I want to draw your attention to what I feel is an inconsistency. You can be the judge of whether it is a major or a minor one.
On page 8, you talk about ways of ensuring that creators of content are compensated for their work. Ms. Cliff, at the beginning you said that Canadian businessmen—I assume you were talking about creators—have all they need right now.
However, upon reading Bill C-32 on copyright, currently before us, we realize that three new provisions will result in artists losing $74 million in copyright fees. First, there is the non-modernization of the private copy system, which, as is does not apply to digital audio players, results in artists losing an average of $13.8 million a year. This is directly related to our topic of discussion. The private copy system exists, but it applies to older material. Bill C-32 does not cover new material, such as MP3s or iPods. Because of this, artists are losing $13.8 million a year.
Similarly, the education exemption translates into a $40-million annual loss for the artist. This is because you want to enable those involved in education to get what they need on the Internet without having to pay copyright fees.
There is also the abolition of ephemeral recording, which you talked about earlier. The reason why broadcasters are asking for a royalty holiday—if I may call it that—on ephemeral recording is that the material has become digital. Now that it's costing them less, they want to pay less. This is resulting in artists losing another $21 million a year.
The losses add up to at least $74 million a year. That amount can also be much higher.
The YouTube exemption, that is, the exemption on user-generated content, means additional lost income for the artist. Collectives from around the world have signed a contract with Google to pay royalties on the music used on YouTube. On September 30, 2010, the Société des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique de France, SACEM, announced the signing of such an agreement with YouTube. By adding the YouTube exemption, which applies to user-generated content, you are pulling the rug out from under Canadian collectives that could have negotiated the same royalty contracts with Google or YouTube.
Maybe you could set me straight on this, but I don't see any other rights in Bill C-32 that will be marketable, except perhaps in the case of photographers. However, it's also not clear that there will be more such rights than there are today. I don't see anything in Bill C-32 that would enable creators and artists to collect new royalties to offset the $74 million they're losing. I also don't see any business opportunities related to YouTube, Google and other similar websites.
