Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee Our position on digital losses is that we ought to create the possibility for the consumer to have access to material that he or she has bought with the intention of not breaching the law. That's our concern. I don't know whether that's.... Do you want to comment?
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee In our provisions we suggest that “any person may circumvent any technological protection measure for private, non-commercial and non-infringing purposes...provided that such services and products are capable of substantial non-infringing use”, so it's not a completely open door,
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee But it's only in this format.
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee It depends on how you approach things and the balance you're aiming for. We want to ensure not only that artists who are already active in their artistic field can receive appropriate royalties, but also that people aspiring to be artists or who are at the bottom of the ladder wi
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee I would just like to finish explaining our argument, if you don't mind. We do not think it is appropriate to restrict access to information and relevant research, particularly for the most disadvantaged members of our society, because that truly is a bridge to better things. That
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee I'll let Mr. Knopf respond to the second question first, and then we can zero in on this.
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee Certainly. There is no--
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee Yes, I mean legislation, legal decisions, research documents, and so on.
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee As we see it, this is a great opportunity to reinstate what is already there. It's not a major change. Indeed, a Justice Department order already recognizes Canadians' right to such access. What concerns us is the fact that this is a good opportunity to achieve the same thing in
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee Yes, that's in our brief.
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee You will be receiving it soon. I'm sorry; things happened a little too fast. In our brief, we suggest that a specific provision of the Act recognize the right of Canadians to access the information they have paid for. This is essentially Crown copyright. It's not a major change,
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee I think it's important to be aware of two things here. Protecting the artistic property of authors and support for artists have been part of the Association's mandate for years now.
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee Indeed, I think “such as” does not broaden per se, because once you say “such as”, the judge must interpret that in light of the list that's being.... It prevents too narrow an interpretation and it allows for future possibilities to be argued on the basis that they are similar t
February 10th, 2011Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers