Evidence of meeting #141 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 authors.
A video is available from Parliament.
December 3rd, 2018 / 5:05 p.m.
Partner with McCarthy Tétrault and Adjunct Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual
Just like any other collective, Mr. Graham, it represents a very large percentage of authors and publishers. That system was potentially viable. I'm not saying they represent everybody, but no collective represents everybody.
Associate Professor and Innovation Chair, Electronic Commerce, University of Toronto, As an Individual
For Access Copyright, if you go to their submissions and to their documents, they say that you can copy every published work, except specific works that appear on an exclusion list. In order for it to appear on an exclusion list, someone has to actively tell them, “Take me out.” That's how they structure their business.
This is not how the law works. The way the law works is that they can only license works when the copyright owners authorize them to act on their behalf. That's how they work.
Now, if you want to read more about what the Copyright Board said about the repertoire most recently—I think it was the 2015 K-to-12 tariff—there is a rather extensive discussion on the repertoire and lack thereof, and why it would be infringement to authorize things they don't have. I think that's the latest thing the Copyright Board said about that.
Partner with McCarthy Tétrault and Adjunct Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual
Mr. Graham, would you mind if I just said for 20 seconds what I—
Partner with McCarthy Tétrault and Adjunct Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual
Okay.
It's neither here nor there whether any particular author is or is not within a repertoire. What's really important for this committee is why Access Copyright is not being paid after tariffs are certified by the board, and what this committee can recommend to address that problem.
Executive Officer, Intellectual Property Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Can I respond to that?
Liberal
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been exciting.
One of the things I would like to follow up on, Mr. Katz, is with regard to the artists being at the centre, as you mentioned. What's your interpretation right now in terms of the remuneration they're getting? There's a lot of money being made with regard to copyright. Control seems to have been ceded by many artists as it goes to YouTube and other types of sharing platforms. It's a debate in terms of where you have control and where you don't, and whether you get overexposed or underexposed.
I'd like to reinforce what I think is an interesting point you made about the artists and creators being at the centre of the law. Can you complete that, please?
Associate Professor and Innovation Chair, Electronic Commerce, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think Mr. Azzaria made the point.
NDP
Director, Art School, Université Laval, As an Individual
What was your question?
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
There seems to be an incredible amount of wealth being generated here. You made the comment about artists and creators being at the centre of that. What disconnect do you think is taking place? That's the whole point of copyright. It was to protect some of that to start with. Where do you think some of this wealth is going?
Director, Art School, Université Laval, As an Individual
I think there are a lot of studies showing that the authors are not being paid. I think it's quite obvious. As for who is getting the money, it's the Internet providers, the big ones like Google, Facebook, etc. The money is going there. That's the problem. They're making a lot of money. The people who produce the content are not making that money. The value gap is all about that. That's a serious problem.
From a policy point of view, I think it's quite cynical to say, well, the creators will create anyway so we don't have to give them too many rights; they love to create, so just let them write books and do art. That's okay. They'll do it anyway because it's their passion.
I think we have to say, from a policy point of view, that we have to protect them and give them some rights, especially in the case where the money is there. A study in Quebec that was issued a few weeks ago said that people pay more for services than they do for content. The money is there, you know.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much to all of our guests for coming today. We had some lively moments. It was exciting.
We're going to suspend for a quick two minutes. You can say your goodbyes, and we'll come back in camera and deal with some housekeeping.
Thank you very much.
[Proceedings continue in camera]