Okay.
Until a performer actually consents to the recording of his or her performance, they have the right to prevent its broadcast or they have the right to control the broadcasting of that. That right actually disappears once they consent to its recording. So it's a limited right to control the communication to the public of the performance. In that way, they're treated somewhat differently from the author of a work who has a much stronger right to control the broadcast of their work. Once they've consented to its fixational recording, as I call it, then they have a right to control the further reproductions of their performance that may be based on that recording.
Were there further questions?
On the next page, in terms of sound recordings, music labels have the right to control the publishing, the reproduction, and the renting out of their sound recordings.
As Danielle mentioned earlier on, there are in a sense two kinds of rights that may be conferred. One is an exclusive right that gives the rights holder the ability to control the use of the work. A more limited right is the right to be paid for the use of the work, but you don't actually have the ability to refuse permission to use the work. Currently, for the communication of musical works, there is a right to be paid, but there is no right to say no. That's the case for both the performer and for the label. They can't deny a broadcaster, for example, the right to broadcast their recording or their performance, but they do have the right to be paid. That payment is established by the Copyright Board of Canada, which is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal that's been established precisely to fix copyright royalties, among other things, for the purpose of setting royalties for the communication of music. There again, it's an important distinction between the creator of the work who does have an exclusive right versus the neighbour who has a much more limited right.
On page 14, it talks about the rights in broadcast signals. By a signal here, we're not talking about a work as such. We're literally talking about the electromagnetic waves that are used to communicate some copyright material. The nature of the protection here is basically to provide broadcasters with protections against the theft of their signals. So they can say no to the recording of their signal, to the rebroadcasting of their signal, and the performance of their signal in a public place where there is an entrance fee. In the example I had given previously--the sports bar--where typically there is a cover charge, they have the right to prevent the public performance of that.