Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
My name is Jay Kerr-Wilson, and I am here today on behalf of the members of the Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright.
Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-32.
The members of the coalition include individual companies and trade associations representing a broad spectrum of the communications, technology, broadcasting, retail, and Internet industries. The one thing our members have in common is that they provide the essential links between creators and consumers.
The issues addressed in today's presentation are those on which there is agreement among the coalition members. Some individual members may wish to address additional questions or concerns when they appear before the committee on their own behalf.
We believe that Canada's copyright laws should focus on two fundamental and interrelated objectives: first, to deter infringing activity; and second, to promote open and efficient markets for legitimate distribution of copyrighted works.
We disagree with the notion that copyright legislation is either good for consumers or good for creators. We believe that by promoting the development of a vibrant digital economy, a balanced approach to copyright legislation can serve the interests of creators, distributors, and consumers.
We also believe that Bill C-32 goes a long way towards striking this balance, and we support its passage in a timely manner.
This doesn't mean the coalition thinks the legislation is perfect or couldn't benefit from some minor changes to provide greater clarity and certainty. In fact, we have submitted a number of proposed changes that we would like the committee to consider as part of its review.
First, Bill C-32 provides limited liability for content hosting services. The ministers have repeatedly stated that these provisions are intended to remove barriers to the introduction of innovative remote storage services, including cloud computing and network PVRs. We are concerned, however, that while the existing language limits liability for the reproduction of a work that is stored using such a service, it still leaves potential liability for any transmissions of the hosted content even back to the person who posted it in the first place.
Second, Bill C-32 would create liability for those people who enable others to engage in copyright infringement. We support this provision as an important tool for rights holders to protect themselves against the widespread, unauthorized distribution of their works. We are concerned, however, that the provision as drafted does not adequately distinguish between those individuals who provide services intending that those services be used to infringe copyright and innocent actors who merely provide links to Internet sites but who do not actively promote or encourage infringement.
We are also sensitive to the concern of rights holders that only prohibiting those services that are primarily designed to enable acts of infringement may be too narrow. We therefore support amending the provision to prohibit those services that are designed or operated primarily to enable acts of infringement.
Third, we support providing legal protection for technological protection measures, or digital locks. However, we do not believe that the use of digital copy control locks should prevent consumers from relying on the personal use exceptions such as format shifting or time shifting.
Fourth, we support the provision that would permit broadcasters to transfer musical works onto a different format for a limited time without incurring additional copyright obligations. We believe that a similar amendment should be made to the provision that lets local television stations or community channels tape live events such as parades and concerts for later broadcast.
Fifth, we support the provisions that would impose on ISPs the obligation to implement a notice and notice system. Many Canadian ISPs have engaged in voluntary notice and notice systems for several years, and other countries are now beginning to adopt similar obligations. However, we are concerned that the bill would not provide any time for ISPs to implement the additional obligations that would be imposed by the legislation. We recommend that the notice obligations only come into force once the minister has enacted regulations prescribing the forms of the notice and the fees that can be recovered, and after a sufficient period, for ISPs to implement the necessary systems to comply with all of the obligations.
Sixth, we support the inclusion of an exception for user-generated content. However, we have heard the concerns expressed by rights holders about the potential for abuse of the exception as drafted. Therefore, we agree that the provision could be amended to require that any use of the works in user-generated content be fair, in addition to the conditions that have already been proposed.
Finally, we strongly oppose the introduction of new levies or the extension of existing levies to cover private copying on digital devices. We recognize that the bill does not deal with the private copying levy, but we are aware that the issue has been raised on several occasions before the committee. From our perspective, there are insurmountable problems with such a levy.
Thank you for giving us the time to present these recommendations. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.