Evidence of meeting #123 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was creators.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
Yes, well, I'll be participating with the industry committee in terms of the context of their review and throughout the process that's ongoing.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
But prior to this, you've not made any submissions or comments.
11:35 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
Not to this point, no.
Sorry; I need to correct the record on that. I was before the Senate committee on banking and transport when it looked into the Copyright Board reform. I participated in that, but it was specifically for that aspect.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Within this broad field, how is infringement defined legalistically?
11:35 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
That's a complicated question. Copyright infringement occurs when someone infringes one of the exclusive rights that are given under the act, which includes the right of reproduction, the right of communication to the public, etc.
Whether or not something constitutes an infringement depends on the specific circumstances, and that's what makes copyright very complicated to manage. Even if there's an instance of someone making a copy—someone has appropriated someone else's work and, say, includes it in a video—there are also very legitimate reasons that they're permitted to do so, because there are various limitations and exceptions that exist under copyright, such as fair dealing, for example, that permit limited uses of the work, and there are also a number of specifically enumerated exceptions that exist under the act.
Then even if, on its face, it's a copyright infringement, whether or not it falls under the exceptions is very much subject to the context. That can make copyright very challenging to adjudicate.
A case in point is content ID. It is again an extremely powerful copyright management tool. It is very good at detecting copies of a work that has been uploaded and given to us as a reference file, and then applying automatically a policy the rights holder has selected—block, monetize, or track.
It doesn't do that in a terribly nuanced way. The rights holder tells us how they want to set this up. They can set it up on a territory-by-territory basis. They can set it up so that you can use five seconds of the work, but you can't use 30 seconds, but it can't determine whether or not an exception applies.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
If I were to take something you have on YouTube and download it and then put it out under some other title, would that be infringement?
11:35 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
That could possibly be an infringement, depending on the context and specifics of—
11:35 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
For instance, if you did that, but you were doing it in the context of a news report, it would be a different context, and that might be allowable.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I note that in September the European Union adopted copyright reforms. In particular, articles 11 and 12 call for news aggregators such as Google to pay media companies when sharing their context and for the use of automated software that would detect and filter out intellectual property violations on all uploaded content prior to its publication online.
What position does Google take on the notions the European Union is introducing?
11:35 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
Specifically regarding articles 11 and 13 of the European copyright directive, to be honest, as we've said publicly, we were disappointed in the response. Basically we feel that a partnership model is the best way to approach these issues. The rights as defined were fairly vague and ambiguous, so we're concerned about the broader implications.
Again, this is also not just about Google. This is about the implications of these to the broader open Internet. An obligation to remit a payment just for the sake of linking to an article can be very challenging to administrate, and you may well find that a number of news services will close because they're simply not prepared to pay that.
Similarly, on the filtering side, essentially a proactive liability on an online platform that basically says they have to license all their content up front—
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Sorry; I'm going to have to cut you off because I'm getting short of time.
What you're saying is that you didn't feel the European Union strategy was a positive strategy in terms of being able to address some of the issues we've been talking about. What would you see as being a positive strategy if we were to come out with legislation? What do you think would be one that would address the types of things that the European Union was trying to get at but apparently didn't get at? What do you see as a way to accomplish those same outcomes in a method that you don't feel would hamper the flow of information that you're describing now?
11:35 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
I think it's because we adopt fundamentally a partnership approach as a way to facilitate that. Rather than sort of approaching, again, issues of mandatory liability, mandatory filtering obligations and so forth, which may significantly hamper the functioning of the open Internet, find ways where you have some sorts of platforms to connect with, develop programs and find ways to basically support artists to help them basically leverage the power of the open Internet to leverage the power of building these global audiences to achieve revenue streams.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
We're trying to use a consultative process now in getting the information from you to put the framework in place to do some of that. What do you see as you participating with us in terms of that same consultative process that you're referencing with the creators? What do we need to do to put that in place? The legislators in the European Union tried to do that and you don't feel it works or is appropriate, so I need some help in terms of where you think we should be going to achieve that same end.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
We're going to have to get that answer either in writing or through an answer to another question, because we will be moving now to Mr. Yurdiga, please, for five minutes.
11:40 a.m.
David Yurdiga Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank Mr. Kee for coming out and presenting from the perspective of Google.
I had the opportunity to talk to some artists who have a different viewpoint. They think the system is working well for them and they use the digital media platform to encourage people to come to their concerts, to get a following. One said that on the digital platform, in itself, he cannot make a living, but he uses it as a tool to get people to come out to his live performances, whether it's a concert or whatever it may be. He says he looks at it as a business. He just can't focus on one thing; he has to do all things to be successful.
Can you comment on your experience with people who prefer the system the way it's working, who don't use it as a sole revenue source?
11:40 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
I think you've hit the nail on the head. That's often the approach that we see with successful creators who are able to properly leverage the platforms and turn them into significant businesses over time.
Again, it's that creative entrepreneurial approach whereby you're leveraging the platform. Yes, the platform provides you some revenue, but it's actually being able to build the global audience, to leverage that into doing things like live events, doing things like brands and sponsorship deals, doing things like book deals, doing things like merchandising. In that way you can achieve a successful, sustainable business.
These are repeatedly the examples that we see. If you want an example, How To Cake It is a successful channel, one of the most successful cooking channels on YouTube. It was on TV, but they cancelled it, and they shifted over to YouTube. They had a very comprehensive e-commerce strategy: they produced weekly videos, but they also had a merchandising strategy, an e-commerce strategy, that they executed and then were basically receiving millions of subscribers within the course of six months. That's because they fully leveraged and understood the power of the platform and turned that into appropriate revenue streams.
The fundamental thing is to have creative entrepreneurs of the type you spoke to and the type I speak about and find ways to have them engaged with other artists who are having more challenging times on the platform, to see where there are opportunities for them to build out, as well as to take advantage of additional features that we're basically introducing in the platform to help them get additional revenue streams.
11:40 a.m.
Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
Thank you.
In some instances, a lot of artists enter a market through YouTube. They get a following and they're able to get their work out there. What are the challenges, do you think, for the artists who rely just on content? Do you think they have to change their model to survive, or do you think that we should rejig the remuneration somehow to ensure artists who just produce content but don't do the other things.... Should that change to ensure that artists who don't do the others should be able to make a living off of it?
11:40 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
I do think that artists who are in that position are in a more challenging position than artists who can basically fully leverage the power of the platform. In those instances, I think it is critically important to examine ways that you can either encourage them to engage or, more specifically, find partnerships or other opportunities to engage and find consistent revenue streams.
The example that was raised with the Screen Composers Guild, essentially they were raising concerns with respect to the royalty payments through SOCAN, which, by the way, we have a licence agreement with. It was interesting in terms of finding ways that composers can work with YouTube creators who are achieving success on the platform but are not necessarily musicians. They were looking for sound tracks and looking for music and artists that basically assist them. I think that is also a very viable opportunity for them.
11:40 a.m.
Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
We look globally. Google is global. Is the issue the same in every country? Are their models better than the Canadian model, for example? Do you know of any place that's doing a great job, so that remuneration to the artist is of more value compared to other markets?
11:40 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
It's the same challenges that you basically have overall. Often it depends on the specific marketing conditions in individual countries. Again, I think Sweden is often pointed to because it's the birthplace of Spotify, which they do fairly well, but that's in part because they have a market there that is very willing to pay significant sums in the form of subscriptions to music streaming services. If you're in a market where the users aren't as willing to do that, it can be more challenging.
This is also one of the reasons that as much as we're investing significantly in creating premium services and subscription services to increase the range of revenue that creators can receive, at the same time, ad-supported platforms still have a significant role. Number one, they actually drive people into premium services; secondly, they help monetize that class of audience, the 80% of people who would simply not be willing to spend $10 a month on a music subscription service. We saw some studies that suggested that if you don't offer them an ad-supported platform, they'll just shift to other non-monetized sources, namely piracy.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Maybe you could continue with the comments that were cut off before, and also send them in writing, as our chair has mentioned.
11:45 a.m.
Counsel, Public Policy and Government Relations, YouTube, Google Canada
Certainly. Can you refresh my memory?