Industry committee  Those pots are separate. They're allocated directly. Within that, the rights holders, the members of CPCC, have developed over time a methodology for distribution of those royalties. There's a full explanation of it on our website. I'd be happy to share more details.

Industry committee  We try to distribute it based on data as to—

Industry committee  Absolutely.

Industry committee  Yes.

Industry committee  In the good old days when we had revenue, the CPCC engaged in quite extensive and high-calibre research to understand which media and devices were in use by Canadians for copying. We worked to develop valuation methodologies, which we would present to the Copyright Board and whic

Industry committee  Correct.

Industry committee  Right.

Industry committee  That's right. If the evidence shows that there should be a levy on something, we have the opportunity to make that case in front of the Copyright Board.

Industry committee  That's right. Our understanding is that, when this legislation was drafted, it was intended to be technologically neutral. The Copyright Board agreed with the CPCC's interpretation that it could, in fact, in its current form, accommodate levies on devices, supports including dev

Industry committee  The private copying regime remains the best solution to what is an ongoing problem. Streaming may dominate the legal music market, but Canadians still value and make copies of music—over 2 billion a year since 2010—and the levy system is the best mechanism to compensate rights ho

Canadian Heritage committee  Certainly everyone in the music industry is interested in blockchain and in any technology that allows greater control and greater ability for rights holders to authorize or prohibit to license to monetize their work. We at the Private Copying Collective represent something that

Canadian Heritage committee  Yes. In fact, we are developing—and would be happy to share with the committee if it's not too early a stage—some draft language. Essentially, the issue is that the private copying regime is focused on audio recording media in English. The court's interpretation of the term “medi

Canadian Heritage committee  If I could just add, the Private Copying Collective is itself an umbrella collective that was created by the rights holders' collectives. In effect, it is the chosen vehicle by the rights holders. The systems that have been set up have been developed by the rights holders. As for

Canadian Heritage committee  It's an excellent question and, in fact, the private copying regime as it's currently drafted comes very close to achieving that. It was the intention, but there was always also an understanding that it would be required that the government review it every five years, which is ex

Canadian Heritage committee  We did go to the Federal Court of Appeal; that's where the Copyright Board's decision allowing the levy on MP3 players was quashed. The Supreme Court chose not to hear the case. Our understanding is that, in large part, that was because the government was about to open up the act