Version 3 Internet Piracy Review Agency (IPRA) Q&A Why has CBC/Radio-Canada joined the piracy coalition? ‘* Stealing is wrong. Canadian TV shows cost money. Canadians have invested in CBC/Radio-Canada so that we can create and offer great Canadian programming, on all of our platforms. When illegal sites steal those programs for profit, they are undermining our ability to continue to do that. ‘Most of CBC/Radio-Canada’s content is available for free—and you say you want as many people as possible to see them—why is this your issue? ‘* Theft isan issue for the entire cultural industry. Using free or paid content without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. It undermines the ability of Canadians to continue to fund, create and showcase Canadian programs. ‘+ Much of our programming is created by independent producers. When their TV shows are stolen and made available for free on the Internet, the Canadians who work hard to make their living creating these works don’t get paid, ‘+ CBC/Radio-Canada has agreements with certain content providers requiring us to protect the content and ensuring it’s distributed through legitimate authorized channels. ‘+ There are fake news sites out there recreating CBC/Radio-Canada’s look and feel; we want to ensure others aren’t exploiting our credibility and misleading Canadians. What does CBC/Radio-Conada currently do to counter piracy? ‘* When we discover sites using our content illegally we take the necessary legal steps against them. How much do you estimate that piracy costs CBC/Radio-Canada annually? ‘© We do not have a current estimate but we know that the cost of digital piracy is increasing across the industry Why don’t you take action yourselves instead of asking ISPs to take action for you? ‘+ We do. Our Legal department tries to track violations and issues demand letters as required. However, we all know that trying to fight piracy through ad hoc legal action is neither timely nor completely effective. We believe that finding a better way of combating piracy is in the best. interests of the industry and consumers alike. '* Countries all over the world have recognized that such outdated tools are not enough to address modern forms of piracy, which is why more than 20 of Canada’s peers have adopted approaches like the one the coalition has proposed (including the UK, Australia, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Australia, Greece, Singapore). Why is site blocking necessary to combat piracy? cy websites and services are operated anonymously online from jurisdictions all over the world, ‘making it dificult or impossible to identify the people responsible for them or to bring enforcement actions. ‘+ Itis unreasonable to expect an artist or small Canadian production company to track down and sue multiple anonymous parties operating in other countries every time they identify their content being stolen, ‘+ The objective of this application is to provide a practical tool that can address the harm caused by racy in Canada through actions taken simply within Canada. ‘A0066500_102-000484Version 3 ‘+ The tools designed to deal with bootleg global online environment. jing of DVDs or black market satellit ss don't work in the new Do other countries take this similar action? ‘+ What we're proposing is actually a proportionate response similar to what has been adopted in more than 20 countries, including some of our closest peers (the UK, Australia, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Australia, Greece, and Singapore). '* Infact, a European Union directive requires EU countries to make it possible to seek such site blocking orders. That directive has been implemented throughout the EU. Isn‘t this censorship of the Internet? ‘© Thisis simply a means of enforcing well-established legal rules with effective protections and, oversight. For example, what we're proposing only targets hardcore or blatant piracy sites and access toa site would only be disabled after notice is given to both the site operator and all ISPs, all sides have a chance to make their case, and an oral hearing is conducted if necessary. Any decision would ultimately be made by the CRTC and also subject to judicial review by the courts. ‘* These procedures are common in the UK, France, Australia, Italy, Portugal, Norway, and Belgium all of which maintain access to a free and open Internet. Is this approach even going to be effective? Won't pirates just find a way around it? ‘+ Studies in the United Kingdom and Portugal have shown that site blocking orders are effective at both reducing traffic to piracy sites and increasing traffic to legitimate services, for example: © In November 2024 alone, the disabling of access to 53 piracy sites in the UK caused a 90% reduction in visits to the specified sites and a 22% decrease in total piracy for all users affected by the measure. It also resulted in an increase in visits to legal streaming services of between 6%-10%. © In Portugal, disabling access to 66 of the 250 top piracy sites resulted in an approximately 70% reduction in usage of the blocked sites and a reduction of nearly 10% in usage in Portugal of the top 250 piracy sites overall, despite usage of those same 250 sites increasing approximately 31% globally during the same period. \sn’t this an attack on net neutrality? © No. In the application the coalition has proposed ISPs remain entirely neutral. They exercise no choice or power themselves but simply implement recommendations made by the IPRA after they have been adopted by the CRTC. And while net neutrality is concerned with access to legal content, our proposal only affects piracy sites that are clearly illegal. ¢ The IPRA will be independent and review all lence filed by any interest party regarding whether a site is blatantly engaged in piracy and should be blocked. |s this just an indirect way of roling back net neutrality rules in Canada following the FCC's rollback of the rules in the United States? ‘+ No, this application does not affect the existing net neutrality rules in either the Telecommunications Act or in CRTC policy. The application is based on the rule that ISPs can never interfere with the content or meaning of the content they carry except pursuant to a CRTC decision. .A0066500_103-000485Version 3 Will this undermine free speech on the Internet? ‘+ The proposed site blocking orders would only target illegal websites. Enforcing Canadian laws online is just as important as enforcing them in the physical world and is not new or radical. Preventing the sale of bootlegged DVDs and videos did not undermine freedom of speech and neither will a carefully tailored site blocking strategy. ‘+The UK, Australia, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Australia, and Greece all enforce copyright online through site blocking strategies and obviously maintain free speech on the Internet. ‘A0066500_104-000486