Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Sure. One of the things we're talking about with respect to reverse engineering is that some have expressed the thought that digital locks or TPMs should not be permitted to lock down subject matter such as software, on the basis that in doing so it would prevent individuals from reverse-engineering software.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes, we do.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I'm not quite sure where that $21 million number comes from. Perhaps you could explain it a bit more.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Part of the problem with this is unintended consequences. I was practising law back in 1997 when we went through the last round of amendments, and there was a lot of talk focused on dual cassette decks, basically. My dual cassette deck went out in the garbage about a month ago. We didn't think in those days of Napster or iPod or anything at all like that, so to try to craft exceptions for--

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you. You touched on a number of topics, but I think the bill is WIPO-compliant as it is. Certainly we can craft exemptions to it if we wish to do it. The question is whether we wish to do it and whether it's appropriate in the circumstances. I don't want to get into an argument with you over whether my sofa is akin to a copyright, but copyright is an intellectual property right, and the reasons we have an intellectual property right are twofold.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Let me drill down a little bit on that. Our position is that this should not be allowed with respect to technological subjects like computer programs and engineering drawings. The user-generated content exception we think is unique. I don't think there's a similar provision in other countries.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Correct. In principle we would agree with it, but I think it needs a bit of fine-tuning to make sure that unauthorized third parties don't take unfair commercial advantage of it.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Part of the problem here is that we all see what has gone on in the United States, with some of the rights holders getting massive damage awards from individuals. I don't think that's a fair way of dealing with things. That being said, you look at the numbers for personal infringement and the statutory damages provisions--$100,000, $5,000.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The chamber's position is that we support digital locks both for access and for copy controls. I always think that some of these supposedly complex Internet-based issues can be pushed back on the way things are dealt with in the bricks-and-mortar world.

Industry committee  I think I can answer that. What I would like to see is a form of summary enforcement mechanism. I was not directly involved in the Interplus case, although my firm was, and I know the lengths to which Microsoft went to prove that this particular product was counterfeit. There was a huge amount of evidence that had to be put together to prove that.

Industry committee  Frankly, I don't think it would really matter whether it goes to general revenue or to the company, provided the activity is stopped. If the infringing activity stops, then the rights holder will make money based on that. If it's a criminal charge and the proceeds of crime—the yacht—is sold, the money goes into the general revenue, that's fine.

Industry committee  I would strongly recommend that. I've litigated actions in the Federal Court. They go along at their own pace, and I guess that's fine more or less for domestic companies litigating against each other, but it's ridiculous when it takes six years to get one counterfeiter to trial.

Industry committee  I'll jump on board that one. I think there's a baffling internal bureaucratic inertia to doing anything about this. I cannot honestly understand it at all. Intellectual property rights have been around for 400 years, since the English Statute of Monopolies in 1623. Why can't this government see that IP rights are important and give us the best tools we can have to restrain intellectual property infringement?

Industry committee  I think people are becoming more aware of it. You look at the recent dog food scare with pets being poisoned, and that's a form of counterfeiting. People think they're buying a food ingredient of a particular type, and they're getting something else that kills them. There's the example we gave of the woman in British Columbia who was eating the uranium and lead filler.

Industry committee  I think I can answer that. I've been enforcing IP rights on behalf of clients for a long time. What I find is that although the basic tools are there, it's very difficult to bring these rights to bear. I would say the border enforcement tools are not there, but if you're in-country dealing with an in-country sale of product, you can look to the Copyright Act, you can look to the Trade-marks Act.