Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Canadian Broadcasters Seek New Internet Regulation

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:46 AM
from the new-interference-commission dept.
The Internet
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist's weekly Toronto Star column reports that the Canadian broadcasting community, including broadcasters, copyright collectives, and actor labor unions, are all calling on Canada's broadcast regulator to increase its regulation of the Internet. Some groups want sites such as YouTube to be subject to Canadian content requirements, while the broadcasters want to stop U.S. broadcasters from streaming television shows online into Canada."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Canadian Broadcasters Seek New Internet Regulation 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • To satisfy the Canadian content requirement, all one needs to do is add a couple minutes of the 'Great White North' [wikipedia.org] to each of the YouTube clips.
    • Get in the 00s. = )
      http://www.trailerparkboys.com/ [trailerparkboys.com]

    • This will go over about as well as the McKenzie Brothers' attempt to get free beer from the liquor store. :)

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=KWzdOKCb-Gw [youtube.com]
      • This will go over about as well as the McKenzie Brothers' attempt to get free beer from the liquor store.

        The liquor store? In Ontario in the 1980's? Sorry, my friend, it was "The Beer Store".

        • In Ontario, in the 80's, it was The Brewers' Retail.
          You're probably too young to remember. :-P
    • for Canada, then, just work up software at YouTube that puts toques and beers on everybody in those videos when the IP request comes from up north, eh.

      it worked for SCTV, eh.

      so then should shortwave radios in Quebec have translation software so all the stations you listen to come in speaking French? it would be funny to hear Nutjob of Iran on the news, eh, speaking in French. "Death to America. Get me another beer, eh?"

    • CanCon (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:45PM (#18576429)
      Why do they always have to embarass us like this? The great thing about youtube is that all the media is in direct competition. It's exactly the arena where Canadian content should shine -- any of it that is worth seeing in the first place, that is. It's not like with television where networks can be deliberately myopic about only selecting programs that will appeal to American demographics. The very nature of youtube makes nationality irrelevant. Canadians can access all of the Canadian content on youtube just as easily as they can access the American, Russian, or Swahili content.

      If Canadian broadcasters want Canadians to see Canadian content on youtube, they should put some awesome videos on youtube and then promote them to people. THAT'S how you encourage the development and advancement of culture. By making things that kick ass and then spreading them far and wide, not by keeping out things that happen to kick asses of the wrong nationality. Maybe if they'd get past their intense penis-envy towards American-style copyright law, they would see that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Scrameustache (459504)

        If Canadian broadcasters want Canadians to see Canadian content on youtube, they should put some awesome videos on youtube and then promote them to people. THAT'S how you encourage the development and advancement of culture.

        AMEN!

        Just like the BBC did: Open up a Director channel, upload some cool stuff [youtube.com] (like clips of David Attenborough narrating the lives of neat animals, for instance).

        I would love it, LOVE IT, if the Film Board would put some of their content on [www.nfb.ca] youTube, or their own version of archive.org, or SOMETHING. Now that would promote canadian culture and content.
        This move, however, seems to be a way for telecoms to cash in, using culture as a pretext.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Brickwall (985910)
        If Canadian broadcasters want Canadians to see Canadian content on youtube, they should put some awesome videos on youtube

        Absolutely! Check out the following "Hinterland Who's Who" from the Canadian Wildlife Service:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc [youtube.com]

        • The CBC definitely represents the right way for a government to stimulate the arts. The CRTC represents the wrong way. The CBC actually produces some great programs, and broadcasts some awesome music. "Brave New Waves" anyone? That show was one of the best things to ever grace the radiowaves.
    • Yikes. :(

      Remember also that in 1996 the CRTC unsuccessfully attempted to pass similar legislation regarding all content on the internet.

      I hate the CRTC. They have effectively ruined everything regarding broadcast and digital technology.

      The CRTC are also are a big reason that Tivo doesn't exist as a service in Canada.

      Sure, nice, fine: we get to hear that extra bit of Nelly Furtado (produced in America, by American musicians and producers, for an American label) and friggin' Nickelback. But can we download TV shows in iTunes? Nope. Movies? Nope. Can we get actual HBO anywhere? Nope. Up until mid-last-year there was also no satellite radio. The only reason we have it now is that they created several Canadian stations, literally none of which anyone I know even listens to at all.

      But we DO get endless reruns of Corner Gas on multiple tv stations. And we have ET Canada now. Which is nice... I guess... (Cheryl Hickie notwithstanding.)

      The CRTC is run by a bunch of 70-year-olds who still probably think Burton Cummings is "hit-worthy." I wish to god they would go away. If it actually led to greater talent discovery and exposure, then I'd be all for it. As it stands the truly good Canadian artists get absolutely no airplay anywhere. CRTC has outlived their usefulness if these are the kinds of battles they're choosing to fight, using my money.

      ad

  • Dear CRTC (Score:5, Funny)

    by camperdave (969942) on Monday April 02 2007, @11:54AM (#18575641) Journal
    Dear Canadian Radio and Television Commision:

    The internet is neither radio, nor television, nor Canadian, so keep your regulatory hands in your pockets.
    • Yeah, good point. It's funny how some people just can't seem to get that the internet changes everything. With radio and television it was somewhat reasonable for the government to insist that a portion be Canadian content. There used to be a limited amount of stuff that could be broadcast across the airwaves. And many people, including myself, wanted to hear/see local (as in Canadian) artists.

      But now with the internet it doesn't cost anybody anything extra to get content from everywhere. Having access to
      • That's a broad definition of reasonable. Mandatory content is wrong on so many levels, one of which is that it violates freedom of speech, an other that it's basically censorship in reverse.
    • Who's to say it isn't television? Or Radio? Just because the transport is different doesn't mean that it's not television. I'll give you that's it's not Canadian, but neither is Fox,NBC,ABC or CBS. Yet if they're playing the same show as a Canadian broadcaster then then Canadian show (with canadian commercials) gets shown instead.
    • Yeah, like our agencies don't change names.

      Just ask Customs... or CRA... or CCRA... or Revenue Canada... or the Ministry of National Revenue.

      (For the non-Canadians in the crowd, that's the same agency, with a few name and focus changes over the years.)

      They'll just repackage the CRTC as the Canadian Heritage and Information Agency or something that doesn't spell "CHIA". With the repackaging, they get an Internet control mandate.

      I'd be willing to accept this: Downloading MP3s remains legal in Canada as long a
    • Unfortunately for your argument, it's the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission link [crtc.gc.ca], so it may well be within their jurisdiction.
        • I've given up trying to coach them:

          "Do you get paid by the call or the hour?"

          "Uh, the call."

          "Well, having said that I'm not interested, you persist in continuing to sell to me, an uninterested customer. The longer you talk to me, the more money you lose. The smartest thing you can do financially is to tell me to have a good night, hang up, and try the next person on the list."

          "Have a good night, sir."

          I had a telemarketer call the other night. He was selling travel insurance.

          "It's not legal for me to travel
    • The internet is neither radio, nor television, nor Canadian, so keep your regulatory hands in your pockets.

      Wow.

      I wish I'd thought of that line. You're my hero for stuffing all that into one sentence and not saying it in the way I had in mind. (for the curious, "Piss off, turdburglars.")
  • Since the Canadian Air Force is equipped with those fantastic Avro Arrows [wikipedia.org], they'll have no problem enforcing this...

  • A call to arms (Score:4, Funny)

    by Grashnak (1003791) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:05PM (#18575819)

    Some groups want sites such as YouTube to be subject to Canadian content requirements
    Fellow Canadians, I am shocked to learn that YouTube is apparently not meeting its committment to ensure that at least 30% of its content is Canadian. I call upon all of you to immediately get a camcorder and make a tape of: yourself smashing your testes during an ill-fated skateboard stunt; two drunk Canadian girls kissing; a dog (Canadian) biting someone's crotch; your sister, passed out and naked; Canadian ninjas fighting Canadian pirates, or; a montage of guys showing off their plumbers butts at hockey games.

    Only by lowering ourselves to their level will we ever be fairly represented on YouTube.

    • Re:A call to arms (Score:4, Funny)

      by slashbob22 (918040) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:11PM (#18575943)

      Only by lowering ourselves to their level will we ever be fairly represented on YouTube.
      Just make sure we post in both official languages. The French Language Commission may follow up with whatever the CRTC leaves behind.

    • Re:A call to arms (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:19PM (#18576061) Homepage
      While I realize you're trying to be funny, but you do illustrate the point well. How is a site consisting only of user created content supposed to adhere to content laws? How are they supposed to control the amount of Canadian content?

      • While I realize you're trying to be funny, but you do illustrate the point well. How is a site consisting only of user created content supposed to adhere to content laws? How are they supposed to control the amount of Canadian content?
        Spam youtube with Clips of Celine Dion?
  • Sounds like a request from Scott [wikipedia.org]

  • WTF is Free Trade for anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt&lynx,bc,ca> on Monday April 02 2007, @12:17PM (#18576021) Journal
    If Canada doesn't want to compete with the US in various sectors, why did it opt in to NAFTA?

    Canada needs to friggen grow up.

  • Culture fascism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Butisol (994224) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:19PM (#18576049)
    As a Canadian, these kinds of stories are very disturbing. It's not so much that I'm worried about these laws actually passing as I'm worried about the socio-political ideology in which these ideas are born. On the one hand are profit driven enterprises trying to protect their markets, which is nothing new and quite expected. But on the other hand in the ministries is a virulent strain of "we have the right to decide how much of what Canadian viewers get to see in the name of protecting 'Canadian culture'." THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHAT MEDIA I HAVE ACCESS TO. This is just as reprehensible as the Catholic church burning pagan classical writings, without even the excuse that it's for a divine purpose.

    Rip those fucking fascists. Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid!!!! Berzerker!!!

  • Read that again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LihTox (754597) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:19PM (#18576057)
    Wait a second...
    "The Canadian broadcasting community, including broadcasters, copyright collectives, and actor labor unions, are all calling on Canada's broadcast regulator to increase its regulation of the Internet."

    Well, of course they are. The American broadcasting community wants increased regulation of the Internet, too. Heck, the Tongan broadcasting community probably wants it too. We should keep an eye on them, but don't blame Canada for having greedy broadcasters.
  • Canada is slowly becoming the North American equivalent of Britain and France combined in the some of the worst ways - Legislated to death and it rewards its citizens for 'waiting for the government to do something about it.' At least they shave their pits (Or so I believe)

  • I've heard a number of Canadian artists say that the CRTC, the gov, and particularly the cancon rules, have saved Canadian culture and the Canadian artists. So, if what they are asking for could be done then that would be great.

    But it can't.

    • I've heard a number of Canadian artists say that the CRTC, the gov, and particularly the cancon rules, have saved Canadian culture and the Canadian artists. So, if what they are asking for could be done then that would be great.

      An alternative argument would be that if Canadian culture is so great, it will preserve itself.

  • Of course the CRTC isn't saying we (Canadians) can't watch certain things. But this is certainly giving the feeling of censorship, by trying to impose what we can view...wait...that is censorship! Here's a thought: Disband the CRTC and realize that most Canadian programming isn't worth saving if it needs to be propped up by subsidies.
  • Yea.

    If you cant compete, quit the field and go do another business.

    people are not bound to be LIMITED in their freedoms using the taxes they THEMSELVES are paying, for the sake of any sector's personal profit and protection.

    fucking bastards.

    • Re:Why not take it one step further (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mrbcs (737902) * on Monday April 02 2007, @11:55AM (#18575661)
      Thought it was still april fools day, still a Typical Canuck response.. "oh our shitty content can't cut it so we better regulate it to death".

      Like we need more swivel servants in Ottawa..

      Regulating the internet is like trying to regulate the weather.

      Fools.. (and my tax dollars would have to pay for this crap) /canuck

    • Any laws passed in deference to these idiots will have all the power of a UN resolution.

      No, they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.
      • No, they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.

        Nose, meet knife. This is in regard to your upcoming appointment with the face.
      • This is EXACTLY the right response. Trying to push all the little conditions on web sites in other countries is irrational (just like the US tries to do with gambling.) This needs to be done at the Canadian ISP level. Of course no matter WHAT "solution" is mandated, it can be bypassed with redirectors / proxies.

        The real answer of course it to tell all the whanking whiners to STFU and come up with a valid business model for the modern world.

      • >they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.

        Having watched Canadian television, I, for one, find the concept of watching television content that Canadian broadcasters find objectionable terrifying.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by spun (1352)
          Oh, exactly. I wasn't saying they will, I'm just saying they can. Your original post made it sound as if they don't have the capability to even attempt something like that, when in fact they do, they just lack the political motivation for something so dumb.

          I doubt any country would be dumb enough to try to firewall off commercial content that certain national industries don't want. Based on the rulings regarding Internet gambling, I'd be willing to bet that the WTO would come down against a country trying t

    • Re:what's a little competition here and there? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Brickwall (985910) on Monday April 02 2007, @12:13PM (#18575967)
      I think the issue here is Canadian broadcasters pay US networks for the rights to certain shows. For example, CTV has "Lost" and the "CSI" and "Law and Order" franchises, while Global got the "Survivor" series, "Shark", etc. If people are going to stream those videos in Canada, those broadcasters want them streamed from their sites, not US sites. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

      And, FWIW, as a Canadian, when I went to abc.com to view the episode of "Lost" I had missed, I was told that I was ineligible to view it, as I was accessing the site from Canada. So at a technical level, it looks like it is feasible to block Canadians, and as I noted above, it's not an issue of Canadian broadcasters producing quality shows or not; it's an issue of them protecting the rights that they have paid for.

      • If people are going to stream those videos in Canada, those broadcasters want them streamed from their sites, not US sites. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

        It's unreasonable because all of these artificial boundaries are bullshit. The internet is a challenge to the established order because the only boundaries it recognizes are those between networks. On the internet we are all peers. Anyone can produce and distribute content. As you may have noticed, this terrifies the entrenched media conglomerates.

        • these artificial boundaries are bullshit.
          Yes, they are, but if company A is going to take company B's money for exclusive distribution rights within an artificial boundary, then they ought to play fair no matter what distribution technology is used. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
    • It just cheeses me off, how we waste time on talking about things like this?? Now, this is coming from traditional broadcasters who don't have a clue about what they are asking. They're just trying to demonize the internet further and trying to get a piece using guile and bureaucracy. I'm annoyed at how we are wasting dollars even considering this. I started a dialog recently with my MP on the peer-to-peer debate. But rather than agreeing with my "if no one is profiting from it it's not piracy", I was
    • I watch the CBC quite regularly, and I really enjoy most of the stuff I watch, so I'd think that your observation is a highly subjective statement.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by spikedvodka (188722)
        I enjoy watching CBC... Where else can I get my fix of the Royal Canadian Air Farce?...

        and Yes I live in the US, but get Canuck Cable, and I could, If I chose to, spit across the border from my bed-room
    • This isn't canada, it's government or the CRTC. It's labour unions and other dumb asses that think they can get some more money.

    • There's no advantage for a U.S network to stream to Canada because the streamed ads are intended for a U.S. market. My guess is that the advertisers pay/view and they don't want to pay for Canadian eyes.


      That argument holds water only until the US content providers find advertisers willing to pay for ad impressions to Canadians.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.