I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to take part in the committee's proceedings on the copyright bill.
My name is Anthony Hémond. I am a lawyer and analyst with the Union des consommateurs.
In our presentation on Bill C-32, we will address a number of topics such as the technical protection measures, which raise a number of problems, the new rights conferred on users through exceptions and the accountability of Internet service providers.
By preventing the circumvention of technical protection measures that control access to works, the bill goes beyond the mere protection of authors' rights by enabling authors and rights holders to limit the rights that the legislation confers on users through technical measures. It must be understood that the aim of the IPO treaties, the WCT and the WPPT, is not to provide technical protection measures that protect access to works, limited to those implemented by the authors in the exercise of their rights. Some European countries that have ratified the WCT and WPPT treaties and the information society directive have chosen not to include among the technical protection measures that may not be circumvented those that protect access to works. It is therefore entirely possible to ratify WIPO's WCT and WPPT treaties without including any technical protection measures that are a barrier to user rights.
We also believe that Canada should draw extensively on the approach adopted in Sweden's copyright legislation, since that approach, which protects both the existing rights of rights holders and the public, manages to maintain a balance between creators' rights and those of the public, which Canada's copyright legislation should absolutely aim to do.
In the view of some, the technical protection measures that control, for example, user access to downloading platforms which in their view are necessary because they support business models must be protected under the Copyright Act. The purpose of the Copyright Act is obviously not to protect business models, but rather to confer certain rights and obligations on authors, while ensuring that there is a balance between those rights and the rights of the public. In our view, the technical measures that control access do not come within the purview of the Copyright Act. The business models referred to concern the provision of a service, not copyright. We also suggest that the bill be amended to change the definition of technical protection measures and to enable them to be circumvented where they unduly limit user rights.
These new exceptions, reproduction for private purposes, reproduction for later listening or viewing and backup copies, are welcome. This initiative is all the more appreciated since these new exceptions legalize practices that are widespread among consumers, practices supported by the market, and that have long provided them with some of the tools that permit or facilitate those practices. However, in our view, the provisions for these exceptions must be amended. Certain conditions associated with the exercise or context of the exceptions could very well prove inapplicable, or appear not to achieve their target. In addition, certain limits placed on the exercise of those rights seem unwarranted in our view. Furthermore, the wording of those clauses does not always appear conducive to enabling users to know and have a clear understanding of the nature, scope and limits of the rights conferred on them.
From a perspective of simplification for the purpose of providing everyone with a clearer understanding of what is permitted and of the limits of these authorizations, we also think that a more broadly conceived copying right would make it possible to include in a single clause the exceptions made for the fixation of a signal or a recording of a program for later listening or viewing, the private copying right and the backup copies right introduced by Bill C-32. In our view, it would be possible and preferable to institute a single system for the reproduction of works including adequate royalties. Such a system, which ideally would be technologically neutral, would afford the twofold benefit of enabling all creators whose works are copied—