Industry committee  It would be a sufficient balancing. Looking at the anti-circumvention provisions themselves, I think it's useful. Is it sufficient? Probably not. If you take a look at the legislation, there are ample, specific exemptions for libraries, archives, museums. These are institutions

Industry committee  Both privacy and piracy, I would say both. Was that question for me? I'll answer quickly, and I'll refer to John's submissions that he has promised to give the committee on the FairPlay proceedings. Yes, it makes sense. Provide consumers with useful, affordable services that giv

Industry committee  We live in a free and democratic society, so there's always going to be a little bit of background unlawfulness. We still have the Criminal Code despite living in a free and democratic society. It's the same with copyright. There's always going to be copyright infringement unless

Industry committee  First of all, you have to have the structures in place that incentivize platforms, that incentivize content to engage in those platforms, so that there is confidence that if you go that way, if you offer innovative digital services, you'll be able to make a return. I think it's a

Industry committee  The way fair dealing is structured, before you even get into any analysis of whether a dealing is fair, it has to be for one of the enumerated purposes in the act. I would have said this was a real problem 20 years ago when courts narrowly construed exceptions as basically deroga

Industry committee  I beg your pardon. What a—?

Industry committee  We've had a little bit of judicial interpretation of the provisions, one of which was absolutely horrific, where a court, a lower-level court, thankfully, said that merely getting content that is behind a paywall for a third party—say John is a subscriber and I ask John to shoot

Industry committee  Yes, I will share those. I'll put my cards on the table. I have constitutional concerns with the anti-circumvention provisions. I've written about this for 25 years. Copyright attaches to expression. It's built into the law. You don't get a copyright on ideas. You get a copyrig

Industry committee  We've seen in the United States, with the notice and take down system, which was kind of the first of these sorts of systems in the United States, that consequences, basically penalties, lie for being reckless or knowingly misusing the system. We don't have that in Canada. My org

Industry committee  I'd echo those comments as well. Speed and efficiency were a huge concern with the Copyright Board. One thing that I would raise that runs slightly contrary to that is the inability of interveners to participate before the Copyright Board. We found it a problem. Our organization

Industry committee  That's exactly it. We've acted for parties who were properly participants before the Copyright Board as well. Their objective was to be interveners, to bring in a nuanced perspective, a unique perspective different from that of the other participants before the board, but they w

Industry committee  With the interrogatories, you're either all in or you're out.

Industry committee  They were in long enough to make their point, and then they had to get out, because these organizations are not funded to be battlers before the Copyright Board. Nonetheless, they had valid perspectives, important things to say. They wanted to say things that the board was not go

Industry committee  Is it absolutely clear? I mean, the court has very broad remedial discretion under the Copyright Act. Considering their injunctive powers under equitable remedies, they have very broad powers. I would like to see the failure of these provisions before we go in and say that they'r

Industry committee  That's a good question. The law always lags behind technological developments. It's just a feature and it's probably right. We wouldn't want to be sprinting ahead in trying to constrain or direct innovation in a particular way. We want the marketplace to react as it will and we w