Such a system, which ideally would be technologically neutral, would afford the twofold benefit of enabling all creators whose works are copied to be compensated and of relieving users of any legal insecurity over whether copying a particular work on one of their devices is or is not authorized by rights holders or by the act.
With regard to the accountability of Internet service providers, certain rights holders suggest that the act should require Internet service providers to pay compensation for works circulating on the Internet in violation of their rights. In fact, they would like Internet service providers to pay for all acts that they consider illegal and that are committed on networks by users. If Internet service providers were required to pay such fees, it could of course be anticipated that they would, on the other hand, increase Internet subscription rates. In other words, all users, whether or not they violate rights holders' rights, would have to pay for that kind of compensation. All users would therefore be encouraged to commit the acts that rights holders consider illegal.
If a system of royalties were to be considered, it would be a good idea to develop something more logical and equitable. It is indeed curious to consider a system that proposes, on the one hand, to maintain and even increase the number of violations of the Copyright Act by users who would pay even if they did not violate that legislation, since they would be encouraged to do so, and that, on the other hand, contemplates payment by non-offenders of royalties that, as far as possible, should be imposed solely on those who intend to act in a manner that might involve the works subject to copyright. That is why we advocate the introduction of a licence to make available—