Industry committee  Ultimately, all of those revenue streams generate revenue both for the publisher or the record label, on one hand, and for the songwriter or the recording artist on the other. As Jennifer said, they really are partnerships. It's simply a mischaracterization of the issue for people like Bryan and others to assume that all of the benefit of the term extension is going to companies and not to artists.

Industry committee  The important thing to keep in mind is that this is an international issue at its very heart. We're talking about works by composers like Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Duane Allman, the list goes on and on, falling into the public domain during that 30-month period that CUSMA allows for a transition.

Industry committee  I'm sorry. We didn't hear the beginning of your question.

Industry committee  Yes, it does, and it affects creators and in a positive way. It's important to maintain the fidelity of the Canadian culture that has allowed the Canadian music industry, among others, to thrive for the last 50 years. Preserving that protection in CUSMA and in its implementation is, of course, key.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  The Copyright Board certifies rates that are organized by tiers of revenue. So for revenue under $625,000, a station that makes ordinary amounts of use of music is paying roughly three-tenths of one percent. Between $625,000 and $1.25 million they're paying roughly two-tenths of one percent.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I guess it all depends on how you define “inconsequential”. Accepting that $400 million figure is true. We can also say that between 2009 and 2010, broadcasters paid $17.6 million for the reproduction right in musical works alone. That's a substantial amount of money in the pockets of songwriters and music publishers, any way you slice it, regardless of the amount of money that's at issue in the music industry at large.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  It's important to recognize that the purpose of exceptions to copyright infringement is to guard against situations where otherwise reasonable access to works would be unavailable; it would be compromised. But there is more than one way to achieve that. CSI's position is that where there are ways to achieve that balance between access and compensation without depriving creators of the right to receive compensation, those alternatives should be preferred.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  It is, and it's important to note that provisions that are intended to fight piracy, especially the online enabler section, really do nothing of the sort because in the end they're completely hamstrung by the caps on statutory damages. So even if music creators wanted to deal with piracy by suing people—which they don't—this bill would not give them the tools to do that because the cost of litigation would far outweigh any potential benefits.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  That's false. We provided specific information about that in the CSI brief. We've established that in the jurisdictions of most of Canada's major industrialized trading partners, broadcasters are required to pay for the reproduction right—or could be required on demand to pay for the reproduction right because of the lack of an exception.