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.
4:25 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Okay, thank you for that. I'm sure we'll have many duelling banjo questions for the two of you, so thank you very much.
4:30 p.m.
Partner with McCarthy Tétrault and Adjunct Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual
We agree on almost everything.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To start, what would be the top two things to create clarity in the structure of a system of rules in place that might be the easiest things to do? We're getting, obviously, two sides, but even more than that in terms of copyright. What would be the prioritization?
We have a number of things that are going on. Could you scope it down to two things to work on right away? I know that's hard.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Art School, Université Laval, As an Individual
The prioritization is to prioritize. The law was meant for authors, and you should still put the authors at the centre of the law, because everybody has invited themselves into the copyright law, all kinds of users, specific users and so on. It's not really a copyright law anymore; it's a party to which everybody is allowed to go. I would go back to a copyright law where the author is at the centre of it.
I'm not saying you don't have to have exceptions, but you have to say that it allows the authors to be at the centre. That would mean either that the author authorizes uses or that he is compensated if he can't authorize.
If you have that, you have a framework that respects the author. He authorizes, so he says yes or no; or, with the private copying regime, he doesn't have the right to authorize and the public can have access, but we put a mechanism where he gets remuneration.
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor and Innovation Chair, Electronic Commerce, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Are you asking about my recommendations?
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
You have about a minute. I'm going to insist on this or I'll just move on.
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor and Innovation Chair, Electronic Commerce, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I would try to scale down the act by getting back to first principles. Focus on defining certain rights that are narrow in scope. Identify, for example, that if you're an author, somebody cannot make an identical or near-identical copy of your book and sell it.
That's easy and makes a lot of sense, but the moment you start expanding the rights over further and further types of uses, you increase uncertainty. Then you need to introduce a lot of exceptions and you create an unmanageable piece of legislation. We're getting there, unfortunately.
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor and Innovation Chair, Electronic Commerce, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes.
4:30 p.m.
Partner with McCarthy Tétrault and Adjunct Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Masse. It's a great question.
I don't think we can rewrite the act, but there are some things we can do that would have the most potent effect.
4:30 p.m.
Partner with McCarthy Tétrault and Adjunct Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual
The first one is that we improve enforcement through site blocking and search engine de-indexing. There's quite a bit of uncertainty in this area. There are powerful reasons why we should have it by court, and I'm happy to answer that if there's a question about it.
The other one is that we need to create incentives to require payments when tariffs are set. Harmonizing the statutory damage regime would be easy; it wouldn't require a lot of words. It would promote a reorganization of people's priorities, and we would have authors getting paid.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
You would like to see some consistency there.
Mr. Seiferling, go ahead.
4:30 p.m.
Executive Officer, Intellectual Property Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Fortunately for me, I highlighted two areas when I gave my introductory remarks, so I'll just repeat them in a very concise way.
4:30 p.m.
Executive Officer, Intellectual Property Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
The first one is anti-counterfeiting, dealing with the brand owners and the copyright owners who've registered with CBSA and need these additional non-judicial mechanisms to protect their brands, to protect their goods.
The second one is recognizing the global nature of the Internet and recognizing that we protect based on Canadian laws. We can't cross those borders, so how do we do that most effectively? With respect to copyright infringement online, that's a notice-and-takedown system rather than notice and notice.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
You need international treaties to do that.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Good.
In terms of the Copyright Board right now, its current status, and the proposals that have been made to the minister, do you have any opinion in terms of where it's going?
If you do, you have about 30 seconds. I know this is quick, but I don't have much time. If you don't have anything, please pass.
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor and Innovation Chair, Electronic Commerce, University of Toronto, As an Individual
The criteria introduced in the bill are, by and large, a good idea. I have a problem with the public interest criterion, because that could mean anything.
The main criterion there, that the tariffs be set to try to imitate as far as possible what would have been charged in a competitive market, is the right thing to do. Introducing public interest, in principle, is a good thing, except that the board could then introduce anything under “public interest” and could actually empty out all the other criteria.
