Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you.

We will move to the Bloc Québécois.

You have seven minutes, Madam Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Good day, Mr. Waddell, Ms. Downey. I would like to discuss piracy with you.

The aim of this bill is to counter organized piracy and illegal downloading. If the sole purpose of this public debate was to make consumers and the general public aware of the importance of respecting copyright and the works of creators, then I think it would be a big step forward.

I want to discuss organized piracy and Internet sites designed primarily to encourage peer-to-peer illegal downloading.

In your opinion, how should we deal with pirates? What damages should you be entitled to and should you reasonably expect to receive?

[Stephen Waddell]

Madame Lavallée, thank you—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I want to clarify something, because I don't think I made myself clear.

Currently there is a ceiling on statutory damages that can be awarded: $20,000 for commercial piracy and $5,000 for non-commercial piracy. Everyone knows that a ceiling of $20,000 is ridiculous. On the other hand, the penalty for breaking digital locks is $1 million and five years in prison. In our opinion, that is a penalty that creators of games software are happier with.

I do not know if you want to go that far. Would you go that far, to be fair?

[Stephen Waddell]

We wouldn't mind seeing some of these people in jail, for sure. It's massive theft that they're involved in. So if this committee recommends that some of these folks go to jail, that would be excellent.

There have to be some really substantial deterrents put in place in this bill to stop isoHunt and the other infringers--which unfortunately seem to find a safe harbour in this country--from continuing to operate.

[John Lewis]

Mr. Chair, can I just jump in?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I'm sorry, but my question was for Ms. Downey. We'll get back to you if we have enough time.

Go ahead, Ms. Downey. Do you share Mr. Waddell's opinion?

[Ferne Downey]

I concur 100%.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Correct me if I'm wrong then, but you would like to see higher statutory damages. Are you also in favour of a setting a ceiling, or are you prepared to give us a figure this morning in terms of statutory damages that should be awarded?

[Stephen Waddell]

Since we negotiate minimum fees for performers, we would want to see a minimum amount in damages and the ability to escalate those damages to an unspecified amount.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

So then, you think damages could run as high as $1 million?

[Stephen Waddell]

We'd like to see it go as high as possible, yes. I don't think $1 million is too much, not considering the type of revenue that is generated by these companies.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

In the bill, the ceiling on statutory damages is set at $20,000 for all serious cases, which, as I see it, means that a work could never be valued at more than $20,000. Is that also how you interpret the bill?

This is a one-time award of $20,000 paid to copyright holders in their lifetime. Basically, it means that an infringer would take $20,000, offer it to the copyright holder and then invite him to file a lawsuit.

[Stephen Waddell]

Yes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

What does it cost to sue an individual or company for piracy?

[Stephen Waddell]

It could well cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue a lawsuit.

I actually liked what my colleagues from IATSE said with respect to this matter and would support their position.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

So then, the bill does not deal harshly enough with pirates. Even though we claim to want to counter piracy, we are not including provisions in the bill that would allow us to take a tough stand, which means that the bill is totally ineffective.

[Stephen Waddell]

That's correct, it is inefficient. As was stated, $20,000, $5,000.... That level of fine is just like the cost of doing business. These companies make millions of dollars stealing other people's work.

The penalties applied to such infringers should be massive, in the same way that there's massive infringement going on.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Earlier, you talked about notices. When someone notices that a creative work has been copied, the law states that the onus is on the copyright holder to finger the infringer. The copyright holder must also ask the ISP to issue a warning to the infringer.

Earlier, you said that this approach was ineffective. What approach do you think would be effective?

[Stephen Waddell]

As we've said, we would find a system worthwhile that would include the ascending notices, no question about that--one or two, and then start to escalate beyond that if the infringer does not comply with the notice.

We would hope that this committee could find a way to provide such an escalating response.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Do you have any suggestions as to what could be done to ramp up the pressure?

[Stephen Waddell]

In our view, as we've said, there should be some form of graduated response beyond just a simple notice. The ISP should be required to take action against the infringer, and if not, it would be up to this committee to find a means to do that.

But our view is that there should be a continuing response, to the point at which it forces the infringer to take down the material.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you very much.

We're going to have to move to Mr. Angus for seven minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much, and thank you for your presentations this morning.

I guess when we try to address the issues of Bill C-32 we are talking about copyright—the right to make copies. In French it's

“les droits d'auteur”,

the rights of the author.

We are in a different realm because everybody can make copies. Ten years ago people could make cassettes. Now we can copy books, we can copy television, and it's offered us the greatest distribution platform in human history—and it ain't about to change. The question we have as a committee is how do we address what rights and whose rights?

This is the tricky situation, because it seems from listening to my colleagues in the Conservative Party—and they're getting some things right on this bill; they talk about consumer rights and they talk about corporate rights, the right to lock down content. An individual artist doesn't put a digital lock on; Sony gets to put the lock on. So we have the principle that they're going to protect corporate rights; they're going to protect consumer rights.

But we're looking at the issue of what happens to the artists' individual revenues: the actual right to be paid for the copies, which was always the fundamental principle of copyright.

Do you see this bill as an attack on that right, and an attack on collective licensing?

[Ferne Downey]

Yes, we do see this as an absolute, outright attack on all collective licensing. It will reduce existing revenue streams already flowing to artists, let alone lack protection in the future.