Evidence of meeting #4 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was content.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We only have about 30 seconds and I know that it's a four-and-a-half-minute question--or many questions.
If you can answer some of that, I would be pleased. You might be able to send the rest of your answers to Madam Lavallée afterwards.
11:35 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Sure.
Thanks very much for those questions.
11:35 a.m.
An hon. member
Time.
11:35 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:35 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
With respect to Google books, maybe it's better if you and I meet individually. I'm happy to go over the project in depth with you.
March 30th, 2010 / 11:35 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
With respect to the broader question of what our digital strategy should look like and what role there is for regulation, I think there is a role for government to play. I don't mean to say there isn't. Maybe as the discussion unfolds we can talk a little more about what that role might be.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Megan Leslie. I'm the member of Parliament for Halifax. Thanks very much for being here today.
I have a question for you about this process and a question for you about issues. I hope to get both in.
With this process, we're doing an exploration of the role of the Department of Canadian Heritage when it comes to new media. Do you have any comments about what our focus should be, maybe with some specifics? What would be your perfect outcome? What are some of the “hows” that we should be looking at to achieve that outcome?
11:35 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Do you mean what the department should be focusing on?
11:35 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
I guess part of my message is not to fetishize particular forms of content. Don't fetishize television or movies over online content. The whole world of creative endeavour, professional and otherwise--to go to Ms. Lavallée's question--is a worthy part of Canadian culture.
All of that needs to be considered as part of our cultural patrimony and part of the things that government is looking to promote. That includes interactive content, digital content, and video games, as well as some of the traditional forms of content that we focused on. It also involves encouraging our creative communities to seek some of the new monetization opportunities that are available to them online.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
So in that word “encouraging”, do you think we need some kind of digital strategy federally? Would you go that far?
11:35 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Yes. I mean, here is my skepticism on a digital strategy; all the kids are talking about it these days and it's all the rage in Ottawa. I wouldn't want to pour cold water on that, but things change so rapidly that if we dally and set up a royal commission or whatever, three years later we'll have a digital strategy and it will be irrelevant. If we are going to have a digital strategy, we need to have it quickly and it needs to be nimble enough that we can adapt as technology adapts.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
That's the tension between strategies and regulating. I think there's a pretty strong tension there.
Going directly to the issue of copyright, I am not the regular member on this committee; it's Charlie Angus, who I think you know. My background is law, but I didn't do copyright law or IP. Charlie's office gave me this really interesting story--I'm sure you know about it--about Beyoncé putting her own videos up on YouTube and then being asked to take them down because she didn't have copyright on them...? Is that...? I'm sure it's much more complicated.
But looking at this example, are there other examples of this sort of absurd outcome? What would be the role of the federal government when it comes to creating copyright legislation that could actually balance the needs of consumers, remuneration, and fair access? What would be our role there?
11:35 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Well, certainly the federal government has a big role to play, and we're all expecting copyright reform in the next few months, as proposed by the industry minister and the heritage minister. This committee and the industry committee will certainly play an important role in that.
You've seen in examples like the one you've suggested--and we've seen numerous examples--that it is often tough, especially for intermediaries, to know who has copyright on what. We're put in the unfortunate position of playing cop.
For example, during the U.S. election, we received a takedown notice for some McCain campaign videos. It was alleged that they were infringing copyright. Now, the McCain campaign wrote to us and said that they were actually perfectly legitimate, that it was free expression and within the bounds of fair use under U.S. law, and they asked why we took them down. The answer was that we were obliged to under U.S. law.
Examples like this, I think, demonstrate how it's really important to focus on free expression values and rights as they relate to some of these things as well and, in all of this, to try to figure out what is the right balance for artists, for creators, and for everyone who is part of the ecosystem. By the way, I actually think that it's not that hard to do. I know that it feels really hard to do because you're inundated with all sorts of messages and the discourse feels almost religious; it feels like dogmatics from different camps are coming at you.
I don't think it's that so hard to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty in a manner that effectively balances the roles of intermediaries, consumers, and creators in a manner that makes most people happy-ish.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thanks very much.
Thank you, Mr. Glick, for attending today. I found your presentation really fascinating. I think that, as a company, Google is on the edge of a wave in a lot of ways.
We've talked about how some of the old standbys or standards from the past--what we've come to expect or how we've regulated things in the past--are currently being challenged. But the automobile challenged the horse and buggy, right? The Canadian government of the day could have said that it didn't want cars, that it believed in horses and buggies, and that it was going regulate it so that there would be nothing but horses and buggies.
I don't think we'd have a very competitive economy if we had done that, and I think that's what's before this committee and this Parliament.
I have a quick question. A one-word answer will do. Google is giving away search engine applications. You give away maps, satellite views, and streetscapes. You give away software. An author points out that he wrote his book using free Google software called “Google docs”, and he didn't pay anything for it. You also give away YouTube.
Is your company nuts? Are you crazy?
11:40 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Well, a little bit, but the truth is that you can make a lot of money by giving things away.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
So you're not the biggest philanthropist corporation on the face of the planet?
11:40 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
No, not that I'm aware. We still have shareholders and we're doing okay, and that is a function of the way we've been able to use online advertising.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Okay. I think this is fundamental to this committee's understanding of how to assist Canadian culture in moving forward and how to build that next new model. A lot of what we refer to as new media in this committee isn't really new. It's emerging. It's digital. A lot of it has been out there for a while, but we haven't actually dealt with it as a government. For example, the CRTC is using tools that were created 40 years ago--and I sympathize with the CRTC--to try to fix modern-day challenges. It's difficult.
I agree with a number of the things you've said. There is no question about it: platforms are converging. I believe that shows of the future won't be launched to run at 8 o'clock on a Monday on a given network. I think they'll be launched on multiple platforms that are available when the user wants to view them; I think the access is key. I think the unlimited shelf space is key to any business that wants to market itself in the future and take advantage of that zero-cost marketing. That's the future.
Can you think of any artists right now, Canadian or international artists, who are doing extremely well and started out by giving their stuff away or posting it for free on YouTube? Can you give us any examples?
11:45 a.m.
Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Sure I can. One of those examples is Justin Bieber. If you have kids who are tweens, they are probably well aware of him. He got his start on YouTube just by posting videos of himself. So on the point made earlier about trying to differentiate between leisure and culture, there is in fact a convergence of the two, where you have people who are talented and are finding markets and connections for themselves because of making their music available for free--to start. That's not to say that it is exclusively for free, absolutely not.
I'm saying that the online world--and I think you've articulated this well--is not about simply giving things away for free. It's about finding all sorts of different models, from absolutely free to ad-supported, to subscription-based, and to pay per download. There are all sorts of different business models we can think of that people are using today online.
But in a way, many of those are in flux as well, because not all advertisers have gone online yet, so there is a lot of uncertainty for all sorts of players. But the truth is that it is working for many Canadian artists today, and it will continue to work, because they will find venues that they would never have found otherwise on the Internet.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
So as for what this is really about, we've talked about the smokestacks of the past, and I think all of us can remember that when we heard a song we really liked and we wanted it, we'd hop in the car and go to Sam the Record Manor somewhere like that and pick it up. That was how you accessed it. Or if you were really quick with the record button, you'd hit “record” to try to make a copy of it when it was on your local all-hits radio station.
But what the focus of artists now should be is making their product broadly available, and in fact to billions of people, and making small amounts of money. Isn't that Google's theory? Isn't it about literally hundreds of millions of hits, billions of hits, and very small monetary returns on all of those hits that actually add up to a lot of money?
