Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you again to our witnesses.
If it's true, as my colleague Mr. Shields mentioned, that the legislation cannot change the mentality that copyright isn't important and that everything should be free—a culture that will definitely have to change, if possible—can we also say that the act can, at times, have somewhat of a perverse effect?
When we defined fair dealing for educational use in 2012, certain discrepancies arose that are still noticeable today. Currently, many authors, who are represented by Access Copyright or by Copibec, see their work being used under the pretext of fair dealing for educational use, and aren't paid in consequence. By analogy, let's imagine a similar provision for fair dealing for electricity that would excuse people from paying their electricity bills if the electricity is used for educational purposes!
Can we say that, in 2012, when the Act was reformed, we created a precedent, at a time when our previous collective rights management system was working quite well? Personally, I think that this is the issue that causes the most people to contact us, whether it's copyright holders or people in academia, who come tell us that bachelor degrees are so expensive for our young people. It's true, but these young people aren't paying for their books, even if they do pay for their baked beans and Kraft macaroni and cheese!
Do you have any comments to add?