Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 8th, 2025

[Jennifer Brown]

We think that SOCAN should definitely be at the table, because the underlying composition has been used. That's what they scraped—those songs—but they've also used the recordings.

There are many different ways that the copyright has been stolen, so that's what we have to look at. They have to be going to the music labels, performing rights societies and, potentially, the publishers. There are a lot of different parts of the copyright they have already used, which now we have to come back and license.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

When an AI model is using journal articles from years or decades past, information from a committee like this or me speaking in the House of Commons or the comments that are made by other individuals throughout society, would there be a licensing agreement for all of that?

[Jennifer Brown]

No, that's public.

I'm talking about the copyrighted songs of creators, songwriters and their music publishers. These are songs that they've created and are protected under copyright. That's not meant to be used for free by anyone. The very purpose of copyright is that there would be a request to use it and then compensation when you do use it. That's very different from public information.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Absolutely. This is the clarification we're seeking.

Again, this phrase keeps being used, so let's define it. You're saying that a licensing agreement would be generated between these AI companies and different individuals or companies that have copyrighted works. Is that correct?

[Patrick Rogers]

It would be rights holders.

[Jennifer Brown]

Rights holders...yes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Mr. Myles, you have the floor for five minutes.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

I think it's important, actually, to continue with what MP Thomas was discussing.

It's an important thing to clarify that this is by no means an introduction to something that is foreign to the free market. This is how the free market works with copyrighted works. As you said, there's a reason why they call it mining, because it's of value. Copyrighted works, unless we're thinking of getting rid of copyrighted works, and I sure don't think we are, are part of what a market looks like. It's not necessarily just regulation. It's about giving value to things that are otherwise stolen as if there was no value or copyright, if I'm not mistaken.

It's important to make the distinction between what is free market and what is perceived as potential over-regulation. From what I understand, Warner Music, Universal Music and Sony Music are fans of the free market. They're some of the largest companies in the world. I think that's important to recognize in this conversation.

What we're talking about is protecting copyrighted works. We've also talked about the potential for this to be a very doable process in the same way that, when a song gets played on the radio, an artist gets money. That's how copyright works. When a song gets played on a commercial, a company calls me and says, “Can we use your song in this commercial?” and it becomes a choice between me and that company, depending on the value that they want to spend on that. That's called the free market. It's a wonderful thing. It can be a wonderful thing.

That's a really important distinction we need to make right here. We're not talking about rethinking the free market. We're talking about putting value on something that, at the time being, is being mined as if it is data that is not copyrighted. This is what we are considering. Am I correct?

[Patrick Rogers]

Absolutely.

Those other questions touch on why I think music is so important. I think being a lobbyist for the music industry is actually a great job because people love it, value it and understand it. Where this conversation gets difficult and complicated is where we compare it to something like Hansard. Hansard is publicly available and free. AI tools should be able to scrape Hansard because it is publicly available and free. As for music, as I said before, we know exactly what that's worth. The value of music is what it costs to go on a commercial. If you're stealing it from Spotify, it's the monthly cost on Spotify. There are very different things.

If companies are coming to you and saying that the value of AI is going to be fixing traffic patterns, curing cancer or mapping the stars, that's great, but you don't need Taylor Swift's catalogue to do that.

[David Myles, Liberal, Fredericton—Oromocto, NB]

I think we all want to be.... As we've said today, we've clarified that also, as a tool...that's an important distinction to make. As I said last week, we don't want this to look like the eighties when they were talking about hip hop and they didn't understand and said that it wasn't art. Of course, what was the key to that working? It was licensing. It was licensing sampled records. It wasn't that sampling records wasn't art. Sampling records was awesome—some of the best music ever made. Again, what solved that problem was saying, “No, it's all good, but we're going to set up a regulator. You're going to be able to license a beat. You're going to be able to license part of a song. You're going to be able to use that song to make another song.” The creativity didn't stop; it actually exploded. It exploded, but then other artists could be paid for their work if it was recognized in another song. That's an important distinction to be making here.

Obviously, there would be questions about how the number, how the value, would be arrived at. What are the other lawsuits that are happening internationally? Are they giving us a sense of what that looks like from a remuneration perspective?

[Jennifer Brown]

Right now.... First of all, I just want to comment on what you were talking about with regard to hip hop. I think that is a lovely example of what you're talking about with regard to creators as innovators as well. I just want to put that out there because tech will always say that they're the innovators. No, creators are. Creators are also pro-tech, and we just want tech to be a little bit more loving of the creative side.

The monetary way or the way that you would start looking at this.... Potentially, lawsuits can help. We also go to economists. We start looking at what other similar uses are and how you value it. There are some examples of licensing models that are out in Europe that haven't been adopted yet. I'm going to say that there are going to be a lot of different tools in this tool kit because it is an emerging use. It is going to be, I'm going to say, experimental to start. This is typically how we start, even with digital. There was experimental licensing. We sat across the table from each other. We worked it out. Then, in two years, we updated an agreement, and we moved on and improved on it. I don't think we're going to have the perfect be-all answer in the first agreement. I don't think that's realistic.

However, I think that when you are at the table and start having that conversation, you can get to a model that works for both parties, with the expectation that you keep growing and building on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

Thank you.

We have time for half of another round, so we'll go five minutes, five minutes and two and a half minutes, if everyone is okay with that.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Brown, Mr. Rogers or Ms. McGuffin, I'd like you to tell me why you're concerned that the Copyright Act may be amended. It's very important for us to know that.

[Jennifer Brown]

I can start, and then they can probably finish.

The songs have already been stolen. Our fear is that this will be allowed to have happened and that it will be rewarded.

[Patrick Rogers]

You will eventually meet with AI proponents who will say that rights holders are standing in the way of innovation. That's just fancy code for “We want to steal their stuff.” That's why we're worried about it.

[Margaret McGuffin]

I agree with that. We know that these conversations are happening. We've heard from other countries that they're happening. It's a lobby that we know is happening.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Chair, has the list of witnesses who will appear during this study already been made public?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lisa Hepfner]

No, it hasn't.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Are there any witnesses you think we should invite in order to get the counterview of what you're telling us? I'm thinking in particular of Google or other major industry players. Do you think it would be important for all of us here to invite those people and ask them questions? We'll be able to learn more about their reality, but also about their potential intention of getting rid of laws, bills or other elements that would hinder their development.

Do you have names of witnesses in mind?

Are you afraid of being slapped on the wrist by some witnesses or people in the industry?

[Jennifer Brown]

No.

[Patrick Rogers]

If I may, I might suggest a couple of questions for when other stakeholders come.

I would ask, especially if you're meeting with someone who represents an AI model, a few questions: Are you licensing the music? What are you training on now? Is that music licensed? If and when their answer is “no”, I would ask them why not. I would uphold the pillars of the Copyright Act in those discussions.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Ms. Brown, do you want to add something?

[Jennifer Brown]

I don't know.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

What about you, Mr. Ducharme?