Evidence of meeting #123 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was levy.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Private Copying Collective
I'm sorry. I've lost my train of thought.
4:25 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Perhaps I can add something.
Maybe I'll speak French. It would be easier for me.
4:25 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Tablets and smart phones are subject to a multitude of levies, whether it be for Bluetooth technology or other applications. Many people, however, never use those features. Even though they never use the Bluetooth function on their tablet or smart phone, the company who designed the technology is still compensated when the device is purchased. These types of devices are subject to a host of levies, so the logic is similar.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Private Copying Collective
I'd add as well that one of the categories of users of blank CDs who don't copy music has been businesses. There are churches and numerous groups that have been able to work with CPCC through a zero-rating program. If there are categories of users who categorically don't use the device for copying, there are systems in Canada, as in other countries where there are levies, where we can work with those groups to exempt them from the levy.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Thank you, everybody, for coming. Certainly you are bringing us a lot of learned understanding about the business.
I'm just going to pick up on levies. You're proposing a levy on the actual device or variety of devices that might be out there. Consumers would pay through the purchase of the device, and a portion of that would then go to the creators. Beyond the levy, is there any thinking about a remuneration scheme similar to Spotify's? With Spotify, you have artists or musicians who have negotiated with Spotify and are then remunerated and compensated for consumers' use of their music.
Is there any recommendation that you would have for us around that kind of consideration? I ask this because, even in this short period of time, technology has rapidly changed. Is it really just simply, aside from what a remuneration scheme would look like, that by making it also technology-neutral, both of those things together actually cover it?
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Private Copying Collective
I'm sorry. I want to make sure that I understand your question. Are you asking whether there's a way to compensate for private copying that looks more like the compensation for a streaming service?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Right. I guess the defining feature of the private copying regime is that copying is inherently private. We can never know. We can't control it. We can't directly license these copies. That's really the problem that is solved by the levy regime.
Again, we're trying to come as close as we can to having the users pay, but this is precisely the category of copying that we can't know about that is private. We have to use data and logic to compensate as closely as we can without having a direct relationship with those users.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Given the advent and the changes in technology being as rapid as they are, if we do that, will that suffice?
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Private Copying Collective
The other aspect of this is that the regime is fairly self-correcting. We apply for tariffs on a year-by-year basis.
4:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Private Copying Collective
Again, depending on what evidence and what technology there is, that would certainly affect our ask and affect the evidence brought by other groups as well to the public proceedings in front of the Copyright Board to be weighed.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Most of you have recommended that the duration for copyright be extended from 50 years to 70 years. Can you help us understand for your respective industries who would be the beneficiaries and where those tangible benefits might be?
June 14th, 2018 / 4:30 p.m.
Gilles Daigle General Counsel and Head of Legal Services, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
They would essentially be the heirs or descendants of the creators and publishers of the musical works created by the authors in question. From our perspective, this should not be a controversial issue. We're essentially asking for the same treatment for our members, who ask us, “What is it about us Canadian creators? Are we not as worthy as our peers in the United States or Europe, whose works are protected for 70 years? Why not us?”
The 70-year term has been around for literally decades in other jurisdictions, so it's a matter of recognition of the talents of Canadian creators. I think it's also a recognition of where, in our view, Canada should be internationally on this issue. We want to be with our peers, not with what we consider, quite frankly, laggard jurisdictions that have very little interest in these intellectual property issues.
4:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
Perhaps I can add to this.
I believe SOCAN has about 5,000 publisher members. Most of them are small to extremely small businesses. The copyrights they control that creators have asked them to administer or promote are their assets. The shorter duration of the Canadian term of protection penalizes them in terms of the valuation of their assets compared with other publishers from other countries.
So we would be enabling them to increase their value so as not to be prey to foreign publishers, for example, who want to take over the catalogue because it is undervalued. It's the economic value of small businesses that make up the Canadian ecosystem that's also at stake there.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I'd just like to follow up on my earlier discussion with Mr. Baptiste.
Do you have any actual examples of the charitable exemption being abused by organizations that are charitable in name but make money in reality? I'd like some actual examples to help me better understand what you mean.
4:35 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
Of course.
I'm going to let my colleague Gilles Daigle answer that.
4:35 p.m.
General Counsel and Head of Legal Services, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
I'm not here to point the finger at specific organizations.
4:35 p.m.
General Counsel and Head of Legal Services, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
The Montreal jazz festival, a very popular international music festival, pays us royalties, as it should.
That isn't the case with other large festivals, including here, in Ottawa, or even in Toronto or Vancouver. Those festivals are registered as charities for tax purposes. When we come knocking to collect the levies applicable to their events, they cite the exemption in the Copyright Act. Keep in mind we are talking about music festivals that, in some cases, go on for days and depend on access to music.
