Evidence of meeting #126 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 film.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
We're going to move to Mr. Baylis.
You have five minutes.
September 19th, 2018 / 4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will begin with Mr. Payette.
You talked about a change in the law in Europe. From my understanding, this change will make it possible for copyright collectives to negotiate or take legal action.
Please tell us more about that.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
Yes, of course.
This change strengthens the power of copyright collectives and enables them to enter into agreements for all content available online. At present, users put content online, and we all agree that they should be able to do that. What will change is that platforms will have to pay for user-generated content. So YouTube will have to pay for the content users put online.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Is it a right to negotiate or a requirement to negotiate?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
Since it is known that there is public communication, even for user-generated content, there is a right to be respected. So the platforms have no choice but to negotiate with copyright collectives.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
So it will be negotiated by the copyright collectives. Actually, it would be practically impossible to negotiate with every user. For instance, if I created a little song and put in on YouTube, I could probably not negotiate such an agreement.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
It would be the copyright collectives that would be negotiating.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Does the law stipulate that it is the copyright collectives that negotiate?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
I think it is mentioned in the legislation adopted in Europe.
In any case, there are already certain agreements in place. For instance, YouTube has concluded agreements with SOCAN, but only for the part that is monetized through advertising. When protected content is not used in advertising, rights holders do not receive any revenue. You have to remember that YouTube benefits from this all the same because it retains data, attracts users, and organizes content. It does all kinds of things, but pays nothing for the content.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
So if YouTube wants to post a series of songs that are protected or whose rights are managed by a copyright collective, YouTube has to pay the collective or enter into negotiations with a view to determining an amount to be paid.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
That's right. In Canada, those negotiations are usually validated by the Copyright Board.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association
That's right.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma
I agree with what Mr. Payette said. That is also my understanding.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma
Yes, because screenwriters in Europe and Canada collect royalties from certain presenters. In Quebec, that is done by SACD, a European copyright collective that also has an office in Montreal. Our screenwriters receive royalties from certain presenters through SACD. When our screenwriters' works are presented in Europe, we are very pleased with the European directive, but we have to address the gap between the European system and the Canadian system.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Very good, thank you.
Mr. Paris, I'd like to then go to you to understand a bit more about this sound recording. You're making the argument opposite to what the musicians are making. You're saying they're double-dipping.
What are they asking for that you don't want to give? Let me ask you that way.
4:35 p.m.
Director, Legal and Chief Privacy Officer, Movie Theatre Association of Canada
They're asking to remove from the definition of “sound recording” the exception for film soundtracks where they accompany a film. The sound recording is different from a song in the sense that a sound recording is exactly what I've suggested to you. The sound of an explosion or anything that you might find on the audio track of a film is a sound recording. What the definition of sound recording does, for section 19, where it operates the way I'm describing, is that it provides a stream of royalties where a sound recording that is not on a film soundtrack accompanying the film.... It's only where it accompanies the film that this exception operates. If the film soundtrack is played on the radio, for example, neighbouring rights exist and royalties flow.
What they want to do is remove that exception, which is to say, any time a film would be played in a theatre, it would trigger royalties for everything from a sound effect to a song. That is what we object to.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Is your concern the song or the sound effect? They're two different things. If you had to pay for every sound effect, it would be impossible. Let's say someone creates a beautiful song, and it's used in a movie. Do you want to pay up front but not pay ongoing royalties? Is that what you mean?
4:40 p.m.
Director, Legal and Chief Privacy Officer, Movie Theatre Association of Canada
That's currently the balance that is struck.
4:40 p.m.
Director, Legal and Chief Privacy Officer, Movie Theatre Association of Canada
That is what it is right now.
It's also the same, for example, for a dancer who choreographs a routine. For that person, the approach in the law to date has been that you can charge the rental rate up front, but you're not permitted to exercise the remuneration in the act when it's incorporated into a film. It's a recognition of the fact that a film is a unitary work. That's what we object to. What we object to is the exhibitors' paying the royalty rate for every single song, sound effect, or dance performance, should it extend to that, that is incorporated into a film. That's what we object to.