Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Sure, absolutely. As do many academics, I write and I publish. This book is one example, but there are a number of others. I'm practising what I'm preaching in the sense that the approach I take is to have this book available in print form and also to have it available free to download through a Creative Commons licence.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  It's absolutely essential that creators get to make those choices, but copyright also sets some limits on some of those choices—limits in the sense that there are exceptions. There are user rights that I, as a creator, don't have the right to stop someone from exercising. That's what that balance is all about.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I'm also happy that we're here at this point in time. We're all in agreement there. I think the best provisions are the ones that genuinely try to strike a compromise, which becomes so essential in copyright. I think we see it in the Internet service provider provisions with the notice-and-notice approach.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I think there's no question that we'll see a constitutional challenge. We've had papers from a number of academics who have made the case in an analysis of how copyright sits within our Constitution. The further away you get from copyright and the more you become more focused on what you can fundamentally do with your own property rights, the less this becomes about copyright per se.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  There are a couple of things there. First, if it's a citizen's right and we're going to agree that something like time shifting or format shifting is appropriate and ethical and that the law should reflect that, then I don't think it's appropriate to say that the right can simply disappear by virtue of the existence of a digital lock.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thanks. I would respond with two things. One is to reiterate the fact that the notion there are people out there who will be able to make any kind of copying and claim it's for educational purposes, and that it stops there, is fundamentally not what the bill says nor what the law is.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Absolutely there should be responsibility, and I think the approach that the bill takes on notice and notice is one through which there is responsibility on the part of the ISP. It's one in which there are significant costs incurred by an ISP, but at the same time what it does is look at the experience in other jurisdictions and try to strike the appropriate balance so that there are remedies for rights holders and appropriate privacy and other protections for users.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Right. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I think that any copying that takes place, including under the new exception for education, must still be fair. It would be disingenuous to argue that there is going to be no copying that's currently compensated for that might now fall within fair dealing, but by definition any copying that does indeed qualify through the court's analysis is fair.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Absolutely not. When you take a look at some of the provisions with respect to fair dealing or with respect to digital locks or whatever, it's clear the bill has been vetted by those who recognize what the standards are in international law, and I believe the law is compliant as currently drafted.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes or no? I think there are provisions in there that clearly benefit creators. I think there are some provisions that benefit users, although I think there's some concern with those. I think we can address some of the concerns that creators have, particularly with respect to fair dealing, in the way that I just described.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I'm sorry that this isn't yes or no, but I think that we have to unpack some of the various provisions a little bit. The ephemeral rights issue is one in which clearly some revenue is at stake. I'm sure you'll get both sides in to talk a bit about what's being paid for and whether or not it's appropriate for it to be paid for, but if the bill stays in its current form, then yes, there's lost revenue in that regard.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Michael Geist. I am a law professor at the University of Ottawa. As I'm sure many of you know, I have been very active on copyright policy issues for many years. In 2007 I launched the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group, which grew to over 92,000 members and has local chapters across the country.

Industry committee  To supplement that, it's essentially shared responsibility. You can get federal law and state law. Under pre-emption rules in the United States, if the federal law wades into an area, it will pre-empt the state law, which, as we mentioned, is what happened when they brought in CAN-SPAM.

Industry committee  I think the realtor would be comfortable, assuming they had asked the person if they had permission to send it on to the friend.

Industry committee  I don't think there are many individuals who are going to look at that and think twice before they send out a message to their friend saying--