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 2178
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
It seems to me that the crux here is whether we extend the exceptions relating to print material into the technological world. That's really what it's all about today.
I take my colleague Paul Bonwick's point that in five years, ten years, twenty years, as Mr. Morrison pointed out, it's going to be a technological world, where print will be the rare exception. We don't know how prolific this will be, but it will appear in very many ways, some of which were described by Mr. Morrison, including databases, webs, DVDs, and so forth. What we have to decide is whether we think this exception should carry forward to the technological age.
Now, we were just faced with very articulate points of view on both sides, and I noted, Mr. Hill, that you said we should extend the exception to those libraries equipped to safeguard rights of holders. Who decides which libraries are equipped to safeguard rights of holders? How do we frame that? How do we regulate this?
I recall Ms. Westcott asking, who oversees the safeguards if exceptions are brought in? Is it the Copyright Board? Is it the government? Is it some sort of new protection system?
You also made the point, Mr. Hill, that we own the books. Then you brought out the candle analogy, that a book is just like a candle. But then Ms. Crean was asking the question....
You also own IBM machines and computers, and yet Microsoft and IBM collect royalties and copyright rights, which they will not sacrifice at any cost. You accept that, but it's done through a different system, so we don't actually see it, as with the material you use. So really, what we have to ask ourselves is....
You make the point that, well, we're only talking about, in the definition of the exceptions, scholarly, scientific, and technical material, but it also talks about newspapers and periodicals after a year. As well, the law says that the Governor in Council can define what this means. So if tomorrow you have a government that is really wanting to protect the user completely, it could redefine periodicals and newspapers and scholarly, scientific, and technical material to mean anything they want it to mean. A government changes, and depending on the philosophy.... If it was a government that really was bent to help the user, that definition could change completely.
So you can't just take into account that your 3% represents what's going to be the case tomorrow. And even if it were 1%, I think we're talking about rights, and rights apply to 1% or 2% or 3%. I don't think percentages should apply. It's a question of policy.
Now, I heard Mr. Larivière say in one of his responses that what we want to do is negotiate between library and publisher.
That is what you said when Ms. Lill asked you who would pay if you were given an exemption that allowed you to make deals without going through the collective system. You said that you would like to negotiate, that there was no problem, that you would pay for everything. She asked you who would pay for the copyright, and you replied that there could be negotiations between the library and the publisher.
But isn't that what we're talking about in a licensing system?
And Mr. Hill talks about air and water being free. I suppose we would have to find out who produced the air and water. Some people would say God, and some people would say it's evolution; Darwin would say differently. That's why they don't charge for it. But in the case of authors, surely somebody has created this thing and they want to be paid for their copyright. That's why we have a copyright law.
So I must admit, after listening to both sides of the argument, I think we would be really taking a risk if we were to broaden the exception in an age when we can't control that exception. It's much easier to control it now with print. So how do we control it? I haven't heard the case that we can control it. How do we sort out the libraries that can safeguard and those that can't safeguard? And if we do give the exception to the libraries, because libraries are special cases and there's no problem, according to Mr. Larivière, then the educational people will say, oh, you've given it to libraries, so give it to education. And other people will say, well, then, the exception there must be carried in our sector as well.
So I think we have to look at it as one overall case, regardless of libraries or educational universities or whatever. Whether it's literary or whether it's scientific, we have to ask how we protect copyright holders, which is the objective of the law, and give access to users in the best way possible in an age when we don't know where technology is going. I think that's the question.
Can you tell me, Mr. Larivière or Mr. Hill, what is wrong with a system of licensing? I'm not talking about Access Copyright, or this licensing system, or Madam Messier's body, or the Canada Law Book institution, or whichever. What I'm talking about is the principle itself. What is wrong with a system whereby some collective outfit negotiates with you in advance, takes into account that you only use 3%, and arrives at some sort of fee? If you don't agree, there would be a way doing of it through the Copyright Board or something.
What is wrong with that?
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
As one of the members who will make recommendations to the government about how to deal with the next phase of copyright legislation to pick up digital material and the digital system, I find it extremely frustrating, because it seems to be a rerun all the time. You get two sides, very polarized. On one side you can almost see before you come what is going to happen. The creators, publishers, the people from the cultural milieu don't want any exceptions. They believe in the collective system, because they feel that's their survival, and I understand it fully. On the other side, the educational people, the distributors, the commercial people always want a broadening of the exception of fair dealing and don't like the collective system, or will tolerate only the least amount of the collective system. Invariably, the people who want the fair dealing will mention Industry Canada reports and balanced argument to justify it.
We are caught in this polarization. What I am trying to find, as one member, is some opening that seeks some sort of consensual position or compromise that we can work on.
I was encouraged in a way. Mr. Mutton wants a broadening of exceptions and feels that to deal with learning materials of the technological world, you need it. At the same time, I sensed from what you said and what I read of your report that you want two things. First, you want a broadening of the description of learning materials from the technological system, so that it will be as broad as possible. Second, you said you wanted to deal with a streamlined, centralized, and effective system. Putting aside Access Copyright, which you don't like, and the cost question, which is debatable, doesn't your position admit the possibility of some sort of collective association that would negotiate with you for a broad understanding of what learning materials of a technological nature are and would be a collective central point that would be effective, centralized, and streamlined? Aren't we talking about the same thing in a different way? I hope so.
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
But without opening the exceptions at all, would that be so--
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
Just looking at your paragraph there about beyond fair dealing, you say it is vital that we.... If we exclude fair dealing for a minute, don't you describe a collective system in any case? Maybe you don't like the collective system that is now in place, maybe you think it is too restrictive in the amount of material they allow, but if there is to be a kind of collective system, isn't that a collective system you're describing in your paragraph?
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
Surely you're talking about process here, you're not talking about policy. What I'm talking about is a policy question as to whether we have a collective system or rely on exceptions. So there's one or the other. We can't have a mixture of both, as is suggested in one of these. Obviously, the creators don't want exceptions at all, and you want the least possible collective system. But if there were a collective such as you describe, where negotiations were taking place with all these various creators, which would include a broadening of the description of materials to be used at what you believe is a fair cost, and we have a board that judges these things, wouldn't that be what we are all trying to reach? Would that satisfy you, then, without going to the exceptions?
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm not talking about collective systems as they exist today, I'm talking about policy and principles. Surely that can be invented if it's not there. Surely it's not impossible to invent the kind of thing you're describing yourself or amend what exists to make it better, so that it complies with you. You don't have any objections in principle, do you?
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
I must say, I've heard this for quite a while now. When I was chair of this committee, I met with some people from the educational network, and Mrs. Noel, about the possibility of broadening the exemption. So I was listening with a very open mind today.
I must say, Mr. Doucet, I feel a bit sorry for you. You seem to be the odd man out, the underdog, and I feel a lot of sympathy. At the same time, I must say, if I'm to be a Solomon today, I didn't find your argument as convincing as some of the others. In fact, what you were saying last of all seemed to confirm what the others were saying, it would seem to me.
Can you explain to me what is wrong with a system of licensing? Let's leave compulsory and extended; let's say you had blanket licensing that would be agreed to, which would take into account that some of these works, as pointed out by Mrs. Levy, and that some of the systems....
You mentioned as an example MPs' bios, which, I agree, are not worth very much.
Voices: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, maybe I should speak for myself.
At any rate, I think that was a really good example, because I don't think the licensing system would not take into account the fact that some of the work is not to be charged for. So in setting the fee, the fee would take into account that a lot of the work is copyrighted. As Ms. Warwick was saying, you pay for parking and you pay for everything else, so why shouldn't you pay for authors' copyright rights?
What is wrong with a system that would take into account that some of this work should be free, so that the fee would compensate for that kind of work? What is wrong with that?
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
You see, there are two options before us, as set out by the two ministries. One is a broadening of the fair dealing exemption plus some form of compulsory licensing. The other one is some form of blanket licence.
I understand the reservations that Mrs. Peacock brought forward, but there are two different approaches, you might say, one backed by Industry Canada and the other one clearly by Canadian Heritage, which favours more the creators and the cultural component.
Now, if you look at these two systems, we have to find out which one is the best--the fairest and the easiest to apply. You are arguing that the system of compulsory licensing would lead to a bit of uncertainty in regard to how you define what is freely available, which, to my way of thinking, could be taken care of in the rate charged.
In my view, the other way is far more difficult. As was pointed out by Mrs. Levy, how do you define publicly available material? Do you have a section of the law that is five pages long and that defines this and that and the next thing? And technology changes. The Internet changes. It's almost impossible to define anything.
So does that not speak against your option?
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
Back to you, Mr. Doucet. We hope to try to find an acceptable compromise here. Such is our work.
I listened very carefully to Mr. Beauchemin when he told us about the difference between some clauses in the documents or on the Internet saying, for example, that any and all reproduction rights are prohibited. For example, I've just received a document sent to me by someone saying that
e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential, intended solely for the individual recipient.
To your mind, is that some sort of protected copyright? If there were no inscription but only “All rights reserved”, in your opinion, would this constitute protection of copyright in the field of education?
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
But aren't you in fact proving what Mr. Beauchemin and others maintain? If you say that this must be on all pages, and that a well-intentioned author put it on the first page but forgot to put it on the tenth page, you're making a distinction between the first page and the tenth page. Yet the author's clear intention is to protect his work. So in fact, you are really proving the view of those who maintain... What you are saying is that if this is not on every page, the work is not protected.
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
The system you suggest seems very complicated to me. We would have to explain which works are public, we will have to explain that there is a difference between concepts that are on all pages and concepts that are only on a single page, and so on. I'm asking the question because, when I asked you earlier whether you believed a reasonable cost would be acceptable, you said no. But as I see it, we're going to see an 800 per cent increase here. If a collective licensing system could be achieved at reasonable cost to the educational sector, if you knew in advance that the cost would be reasonable, would you accept a less comprehensive licensing system?
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
We seem to be in a log-jam, because they are saying, as I understand it, the cost would take into account that this material was for free.
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think you should get together and sort it out.
View Clifford Lincoln Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Sir Charles.
I just want to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Latourelle. I see from your notes that there has been ample consultation to support it by the provincial governments, the NGO community, and environmental groups. The one change, or one extraction, there from Riding Mountain is just 4.75 hectares, and the other one is 86 hectares. How much does that represent of the total of Pacific Rim?
Results: 1 - 15 of 2178 | Page: 1 of 146

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

For more data options, please see Open Data