We're not going to get too much into this, but if you look at the Copyright Board decision, contrary to what my colleagues over there say, it doesn't get applied to cars. It doesn't get applied to cellphones. It has to be very specific in terms of the playing device, and the revenue we're looking at is $35 million. That's a shortfall. I have to go back to artists in my region, or across Canada, and say, we're giving you a copyright bill and we're telling you to lump it. Live off iTunes.
I have songs on iTunes, and I can tell you that doesn't cover one-fiftieth of what's being copied out there. So we have to find a copy mechanism.
I have to move on, because I want to speak with you, Mr. Beatty. I'm glad you read what I said in the House on WIPO. I might have said that it was written when the fax machine was cutting-edge technology. I think that was my full quote. I'm worried that when we talk about WIPO we are applying elements to WIPO that are not necessarily there, for example, the technological protection measures in the original WIPO treaty. And if you look at WIPO-consistent countries, in recent analysis we looked at many of our WIPO competitors and they have exceptions on technological protection measures, because under article 10 in the WIPO Copyright Treaty it says that it is “possible to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in their national laws which have been considered acceptable”.
For example, if we give someone the right of parody and satire in a non-digital world and that exists in a digital world, do you not believe it's possible--I know it's difficult and it might be problematic for some--that we can establish a made-in-Canada law, in terms of technological protection measures, that allows us in Parliament to set the exemptions so that we are still WIPO-compliant, so we are still very much with that treaty of 1996?