We talked earlier about how the act is interpreted. It is true that, oddly enough, the Supreme Court introduced an interpretation in 2004 that let to concrete changes in 2012 and 2015. In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada distanced itself from the U.S. Supreme Court. At that time, the Mickey Mouse case was before the U.S. Supreme Court. It stated the principle that, under U.S. copyright law, Webster had produced his grammar and supported his family and also provided us with a great dictionary.
Here, the Supreme Court told us that rights have to be limited. People have to earn a living, we know, and someone who does not earn a living does not create. So this concept existed before. Even if someone told me, as an author of books about copyright, that the education exception must be interpreted in the previous framework, I know it has become much more strict now as a result of the very broad education exception, which is not managed for the general public, and as a result of an interpretation that favours users.
In this case, as a lawyer, I think my colleagues opposite would always say that their client does not have to pay, even if they are using a work on the Internet, and clearly for commercial purposes.