Slashdot Mirror
ICraveTV II - Canadian showdown
typecast writes "It's taken nearly 10 months, but
this story says JumpTV is finally just some not-so-short hearings away from what could be an entirely legal (in Canada) version of iCraveTV. But the company says it probably won't wait for the hearings to end to begin Webcasting off-the-air TV signals live on the Net ... using its technology to reduce that iCraveTV-like "leakage" into the U.S. If JumpTV's border control technology can keep the MPAA out, could it keep French Nazi hunters away from Yahoo!'s servers?"
American Culture?
That wont take much bandwidth.
I am looking forwared to a JumpTV surviving censorship attempts, because I will use it to watch channels that the broadcasters won't let me see otherwise. This is similar to how Napster lets us (or used to) let us listen to music that the record companies refused to sell us (bootlegs and old stuff), and how those DVD utilities let us view DVD material that we otherwise would never be able to see due to the Region system. There wouldn't be any of this problem if the related industries weren't so reluctant to sell us this material in the first place: the problem isn't unauthorized viewing/listening without paying the company. Rather, it is unauthorized viewing/listening to material using these controversial sources since the industry refuses to sell it to us at all. Here is a good example of this: there is a major-label DVD I want to view. It is sold in Region 2, and they have no plans for a DVD for Region 1 that I could view. Instead of paying the company for the DVD that I can't watch, this encourages me to buy a pirated VHS version of the DVD off of eBay, which I could watch.
Cooperative adjacent countries make bilateral agreements about the overlaps: Canada and the U.S. are two such, and they have rules in place which specifically protect the advertisers, the folks who pay for the content on TV.
Uncooperative countries broadcast across borders, and the only choice the recipient has is to jam the signals: the Voice of America and Radio Moscow are two examples.
I don't think JumpTV's business model is close enough to TV's to work, but the existing business model (buy a feed, sell advertising) will work on the 'net as well as on cable and broadcast, without change.
Instead of being regionalized, as you fear, I suspect it will be a big lever to use against those who wish to use their nominal ownership as a claim in a regime where "if you broadcast it, you've given it away".
Remember, in that model, they sell the performance rights to distributors (networks) who pay for them with advertising. Selling preferentially, dumping and other shady business practices are prohibited by the anti-trust laws in the countries where the sale takes place.
In other words, by admitting the CRTC has jurisdiction, the content providers end up being constrained by an existing body of law, applied to the internet as if it were a big broadcasting tower.
davecb@spamcop.net
If Jump TV's service is illegal in the US, that's the yankees' problem. Not Jump TV's. So there is no reason why Jump TV should jump backwards through hoops to make sure it's "content" doesn't ends up in the US.
--
Anonymous proxies can get around any regional/ip-specific service barriers.
As for your point about the Internet and the inclusion of all peoples... you have some reading to do. Do the words "Nuclear War, Rand Corporation, or Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency" mean anything to you? Sorry if I come off grumpy.However, the fact that the company has to put in place regional barriers means that this is a Bad Thing.
I'm sorry, but the problem here is that what they're doing isn't legal in the US. From the article, it appears that basically everyone except those in the US will be allowed to watch. This makes sense, what they're doing isn't allowed by US laws, and they're trying to avoid some lawsuits by not "broadcasting" there. If the US legal system allowed this sort of thing, there wouldn't be any need for this regional barrier.
You can't blame a Canadian company for problems with the laws of your own country. The blame for the regional barrier falls squarely on the American legal system. It's not JumpTV's fault whatsoever.
Fix the problem at it's root: the laws of the US; don't try to impose your laws on sovereign nations. This has no similarities to DVD regional encoding whatsoever.
No, the recipient can decide not to jam the signals. Two propaganda stations aren't a good example of international broadcasting, but you can find many examples, for example Radio Luxenburg was for many decades listened to all over Europe, many Mexican stations broadcast to the Southern States, and Northern States TV & Radio is listened to by Canadians.
Until you can get a radio signal to read a map, cross boarder transmittions are a fact.
This is not stealing. Canadians broadcasters have agreed to allow rebroadcast as part of their licensing agreement to get the spectrum. US broadcasters have no right to allow their broadcasts to 'leak' into Canadian airspace. If anyone is stealing, it is the US broadcasters that are stealing spectrum from potential Canadian broadcasters. These are free, over-the-air broadcasts that include all local and national commercials. The broadcasters should be looking at this as a way of expanding their advertising reach to new audiences. Strange to hear them arguing for lower ratings isn't it?
I don't understand JumpTV's delay based on a $.75/month (it appears that's C$) fee to copyright holders. The ideal security solution is to charge a c$9/year subscription for the service charged to a credit card with a Canadian billing address. This would satisfy the security requirements and the copyright holders. The fee is low enough (about the same as one meal at McDonalds, or two coffees at Starbucks) that I can't see anyone balking at it, it surely beats the cost of satellite or cable. In fact, it's low enough that you would expect ISPs, especially DSL providers trying to ward-off cable ISPs, to bundle it with their service.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Why Windows Media over Real Media? If you ask me, the Windows Media wins the quality argument hands down.
Why Windows Media over Quicktime? It would seem that Quicktime wins the platform argument; and I think the quality is better with Quicktime anyways (tho I suppose thats arguable?). I'd imagine its the same reason Windows 9x is everywhere. Marketing, corperate partnerships, advertising?
"Old man yells at systemd"
If you want to watch abroad,
just find a Canadian proxy-server, used to work for me.
If I remember correctly, the increasing popularity of Windows Media format over Real Media is mainly down to two things:
.wm file out there is an implicit advert for the joys of switching to Windows rather than Mac or whichever flavour of *nix you might want.
.wm over .rm every download, as to my eye the .wm looks better for the given file size. Its crisper but blockier, so I can see some would disagree, but then everything is going to be a matter of personal judgement to some extent.
1) Cost. Real charge a lot more for the server licenses and encoders than Microsoft do; not surprising as every
2) Quality. Given the option, I choose
Also, the general nightmare of getting Realplayer and Realjukebox to not gobble resources and stick its spyware and taskbar rubbish off my system means that I'll take every opportunity I can to get the piece of junk off my box.
None of the currently popular formats are ideal - mpeg 1 isn't the greatest quality per byte and doesn't stream well, Real has the player problem above, WM is Windows only and Quicktime is only Windows or Mac. Since Windows is such a large share of the market I can see why some would rather forego the other platforms to avoid the other problems.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
You're absolutly right. And even ignoring the ethical aspect for a moment, it only shows that corporations and money is running the show. Why should JumpTV have to put regional barriers to respect the laws of another country? I mean, really, if it was, say, Afganistan instead of the MPAA screaming bloody murder, would anyone gives a damn?
-Earthling
-Earthling
"I'm sorry, I had to; the irony was just too thick."
Speaking of which, can someone please explain to me the reasons for the popularity of that format? I mean, not that I particularly like Real Media, but at least it's running on more than one freaking platform.
-Earthling
-Earthling
"I'm sorry, I had to; the irony was just too thick."
For internet TV to be useful it would have to be (a) on demand and (b) downloadable to the TV set , not the computer monitor.
Lawsuits in this arena are most likely a stalling target; as broadband becomes more prevalent, and tools which allow regionalization of users (and thus content), the networks will be all over the Internet like a bad rash. Until they can figure out how to get their advertising all over it in a cost-effective way, however, they're biding their time, and letting other people step on the mines for them.
See my response to your line of argument. I'll agree with you, the military was what it was all about, but that's the Cold War for you.
Let's face it, on one hand, most of us love the idea of a company being able to screw the TV companies over, no matter how they manage to do it exactly. It certainly sounds good to me, taken on its own. However, the fact that the company has to put in place regional barriers means that this is a Bad Thing.
Think about it for a minute. The Internet is (or at least, was meant to be) all about inclusion of peoples, freedom to access content wherever it is located, and sharing. Instead, we're now looking at situations where, for instance, I can get a service that others cannot.
Extrapolate that a little further now. Based on region, Big Company Inc is able to charge different amounts of money for their virtually-delivered (i.e. online) service, and for no other reason than the fact that they can.
JumpTV's service, even if free, manages to have enough parallels with the DVD regioning system that it's not funny.
But will it work for me?
using its technology to reduce that iCraveTV-like "leakage" into the U.S.
I live in Canada, but I get high speed satellite from Nebulink, an American company. I have a bad feeling that their service won't work for users in the unfortunate position of being forced to purchase American high speed internet access (not that I've ever had problems with it).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Finally, I'll get to see all those hockey games I've been missing!
this is how i feel about this sort of thing... click
Issues such as the present should be addressed by those in law schools, and perhaps an organization could be drawn up to define what is legal and what isn't when dealing with Internet based factors.
Its rather unsettling that there is not a set of rules however you wanna draw them up, on an ethical level, or in a court of law. There are some great things people miss out on due to not coporate greed for the most matter, as many companies turn around and cut deals [Napster].
Worldwide however many companies stand to benefit more from losening up around the collars instead of waisting so much effort to sue each other. For instance in this case, an American company, and a Canadian company could merge to make this happen, and everyone would be happy. Both sides could predefine what terms are to be laid down the line, and move from there. This is understandable when dealing with monies involved which dip into the billions (yearly) for advertising spots. Maybe a settlement can be reached with the broadcasters to switch off on revenues by allowing a pre-determined amount of ads to be shown if their programming content is used. Industry should allow this for a few reasons. One it gives a foundation for future attempts to capitalize on an Internet/Television combination. It provides an outlet as well for greater learning of cultures from our neighbors in Canada, and vice versa.
However the downside I see to this is simple. Not everyone will be able to watch content if they're on slow connections no matter which format you choose to stream this content on. The latency would be horrendous for one, and another downside is, at home I have a nice sized television which makes my computer monitor look like a PDA. So what makes this company think people would be willing to give up their televisions to watch their pc's?
Even moreso, is why would someone want to watch this. What distinctive programming would I benefit from this? I already have DSS which I barely watch. 300+ channels of nothing to watch so it often remains on, either on Discovery, History or MTV and acts as a radio while I play on PC. So again why would someone need this?
Honestly though smoe organization needs to come together and address all these legal woes, before it causes major rifts with international relations somewhere down the line.
hardcore crypto
360 degrees of Karma
It'll only be used for pr0n anyway
TODO: Something witty here...
The article was a little sketchy on the specifics of JumpTV's business model, but it seems to center on the idea of "TV on demand". Whether you watch broadcast, cable, or satellite, you're stuck with the fact that you can only watch a particular program if you sit down and view it at the particular time it's shown. If JumpTV has the show available, though, it seems that you would be able to watch it anytime you want.
Of course, there's always the VCR--but that means buying tapes, programming the VCR, storing tapes, and remembering where you put last week's Law & Order. Not exactly "point 'n' click". TiVo and its clones make the process MUCH, much easier (my rich friends just bought one), but they cost an arm and a leg.
Being as I'm on a shared T3, a service like JumpTV makes perfect sense to me. The storage and playback hardware are all maintained by someone else, and (assuming they have the content I want) accessibility is pretty easy. We save a bundle by sharing hardware costs, and get the same effect as long as the Net doesn't crash, or something.