Industry committee  Yes.

Industry committee  Yes, I agree. To the extent that the question really relates to either what exceptions are made for clearance for inputs, which is one of the points that Professor Centivany made, or protections for outputs, or what the infringement analysis should be with respect to outputs vis-

Industry committee  I'm not sure. Colleen, do you want to take this one? I would first point out the deletion of “sole”. I'm not in the room—I'm sorry—and I can't see if....

Industry committee  Sure. I think ultimately it will depend largely on where the language lands. Dealing first with proposed subsection 41.12(1), the deletion of “sole” may in and of itself bring us offside on the provision. Proposed paragraph 41.12(1)(b), as worded grammatically, arguably provides

Industry committee  Sure. Just to be clear, I think our primary concern is actually inconsistency within the context of the Copyright Act itself—

Industry committee  To illustrate the red herring, I'll take Ms. Centivany's point about the three different computer systems that don't speak to each other. The current exception would enable somebody to do that research to have them speak to each other. The Copyright Act is not a barrier there. Th

Industry committee  I would think we already have the industry incentive, and we're not seeing it.

Industry committee  As with the discussion we had on the right to repair bill, the Copyright Act has been identified as the barrier to both right to repair and interoperability. I think there's an illusion that removing, amending or broadening the exception will somehow facilitate right to repair. T

Industry committee  I'm sorry. Is it how does something compare to what's in Bill C-294, the current provisions?

Industry committee  Yes is the short answer, and we'd encourage the study of that. The U.S. provision provides for reverse engineering for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of a program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer pro

Industry committee  Yes, following this we'll be submitting a draft possible amendment for consideration that we think would be compliant and also achieve the policy objectives as we understand them. We're proposing a small amendment to subsection 41.12(1), and then—separate and apart—adding a mecha

Industry committee  If the objective ultimately is to facilitate circumvention of TPMs for the sake of non-infringing interoperability, I think we can look to what our trading partners have done from a legislative as well as a regulatory perspective. Presumably, if we take a consistent approach, we

Industry committee  Following our appearance today, we will be providing submissions that are being finalized now. They will provide proposed language for consideration. With respect to paragraph, 41.12(1)(b) as proposed in the act, we had a lot of difficulty understanding what it means. Some readin

Industry committee  Thanks very much, Ms. Stanley. Thanks for the question. First of all, I think the King case was not really about interoperability. It wasn't about homebrew cases; it was about somebody who was trafficking in pirated anti-circumvention devices and who, as part of the defence, r

Industry committee  On the initial question, which was about what the remedy was and what the U.S. would do if we're found to be offside, I'm not sure if that's more of a political question than a legal question.