Industry committee  That's a position we don't uphold. Copyright can't be the policy vehicle or legislative vehicle to deal with everything that's emerging in technology or otherwise today. Artificial intelligence as technology can be protected through patents, and there are other ways of protecting the technology itself.

Industry committee  I have an example. Because I've been going back into the archives, I made a number of requests to look at 19th century copyright works and 19th century patents. I was blocked and asked to do an ATIP to get the patent information. This is a 19th century patent. The copyright was protected under a Crown prerogative rather than....

Industry committee  We thought so.

Industry committee  I can tell you that at the very earliest, we modelled ourselves on American copyright law. In effect, some of the recommendations we have—to adopt an American fair use-style provision, for example—are actually quite consistent with our history. However, we're talking about over 200 years of history.

Industry committee  Well, it's reasonable time, obviously, to give the publisher or whomever the return on their initial run. There have already been practices in the context, for example, of the arts and humanities law publishing, where after a period in which the journal gets a return, you can deposit it in an institutional repository, with attribution, for publicly funded research.

Industry committee  For pure science, I can't, no.

Industry committee  Again, it's obviously the other side of the coin: users being able to adapt or do whatever copyright permits them to do without the threat or the fear that they will be subject to statutory damages without the plaintiff having to prove them. Anything that short-circuits the regular system is potentially chilling on those people who want to adapt, create, build on knowledge, and use what's out there in a way that is legitimate within the confines of what's reasonable and fair but without these hammers hanging over their heads, which would be huge damages.

Industry committee  I'll just briefly highlight a couple more of our recommendations before concluding. Again, and similar to the overarching approach upon which we have based our assessment of the Copyright Act review process, one of the recommendations we make is to introduce a provision relating to open access to research and scientific publications, especially in the context of publicly funded research.

Industry committee  If you don't mind, we'll do it together. I will start the presentation and then hand it over to Pascale.

Industry committee  Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the standing committee, thank you very much for having invited us here to address you regarding the review of Canada's Copyright Act. My colleague Pascale Chapdelaine and I are both law professors at the University of Windsor, and we're appearing here to elaborate further on the recommendations that we made in two briefs that were co-signed by 11 Canadian copyright scholars.