Publication Search

Mr. Johnston, one of the things you talked about was term of copyright extension to life plus 70 years for authors. I think you know, this is something I have a private member's bill on. It was going to be covered in any event in the trans-Pacific partnership trade agreement. Then, when the Americans backed out of that, the current Liberal government actually had the entire chapter on copyright stuff removed because it was one of the big American asks.

The argument on this is that, because it's an important trade issue with the United States, you don't want to unilaterally disarm, if you will, for your trade negotiations. You want to be able to go into renegotiation of NAFTA right now, for example, or any other trade negotiation with that as something you can exchange for something else that's a Canadian interest.

How do you deal with that question on the trade concerns that would be raised as the objection to moving forward on it now?

I'll throw out a hypothetical to you. If, for example, the answer was, well, if we were to do that unilaterally we wouldn't be able to protect the cultural exemption in NAFTA renegotiations, would that trouble you?

That's probably a prudent response.

The sound recording definition was another issue that you folks raised. Can you tell us how you would like that to be reworked? What is it that is lacking in the definition now, and do you have an alternative wording of how that could be changed? This is within the act, right?

I think I asked him similar kinds of questions.

The other one of your asks was this radio exemption, and this is the first $1.25 million, I think it is, of revenue to a radio station is exempt from commission. That was—I wasn't there but I believe—instituted so that you had some protection for the mom-and-pop radio stations, the small-town radio station. The argument that is made by folks in your industry is that when that was done, there were a lot more mom-and-pop radio stations. There's been a lot of industry consolidation since, and everybody belongs to the big giants. We know that a lot of them do, but not all of them do.

Is there a compromise, an approach here that can be found that still provides that protection for the small-town radio station, which literally provides a kind of community service to a small town, while at the same time allows you to achieve some of your objectives reflecting the change in the industry writ large? Do you have an objection to something protecting or achieving that original objective for the mom-and-pop radio station?

I'm going to ask the other set of witnesses to give your thoughts on the exact same three questions, and if there are other changes you would, specifically, want in. We have these three specific ones, and I think that's very helpful to have specific recommendations for a change.

You have all the protections they're complaining they don't enjoy yet.

Would you prefer it to be just contractual arrangements or Copyright Board arrangements rather than a statutory change?

Is it correct that all of you are associations and none of you are collectives that actually collect royalties?

A voice: Correct.

Hon. Peter Van Loan: I wanted to be clear on that.

To the Canadian Music Publishers Association, we have heard here that there are basically two baskets of royalties. There's a performer royalty and an author or composer royalty. Where do you guys fit into that as the music publishers? Who are publishers?

Your members, if you will, get their revenue out of the author basket, not the performer basket.

That's only pursuant to a contractual agreement.

For example, would SOCAN send the money to you or to the composer?

Explain what you mean by the minimum fifty-fifty split.

Does that minimum fifty-fifty split come from their practices or your practices? Is it legislated? Did the Copyright Board come up with it? Does it have status? Where does it come from?

Does anybody dispute them? Are there any places where people have been able to contract out of them or have done so?