Some witnesses also mentioned extreme cases, such as the use of hard rock songs on pro-Nazi Internet sites. Once again, it is completely understandable that our artists and creators don't want to be associated with those types of activities. That is why the protection of moral rights has to be guaranteed by this amendment. It is important that moral rights remain full. It is crucial to protect our creators who do not want their works to be associated with a cause or with people they loathe. Creators' fears are well-founded. The many examples mentioned prove it.

We believe that the amendment that we are introducing can clarify the situation. This amendment provides more certainty to our artists. It enables creators to protect themselves against that type of abuse by stakeholders, political parties and movements. The amendment clarifies the inalienable nature of moral rights. It enables the young and the not so young to communicate through new social networks, while ensuring that the integrity of artists' works is maintained. Those things are important for our young people who like to create mashups from protected works.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you. The NDP has 30 seconds left.

Mr. Lake.

The Conservatives can speak now for five minutes to the amendment.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

This won't be five minutes.

I want to get clarification from the officials of the impact of this amendment.

It seems to me that the amendment might not even be necessary. Could you speak to that?

[Gerard Peets]

Moral rights in the original work used in accordance with this exception would not be affected, and could still be exercised and enforced. This is because the user-generated content exception in the bill is an exception to copyright infringement only; it is not an exception to moral rights infringement.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm done.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Okay. Does anyone else want to speak to the amendment?

You do have a few seconds.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have 30 seconds.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Yes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

We recognize the issue of moral rights being placed in the bill. However, we realized there were going to be so many questions on the user-generated content and how it is applied that it had to be clarified that there is a moral right, so it would save artists from having to engage in litigation down the road.

That's the reason for our amendment at this point.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Moving on to the next amendment in clause 22.

Mr. Lake, will you be moving your amendment?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Yes, I will, and I'll have the officials speak to what impact this amendment will have on the bill.

[Anne-Marie Monteith, Director, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry]

This amendment relates to reproduction for private purposes.

The bill allows for time-shifting and format-shifting for private purposes, subject to limitations. There has been a concern expressed that the wording of the bill could lead to misinterpretation, and that it would permit making copies for other individual's private purposes.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that the exception applies only for the private purposes of the individual who owns the music or records the program, and not anybody else's private purposes.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

The Conservatives still have approximately four minutes, so if there's no time, I believe that Mr. Regan would like to speak to this amendment.

The floor is yours, for five minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for Mr. Lake, or perhaps, through you, to the officials.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Of course, yes. Thank you, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Where you're changing it from saying “private” use to the “individual's private” use, what does it mean in a case where an individual uses a personal video recorder, records a television program to watch later, and invites a couple of friends over, and they watch it together?

It's no longer just the individual's private use. Is that then infringement? It seems to me that the intent was to allow the use of things like PVRs and time-shifting in a reasonable way. Doesn't this prevent this from happening? What would happen to that individual? That is what I'm trying to say.

[Robert DuPelle]

In terms of the scope of the private purposes, it would be the individual's private purposes, the intent being that within the private sphere of that individual, that individual could use the recorded program. If there were other people within that sphere, they would be able to enjoy it along with them. The concern was in relation to other people using it, in and of themselves, for their private purposes. The concern was that the language allowed for that. That's what we're trying to clarify.