Evidence of meeting #6 for Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was copyright.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Artist, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Absolutely. As I mentioned before, we have become entrepreneurs. We create value in the economy, and value needs to be compensated. Consumers enjoy what we create, they make copies that have value, and that value needs to be paid for.
We have a high overhead, we make a huge investment in our careers, and we deserve a return on investment on everything we put into our work.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
A quick question to the three of you--just yes or no.
If the bill remained as it stands, without amendments, should it be adopted—without amendments?
December 6th, 2010 / 3:55 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Policy and External Affairs, Access Copyright
No.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, everyone. I'm pleased to see representatives of the collective societies. UNESCO has recognized the importance of copyright licensing. Ms. Levy, who has a pre-ordained name, Mrs. Milman and Mrs. Morin, good afternoon.
Mrs. Morin, I want to speak to you more particularly because the Bloc Québécois passed a motion in the House of Commons by a majority of members last March that was designed to update the Copyright Act. We introduced a motion of principle to modernize the Copyright Act by applying the levy for artists to digital audio devices.
Since that time, we've heard a lot of criticism. The Bloc Québécois defends the interests of artists, but I'm going to tell you about five specific criticisms made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his parliamentary secretary in the House of Commons. I would like you to respond to each of them.
I'm going to cite them all. If you want to note them down, you can respond to them all at once. I know that Mrs. Milman has answered me, but I would like you to answer me for the people who are around the table.
Mr. Del Mastro, you should listen, she may respond to you in English as well.
First, they always tell us that this is a tax.
Second, they say that it will cost $25 to $75. They say that when they're in a good mood. When they aren't in a good mood, they say it will cost more than $75. I could find the quotations. In addition, they say it would apply to all digital media, including telephones, computers and automobiles. They've even mentioned that.
Then they say that consumers are opposed to it and that they don't want a tax. They also tell us that consumers aren't pirates and that, consequently, should not be taxed because it's as though we consider them in advance as nasty bandits because we think they're downloading files illegally.
So those are the five arguments I hear every day in the meetings of this committee. I would like you to respond to them.
Chair of the Board, Canadian Private Copying Collective
I would be very pleased to do so.
First of all, it isn't a tax. You who are here and who work in government, you are in a good position to know that a tax is money that goes to the government, that is used to pay for public services. In this instance—
Chair of the Board, Canadian Private Copying Collective
In this instance, you should never use that word. That is misinformation, it misleads people, and it causes confusion. A royalty is a revenue that is collected by the Canadian Private Copying Collective and that is paid directly to music creators.
It is in no way a tax, just as it is not a tax when Apple pays for all the licences on its little thing called an iPod. Those aren't taxes, but rather royalties.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
What do you think of the argument that this will cost $25 to $75?
Chair of the Board, Canadian Private Copying Collective
No, that's not at all the case. As I have said and repeated, it would be between $2 and $25. That amount could be determined by the Copyright Board. It wouldn't be $75 at all, and, once again, the government could even impose a ceiling on the amount that could be collected under the regulatory authority provided for under section 87 of the act.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
It will apply to all digital audio media, including wireless devices.
Chair of the Board, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Absolutely not; that's not what's provided for. We're not talking about every medium designed, manufactured and marketed or commercialized. Are there any advertisements that suggest buying a car in order to copy music? That doesn't exist; I've never heard of any such thing. The scope of this royalty is being exaggerated. We really want there to be a royalty that applies for copying music.
Bloc
Chair of the Board, Canadian Private Copying Collective
No. We retained the services of the firm that normally conducts surveys for the Conservative Party, Praxicus, and according to the surveys they conducted, 67% of consumers are in favour of a royalty, and 71% believe that a royalty of $10 is a fair and reasonable levy. When that amount is increased to $15, 65% of consumers believe it is reasonable, and when it is increased to $20, 63% of consumers, the majority, find it fair and reasonable.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Could I ask you to send a copy of those survey findings to the clerk or committee chair, in the interests of everyone?
Chair of the Board, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Yes, I'd be pleased to do so.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
That's good, thank you.
Lastly, what do you say to all those, like the minister, who say they want a levy on digital audio devices because they assume in advance that users will be downloading illegally?
Chair of the Board, Canadian Private Copying Collective
No. Look, these are two separate things.
There's access to music and there are reproductions of music. So, at the time, in 1997, when people bought a CD, part of the royalties went to the artists, just as when people now download a song from iTunes.
Even in a legal business, the fact remains that value is attached to copies of the music that are subsequently made. Consequently, there's no connection. Pirating music and copying music on recorders or any other medium are two separate issues.
So I find it hard to understand that argument. I believe that confuses matters. I can't see any connection between the two.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
All right.
I've also previously heard another argument, that all artists, even those who have not produced anything for 10 years, will be able to live off society through those royalties.
Chair of the Board, Canadian Private Copying Collective
No.
The levy in fact guarantees artists an income that is proportionate to their success. These amounts are distributed based on the number of sales made by the artists and also based on the broadcasting of that music.
Of course, an artist who manages to create a very popular product will earn more money from the royalty than someone who creates a product that isn't popular.
This works the same way for inventions. If an invention is very popular, it earns more money. If it is an invention that isn't very popular, then there will be less money.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
It's often said that the Canadian Private Copying Collective currently redistributes the royalties it collects under a system that is complex but not fair enough for artists.
Could you explain that system to us and how you redistribute that money? Exactly what is it based on?
