Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1787
View Dan Ruimy Profile
Lib. (BC)
I call the meeting to order.
We're going to get started. We're going to start with Meera Nair, because I know she has to leave fairly quickly. She is an independent scholar and a copyright officer from the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.
We'll let you go first with your seven minutes and we'll go from there.
Thank you.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for both their patience and their testimony and expertise. I think I'll start with Ms. Craig.
Ms. Craig, you've argued that transformative new works should not be impeded by copyright law at all, as they are not copies. How would you suggest the law spell out a specific line in which something is considered transformative?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you for that.
I think one of the most challenging things in this environment is that ultimately if we make recommendations to a minister, the minister then has to figure out where the line in the sand is, and that's where it becomes quite difficult, especially if we're saying that we should write the law in terms of letting the courts decide.
I do appreciate that you're tackling a very difficult issue. Fan fiction is not a new subject and it has always been controversial, but I do think it's worth having the discussion.
To Ms. Nair and Ms. Craig, would either of you suggest Canada adopt a more American-style fair use clause in our copyright regime? Why or why not?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I appreciate that. If you look at the United States, whether in terms of IP or creation of new works or whatnot, it's not just population. You could chalk it up to economic development. There are many different aspects, so certainly I appreciate the conversation here.
Some witnesses have suggested using terms like “such as” to elucidate or pronounce where a starting point would be, and then letting the courts eventually determine where that limit is.
Is that something both of you would support, or do you believe that going to an actual fair use versus fair dealing model would be better?
View Dan Ruimy Profile
Lib. (BC)
Welcome, everybody.
Can you feel the excitement in the air? I'm not talking about Christmas. We should all be excited now. This is the second-to-last witness panel on copyright—
View Dan Ruimy Profile
Lib. (BC)
Welcome, everybody, to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, meeting 143, as we continue our five-year statutory review of copyright.
Today we have with us Casey Chisick, a partner with Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP; Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, faculty of law, University of Ottawa; Ysolde Gendreau, a full professor, faculty of law, Université de Montréal; and then, from the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, we have Bob Tarantino, chair, copyright policy committee and Catherine Lovrics, vice-chair, copyright policy committee.
You'll each have up to seven minutes for your presentation, and I will cut you off after seven minutes because I'm like that. Then, we'll go into questions because I'm sure we have lots of questions for you.
We're going to get started with Mr. Chisick.
I want to thank you. You were here once before, and you didn't get a chance to do your thing, so thank you for coming from Toronto to see us again.
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
I have enough questions to go around. It might be a bit of a game of whack-a-mole here.
We talked a bit about the need to go to basically collective enforcement rather than individual enforcement of copyright because it's no longer manageable. How can collective copyright enforcement work without just empowering larger users and owners to trample on users and small producers?
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
Talking about abuse, we certainly see the abuse. Google and Facebook were here a couple of weeks ago. They admitted they only look at larger copyright holders when they're doing their enforcement systems. They admit they don't care about Canadian exemptions under fair dealing. The abuse is already there.
I don't see how removing protections for individuals is going to improve that.
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
I don't have a lot of time so I'll move on.
Mr. Geist, I mentioned Facebook and Google's testimony a minute ago where they identified that they don't make any effort to enforce fair dealing. You are familiar with that. Do you have any comments or thoughts on that from your sense or background?
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chisick, I have a question for you too.
You talked about 22% of the value for broadcasters' backup copies. If they're actual backup copies, where is the problem?
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
I have only a half a minute left here, but I'm just trying to understand the issue, because you've brought up this major point about the money that they're not spending on.... If they use the main copy or the backup copy to broadcast something, what's the difference?
View David de Burgh Graham Profile
Lib. (QC)
We've always had the right to format shifting. If I buy something that I convert to the computer and I broadcast it, that's the backup copy, and if you add a monetary value.... This all doesn't connect very well to me.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony here today.
In recent weeks we've been hearing from various witnesses favouring a change in approach in how we do copyright and moving to a more American-style fair use model. I would like to survey the group here.
What are the benefits of looking at American-style fair use? What should we take from that and what should we be very wary of?
That's for any of the panellists.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
I think my challenge is more that of addressing people by their last names when I've known them for 20 years.
Mr. Tarantino, copying for the purposes of computational analysis is what you potentially suggested as an AI and data mining exception. Do you think that gets us there? Do we need to go with “such as”, or—as someone else suggested a couple of weeks ago—do we make an exception for making incidental copies apply to informational analysis? Give me your thoughts on that.
View Dan Ruimy Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you.
We still have time, so we're going to do another round. I rarely ask questions, but I would like a question put on the floor here.
In regard to the five-year legislative review, we've heard different thoughts. Very quickly, I want to get your thoughts on that. Should it be a five-year legislative review? Should it be something else?
Results: 1 - 15 of 1787 | Page: 1 of 120

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data