Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Date: August 5, 2009 1:30 p.m.
240 Graham Avenue
Principals: See participant list
Shelly Glover, Member of Parliament for Saint-Boniface and Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, hosts a round table on copyright.
Download: Audio Recording (MP3, 39.3 MB)
Shelly Glover: Well good afternoon everyone and thank you so much for attending here today. I'm going to allow Barbara Motzney to give you a few tips on how today is going to proceed, and the fact that we're using microphones etcetera, she's going to fill you in on how that's all going to work. So just bear with us while we go over some housekeeping.
Barbara Motzney: Thank you Ms. Glover. (Speaking French). (Voice of translator) First of all we have simultaneous translation today, English can be heard on channel 1 and French on channel 2. If you want to listen to the proceedings in the language of origin, just go onto channel 0. (Voice of Ms. Motzney) English is channel 1, French is channel 2 and floor discussion is on channel 0. (Speaking French). (Voice of translator) So you feel free to express yourself with the language of your choice. (Voice of Ms. Motzney) Interpretation services and the microphones today in order to record the discussion as indicated on the invitation that each of you received. This, the discussion will be recorded in both official languages and posted on the copyright consultation website as both an audio file and as written transcripts. You can see that there's a colleague taking photos, and those photos today may also be posted on the website.
So to facilitate the discussion and thinking about the discussion around this table, but also the discussion for all the other people who will listen to it on line afterwards, each time you speak please identify yourself and your organization. Please speak into the microphone and don't do what I have a tendency to do, and speak clearly and slowly, for the benefit of our translators and for those listening later.
Our roundtable today will last approximately 90 minutes and our hope is very much for a free flowing discussion of your views on copyright reform. So in order to have that discussion and ensure that everyone has the time to share their views, we'll ask you to keep your remarks quite brief and focus on the issues of the most importance to you, about three to five minutes each if you can manage that. And I'll give you a gentle signal as you approach the 4 or 5 minute mark as we're going along. I think that's it Ms. Glover.
Shelly Glover: Okay. So in an attempt to follow the rules, my name is Shelly Glover, I am Member of Parliament for St. Boniface and parliamentary secretary for official languages. (Speaking French). (Voice of translator) Once again I'd like to tell everyone, to say to everyone here welcome, it's a good thing for me to be here to listen to what you have to say. And as a member of parliament it's an honour for me to be here to facilitate this meeting.
(Voice of Ms. Glover) I'm pleased to be holding these nation wide consultations. I believe many of you may be aware of the number of consultations that we've had, but it's not only a consultation process, I'm really proud to see that our government is reaching out to Canadians to allow them to provide their views on copyright reform because it is extremely important to all Canadians and so I'm just thrilled to see you representing views here today that reflect views amongst all Canadians.
I want to invite you to visit our website and I want you to perhaps share our website information with your friends, your neighbours, your families because this is a very, very important issue that is affecting all of those people. And so I encourage you to visit copyrightconsultation.ca and I want you to know that this online forum not only has dialogue and exchange between people discussing this issue, but there are also opportunities to make submissions, so if anyone that you know is interested in doing that, we invite them to do that, we encourage them to do that. And with your help we can see more of those occurring on our website.
We are as a government very interested in these consultations and these submissions because we want to do the right thing. We want to make this system work. And with your help we hope to get it right. So without further ado I am going to allow each of you and invite each of you to introduce yourselves and make your 3 to 5 minute submissions and then we'll proceed with some dialogue. Very good, I think we'll start ladies first, Ms. Wood if you would like to start.
Carolyn Wood: Thank you. I'm Carolyn Wood. I'm executive director of the Association of Canadian Publishers. That is book publishers. We represent about 125 independently owned, mostly small to medium companies in every province of the country.
Our association is about 30 years old, which is about, I don't know, less than 10% as old as the publishing industry. Copyright law was first introduced in Britain for the book industry and for the both part, the book industry and the copyright law have got along very well for several centuries.
One thing that distinguishes book publishing from other sectors who have a big interest in copyright reform as we do, and by the way I do want to thank both ministries very much for providing this opportunity.
This is a consultation process that our association has sought for a long time. And on behalf of book publishers across Canada, and I think for their authors as well I'd like to thank both ministries for giving us this opportunity.
As I was saying, one way in which we differ from other cultural producers is that the sale of copies is our foundation. That's the only revenue stream book publishers have. We sell copies, authors give us the right to do that, we sell copies, we may sell those rights in different territories, in different formats and different languages. But that is the sole source of our revenue.
So we have a lot at stake here. We don't sell advertising, we don't sell merchandise, we don't produce performances. Copy, pretty big word to us, part of what's happening is that nobody knows what a copy is anymore.
But UNESCO doesn't even know what a book is anymore. The old definitions don't apply. And yet for the most part the business that we're in has been mostly unchanged. People are still buying books pretty much at the rate they always did. And I guess the digital revolution has come later to our industry then to most of the others.
But it's come. It has come first and with most opportunity and the most challenge to those publishers who are primarily focussed in institutional, or rather academic and educational environments. That's where, that's where digital has happened and it's the, it's not the canary in the coal mine, it's the first opportunity for our industry.
But it's coming to the rest, it's coming to an eReader near you one way or another, before very long. Some of you and to go short covers it's going to help it come to your cell phone. So that it won't be just reference books that are, you're accessing digitally or text books, but the novel you take on your holiday to the beach.
So while we're coping with this, our old business as I said rolls right along. Most people, even the most digitally engaged don't really seem to want print books to go away. So we're trying to find copyright law that continues to protect that foundation on which our industry is built. And the new era on which we're embarking. I won't say it's fun exactly but it's interesting.
There's so many aspects of this that have already come to the roundtables and to the town hall discussion that's happened already, and through all the discussion around Bill C61. So I'll try to focus just on a couple of things. I think the essence of the success of current copyright law has been the scope, the very, forgive me for using these words, for what will be surely the first in 10,000 times today, for addressing the need to balance competing rights.
Fair dealing as it's interpreted right now has a very appropriate scope. If it's broadened as some have been advocating I think the damage to the infrastructure that allows Canadian expression will be very damaged. I think it's too, it, we will pay a very high price for that.
If we narrow the scope with overly severe restrictions to access in overly harsh anti-circumvention legislation, that's too high a price too. That invites abuse and in the end is self defeating. So my core message today would be to hold the line on fair dealing. It has worked for a long time. And while the technology is changing very fast, in the end the principles remain the same.
But what copyright needs to do is enshrine principles for protecting works of expression regardless of format. The formats change faster then the legislation will. Format specific law, okay, proofs will be, guarantees obsolescence and works against itself.
I think that what I'm talking about today is achievable. I think we're already well on the way, and I think that this process will help get us there faster. Thanks.
Shelly Glover: Thanks very much, and I want to welcome Mr. Rashid. I just want to give you a couple of indications as to what's going on so far this morning, actually this afternoon. We are asking each of our participants to make a 3 to 5 minute submission and we're looking forward to hearing from you. And know that we're interested in hearing your views on modernizing our copyright reform legislation and feel free to make a submission and we'll continue with dialogue afterwards.
Sid Rashid: Alright, so my name is Sid Rashid, I'm the elected president of the University of Manitoba student union. I'm also here as a representative of the Canadian Federation of Students of Manitoba which unites about 45,000 students in the province.
So as students we really appreciate being invited to the table. I understand there are limited seats but I've spoken to a number of different representatives from different student associations in the province and a few of them were a little disappointed that they weren't able to get a spot at the table because this is an issue that a lot of students are really passionate about, they are really engaged. It does affect students, but it also has a great impact on the post secondary education sector as a whole.
So I briefly touched on how it affects all kinds of different faculties and departments and there are a lot of students that I've spoken to that have come into my office that are very engaged, but also passionate about the issue.
It also affects not only students but also as consumers as well. So we understand there's a balance between the users and creators. We're hoping that we should be extending the fair dealing without exception that privilege education only. So students share, they create, the innovate and it's important that we have the ability as users and as students to make copies, to distribute for research, private study, news reporting. I have here as well to archive, to lend files out. Everything builds on past work, so it's important when we're drafting some type of copyright legislation we keep that in mind.
It's also important to note that education is rapidly evolving. So everything from materials to innovative teaching methods by professors. No one can really predict with certainty what our universities or colleges are going to look like five or maybe even 10 years down the line. Things are just moving and evolving very quickly.
And that's not also to forget students as consumers. So there have been a number of copyright organizations that have talked about open formats, being able to change formats. Not being locked in. So something that for example is something basic as a CD. I purchased a CD and I want to get that, download one song onto my iPod or I want to burn a CD with a number of different CD's I've purchased. We feel that should not be barred from taking place.
And I will keep it short, but our views are nicely summarized in a nice Canadian documentary that some of you might have watched called RIP, a remix manifesto by Brett Gaylord I believe his name is. And Gaylor(ph), and yes, if you are interested in copyright and that's one of your passions then I'd suggest you take a look at that. It's on the cutting edge of copyright. I'll leave it at that, thanks for all your time.
Shelly Glover: Thank you very much and I really appreciate hearing from the students. I have a child actually at the U of M and I just want to congratulate you because I know you do some tremendous work for the students there. And I do know there are a lot of students who are visiting our website and I just want to encourage you to share our website with some of those students who might otherwise have wanted to participate. You can visit copyrightconsultation.ca. And I'll let you write that down. And really if they, if they would like to voice their opinions, we're looking for their views. We really appreciate people who take the time to submit written statements or if they'd like to dialogue with other people who also find this to be a very important issue, please encourage them to do so. Students are the future. So we value their input as well. So please pass that message on, on behalf of…
Sid Rashid: Thanks for the kind words and thanks for having students around the table. It's absolutely important, I agree, in the future. Thank you.
Shelly Glover: And now Ms. Jensen-Carr.
Merit Jensen-Carr: Thank you for inviting me here today. We're extremely excited about the prospects of participating in this process. I'm here representing the Documentary Organization of Canada. It's a nonprofit organization, national body representing the interests of over 600 independent documentary filmmakers across Canada.
Specifically I'm here to convey our concerns with the legal environment Canadian documentary filmmakers find themselves in at present. As most of you know Canada has a rich tradition of documentary film making and Canadian documentaries have achieved international acclaim and played an integral role in the dissemination of Canadian culture by encouraging the expression of diverse perspectives, social, political and historical realities.
Yet growing costs and limits on use of visual material and music due to copyright legislation is putting Canada's great tradition of documentary film making at risk. Despite the enrichment documentaries provide to Canadian culture, the reality is that most documentaries do not achieve great financial success and increasing expensive copyrighted material is surpassing our budget.
And so as a result many documentaries are no longer being distributed or made and in a growing number of cases, completed works are being withdrawn from circulation.
Many important films are no longer available for future generations because the film owners cannot afford to renew the copyrights on music or archival footage in the film. And so as a result, the impact of that on the public is that we are losing access to an important part of our culture and our history. And so I think that's a concern for all of us. It's certainly a concern for me as a parent.
Canadian documentary filmmakers are increasingly dissatisfied with copyright law. An internal DOC survey titled Censorship By Copyright indicates that 85% of Canadian documentary filmmakers find copyright laws more harmful to them then beneficial. And considering the fact that all of those people are also the sellers of that material, you know they are finding it is preventing them from doing their business.
The same survey noted that 82% of documentary filmmakers feel that copyright laws actually discourage them from making documentary films rather then encouraging them.
In our view the copyright legislation is not functioning properly. It is not facilitating the operation of the market for documentary films or creative expression. It is killing that market. As creators and owners of documentary films, we rely on copyright laws not only for protection of our work, but to allow us to access the material we need to create our films.
We understand that the Canadian government is considering making these amendments and we are very anxious about the possible consequences. And the possibility specifically that situations could become even worse if some of the legislation that's been discussed in the past actually went through.
So we ask that you adopt vast copyright policies that reflect the dual needs of documentary filmmakers. And we think this is possible, in order to assist with this we've developed a white paper that addresses the adverse legal and market conditions that Canadian documentary filmmakers are experiencing with specific recommendations for improvement and our head office is presenting a copy of that white paper to you some time within the next few weeks.
The heart and soul of this paper and the proposals within it includes four points. The first and the most important point deals with the issue of what constitutes fair dealing. Right now fair dealing provides exceptions to news reporting, critiques and summaries of the material and research and private studies copyrighted material. It only covers these five categories.
And the… if the act is to respect freedom of expression, balancing the rights of authors with the public good, it is not succeeding within this current framework. The categories of fair dealing are now too narrow to accommodate many otherwise fair treatments of preexisting content common to documentary films including parody, sampling and social commentary. The narrowness of the defence leads to cautious application by filmmakers and producers as well as by insurers.
Fair dealing has become a gate documentary filmmakers must overcome, not the creative catalyst it is intended to be.
On the other hand the American concept of fair use is broader. It allows filmmakers to use portions of copyrighted material in their own work for purposes that are fair including parody, critique and social commentary. The US approach focussed on fairness principles for determining whether a use strikes a equitable balance between user and copyright holder interest.
In the US the definition of fair practice criteria opens up the possibilities for making these kinds of films. And in Canada we are hamstrung. We are increasingly unable to afford the copyrighted material that we need in order to produce these types of productions.
And so as a result we end up in an unequal playing field where the Americans are allowed to produce films in a way that is cheaper and much broader and more… sorry, with significantly higher production values then we are. And we're in a position where we can't compete.
Shelly Glover: Could I ask maybe that we move on to the next person and come back to your other points through the discussion?
Merit Jensen-Carr: Can I just summarize? Cause I can summarize.
Shelly Glover: Sure.
Merit Jensen-Carr: What we're asking for is that the 2004 set of six criteria that the Supreme Court of Canada developed be what constitutes fair dealing in Canada. And if you allow that to stand, then a number of these problems you know become eliminated. This will bring us more in line with the conditions in the environment set by the States and allow us to work in a way that we can increasingly compete in the international marketplace.
So I think, I mean there are other points that we're presenting with our paper, but I think that that is the one that's the most essential for us at this point and that I am hoping that we'll be able to discuss a little bit more in detail in this hearing. Thank you.
Shelly Glover: I want to thank you for showing such passion about this very important issue and we will once we're done come back to this. I know you wanted to mention four principles and we will make every effort to make sure that all of that gets included. Ms. Adams if you'd like to go ahead.
Karen Adams: Thank you for holding the hearings. My name is Karen Adams. My day job is director of libraries at the University of Manitoba, but I'm here today on behalf of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, CARL as we call it.
CARL comprises 28, the 28 largest Canadian university libraries as well as three national libraries that are operated by the federal government. And we come back to the word that everybody else has said, we support balance in copyright law. Universities are both involved on the creator and user side. And we recognize the need for balance between creators receiving fair pay for the use of copyright work, at the same time as we want the public and our students to have access to copyright work such as, for purposes such as research and education. And the way we get that is through fair dealing and through exceptions to infringement, that's how the current law puts that into play for us.
CARL member libraries currently spend about $263 million on library materials. I say this because I keep encountering people who say libraries want everything for free. And we don't. We, and about half of that $263 million now goes towards electronic journals and electronic books, and in the shifting landscape that was alluded to earlier.
We really hope and believe that you can hang on to the public policy aims of copyright law in terms of encouraging creation, by ensuring payment for use and also safeguarding equitable public access to, and making sure that people can use the ideas again as we've just heard for further creation through fair dealing, through particular exceptions and a robust public domain, and that's how we think balance occurs.
We depend upon the concept of fair dealing as it is, as it exists in the copyright act and the other exceptions that are there for libraries in order to serve our students and researchers who are doing the work with copyright materials to make sure that there is learning and discovery and innovation within Canadian society.
So we want, on the topic of fair dealing I'm not sure I'd say that we either want it narrowed or expanded. I'm going to talk a little bit about clarity as being one of the issues that I think exists. We believe that users of copyright materials must be able to exercise their fair dealing rights. And now the principle is what are you using it for, is it for research, is it for education? If you can meet certain tests it's deemed to be fair dealing.
But the question of clarity is not always there. The laypersons who are sincerely trying to comply with the copyright act I think I talk to graduate students, and the complexities they go through in trying to make sure that their thesis is correct, I know the simple principle is oh well, you just write to the creators. Well creators don't answer their mail in the time it takes to complete a thesis. So there are areas of real challenges as to what can be done and what cannot be done by people who sincerely want to avoid doing the wrong thing.
One of the areas that's a concern to us is the notion of digital locks and we don't want the copyright legislation to make it illegal to circumvent a digital lock if you're using it for something that doesn't infringe copyright. So we like circumstance to be if the purpose of what you're doing is legal, the mechanism of how you've done it shouldn't be the issue.
And we have concerns in this area about people with disabilities where you need to move the format around to make it easier to use. And we think we should be able to help students with disabilities in that way.
We're also concerned about damages. The current act has large statutory damages for people infringing copyright, again and if you're a grad student, the notion of a $20,000 fine is not pleasant. And again the threat of incurring crippling damages for an act whose legality might be fair dealing stops people from doing things. It stops Canadians and Canadian institutions from exercising their full right. And again this is a question not so much of the breadth or narrowing, but clarity.
And my third concern has to do with digital inter library loan and this is similar to the previous speaker. It's a question of a disadvantage that exists in Canada that isn't universal. We would like to be able to deliver an electronic copy to the desktop of a researcher whose looking for something that is not available in our institution. And this is an advantage that researchers and students benefit from in the US and elsewhere. There is, again there's another one where clarity is a question. There's a mix of interpretation right now as to whether that constitutes fair dealing, all the way from the University of Alberta to the University Manitoba. In one institution the opinion was it was, and in the other that it wasn't. And there simply isn't a way, there's no mechanism that lets you adjudicate that without going to court which we're not eager to do. So we would, that's a piece that we would like modernized.
And we have a number of other issues in copyright matters around internet service providers, educational use of the internet, exceptions for people with disabilities, use of technology in the current learning environment and not impeding that, shrink wrapped contracts, there's a flaw in the current language of the act with respect to the business of changing format when a format is obsolete. You're nodding, thank you, I'm glad you recognize that. It's written now so that all the technology that would let you change it has to be gone before you can change it, oops, too late. So that's another one that we'd like corrected.
I'm not going to go into those in any detail today necessarily. We will be making a written submission and I do thank you for coming to Winnipeg and giving us an opportunity to talk to you.
Shelly Glover: Thank you Ms. Adams and I have to say on behalf of my colleagues here at the table, they're thrilled to be in Winnipeg. They tell me that the weather here is much better than in Ottawa. So I'm glad to provide them with an incentive to be here. Ms. Hiebert it's your turn.
Nichole Cyr Hiebert: Good afternoon. My name is Nicole Cyr Hiebert and I'm appearing today on behalf of MTS Allstream. For those of you who are already not familiar with our company, MTS Allstream is a diverse provider of communication services to consumers and businesses. In Manitoba we offer wireless service, high speed internet and data services, digital television and wireline voice services under the MTS brand to both residential and business customers.
Now outside of Manitoba we provide business customers with IP connectivity, unified communications, TI consulting and voice and data connectivity services under the Allstream brand.
In addition we have recently announced a strategic wireless agreement with Rogers that will provide our company with the opportunity to launch national wireless offering for business under the Allstream brand. We're also a member of the business coalition for balanced copyright which participated in the roundtable held in Gatineau last week.
To be brief, it is easier then ever before to quickly copy and share copyrighted materials across the world, and this trend of innovation can only be expected to continue. We agree that Canadian laws and policies need to support and encourage the potential of Canadian content creators in this era of instant replication and communications. At the same time of course the copyright regime must also support the ability of Canadians to enjoy that content and it must be consistent with the government's objective of further stimulating and promoting the digital economy.
We agree that any changes to the copyright regime must both support creative talent and stimulate the digital economy which is integral to spurring investment and increasing productivity in the Canadian economy overall.
Now in terms of those reforms, those that would place new obligations on internet service providers appear to have the greatest potential to directly impact MTS Allstream operations and the role we play in supporting the digital economy. ISP's should not face liability under any new copyright regime for copyright infringement that their customers may commit while using the internet. ISP's act as intermediaries and play no role in a customer's choice to send or receive content over the internet, nor should ISP's take on a policing role in the content that is distributed over the internet.
ISP's should be left to do what we do best, investing in and managing our networks and ensuring that the reach, capacity and speed of our broadband network keeps up with the ever increasing demand of the digital economy.
MTS Allstream supports a notice and notice regime under which ISP's pass along notice of alleged copyright infringement to their customers. It must however be recognized that such a notice and notice regime can be a significant burden for ISP's to administer. We strongly oppose any notice and take down obligations that would require MTS Allstream upon notice from a third party who claims to be a copyright holder to automatically remove content from our servers or to otherwise intervene in the way our customers use the internet.
MTS Allstream supports expanded fair dealing for users of copyrighted materials through a broad fair use exception that would allow individuals to replicate copyrighted materials for personal use. If a customer has legitimately purchased a copyrighted product, the customer should be able to take advantage of the technological gadgets and processes now available to use, listen or view to that copyrighted material and that product in a way that is most convenient to them.
In the context of MTS Allstream's television distribution operations, we believe customers should be able to watch the television content we deliver at their convenience. This could mean watching the content at a different time or in a different format from that in which it was originally delivered to them, using perhaps a personal video recorder or any other devices that may be developed in the future.
In some instances copyrighted materials may rightfully be obtained by an individual and that material may contain a digital lock or some kind of technological protection measure or TPM. Consist with the concept of fair use, that individual should be also permitted to use such copyrighted materials in whatever way best suits that individual, if the personable use does not otherwise infringe copyright laws, the circumvention of a TPM in and of itself should not cause any harm to the copyright holder.
As well as a general concept, the copyright regime should preserve technological neutrality in legislation so that any new legislation remains relevant as future technologies and practices evolve. Overall we believe strongly that investment, innovation and growth in our broadband network and in Canada's broadband network is the most effective means to support the potential of Canadian content creators and the ability of consumers to enjoy that content.
A copyright regime that encourages innovation in new technologies and business models will best ensure Canada's place at the forefront of the digital economy. So we thank you for the ability to make this presentation to you this afternoon.
Shelly Glover: Thank you very much and I'm going to pass the microphone over to Ms., and I apologize if I get the last name wrong, Araneda, is that correct? Very good, go ahead.
Cecilia Araneda: Thanks so much. My name is Cecilia Araneda and I'm the executive director of the Winnipeg Film Group. I am also a practising independent filmmaker. The Winnipeg Film Group is a 35 year old artist run media arts organization that is at it's root a cooperative of filmmakers.
Our organization also distributes the work of Manitoba and Prairie region independent filmmakers and video artists representing over 600 individual works and distributing them around the world. Our organization additionally has a public exhibition link, Arseminituk(ph) which we have operated for over 25 years.
I would like to thank the government for the invitation to speak at this roundtable discussion and acknowledge the important role that community feedback will play in ensuring that our new copyright law supports Canada leading the way in effectiveness in the global ideas based economy and is a law that is future focussed and in keeping with our Canadian values.
And with this framework I'm going to put forward a few recommendations for consideration. The definition of fair dealing needs to be expanded towards fair use to make room for individual artistic uses that not only include parody and satire, but also include collage practices which are more commonly known now as remixes or mash ups.
Technology has not only opened up new distribution channels and markets, but is as also facilitated new forms of communication and new artistic practices. Media art collage practices utilize preexisting text, sound and images to create new works that are intrinsically unique. Much the same way that writers will utilize existing languages, ordering preexisting words in a new way to make unique works of art.
Parody, satire and collage practices are intrinsic forms of human communication that have always existed. These modern forms of thought and speech need to be allowed for within our laws.
We are opposed to a statutory damage system in place for copyright infringement in Canada, as we've seen recently happen in the US, this type of system can be fines that are potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars imposed on teens and single moms.
This type of scenario will only lead to a public backlash toward the very systems that are intended to be protected by this copyright law. And quite frankly this is not good business.
The market responds intrinsically to old and obsolete approaches by making them irrelevant and creating a legal framework to artificially protect old market practices and old market values is only delaying the inevitable. Those who wish for copyright law to preserve what are already outmoded mechanisms of distribution, uncopyable, hard copy and media centric versions of works will not succeed in the new digital economy.
Connected to this is that consumers and most especially youth need to be educated the legal way is not only good for our culture, but for our economy. It is important to deal head on with youth culture and the perceptions youth have about copyright in the digital age through education and awareness, not through hefty fines. This is, as youth are a very important market for the legal marketplace of digital goods and copy.
And for my final point, as has been mentioned about clarity and consistency in language, our, to make sure that there is consistency in the protections related to creators across disciplines and forms. I've heard it brought up a couple of times at the previous roundtable sessions at the different cities that have been posted on line that certain creators have less recognition of authorship then others.
What I've heard is that artists that engage and connect with technology in their practices, photographers, filmmakers and video artists for example have less recognition and protections available to them as creators. Looking forward to creating a law that stands the test of time in terms of relevance, artists, creators and authors should be recognized with broad terminology to facilitate room for recognition of new forms of artistic practices that are currently emerging and those that don't exist right now that might emerge in the future.
These are my recommendations of ideas to consider and I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Shelly Glover: Thank you again for presenting your submission. Mr. Dutchyn it is your turn and welcome to Winnipeg from Saskatchewan.
Christopher Dutchyn: Thank you very much. I'm pleased to be able to be here and thank you for engaging in this consultative process. My name is Chris Dutchyn, I'm an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Saskatchewan and I'm taking this time as I progress toward tenure to ensure that my future as a researcher and an educator remains bright and productive.
As a result I feel that there is a need to express some of the, to understand and participate in the process of determining copyright. As a member of the discipline responsible for some of the sea change that's happened with the digital information moving from print, print moving to digital information, that it's important that insights be brought to bear.
Without draft legislation it's certainly impossible to make specific recommendations, certainly previous versions of legislation that other speakers have mentioned have difficulties and would need to be addressed. But I don't, I'm not going to assume that the upcoming legislation will necessarily be identical to the legislation that's appeared in the past.
I recognize and so…, my discussions have been informed through my department head and from there into discussions that have gone on with the Canadian Association of Computer Science heads, and certainly last summer they had an interesting and spirited discussion of these matters in their annual meetings. So I would expect that there'll be some response from them at some point in the future.
However one thing that surprises me about copyright legislation is and this is not directed specifically towards Canada, but certainly as members of the international community it matters, as our digital economies get more and more connected, as innovation occurs faster, as the pool of creative individuals becomes broader into connectivity, it's surprising that copyright terms will get extended, because things are going faster and yet people demand longer copyrights. Rather than enabling innovation and change and extension to go throughout our industry.
So I come before you in three broadly divergent roles. The first one is as a researcher. The specific issues that I have as a researcher are to ensure that I have access to materials for study and education, to develop additional capabilities, in particular digital locks and other sorts of systems would dramatically impact my ability to study cryptography, security systems and in many cases even digital networking.
I would not want to have that ability damaged by legislation. It would certainly impair Canada as a forefront of research nation, it will have a dramatic impact.
And we're seeing some of that already happening with some of the copyright legislation that other countries, for instance the United Kingdom and the United States, their copyright legislation has had a chilling effect on their research community. And I would encourage the government of Canada to avoid those similar effects.
I'm also here today as a researcher, the second of the three pillars of the university system. I teach courses to motivated, interested and capable undergraduate and graduate students. I need to ensure that I can continue to do that. In many cases motivation comes from real world examples, being able to supply them with short clips of activities that other people engage in and ensure it adds solidity, it adds, it demonstrates the background of the teachers, the things that I'm trying to convey to them, the importance of those things.
And as a result it's important that I be able to provide that information to my undergraduates. Now currently I can under the educational provisions, provided they're not digital information. But in my classroom I am continually using more and more digital information. And as a result those pieces become less and less accessible depending upon copyright legislation.
I would want to ensure that I can provide those, that motivation, those examples to my students. And ensure that they would be able to learn from them. Previous legislation has certainly had an impact where not being able to preserve those pieces of information for successive incarnations of the same course, the same material to new groups of students. It causes significant additional burden and doesn't improve or enhance the rights of the copyright individuals, the owners of the intellectual property at all. All it does is make my job more difficult and decreases the value of my courses.
Continuing on in that vein, I recognize that the educational system, especially at the university level, is moving into an increasingly on line forum. And as a result, even at the University of Saskatchewan we have projects to convert courses into digital and online systems.
Making those things available is an important part of the academic community, the educational community. If I am unable to provide those materials or I have to gut them from any copywritten materials, then those resources become less competitive in our international community and our educational systems.
Last, I come before you as a citizen of Canada and I have some issues with specific items of interest, backups, archives, I have a computer with me here today. If I, this computer were to fail I would have a significant outage unless I have a backup. Fortunately I do, but it also means that I have to worry about copyright protections of the materials that are now duplicated on my archived material, protection for that is necessary. Those things properly belong in the realm of contractual license agreements rather than under a copyright system. So exceptions for that are important.
In summary, I would ask for clarity about the, clarity for the provisions that are available for copyright use, for education and research, and I'd ask for support in fair dealings in those realms to ensure that as a professor I can continue towards a bright future as a researcher and an educator. Thank you.
Shelly Glover: Thank you very much, and if you'd allow me, I was quite interested, you mentioned in your first, the first part of the hat you're wearing as a researcher that you've also been in consultation with some computer science leaders.
Christopher Dutchyn: Right.
Shelly Glover: And there's an organization, and you said that they had an EGM, I believe, where this was hotly discussed. And I'm wondering if you could encourage them perhaps to submit something so that we can understand fully what was discussed there. Can you give us a bit of a summary of what, there?
Christopher Dutchyn: So I can't, I'm not the department head.
Shelly Glover: Okay.
Christopher Dutchyn: I can only report second hand through what he has found. Last summer when the legislation was proposed and was on the table, but then died, in advance of that event there was an annual meeting of the computer, heads of the computer science departments of universities across Canada. And my department head, Eric Newfeld (ph), raise the question at that point of how the departments of computer science should be involved in the copyright legislation, in particular he, another professor, and I visited our MP. But the discussions that went on at the annual meeting of the departments were basically that this is a significant issue and that we need to make sure that we're involved to protect especially the interests of research and education, the ones that I've brought today.
Shelly Glover: Well very good, and as you're well aware every bit of information that we can collect helps us to try to achieve that balance that everyone is talking about. And so please encourage them, that if they'd like to submit something if they haven't had any other opportunities to bring those written submissions forward that they do that at their convenience, knowing that we do have a time line I'd be very interested to see them submit. So Mr. McManus, it is your turn.
Sean McManus: My name is Sean McManus, and I'm the training coordinator at Manitoba Music, I'm here representing Sara Stasiuk who is the executive director and is currently on holidays. We're very happy to be here and be part of this consultation, and very encouraged that this kind of consultation has been happening, is happening. I think folks in the music industry, especially creators, have been asking for the opportunity to have more input and so we're very encouraged by this.
Our organisation represents the Manitoba music industry, all facets, and it's a very diverse group and very hard to survey. And so my comments today will be a little bit more about sort of where we find ourselves, and maybe a little less direct pointed advice just because there are, even withing our memberships, very diverse points of view. I think that we've seen that in, across the country as well when we talked with musicians and with the music industry that there are a lot of different voices within that.
We represent over 700 members in Manitoba, that includes primarily entrepreneurs and very small businesses. A lot of those entrepreneurs are artists and a lot of them are music industry services providers such as record labels and studios, and managers, and publishes. And I think we also, you know, have the music fans and consumers also close at mind during much of this. I'd like to make just a pitch for the cultural side. I mean, we're speaking a lot about copyright in terms of, I mean I'm going speak about it in terms of business and monetizing what we do, but I think it's worth recognizing that culturally music is hugely important in Canada, it represents I think our culture like almost no other art form, it's always at the forefront of how we define ourselves abroad and we desperately need these artistic creators. And we need a copyright regime that allows and recognizes the work that creators put in to what they do.
We've seen the move in the music industry several years where as the formats have shifted and as new distribution methods have become available, some of them legal and some of them not, there has been big changes, seismic changes in our industry. What we've seen is that in a lot of ways the very large multinational structures are suffering and are looking to models that are more along the liens of what people in our, in Manitoba have been doing for a number of years, working on a more independent sale scale, trying to relate directly with consumers and fans. And as such, we find ourselves in the Manitoba music industry more aligned with some of the creators coalitions and the independent music groups and less aligned with groups like the Canadian Record Producing, Industry Association, CRIA, and the viewpoints of the America version ARIA.
Our members, generally speaking, are not interesting in anti circumvention laws, they're not interested in suing fans, no one from our membership is going to go out and sue fans because they copied some of heir music. What they are interested in is finding ways to monetize the creative content. And, you know, speaking about, there's been a lot of discussion so far about fair dealing and fair use and I think for a lot of our members, and for creators, we're looking at a step before that. We're saying, "sure, fair use, let's have that discussion. But we still need to be able to create a livelihood for ourselves as creators and as makers, and we need to be able to monetize that content at some point in the process."
We look at something like the iPod levy which came up over the last couple of years and was rolled back by the courts, and CRIA stood up and opposed it, I think on principle, because they didn't want to look like they were approving any kind of copying whatsoever. The iPod levy falls into place in a line that comes out of private copying which is fantastic in our opinion, a fantastic structure that has been in place that has worked very well, where, you know, consumers and the industries involved in enabling the copying of creative content have put a fraction of their, of money towards the creators. It's a system that has been in place for years now and it's worked really well, and it's, the iPod levy and some other things such as that I think could follow quite easily from that.
There's another proposal from the Songwriters Association of Canada which looks to the ISP's to contribute, and the telecommunications companies and we believe that a lot of our members are also very interested in having the ISP's at the table and involved in this discussion of recognizing creators. It also works very well in the broadcast industries where broadcasters through SOCAN and through the foundation, just this talent on record factor are able to put money back into the creation of new talent. And we see a lot of alignment between that and some of these, and the new technologies. The principles, the technologies but the principles are very much the same.
We believe that when there is a legal and easy means of customers finding music digitally they will use it, and they will pay with money and they will use it. And I think that there are, you know, are beginning to be more studies that show that that's true and that that's happening. The more accessible and successful digital music companies that come online, the more consumers use them and the more that the peer to peer file, illegal file sharing declines. And find that very encouraging, and we look, you know, want to see a copyright regime that encourage entrepreneurs to start those kinds of businesses, that makes it clear for them how they are able to succeed in that area and that allows us to do that.
We've seen in Canada a lot of services that are available internationally are not yet available in Canada. Some of that has to do with the major labels not being able to license things, and so I won't speak to that specifically but I believe that confusion in the copyright regime is a big part of what that hasn't happened and I think that we'll see that once some of those things come online, and if business in Canada feel that the copyright regime is, provides clarity for them and also provides a clearer way for them to monetize their activities that a lot of those problems will simply become a phase that we went through to get here.
Likewise, a lot of our members would be very much in favour of longer copyright, and I know that, you know, the researchers and the library organisations are seeing that as an issue, and I say the discussion with fair dealing and fair use, absolutely. Again, we're looking at creators who want to be able to benefit from the creative work that they've done into their retirement, and that's, and artist can only tour for so long, and the work that they've done to create something is what is going to support them. And so I'll leave it at that for now, thanks.
Shelly Glover: Thank you very much. Last, but not least, Mr. Willaert, go ahead.
Alan Willaert: Ms. Motzney, Ms. Glover, Ms. Peatt, Ms. Downie, and ladies and gentlemen, my name is Allan Willaert, I'm the international representative and supervisor of electronic media and intellectual property for the American Federation of Musicians, the Canadian division known as AFM Canada. Who are they? The American Federation of Musicians of United States and Canada, the AFM, is the largest entertainment organisation in the world with 100,000 members, more than 17,000 of which are Canadian. We're affiliated with the AFL, CIO, and CLC and as such we fulfil the traditional roles of the union or professional association with respect to collective bargaining, member services, immigration assistance, lobbying, and collection of royalties emanating from our agreements and pursuant to legislation, as well the provision of an extensive menu of other related benefits. With 30 distinct service centres in Canada, we are the most significant advocates of musicians and their industry.
In life, every benefit or gain is inexorably linked to a corresponding duty or obligation. That axiom is the core principle of effective copyright legislation. The AFM wholeheartedly had endorsed bill C61, respect of ownership and monetary reward and necessary in maintaining both creativity and performances and legitimate, viable ways to earn a living. The main objective of the copyright act should be to protect the moral and economic rights of creators and performers and to ensure that they are associated with those rights throughout the life of the product. We ask, if nothing else, for immediate implementation of the WIPO treaties that WPT, and the WPPT.
Knowing that the internet is merely the latest technological advancement in the ever evolving methodology of delivering product to consumer and also that emerging technology facilitates an absolute rejection of authority, just because those technological advancements suddenly make infringement simply and widespread, this should not cloud the fundamental principles behind copyright, nor should it strip the copyright holder of those rights.
The term users right has come up, which is not in a copyright, it was a judicial term, and the only true users right we feel is to have liberal and generous access to copyright materials and content when appropriate and at a reasonable cost. The (inaudible) perceptions of provision 29 to 32.2, the copyright act notwithstanding which we feel are adequate in their existing scope and their application. Tactical protection measures in digital rights management is necessary to satisfy the WIPO treaty obligations, steps must be taken to safeguard those that choose to employ this technology. We support C61 in taking the high route, a general ban on devices or technology employed in defeating or circumventing DRM.
However, we believe that ultimately the way to eradicate the problem is to establish sufficient performance tariffs and extended licensing to ensure appropriate payment is received by the creators and the performers.
Quick thing on ISP liability, we support notice and take down approach. The making available right, the act already complies with WCT but not the WPPT. Performers must be granted specific, exclusive rights when making their performances available to the public. Inclusion of specific language for both performers and producers is necessary. In terms of moral rights, 17.2 states, and I quote in parentheses, one subsection 17.1 parentheses one, applies only in respect of a performance that occurs after the coming into force, and in respect of which copyright substitutes under subsections 15 1.1. All the new rights should be retrospective to 50 years for recordings and existing performances.
AFM recommends the strictest compliance to WIPO standards possible since our ability to negotiate reciprocal agreements with collective societies in more than 150 FIM countries, that's Federation International de Musician, that's contingent upon that level of compliance. In terms of the Canadian Private Copying Levy, me must take steps to include new technology such as hard drives, flash drives, MP3 and 4 players, iPhones and their competitors. Current language falls short of the minimum standards of the WPPT. This regime should be expanded and enhanced.
New performance rights and extended licensing, existing tariffs fall short of properly compensating performers for their performers as prescribed in the WPPT. As an example is the video game industry where Canada ranks third in the world, behind the US and Great Britain in terms of being the largest producer of video games and we have over 250 companies in this country producing those games. We implore the government to consult with the certified representatives of those musicians under federal status of the artist, namely AFM Canada, to establish appropriate tariffs and a licensing regime to equitably recompense those performance for their performances.
Exemptions and expansion of fair use, more exemptions are confusing and misleading in that they create the illusion that there are an excessive number of tariffs and collectives. The current exemptions are specific and efficient, in addition with some of our current literary exceptions in place others are already so restricted in their ability to fairly exploit their works that Canada may already be in violation of the burn three step test.
Commercial radio, at present the section 68.8 of the act forces performers to subsidize commercial radio broadcast by letting them use their performances for a minimal amount of $100 a year for the first 1.25 million of each station's revenue, taking into account the very low tariff rate and the copyrights board conclusion that there is no need for a performance to subsidize commercial radio broadcasting, we would seek support for the elimination of this unfair provision of the act as part of the review process. The original intent of the act was that only stations with less than $1.25 million in advertising revenue would be eligible for the $100 per yer payment. And I'll leave the rest, thank you.
Shelly Glover: Thank you very much, and it's so interesting for me, I wear many hats here as well, as Mr. Dutchyn had mentioned, but it's interesting to me as not only a parliamentarian, but as a mother and as a consumer to hear all of these different positions. And as we've clearly seen, they don't all match one another and so I'm interested to hear some feedback from each of you on some of the things that some of our other presenters have said. But I did promise to allow Ms. Jensen-Carr to finish her principles, and so if you'd like to take this opportunity to finish those principles that you had mentioned, I know you got to the first one which dealt with the fair dealing, and you wanted to finish up with the other 3. So if you'd like to go ahead.
Merit Jensen-Carr: Okay, thank you. The, the principle of protecting creativity and not technology, we understand the government is considering extending legal protection to digital rights and technological protection measures. And the locks created by the software may make it impossible to allow broader fair dealing granting censorship powers to media companies in our opinion, and documentary film makers should not be liable for circumventing DRMs and TPMs where the use of the work is otherwise legal.
And if a documentary film maker is not violating copyright law in using a media clip he or she shouldn't be found liable nearly because the source, such as the DVD, was protected by a technological lock. The government should allow for the circumvention of DRMs and TPMs for documentary film makers and resist legal protection that would otherwise be legal.
So, and then the third point, reforming the unlocatable copyright owner regime. The government should reform the legislation granting licenses to use works where the copyright owner cannot be located in the following ways. Extend provisions application to unpublished works found in such places as archives, lower license rates to bring them within the limited budgets of documentary film makers, return unclaimed fees paid for licenses to the filmmaker rather than distributing the fees to unrelated third parties, eliminate the requirement to seek licenses for such works form the copyright board, and limit available remedies for infringement where the user of unlocatable work has performed a reasonable diligent search for the copyright owner as has made attribution to the copyright owner.
The amount of work that documentary film makers spend in trying to locate the owner of archival material, many cases is still honours that they simply are unable to (inaudible) use that material. And that's an example where I think that the regulations need to be clarified and they need to be revised so that you know, material that, you know, that's in the public interest for use can be used in a way that it cannot (inaudible).
And then finally, we would like to move away from the clearance culture. We have increasing fears as documentary film makers of being sued for copyright infringement, and as a lot of other people here have said, the lack of clarity about acceptable use is under trademark laws and copyright law, and excessive risk aversion on the part of insurance companies has all contributed to the current clearance culture. Everything we do has to be cleared, and everything we do has to be insured, and you know it's making business, you know, for, you know, most of us intolerable. The insurance costs are arising, the errors and omissions costs are, you know, they are considerably higher than they are in other countries. And the amount of administration that goes along with it is onerous on what are in many cases small companies.
In this culture lawyers and errors and omissions insurers encourage documentary film makers to seek clearance on any use of a recognizable collection of property, no matter how minimal or trivial, whether clearance is actually needed or not. As a result, filmmakers are forced to pay increasingly high cost to use music or film clips in their works. This creates a divide among documentary filmmakers, those who can afford to pay and those cannot, and this is another example where we have an unequal playing field with the United States, where as something is incidentally included in, you know, in a scene and you know clearly not a part of the intention of the scene they are not required to pay, but we are.
It creates a needless inefficient clearance process and transfers wealth from creators to undeserving right holders in situations where the copyrighted material is irrelevant. And those are the points, so, but most of my points I tried to keep them very specific to our experience in documentary and I am concerned as a documentary filmmaker at the amount of administration and the cost, and the increasingly difficult climate that I'm working within in order to create my work. So if you can take those into consideration, and if you could ensure that whatever changes you make not, at the very least, not make it more difficult to make documentaries than it is right now, and hopefully make it somewhat easier, we would really appreciate that. Thank you.
Shelly Glover: Very good, and thank you for those comments. I'd like to give you all an opportunity to now dialogue about the things that we've heard. I myself heard opposing views on a number of things, and I really do want you to have an opportunity to address those things that you've heard, that you have a strong feeling about. And so please feel free, I'll simply direct, but please feel free, give me a nod or let me know that you're interested in making comment because I'd certainly like to know how, for example MTS Allstream feels about the fact that our American Federation of Musicians Canada are taking an opposing view on the notice to notice, rather than notice to takedown position.
So this is your opportunity to really dialogue with the other people in this room who have interests, so I welcome you to take advantage of this opportunity. Any would like to ask a question or make a comment on other things that have been said? Yes sir.
Question: Question for our representative from students union.
Shelly Glover: Can we just, can we just have you say your name sir? Just because of the transcription, thank you.
Question: Allan Willaert, AFM. Question for our representative from the students union, it's pretty clear that, you know, the position of students is they want to reduce the costs and lots of things, materials, content that is copyrighted increases their costs in many ways. My question is this, once students have achieved, or if they do achieve a position or situation where copyright is, or there's more exceptions, more fair dealing, more, less costs, what happens when you go out in the real world and become writers and musicians and producers and end up having absolutely no money in your pocket because of the destruction you've done to the copyright act?
Unknown Male: Absolutely. I wouldn't say we're looking for a destruction of the copyright act in any terms, I think there has to be a balance between users and creators. But I also think that it's important we look beyond, I mean we look at our youth, our family, our children, right? Our students, and we look beyond the impact that copy legislation can have on just our disciplines, for just a moment, and we look at what's fair for our citizens but also our country. And everything builds on past work, we should not be stifling innovation or limiting creation or sharing or putting a cost at that, so if I can't afford to purchase this to build on it, or to innovate, or to create then I'm just left out.
I understand the flip side as well, and I think there has to be a balance. Although I can appreciate, and I really do appreciate that education was noted, I think it would be, I don't think I can only be pleased with that, I think that would be somewhat short sighted of me because I think I need to look at the youth in the future and I think we should be extending fair dealing without exceptions that privilege only education, or the classroom, or researchers. But I can really appreciate hearing from all those disciplines as well.
Cecilia Araneda: My name is Cecilia Araneda and I'd like to add that it's really important to recognize that different artists will have different opinions depending on the spectrum, and artists are also users, and artists were once younger and then they become older. So the whole notion of allowing balance isn't about copyright of artists against users or consumers, it needs to be really integral to the notion of what do we value as a Canadian society? How have we gotten here, what is best for business? Obviously as an artist I want to be able to make a reasonable amount of money, but if the distribution channels aren't functional to the point where consumers can know how to utilize them, know what the legal way is and youth are not educated or youth are not participating in the process that they're engaged with the system and are part of the process.
I mean, this is how this great divide occurs and I think it's really important to consider Canadian values and considering the aging youth in this dialogue, because they are the creators, and they are the users, and they're heavy, heavy users of arts and content as some people refer to it. And they're going to be the future of the biggest market right now, and they're going to be the ones who really need to buy into this. And so it can't be industry or arts in cultural industries against youth, it has to be something that makes sense and I think it's really important to consider participation among youth in toward copyright law reform.
Christopher Dutchyn: Chris Dutchyn, Computer Science, the University of Saskatchewan. I would remind all of us that the goal of copyright as far as I understand isn't to generate substantial funds but instead to foster innovation, creativity, and competition. And one of the ways that it does is ensures a reasonable return on the time and effort and the artistic talent and skilled investment that people make, because I think there is a need for a fair return. But that's exactly it, it needs to be a fair return. The concept of balance between the end users of the materials and the producers of those materials are both balanced in this idea of creating a stronger Canada rather than enriching individuals or Canada.
Shelly Glover: If you have any further commentary or any last words that you want to share, this is your opportunity.
Nichole Cyr Hiebert: Nicole Cyr Hiebert from NTS Allstream. Just a comment on some of the proposed rules for internet service providers, we have heard commentary in regards to ISPs working with creators to have a role in terms of collecting levies. As well, we've heard of the suggestion that ISPs should have a role to play in a notice and take down regime. Our quick answer to that, or our quick reply, is how will this be paid for? Because that is imposing a cost on our business.
The longer answer is that currently there's no proposed regulations or legislation that's been tabled that this is a consultation process, you're gathering our opinions on this. Certainly Internet Service Providers would like to be able to comment on any sort of proposals or any changes of the current regime. If these suggested changes are going to be proposed, we want to comment on them before they become law because they have to fit with our business model. And with that, that's my comment on that.
Shelly Glover: Thank you for that comment. Mr. Willaert, I am curious to hear your commentary about how ISP would, how they would handle the notice to take down regime because I didn't quite get from what you said, whether you expect them to do the policing of it, or if you have another alternate recommendation. I'm not sure if you're prepared to answer that, but I missed that in what you were saying and I'm just curious to know if that is in fact what you were suggesting.
Alan Willaert: It is long term, yes, because with a notice and notice regime you're putting the illness on the creator or the performer to track the use of the infringement and then use the civil courts to enact it, and often times it's almost impossible for someone to track where their product is being infringed upon and the cost factor outweighs the gain that they get by taking down that particular site, or litigating against it. So somehow there has to be somebody step to the plate, and the ISP being the most likely because they are controlling the content that goes through their pipeline.
I mean, I know their position, we just offer a pipe, we're not content provider, but as we know we see more and more people like Rogers that control tremendous amounts of content and just as an aside, there was recently an experiment done in Europe where they were going to monitor what was going through a pipeline of a particular ISP for a period of 3 weeks. As soon as they announced it traffic dropped by 70%. 70, now you know that means 70% was illegal infringement and file sharing of copyright materials. So, I mean there has to be something done and the ISP is the only place that I can think of at this point in time where it can be applied. And it that involves some sort of a service charge to offset their costs then so be it.
Karen Adams: There's a lot to say here, and it's perfect clear that the interests of what I think of as the entertainment industry are quite different from the interests of education and sort of public access.
Shelly Glover: I'd hate to interrupt you Ms. Adams, I just need…
Karen Adams: Karen Adams.
Shelly Glover: Thanks.
Karen Adams: My apologies. It's clear that there isn't a lot in common when you're looking at entertainment industries and you're looking at educational institutions where what's happening is again back to that for two different purposes, both of which we support in various measures. I do have concerns about the dialogue we just had, I certainly would, if I was told my ISP was being monitored I wouldn't be doing my banking, there's a lot of things that I would not be doing during that period of things going on, so I think the assertion that changes in behaviour are all about illegal uses are probably not so.
And we haven't talked at all about privacy here, but there are principles around privacy too that I think, they are not part of copyright, the copyright regime but in the digital world they are increasingly important. And again, there's a balance between somebodies right to know, and somebodies right to the protection of their privacy who has nothing to do with any of this. And that complicates the role of the ISP I think.
It's, in believing in access to information libraries have come into this table not as agents in and of themselves, we're really here representing sort of people who don't come and talk at these tables, people who come and talk to us about what's going on. And I come back to the back that half of what we buy in libraries is now bought, and half of it is licensed. And it's license, I mean, there's a good deal of success in the marketplace now through licensing regimes that are not mandatory, where people are choosing what they do and don't do.
So that's another factor I think in what we're talking about. A lot of what we license is licensed under terms and conditions that are not what the copyright act says necessarily. Sometimes we're getting, we get better terms and conditions from the publisher, sometimes we get worse. So that complicates the environment, and then there's the great debate about this contract law supercede federal law or vice versa, and I don't know the answer the that, I've had different answers on that one, too, depending on who you ask.
So you're in a tremendously complicated environment and I support much of what's been said about the need for Canadian creativity to survive. At the same time, this Canadian innovation has to go with it and you can't have one without the other. Thank you.
Karen Adams: Alright, well I'm going to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you for being here today and I also want to thank my colleagues who have come a long distance to take part in this. I know that they've been working very, very hard with our government to make sure that we progress to a place where we can get it right. And as you're all aware, we are looking to present a form of a bill in parliament, likely in the fall and that is why these consultations are extremely important to us and I can't tell you how much we appreciate you taking the time out of your day to come and share your views with us.
If there is something that comes up after we're done, I encourage you again, please feel free to resubmit, to encourage your friends to submit as well. I can't express how important it is that we do have input form all facets, and I really appreciate hearing everything you had to say today. I'm enlightened, I'm anxious to help make sure that we do get it right, and I know that our ministers have been working very, very hard across this country not only at these kinds of consultations and round tables, but also at town hall meetings. And they're trying to engage as many stakeholders as possible, and I think you've all hit the nail on the head when you say that all Canadians are stakeholders in this, and I appreciate that you all acknowledge that.
And so I think if I can leave here today with any kind of an imprint in the backs of your minds it's that we too are Canadians, we as parliamentarians, we as government employees are Canadians who want to see the best thing happen for out country and for the people who live here. And so we're going to do our absolute best to make sure the system works. And I appreciate you taking the time again to help us fix this, thanks, have a great day.