Evidence of meeting #9 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 going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Vice-Chair, President of Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Creators' Copyright Coalition
Sometimes the definitions of non-commercial and commercial sites or entities are very vague in the bill. YouTube makes a lot of money by having people visit their site to consume content.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I understand, and your points are well taken.
At what point does a mashup come so close to being a copy of the original work? In that sense, is there some further definition required?
11:55 a.m.
Chair, Creators' Copyright Coalition
Marvin has had some of his material mashed up.
11:55 a.m.
Vice-Chair, President of Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Creators' Copyright Coalition
Yes. I got an e-mail from someone who said to check something out, so I went to YouTube. I had written a theme song for a kids' show, and there were more than many versions of little kids and teenagers performing this work on YouTube. The parents had posted it and the kids had posted it. I have no problem at all with those users generating that content and putting it up there. It's the aggregation of it and the monetization of it in some forum so we don't get our content.
As far as the mashups, where you can define what is a mashup, etc., I'd have to leave that to different definitions.
11:55 a.m.
Chair, Creators' Copyright Coalition
SOCAN could go to YouTube and get a licence for that, and the money would flow back to Marvin and all of the other people. SOCAN is set up to do exactly that.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gord Brown
Okay. Thank you very much.
We'll move on to Monsieur Cardin for cinq minutes.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning and welcome, gentlemen.
Since I probably have less than five minutes to ask some questions, I want to go back to two specific issues.
First of all, I feel that anyone who calls royalties taxes is being intellectually dishonest. That’s like contravening minimum wage legislation and saying that increasing the minimum wage is a tax imposed on companies. That scares people too.
As to the question asked by the member on the government side about the $126 million, that's already proof that, when the government prepares a bill, it does not consider all its potential impacts once it is implemented.
I think he wanted Mr. Pineau to give him the figures because the government probably had not done its job.
The objective of the act was to ensure that the knowledge economy, broadcasters, consumers and creators get their money’s worth in an equitable way. The media have changed so quickly.
Let us remember that, at the first meeting of the committee when the ministers came, we clearly saw that innovation and technology played a major role; they pretty much came first. If the government went further, technology should allow creators to be compensated appropriately. They would just have to adjust the technology so that creators can be remunerated accordingly.
The question I ask myself is this. I have looked at most of your recommendations. They have to be adjusted for international treaties. On some points, doesn't the government go beyond international requirements? Are there any places in the world the government should follow and get some ideas on how to compensate its creators properly?
Noon
Vice-Chair, President of Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Creators' Copyright Coalition
It's a complicated question for a creator to answer. Obviously the three-step test could be adopted. There is vagueness in that language as well. At least it gives the creator community the language in the courts to understand that remuneration is a right that has not been given away. To define what it is and where it is still puts us in the courts for 10 years.
Alain.
February 1st, 2011 / noon
National Director, Canadian Conference of the Arts
I regret not being able to answer your question on international examples as specifically as I would like. There are international examples that should not be followed, such as the United States. It is proven that the system they have adopted does not work; it is not a solution.
Somewhat controversially, France is adopting some measures that involve... Again we are talking about taxes. The people who are affected, the large companies, are talking about a tax on profit when it actually contributes to making works accessible to the public, by taxing the people who make money from the system at the source. And the people who are making money from the system are the distributors. Basically, that is where we have to go look for the money. Then we can give everyone the right to make copies as they please. We must adjust the amount charged at the source.
At home, we have a mechanism called the Copyright Board that is highly respected. For years, as part of a quasi-judicial process, this organization has created a balance between parties, specifically between the interests of users and those of consumers. That tribunal has an appeal process. There's a whole system in place. Why not use it wisely?
The direction the French seem to want to take is to collect the royalties at the source, from those who make money using the system, and make things accessible to everyone. It's a way to collect money just like the way taxes are used to fund the university system or the hospital system. I pay like everyone else and I use it when I need it, and it costs nothing, or almost nothing. It is a revenue collection system that goes hand in hand with expenditures and would make access easy in the case of intellectual property.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses.
I was interested to hear Mr. Garneau's comment that it's 2011 and they no longer support the iPod tax. It's almost like a weather forecast sometimes, Mr. Chairman. In 2010 they were arguing in support of corporate tax reductions as a means to create jobs. We know that is apparently now the devil. Apparently it's 2011, and that position has also changed. It is interesting, though; you never quite know what you're going to get when the positions are rapidly changing.
But you know what you're going to get with our party. You're going to get consistency, in particular when we stand on behalf of an industry and try to recreate a market that is under threat. That's what Bill C-32 seeks to do.
It was interesting that Madam Lavallée pointed out that the bill is really about industry versus creators, but there's a very important third aspect to copyright, which is the consumer. It needs to be fair to all three parts and it needs to be balanced. That's what we've really sought to do.
I was interested when we talked about fair dealing. First of all, I want everyone to know that a lot of the debate we seem to be having here revolves around the fact that I don't think people understand fair dealing. There's some confusion with it even here, with the members on this committee. But if you look, for example, at the education exemption on fair dealing, people keep on going back to the fact that you'll be able to make copies of entire works and there will be no compensation. That is fundamentally false. It's not true. Copying is not fair dealing--and it does not wipe out that collective. In fact, the educational institutions are not seeking to have those collective funds taken away.
Mr. Angus thinks we should get into and open the Pandora's box on fair dealing. What I'd like to know is whether you support the Berne standard and the five-part test that was established by the Supreme Court. Because this is the basis for fair dealing. That's what the bill works with. If you support that, and the bill doesn't take away fair dealing--in fact, it doesn't amend fair dealing--then I'm just not quite sure what the concern is.
12:05 p.m.
Chair, Creators' Copyright Coalition
Sir, first of all, a lot of writers also are teachers, and we've certainly heard about the education and some educational administrators saying this is going to be wonderful and they're never going to have to pay Access Copyright another dime.
I agree that it's certainly open to interpretation, but this is a huge problem--
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Chair, Creators' Copyright Coalition
This is a huge problem that we're having. We're talking about a lot of income at risk. I've read the legislation as carefully as I can, and I don't know whether you're aware, but in the United States, fair dealing.... There's virtually no payment for copying in schools in the United States. This is what a lot of educators have in their minds. It's going to lead to....
I'm sorry.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
You can argue fair use on just about anything. But fair dealing is very precise on what fair dealing is. We have the Berne standard and the five-step test--sorry, six--that has been established by the Supreme Court that guides the definition of what “fair dealing” is. That does not exist in the United States.