Industry Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Could there be some kind of designation or stamp on these videos, so that if you want to do the right thing, you can do it? Right now I just go on, and you're right: maybe four or five other videos show up. I have no idea whether I'm actually doing something illegal.

[Annie Morin]

One legislative solution would indeed be to provide compensation when those videos play, as is the case on radio. Ms. Prégent said so clearly: you don't deactivate the sound when you watch a video on YouTube. Generally, you listen to the music, and there are images that come with it. In fact, YouTube becomes a sort of radio with images. When radio stations use music, they have to pay royalties; it's what's known as equitable remuneration royalties. Fifty per cent goes to the artist, and fifty per cent goes to the producer. If such measures were in place, that would eliminate a great deal of the unfairness, and people could watch videos on YouTube and have some suggested to them without having to wonder what's going on and whether the artists are paid or not.

The other somewhat problematic situation is that people sometimes put up videos of their cats frolicking about, and background music is added. In those cases, there is no way of being sure. If the video is viewed many times, the one who put it up will eventually receive some money. That person is paid, but not necessarily the person who sings or plays the music you hear. Their work is used, but there is no assurance that the money will go to the creator.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Could legislation help, potentially?

[Annie Morin]

Absolutely.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Related to that, are some of these Internet platforms, whether YouTube, Facebook, or any other Internet platform—and this is a question for all of you, if it impacts you—co-operative at all in dealing with these piracy issues, or do they just say, “It's not our fault; somebody else is posting this on YouTube”? Is there any accountability for any of the Internet providers to actually make sure there isn't illegal material showing up on their sites? If not, should there be?

[John Lewis]

No, they haven't been to date, and that's with notice and notice. Effectively, that's why it wasn't of much use, because they say, “We just provide the pipe; we don't regulate what's coming down it”—that sort of thing. However, I'd like to say that there are broadcasters, Bell Media and Rogers, that are part of Fair Play Canada. They have switched their position in trying to regulate this, because they're content providers and they also create content, so it's going to affect their bottom line as well. Even in the United States, rule 230, which everyone sheltered under in terms of content and responsibility for it, has been modified so that there are now growing requirements for responsibility for what's being aired on your platform.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Would legislation help that, or is that asking too much of regulators?

[John Lewis]

Absolutely, legislation would help in that respect.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

My knowledge of this is very basic. If you currently come across piracy or illegal use, what sort of process do you follow to try to rectify it and how could that process be improved? What do you do if you see something and say, “The royalties are not being paid, and that's illegal”? What process do you currently have in place, and how could we improve it?

[Dave Forget]

There are two ways you can think about the FairPlay Canada proposal to the CRTC.

I speak to directors who find their work showing up on these platforms. Obviously, in many cases, they show up without licence. Directors are not in a position and don't have the wherewithal to be spending the time and investing the resources that would be necessary to track and then try to follow the legal avenues to have the content removed. It pops up in other places. It's a challenge, and our organization is part of the FairPlay coalition too. One of the virtues of the approach is to go to the source.

Often, the source of the content—where it's being streamed from—is located outside Canada. It's hard to reach it through the traditional legal structure that we have now. As a result, blocking those sources from entering our jurisdiction is a simple solution. We would say, in effect, that whatever happens outside of Canada will happen, because these streaming sources will probably continue to exist, and other jurisdictions will have to deal with them. Some have protocols that are very similar to what FairPlay already has in place—in places like the U.K., Portugal, and Italy—and these have been working.

What's being suggested is essentially blocking those sources from coming in, because asking the creators to be in the business of tracking this down on a piecemeal basis is a herculean task, and just not effective. So the suggestion is a very practical one, which is to say that when a site is overwhelmingly and blatantly engaged in trafficking content that it does not have the right to exploit and make available, it should be blocked.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Baylis. You have seven minutes.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'm going to continue with Mr. Lewis on that idea.

If I understand, this notice and notice system doesn't work for you.

[John Lewis]

That's correct.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

FairPlay has come up with a solution in which you say that they'll identify.... You've listed a number of criteria that you think are fair and would ensure that the government is not heavy handed as well. Is that...?

[John Lewis]

That's right. It would be an independent body that would make a determination. There would be a hearing process. It would be a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal that would look at it and make a recommendation to the CRTC. Ultimately, it's the CRTC that would have that authority.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

And they would instruct the ISPs to block that site?

[John Lewis]

That's correct.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Someone else had talked about the idea of what they call “whack-a-mole”. They would block a site, and the site would show up somewhere else. Do you see this as a problem or concern?

[John Lewis]

The industry has to be nimble in taking this on. Here's the problem with notice and notice. You were asking about how you identify something when you might not know. With some of these websites, it's not as if there's bad spelling or that they look dubious. They're sophisticated and slick. You can pay through Visa. You have all the traditional norms that you would think of for a legal website. Most people won't be able to identify what is legal and not legal. The industry can because, obviously, we know who has distribution rights and who has the ability to exploit. There's a process in place for that, but it will have to be nimble.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Yes, to a certain degree it has to be nimble. By the same token, let's say that people are using a Kodi box, and these five sites are blocked. They have to come back up, and then somehow, they have to tell those people who wanted pirated material where they are, right?

[John Lewis]

Right.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

And in the process of telling them, they could be telling the CRTC as well, right?

[John Lewis]

That's right.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

So if we had a stronger method, that would be very helpful.

[John Lewis]

What's good about this is that the industry would sort of self-regulate. We would bring those cases forward, and there would be an opportunity for the website to respond and say, “No. That's incorrect information. We did have the ability to exploit this product,” that sort of thing. There is a process in place. I think there are 30 other countries that have something similar.