Mr. Speaker, in the case of the retransmission of a distant signal, the retransmitter must first have paid any royalties and complied with any terms and conditions fixed under the bill.
Unlike a mandatory licence, the definition of licence refers to the authorization given to the licensee to broadcast a product that is subject to an exclusive copyright. This is a major difference.
The exclusion applies to all licence holders. In light of what we have just seen, the compulsory licence regime is already an exceptional system. This is why those who represent authors, performers and beneficiaries were opposed to the creation of a new exception that would not have given them fair and equitable rights for the use of their works.
For over a year, officials from Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada co-operated with partners, authors, representatives of the authors and their beneficiaries to find a way to meet the stated expectations.
Therefore, it was decided to include amendments in the act and not in the regulations, so that beneficiaries are better protected. This was done through the amendments presented by the Canadian Alliance critic on heritage. Clause 31 was amended by adding the exclusion in the act. A definition of the term retransmitter was added, so that the context would be clear.
Since the regulations have yet to be drafted and approved, we felt that it was more important to require the retransmitter, as defined in the bill, to comply with certain obligations or conditions, and to determine whether or not they apply to all, or just to a specific category.
Why include the wording in the act and not in the regulations? Because in the act it is very clear and it will be more difficult to change this, should the need arise.
It was impossible for us to create a system different from those that exist elsewhere without adversely affecting the authors and other partners in the broadcasting system, which is subject to highly regulated terms and conditions.
At the international level, the information provided by officials from both Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada shows that no other jurisdiction expressly authorizes the retransmission on the Internet under the terms and conditions of a compulsory licence.
However, in the United States, some have said that Internet services could take advantage of the benefits provided by the compulsory retransmission licence in that country. This view was challenged by Marybeth Peters, the U.S. copyright registrar. The U.S. Copyright Office is opposed to expanding compulsory licences to include retransmissions on the Internet.
It would appear as though Australia is the only jurisdiction to have resolved this specific issue through legislation. The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 2000 recently introduced a new compulsory retransmission licence which specifically excludes the Internet. This is what Australia has done.
According to information on the legislation put out by the Australian government, the exclusion stems from concerns that Internet retransmissions would have a negative impact on the current conditions for granting programming licenses.
Both of the departments involved, Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada, have also noted that, with the exception of the United States, they are not aware of any other jurisdiction in which specific territorial restrictions were imposed on compulsory retransmission licences.
In the United States, the compulsory licence for satellite retransmission applies only to secondary retransmissions to households on American soil.
First, and this is self-evident, the new copyright legislation must be adapted to the reality of new technologies. Second, I would like to point out how vital it is for us to legislate to protect outside markets for those who hold the rights.
Indeed, program producers' revenues are based on the logic of geographical markets. Reselling becomes impossible in a local market, which means that in Quebec, protecting works is synonymous with protecting its francophone content and culture.
Also, we must strike a balance between protecting artistic creations and encouraging the development of a new type of economic activity. Internet broadcasting requires that the legislation be clarified.
Internet technologies make it possible to increase the effectiveness of companies and provide new value-added services for consumers.
The development of these technologies and services must be encouraged, but within a strict framework. This is what we sought in committee, through the amendment put forward by the Canadian Alliance member.
The bill introduced today was amended in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage after we had heard from a number of witnesses who came to tell us how important they thought this bill was and the crux of what they were seeking.
All the witnesses, with the exception of two, Jump TV and the Association of Internet Broadcasters, were in favour of exclusion.
These witnesses were mainly representatives of creators, and the Media Content Coalition, including the following associations: the Canadian Association of Broadcasters; the Canadian Broadcasters Rights Agency; the Canadian film and Television Producers Association; the Copyright Association of Canada; representatives of creators in Quebec, i.e. SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, and SACD, the Société des auteurs compositeurs dramatiques.
These stakeholders appeared before us to tell us that the goal pursued was important and that copyright must be preserved so that authors could be sure of being paid for the use of their works.
The goal of the amendments put forward in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage was clarity. With that in mind, the unanimous decision was to amend section 31 of the Copyright Act by including exclusion.
Obviously, those who drafted section 31 of the Copyright Act ten years ago could not have imagined the emergence, the scope and the impact of the Internet.
The Internet must take copyright into consideration, and authors must be able to get a fair price for their rights based on the market.
William Craig, President of iCrave TV, tried to prove to the U.S. courts that his service could be limited to Canada.
But all the security measures he claimed to rely on were rapidly demolished by electronics experts, since hacking can easily make on-line Internet content accessible to the whole world.
No standard of reasonable security or restriction is enough. Security must be total or the content runs a serious risk of being transmitted worldwide.
These comments, and the objectives which they reflect, underscore the fact that the Internet will never be secure enough, regardless of the security measures, or firewalls, on which we now rely.
Putting in place security measures to try to restrict access to the Internet does not take into account the fact that the Internet is an open network that must be considered accessible to the public at large.
No tariff set by the Copyright Board will ever adequately compensate copyright holders.
First, the board might not factor into such a tariff damages to the value of Internet rights.
Compensation through tariffs established by the board will never compensate copyright holders and will not allow them to realize the full value of their rights. Therefore, it would jeopardize the whole value chain from the creator to the licence holder and the distributor.
While we support the principle of the bill, we see the need to stress the fact that Internet retransmitters should have the same obligations as traditional ones.
Actually, it would be unfair to create competition for cable companies while freeing them from the duties imposed on traditional retransmitters, namely: negotiating the purchase of copyrights; contributing to the Canadian Television Fund; abiding by the Canadian content rules; holding a licence under the Broadcasting Act. I should also remind members that the industry asked that section 31 of the Copyright Act be amended.
As a matter of fact, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian Film and Television Production Association and the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association have formed the Media Content Coalition to oversee the use of Canadian television industry by Internet broadcasters. The coalition welcomed the bill.
In conclusion, I would like to say that there was a consensus on the amendments put forward by the Canadian Alliance, after thoughtful reflection and consultations, because they were the best response to the concerns expressed by the industry.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the stakeholders will find the clarity they wanted and that artists and creators will, by the same token, get fair compensation for the distribution of their work. I ask my colleagues in the House to support the bill as amended.