Industry Committee on May 8th, 2018

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

This is for the other Monsieur Prieur.

It was mentioned earlier by Monsieur Lecorps that there has been a drop since 2008 in copyright, and so fair dealing might not necessarily be the lone culprit in this situation. Would you say it would be a fair comment, however, that copyright has not been respected since before 2012 and that this is why there has been a significant drop during this period?

[Benoit Prieur]

I talked earlier about the drop in revenues and I provided figures over a dozen years. Since 2012, there has been a clear increase in drops—in other words, an accelerated decline in sales in the book industry. There was recovery in 2017, and we have since noted that the situation has become more stable.

Is there a correlation to be established? Perhaps, but it is certain that piracy, in all its forms, harms the book sector, the book industry, Canadian books, but also imported books. Here's an example. There are companies in the distribution sector that import books published in France, scientific books that are imported in small quantities of 100 copies or 200 copies and are intended for certain colleges in the regions, for example, where specialized fields are studied. Those are expensive books.

Photocopies and piracy mean that ordering those books is not worthwhile. A distribution house can manage a small order of 200 copies for a school because it knows that the copies will be sold. However, when the sales drop, it is no longer profitable for those schools to order them, and as a result, the books become unavailable in French. People from colleges buy books in English.

That is also one of the traps of piracy in the scientific field, in particular, where the production of books in French decreases until, one day, it is no longer profitable. We may be talking about domestic products or even imported products, and that clearly creates unfair situations for colleges and universities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

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

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be asking my questions in English.

It's quite clear that we have a dilemma. Our job as the government is to accept witnesses, listen to them, and develop recommendations. Whether that translates into an amendment to the legislation or not, as of right now, isn't an issue.

We've heard from many witnesses that within the “stakeholder landscape”, as I call it, whether it's the creator, publisher, distributor, or the end consumer, the cost to purchase is going up, yet the revenue to the creator of the content is going down.

I have also heard that everyone supports the creators, and wants the creators to continue creating. Everyone wants, to a large extent, the fair dealings to continue, because they give greater access and greater equality. What I'm failing to hear from everyone is a concrete recommendation of how to create that balance.

When I listen to you, Mr. Lecorps, you are saying, “Don't touch it. It's great”. Out of the 80,000 members or 200,000 students in general you support, you specifically say you want to keep the fair dealing, because one day some of those are going to become authors, and you want to make sure they are supported.

Help us. Come with a few recommendations, even one recommendation if you could, of how can we compensate, given the fact that we live in what you called, Mr. Sapp, technological turmoil and the digital era.

Should the creators all go online, go digital, and put a digital lock on it, and then say that if you want to use it, pay me directly, because that was one of the comments that was made. Anyone can give me their comments. You may start, Mr. Lecorps.

[Guillaume Lecorps]

I don't want to call myself an expert on the whole issue of copyright.

Mr. Prieur alluded to this earlier: you must examine a number of aspects and types of regulations before you establish guidelines. It is clear from the discussion we are having today that we have a dilemma.

The arguments I am presenting to you are focused on what we consider—and what students consider—to be the best public policy. As you have seen in my presentation, I have really focused not on students saving money, but rather on the resulting public policy in terms of accessibility to knowledge and ability to innovate. I understand that some will bring up the fact that there is another side to the coin, which is completely normal. That said, as far as potential concrete solutions go, I sincerely think that open education resources are one solution, but I don't want to keep repeating that.

I completely agree that other solutions will have to be found. To an extent, the dilemma is that we have to figure out what solution makes for the best possible public policy. In that sense, we firmly believe that preserving fair dealing for educational purposes is exactly what the best public policy would be and the best vehicle for innovation over the coming years.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Prieur.

[Benoit Prieur]

It's true that this is today's dilemma.

On the one hand, people are saying that they want open access to all products, but, on the other hand, they want to preserve copyright—in other words, support creators. So a solution must be found. Simply saying that the best public policy, as Mr. Lecorps pointed out, is to have open access to all products or to have means to have free access to content concretely devalues copyright and impoverishes writers. We have not found any solutions.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

What would you suggest?

[Benoit Prieur]

I was saying earlier that, when it comes to reproduction, it's about funding. It revolves around the money that will be given to writers and publishers. We note a decline in investment or in money available for writers and publishers. Having more generous licences for writers is a concrete measure, but there is another side to the coin. For universities and students, in particular, that involves investing personal money.

[Nicolas Sapp]

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum, and we will definitely need a model that is likely to provide a solution to this problem. However, from the university point of view, we are between the two worlds and are founding it difficult to spearhead the search for a solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Prieur.

[Richard Prieur]

I think that authors' texts published for free on the web are wishful thinking. Of course, I am speaking on publishers' behalf because I represent them, but an author, a creator, needs editorial guidance, so publishers are necessary. That is important.

If the Government of Canada wants to resolve the issue of revenues, the issue of fair dealing, and so on, it should commit to enforcing the agreements of collectives. They were not created to make anyone richer, but to represent authors and publishers, such as Access Copyright and Copibec. The same goes for the music industry. Collectives are important.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Is compliance and enforcement an issue?

[Richard Prieur]

To make sure that at least they show some respect to those

collectives.

That is not the case. The are being painted as bandits and as people stealing money from colleges.

The last thing I wanted to say is that the legislation needs teeth. Piracy exists. Our revenue losses do not stem only from fair dealing, but also from piracy.

The act should focus on that issue, but it has not done anything about it. The rules it has implemented are completely missing the target. It is a toothless act. It would be important for it to have teeth. You are imposing on us, copyright owners, the responsibility of finding those involved in piracy and going after them. The monetary penalties are very small.

So our three recommendations concern piracy, collectives and the resolution of significant issues caused by fair dealing in colleges, universities and schools.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

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

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to quickly ask a question about the Copyright Board, but I want to give Mr. Sapp a heads-up that we're going to ask the analyst, Francis, to clarify an earlier question that we asked. We'll get to that after the Copyright Board question, and I'll turn over my time at that point.

Mr. Prieur, you mentioned on a few occasions today that there's a lot of sharing of digital books and that people are using them inappropriately.

Could you comment perhaps on the role that you see the Copyright Board playing in any of this? Has it been helpful? Are there reforms that you would make to the Copyright Board?

[Richard Prieur]

I don't know what role the Copyright Board of Canada could play in digital file sharing. However, what I do know is that, when a person purchases a digital book covered by acquisition rules, they subscribe to a license, in a way, or a method of use. You can read those rules, which cover about 22 pages, when you purchase a book through iBooks or another application. No one actually reads them, but in reality, the buyer commits to doing something. If they share the book's content, in violation of the rules they accepted, they are committing an illegal action.

How to prevent people from taking those kinds of illegal actions? In my opinion, that is the state's responsibility. Someone, somewhere, must ensure that the rules are being followed. As I was saying earlier, we have tried to talk to the RCMP people, here in Montreal, whose offices are located in Westmount, on Dorchester Boulevard, I think, but they are unable to resolve that situation. So it is really a problem.

All you have to do is go on Facebook to see the number of Quebec books, French-Canadian books, that are available for free, without any kind of potential revenue for the creators and copyright owners.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Specific to the Copyright Board, we haven't heard a lot on that.

Are there any comments on any reforms that we could see to the Copyright Board? I was using the digital books as an example of perhaps a reform. Obviously that's not the purpose that went with the question.

Mr. Prieur, do you have any thoughts on the Copyright Board?

[Benoit Prieur]

The responsibility of finding a solution to piracy belongs to a number of institutions, including the state, naturally. The book industry also has a responsibility. In the book sector in Quebec and French Canada, we have owned up to our responsibilities by legally selling books in digital format. That has clearly had an impact on piracy.

Very soon, in collaboration with Quebec's department of education and higher education, we will see how we can make digital books accessible in schools. At the primary and secondary levels, those books are needed, for example, to help the visually impaired, children with other disabilities or dyslexic children. The industry can implement initiatives in that direction. Nevertheless, piracy remains a major issue within the industry.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I just want to save time for Francis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

Our analyst would like to obtain clarifications.

[Francis Lord, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

Mr. Sapp, you represent three universities that have an agreement with Copibec. Mr. Jeneroux asked you what value added such an agreement has in the current context. You answered that it was a matter of monitoring. Could you please clarify?

[Nicolas Sapp]

Absolutely.

That is a framework agreement that helps create guidelines. It also enables universities, their employees and professors who work with materials protected by copyright to comply with Copibec's framework agreement. That agreement is pretty clear on what can be borrowed and to what extent the use of material covered by the agreement can go.

You should understand that Copibec does not represent all publishers, as some are not party to that agreement. We are bound by that agreement.

[Guylaine Beaudry]

May I add something?

[Nicolas Sapp]

Yes, of course.