Let us talk about reproduction rights and ephemeral recording.
The government wishes to bring broadcasting rules up to date by making sure that radio broadcasters will no longer be required to compensate copyright owners for making temporary reproductions of sound recordings required for digital operations. Ephemeral reproduction enables radio stations to create their own music catalogues by optimizing the operation of program management software and facilitating the use of the music. The exercise of reproduction rights results in savings on personnel, space and productivity.
The Copyright Board examined these considerations and set a tariff establishing the value of the right. The associated royalties are paid to us by commercial radio stations and the market has not collapsed as a result. To put things in perspective, the royalty rate that radio stations pay for all reproduction rights for works represents 1.4 per cent of their $1.5 billion revenue for the use of the music that itself comprises over 75 per cent of their programming. That is a good deal. The financial burden for broadcasters that is attributable to paying for reproduction rights is therefore not heavy. Consequently, the repeal of subsection 30.9(6) is not justified. Nonetheless, our brief proposes that in the event that a 30-day exception is introduced, there should be an amendment to provide that the exception could not be applied over and over.
Let us talk about temporary reproduction for technological processes.
The government's intention is to stimulate innovation and allow some technical reproductions by making sure that some temporary reproductions are not an infringement of copyright. However, in spite of the conditions that apply, the wording of the exception is still so broad as to threaten numerous digital reproductions with already established value. What we are particularly afraid of is the possibility that many would claim that almost all of their reproduction activities represent technological processes. What would then be left of the reproduction and of the related royalties?
So, in order to dispel any uncertainties as to the scope of the definition, we believe it necessary for the duration of the technological process to be defined and we propose introducing this notion in the wording of the law. The clarifications we are recommending in the form of specific amendments would make it possible to better identify the scope of this exception in accordance with the examples provided in the technical specifications. As well, these clarifications to the bill would exempt acts of reproduction that are already protected and that provide users with actual benefits, and have significant economic value that right owners should benefit from.
Let us now talk about private copying.
Initially, the private copying levy was collected from importers and manufacturers of blank audio cassettes and CDs. Today, only blank CDs are eligible. Hardly anyone uses these supports for copying anymore; they use digital audio recording devices such as iPods. Out of the 1.3 billion songs copied each year in Canada, 70 per cent are copied onto that kind of device. As these have become the main method of copying music and the levy does not apply to them, right owners receive no compensation for copies made on such devices. Incidentally, the revenue stream provided by the current levy is eroding at an alarming rate. Between 2008 and 2011 alone, it fell by nearly 70 per cent. The levy should have been extended to the new supports in order to reflect the new ways music is being copied, which would not be accomplished by Bill C-11. By legalizing reproductions made for personal use across the board without compensation, Bill C-11 in its present form would be catastrophic for music creators. CAMI, the Coalition des ayants droit musicaux sur Internet, therefore adopts the two recommendations by the CPCC, the Canadian Private Copying Collective. First, should it prove impossible to amend the legislation in order to allow this compensation, Parliament should ensure that the provisions found in section 29.22 are eliminated, so that copies of musical works are not allowed to be made without compensation. Second, the Berne Convention three-step test should be incorporated in the Copyright Act.
Let us move on to educational fair use.
The proposed legislation, while being represented as a balanced approach to copyright, contains many exceptions in favour of educational institutions, libraries and consumers without providing for monetary compensation for right owners. I would ask you candidly what favour we would be doing for educational institutions by eroding the value of intellectual property. Is that doing them a service? While exceptions to copyright are sometimes granted, under the international treaties that Canada has adhered to, they must be confined to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.
As these exceptions represent a form of expropriation of copyright, they generally come with fair remuneration. That is the case everywhere, but not in Canada.