Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) Committee on March 10th, 2011

[Alain Lauzon]

I don't know exactly whether any programs are sold to small stations. There are flagship stations, and local or small stations can belong to an enormous group. We know there are major conglomerates that own large stations. However, we don't exactly know what goes on.

Furthermore, as Mr. Basskin mentioned, we don't think the value of the reproduction right for those small stations is high enough to cause them to go bankrupt or to shut down.

And as regards the first tariff and the tariff currently in effect, the Copyright Board has granted reductions to small stations because they're not necessarily as profitable as the big stations.

[David Basskin]

Mr. Cardin, what you are referring to is sometimes called syndicated programming or packaged programming. There is some programming like that. The majority of stations basically run music most of the time and produce their own programming.

The important point is that the licence that CSI grants authorizes the broadcaster to copy the music regardless of its source. It can come to the broadcaster on a CD; it can be electronically delivered; it can be acquired from the independent production of programming. It's all covered. Our licence covers all the reproductions. That's my understanding of how the SOCAN licence works as well.

So whatever they choose to broadcast, from whatever source, the copying and the performance of the music are covered by these blanket licences. It's the simplest possible form of licensing.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

What I simply wanted to show is that this copy of a program has a value that can be transferred.

Ms. Atwood, even though there is not a lot of time left, I would like you to be able to speak to the topic of education. Sometimes you give away some of your works, and that's entirely to your credit, but with regard to authors who need to receive royalties, exactly what do you suggest?

[Margaret Atwood]

How should educators and students be allowed to use people's work in their classroom? The way they do it now is through Access Copyright. There's a blanket licence. It's much like the licence that has been described for music. An individual person would have a lot of trouble tracking each and every use if they work in a classroom, and therefore it's covered under a collective licensing agreement.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Ms. Atwood.

I will give the floor now to Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Basskin, I have a bit of a problem with the things I'm hearing. You make it sound like broadcasters don't pay anything for the right to play music. They pay for technology, for software, for people to work, but they don't pay anything to the creators. That's kind of what you said a few minutes ago.

[David Basskin]

No, sir, that is not what I said. Broadcasters pay SOCAN. They pay CSI. They pay the collectives that represent record producers and performers, namely AVLA and SOPROQ.

What I am suggesting--

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So clearly you would say that they pay for the right to play the music they play.

[David Basskin]

I'm suggesting that this bill would allow the broadcasters to not pay for the reproduction of songs and sound recordings.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

But they pay for the music they play in the first place.

[David Basskin]

They presently pay for the right to perform and the right to reproduce that music.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It seems that the strongest argument you have for the fact that they should pay for these copies is that it's not much.

[David Basskin]

No, sir, that is not my argument.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Well, that sounds like what you've said throughout the entire meeting.

[David Basskin]

No. There have been questions as to economic impact. If you want to go straight to the point, the copies have value. The amount of value is determined by the Copyright Board. We can debate all day whether it's a lot or a little. The bottom line is that those who create music have a right, in copyright, to be paid for the reproduction of that music.

Broadcasters presently pay to reproduce recordings and songs, and that's as it should be. After all, broadcasters want people to pay when others reproduce the programming they create.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

When they reproduce the programming that they create to take on a new right, they don't already have.... They've paid for the right to play the music. They've paid for that right already. They're using technology to change the way they organize. That's all they're doing.

You talked about taking advantage of remarkable technology, but the extra benefit is derived because of the technology, not because of the music. The music didn't create new technology. It's the technology creators who have created the new technology.

[David Basskin]

Well, sir, we can debate chicken and egg all day. The bottom line is that before these technologies existed, broadcasters were obliged to maintain physical libraries, with LPs and then CDs. They had to put them on a cart and roll them down the hall. The technology has enabled them to operate at lower cost, and they're smart people so they're doing so.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

They weren't obliged to maintain those libraries; it was a practical reality. They had to play the LPs, so they had to keep the LPs there.

[David Basskin]

Sir, they were obliged to maintain libraries. I have been, and I currently am, a radio broadcaster. I know what I'm talking about. Unless they hire musical performers to appear in their studios--which still occasionally happens--radio stations are obliged to maintain some source for the music they play. According to the CRTC, music makes up 80% of the programming.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

They pay for that, though.

[David Basskin]

They paid for the right to perform the music, which they presently do.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

You're right.

[David Basskin]

And the reproduction is separate from performance.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I would argue that in the adoption of new technology we would compensate the people who create the new technology. That goes across the board. It's not just in broadcasting; it's throughout this bill. We're trying to encourage the adoption of new technology so that Canadian creators can take advantage of new technology, that there are markets for their works, and they're compensated for the creation of those works. That's what this bill is all about.

When we have a scheme that basically punishes the adoption of new technology and it has absolutely no benefit for the operation of a business, that's a problem.

[David Basskin]

I'm sorry, sir, this has not punished anybody. There is no punishment. It is not punishment for the adoption of technology.