Thank you for the question.
I completely disagree. Let me give you a simple example from my own life.
I have three computers at home. I have an Apple computer, a PC and a machine that runs Linux. None of these computers talk to each other. They don't talk to each other because they can't. From a technical perspective, they were designed not to be able to talk to each other. It's the same thing with all the peripherals, connectors and things. Even the software programs don't want to connect to each other. The claim that interoperability is not a problem flies in the face of our common sense, daily experiences with technology.
I could also very quickly respond to the safety and security issues that were raised.
During my testimony on Bill C-244, opponents raised safety and security issues as well. My response with regard to interoperability is roughly the same: To the extent that safety and security are legitimate concerns, copyright law is not the right law to look to for protecting those interests. There are other laws that do that.
In addition, positioning consumers and the third party technicians, providers or follow-on innovators as threats is, I think, blatantly anti-consumer and anti-competition.
Finally, to the extent that safety and security are real issues caused by hacking or malfeasance of some kind, hackers already have sophisticated tools at their disposal to engage in those things. This bill isn't going to change that.
Perhaps I'll stop there. Thank you.