Evidence of meeting #143 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 works.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Full Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Also, we have to give time to cases and so on.
I think now it is important, in order not to get entrenched in the view that we have in the act currently.
5 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's been a very interesting review. I would at the same time say that I think it is early.
If we look at it historically, there were major reforms that took place in the late eighties, major reforms again in the late nineties, and then, of course, 2012. We look at roughly a ten- to 15-year timeline historically for significant reforms.
Five years, in my view, is oftentimes too short for the market and the public to fully integrate the reforms and then to have the evidence-based analysis to make judgment calls on new reforms.
5 p.m.
Partner, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, As an Individual
I agree in principle with what Professor Gendreau said, which is that this is a good window for a five-year review given what happened in 2012. However, in principle, I think there should be flexibility for Parliament in deciding when to review the act, as there is for most other pieces of legislation.
5:05 p.m.
Vice-Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
As a preliminary comment—we didn't canvass the committee on this—I think our personal views are that a five-year review is completely appropriate in this case.
If you look at artificial intelligence, it is a very simple example. In 2012, that wasn't being considered, so it's for things like that, perhaps to limit shorter reviews to emerging technology, or to respond to the evolution of the law within that period of time.
5:05 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
Thank you.
I want to get back to Crown copyright, but I want to make a quick observation first. If the Berne convention had been written under current law, I think it would be coming out of copyright just about now. That's just food for thought.
If we wanted to, as a committee, make a point on Crown copyright, under what licence should we release our report? Anyone?
5:05 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think the government has led by example just now with its local news and Creative Commons. Quite frankly, I don't know why almost everything isn't released by government under a Creative Commons licence.
There is an open licence that it uses. However, I think for the purposes of better recognition and standardization and the ability for computers to read it, adopting a very open Creative Commons licence would be the way to go.
5:05 p.m.
Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Speaking personally, I would support Professor Geist's proposal, and I would recommend either a CC0 licence or a CC BY licence.
5:05 p.m.
Partner, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, As an Individual
I don't have strong opinion on a particular form of licence, but I do agree that for most government works, the more dissemination and the broader dissemination, the better.
5:05 p.m.
Full Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
I concur.
5:05 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
I like it when it's fast. Thank you.
There's a topic we haven't discussed at all in this study, and I think we probably should have. That's software patents. I'm sure you all have positions and thoughts on that.
First of all, what are your positions, very quickly, on software patents? Are they a good thing or a bad thing? Does anybody want to discuss that?
5:05 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I mean, we're not talking strictly copyright here, but I think that if we take a look at the experience we've seen in other jurisdictions, I think the over-patenting approach we often see creates patent thickets that become a burden to innovation, which isn't a good thing.
5:05 p.m.
Full Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
I'd say computer patents are the hidden story of computer programs, because initially, computer programs were not supposed to be patented and that's why they went to copyright. Copyright was quick, easy and long-lasting. I think this prevented an exercise, in order to have something much more appropriate for this kind of creative activity, which has a relatively short lifespan and is based on incremental improvements.
I don't think that nationally this is something we can do, but internationally, this is an issue that should be looked at in a much more interesting way. There are so many issues that are purely computer-oriented. It would be interesting to see to what extent these issues would go with a specific kind of protection for computer programs, as opposed to bringing everything into copyright.
To a certain extent, since we've had computer programs in a copyright law, it's been difficult.
December 10th, 2018 / 5:05 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
That's fair. I don't have time for long answers, but I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Tarantino?
5:05 p.m.
Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
I would concur with Professor Gendreau's position.
5:05 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
I like the concurrence motions.
Yes, go for it.
5:05 p.m.
Vice-Chair, Copyright Policy Committee, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada has a committee that is currently collaborating with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office on this very issue.
There may be guidance that comes jointly out of CIPO and that committee's work.
5:05 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
I was just looking at it quickly. If software was always written under current copyright law, I think that stuff written for any act would now be out of copyright. That's sort of a worrisome way of looking at it. It's kind of obsolete.
Is our copyright regime not actually strong enough to protect software, per se?
5:05 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I must admit, I don't think we're.... Given the proliferation of software that runs just about every aspect of our lives, from the devices in our homes to the cars we drive to a myriad of different things, there seems to be no shortage of incentive for people to create, and no significant risks in that regard.
It highlights why always looking to stronger intellectual property rules, whether patent or copyright, as a market-incentive mechanism, misses the point of what takes place in markets. Very often, it isn't the IP laws at all that are critically important. It's first to market, the way you market and the continual innovation cycle that becomes important. IP protection is truly secondary.
5:05 p.m.
Partner, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, As an Individual
There are a lot of issues, some of which we've talked about today, and software patents is one, where if we're going to look at them in a serious way, we need to look at them in a serious way. We need to take a step back and consider what sort of behaviour we're trying to promote, what kinds of laws promote that behaviour and how we can best strike that balance in Canada, also with an eye to our international obligations under various treaties.
Software patents is one. Crown copyright is another. I think that if we want to look at whether Crown copyright is necessary or whether it's accomplishing its intended ends, we need to figure out what it's supposed to do before we can figure out whether we're doing it. Reversion is a third.
5:10 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
The reason I want to ask about all this is to tie it back to a rising movement, especially in the U.S., called right to repair. I'm sure you're familiar with that as well. You're aware of the John Deere case. Are there any comments on that and how we can tie that into copyright, to make sure that when you buy a product like this BlackBerry...? If I want to service it, then I should have that right to do that.
5:10 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes. The 2012 reforms on anti-circumvention rules established some of the most restrictive digital lock rules to be found anywhere in the world. Even the United States, which pressured us to adopt those rules, has steadily recognized that new exceptions to it are needed.
At the very top, I noted that one area. We just saw the U.S. create a specific exception around right to repair. The agricultural sector is very concerned about their ability to repair some of the devices and equipment they purchase. Our farmers don't have that. The deep restrictions we have represent a significant problem, and I would strongly recommend that this committee identify where some of the most restrictive areas are in those digital locks. We will still be complying with our international obligations by building in greater flexibility there.
5:10 p.m.
Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.
I had a couple of questions going back to the beginning, so it's less exciting.
