Evidence of meeting #134 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 content.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
Kelsey, you made a comment earlier that the right to read should be right to mine. That's a great line. I haven't heard that one before.
Should we differentiate in any way between a person reading something and a machine reading something?
5:15 p.m.
Representative, Creative Commons Canada
That's a great question.
I think there is ample opportunity for those...there are differences between a machine reading a document and a human reading a document. The speed, access and ease with which a machine can read is vastly different from that of one human.
5:15 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
Ms. Aspiazu, do you have comments on that as well? You seem to.
5:15 p.m.
Digital Rights Specialist, OpenMedia
I agree that the way in which information is processed by an artificial intelligence device is different from how a human being does it. I believe that the outcome of allowing for this exception for mining of text and data would be incredibly beneficial for Canada's AI industry, which is something the government had in mind when they set out the budget this year.
5:20 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
You mentioned FairPlay. I guess it boils down to this question: Should companies be allowed to be vertically integrated into the media market?
5:20 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
Should companies be allowed to be vertically in—
5:20 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
Does vertical integration of the media market pose a threat to...?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, OpenMedia
I think what we've seen with FairPlay is a clear indication of the difference between those that are vertically integrated and those that are not.
When you look at the companies in the media industry that have come out to support FairPlay, they have clearly been those that have content interests, not those of ISPs. Independent Internet service providers that are strictly focused on providing telecommunication services have not come out with the same position, because it is a huge burden on ISPs in doing this, and is not the business they're in. That's where we really do see the difficulty of the deeply vertically integrated market our telecom and media conglomerates have.
5:20 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
I appreciate it.
Dan is going to cut me off. Thank you very much.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
Mr. Carrie, welcome to our committee. You have five minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I used to be on this committee about 10 years ago, and 10 years ago we were talking about copyright. Brian was here. Brian, I thought we had this figured out. What's happened? When I left....
5:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
You know what, though? These are exciting times. We have the new USMCA.
Mr. Petricone, I was wondering if you could comment on this new deal that actually will be coming to the international trade committee, the committee I do sit on. I'd really like your insight on the new USMCA.
5:20 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Government Affairs, Consumer Technology Association
From our perspective, it is a good deal. It contains important elements for the innovation industry. For example, there are limitations on liability for Internet platforms that host third party content, without which the Internet.... It's a fundamental part of the ability of American Internet companies to exist and thrive. Otherwise, from a legal and liability standpoint, it just wouldn't work. That is in the agreement, and that is good.
Also, there's limitation.... There are no data localization rules. That is good. There's a limitation on duties for digitally purchased goods, and that is good for all of our industries.
In terms of Canada, we would not have been in favour of the extension of copyright term. We believe the focus should be on incentivizing new works and that the public domain is a hugely fertile and dynamic area for new innovation. It's a building block for new innovation and should be protected and extended.
Also, we would have been pleased with a specific mention of fair use in the agreement because we believe that fair use is important. On the whole we believe it is a good agreement for the creative industry and a good agreement for the innovation sector.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I was wondering if you'd be able to comment on what you think of the new USMCA.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, OpenMedia
We have concerns around some of the elements contained within not just the IP chapter but the digital trade chapter. I think that our fundamental concern with the USMCA—as I was starting to get to earlier—is that this is a deal that we have no indication included the voices of Canadians in it. People feel very strongly in support of or against the deal itself based on the issues that they care about.
As an organization that is committed to the future of our digital economy and Canada's Internet, it's very concerning to see issues that are very complicated and technical, like digital trade, like intellectual property, being negotiated in the same way that we are trading cows and milk and chickens. That is not to discredit any of those issues. They are all very important, but they are very different from the types of issues we're looking at in digital trade.
That's the concern we have with this being negotiated as part of a larger trade deal where we're making concessions across the board. To us, it feels like the IP chapter was one of the concessions made as part of this larger negotiation.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much.
I have a question for the panel in front of me, because I believe in your presentations and in our history you do advocate for stronger users' rights. I remember 10 years ago it was a balance between the users and the creators. I remember creators back then were struggling. The stats are out there. I think in 2010, writers' and authors' income was around $29,700, and in 2015 it actually went down to $28,000. It seems that they're struggling.
If you're advocating for stronger users' rights, is it actually the time that we should be advocating for stronger users' rights when we're actually seeing employment income for creators actually dropping and they're struggling?
5:25 p.m.
Representative, Creative Commons Canada
I am a library member. I am a librarian by background. I'm a strong user of the Toronto Public Library. I am an active reader. I have a lot of empathy for those who are trying to make a living selling books.
I don't believe that it is the copyright challenge that is preventing them from making a lot of money. We see this creeping from Amazon's publishing model and the impact it's having on them. There are a lot of levers that are involved in whether or not an author is able to make money. [Inaudible—Editor] it is not solely because there are not enough user rights. We need to be able to give a bigger audience so that users are able to use and participate, especially in the area of textbooks where student costs are extraordinarily high and the textbook costs are not increasing at the same rate as for an author of a novel. It's important to differentiate between those two.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, OpenMedia
I would agree with Kelsey and echo what she's saying.
I think that a lot of the problem we're seeing is not a copyright issue. It's the power dynamics between creators, the publishing industry, and where those revenues are going. When we look at some of the larger companies that are in control of these issues, they're doing fine. Their revenues are doing very well.
A lot of this comes down to the power for creators to leverage in their contracts and their negotiations a stronger position for themselves to make sure that they have ways and avenues and venues, whether that's publishing through Creative Commons, whether that's publishing independently and through different avenues, to make sure that they can be compensated. And they should be compensated for their work.
I would agree that I don't think this is a matter of copyright infringement or copyright rules not being stringent enough to ensure they're compensated. I think that's actually the marketplace and the way it's constructed to prevent them from being adequately compensated.