Thank you very much. I would like to begin with a comment addressed to our witnesses from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations. After that, I will have questions for our witnesses from the Entertainment Software Association of Canada.
As I see it, the exemption you are requesting for education is not a good thing. Allow me to explain. First of all, it's a very bad principle to be teaching our young people and our children. They should be taught to respect copyright and intellectual property, and the fact that intellectual property and copyright should be remunerated. Students, first and foremost, should be learning this principle and applying it. Allowing you to be relieved of the obligation to pay copyright would not serve you well at all. If you feel that your fees are too high, the school should be asking for lower prices from other suppliers—for example, for pencils, blackboards and chairs. We should not be reducing copyright remuneration pay to creators, because they are the people who earn the least. On average, they earn less than $25,000 a year in Canada.
It's a little like asking to be exempted from homework or other school work for a week. It would be pleasant at the time, but afterwards, when you had to take the ministry exams, you would see that you didn't have all the tools or all the knowledge you need to pass your exams. In fact, you are punishing yourselves. Tomorrow, you will be these same creators and scientists publishing your work. Unfortunately, you will not be entitled to copyright.
Now I have some questions for our witnesses from the Entertainment Software Association of Canada. I read your brief very carefully. From what I understood, you are basically asking for five amendments.
The first amendment has to do with circumvention, and everyone supports you on that. This is an unintended mistake on the part of the people who drafted this bill. Everyone wants to curb piracy and ensure that it is wiped out. In that respect, this isn't a serious problem.
Your second amendment deals with enabling infringement. This is another huge problem. Under the current act, this applies to any service which is “designed primarily to enable” on-line piracy. Your amendment suggests removing the word “primarily” and replacing it with the term “operated”, in order to clarify things.
Your third amendment deals with the exception for user-generated content, known as the YouTube exemption. This does create a problem because it basically gives anyone the right to use works without authorization and without remuneration for non-commercial purposes. As you stated in your brief, in the software gaming industry, as is the case with other artistic genres, people are more interested in the glory than in the money. You are recommending that this clause be amended so as to restrict it substantially. Why don't you simply ask to have it removed, since it is an exception that is found nowhere else in the world and that Canada seems to have just pulled out of a Cracker Jack box.