Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Good afternoon, my name is Annie Morin and I am chair of the board of the Canadian Private Copying Collective. The private copying levy has been an important part of the Canadian copyright regime for more than a decade. The levy, which is included in the purchase price of blank a

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  In fact, we would like it to be limited to items intended to reproduce pieces of music and that are designed, manufactured and marketed. It is possible to determine what a device is intended for.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Definitely. It would indeed be possible to limit the matter. It would even be possible under section 87 of the act, as it currently stands, to limit by regulation the media to which the levy could apply. Thus, if the government deemed that such and such a medium should not be sub

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Absolutely nothing is provided to compensate the net loss of income arising from private copying. There is only section 29.22, which permits copying for personal purposes.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Absolutely, net losses.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  No.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I would be very pleased to do so. First of all, it isn't a tax. You who are here and who work in government, you are in a good position to know that a tax is money that goes to the government, that is used to pay for public services. In this instance—

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  In this instance, you should never use that word. That is misinformation, it misleads people, and it causes confusion. A royalty is a revenue that is collected by the Canadian Private Copying Collective and that is paid directly to music creators. It is in no way a tax, just as

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  No, that's not at all the case. As I have said and repeated, it would be between $2 and $25. That amount could be determined by the Copyright Board. It wouldn't be $75 at all, and, once again, the government could even impose a ceiling on the amount that could be collected under

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Absolutely not; that's not what's provided for. We're not talking about every medium designed, manufactured and marketed or commercialized. Are there any advertisements that suggest buying a car in order to copy music? That doesn't exist; I've never heard of any such thing. The s

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  No. We retained the services of the firm that normally conducts surveys for the Conservative Party, Praxicus, and according to the surveys they conducted, 67% of consumers are in favour of a royalty, and 71% believe that a royalty of $10 is a fair and reasonable levy. When that a

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes, I'd be pleased to do so.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  No. Look, these are two separate things. There's access to music and there are reproductions of music. So, at the time, in 1997, when people bought a CD, part of the royalties went to the artists, just as when people now download a song from iTunes. Even in a legal business, th

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  No. The levy in fact guarantees artists an income that is proportionate to their success. These amounts are distributed based on the number of sales made by the artists and also based on the broadcasting of that music. Of course, an artist who manages to create a very popular

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  It's based on sale surveys, on the one hand. Fifty per cent of the data that are used are sales data. So if someone sells albums, it can be assumed they will eventually be copied. The other 50% are broadcasting data. So if someone is regularly broadcast on the radio or elsewhere