Industry committee  Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the witnesses. Mr. Kee, I'm going to keep going back, because it seems a lot of the feedback I've had from people is mainly about YouTube. Obviously, we're reviewing the Copyright Act. Many people will video themselves playing a video game and then stream that, and there seems to be a bit of a grey zone.

Industry committee  I'm not asking about video game developers, though. As a platform, what is your perspective? People are taking their content—the video game they play, their reactions to it, their friends playing on it—and then loading it up onto your YouTube system. Do you think platform certainty would be helpful with regard to the practice?

Industry committee  Mr. Chan, do you have any suggestions on this?

Industry committee  In that case, I'd like to ask about the new European rules that make platforms liable for infringement. Could either Facebook, through Mr. Chan, or Google, through Mr. Kee, point out some of these new rules and whether or not your platforms can operate under those conditions? We've had a number of witnesses come forward to this committee asking for similar provisions.

Industry committee  I would point out that when people are operating in the space and know their business quite well and are paying out all the costs and whatnot, including making sure their tariff is covered, the expectation is that they would be able to meaningfully deal with this. To simply dismiss as a hypothetical that these things are happening....

Industry committee  Okay, that's fair. Thank you. How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

Industry committee  Okay, then I have a quick one for Mr. Kee. We've heard from many witnesses that they make very little from views of ad-supported content on YouTube. There are stories of needing millions of views just to get $150. I don't expect you'll tell us your ad rates, but are you receiving much more per view from advertisers and only paying pennies, or are the per-view ad rates equivalently small?

Industry committee  Thank you. I'm actually going to take up the line of questioning of MP Graham. I'm going to start with Mr. Kee. Mr. Kee, there is a group of people who do reaction videos. They film their reaction to a new music video that comes out, or a new movie or whatnot. There are quite a few people who like to hear and see these reaction videos, but obviously the Content ID system that YouTube employs often will flag that content and take it down.

Industry committee  It's interesting that you talk about this appeal process, because my office has been reaching out to content creators to hear their concerns, and some of the feedback we've had is contrary. We heard from a creator who paid for a licensed audio clip to use in a video. They used the clip legally with a licence and got a copyright strike.

Industry committee  Thank you.

Industry committee  In your opening comments, you also mentioned that a particular song may have multiple different rights holders, particularly on the composition side. Again, without having an example in mind, originally I wrote down that Drake makes more money because more people listen to his music.

Industry committee  If you were to raise the per-stream royalties to increase what smaller artists get, it would radically increase what the larger artists would get as well. Is that correct?

Industry committee  I know you have to generalize in some cases, because there are a lot of complexities to your business. Would an increase in royalty payouts generally make you have to increase the subscription cost for Canadian consumers? That's the point I'm trying to get to: Would changing that model cost more for Canadian consumers?

Industry committee  I do recognize that there are different rights holders, and you might have a collective that might collect more in a certain case or an artist who made a direct contract with you, which isn't often. What I'm trying to say is, if you have a higher stream cost for a particular song, does that inevitably mean...?

Industry committee  Okay. I'd like to go to Mr. Kee. Many witness have specifically suggested that we should remove the safe harbour provisions in order to force companies like yours to be liable for having infringing content on your platform. In a world where 65 years of content are uploaded to YouTube every single day, could your business operate without safe harbour?