Bad News From Canada On NetTV And Media Levies

twilight30 writes "Canadian regulators ruled Friday that it is illegal to put broadcast TV signals onto the Internet without permission, dashing the hopes of entrepreneurs hoping to create new Net TV businesses. An alternate link to the original at CNet is here." And Dr Caleb writes "In response to this Slashdot story I emailed my Member of Parlament. He responded to me today to say that "Despite strong opposition by the Canadian Alliance to these and other aspects of the bill, the Minister of Canadian Heritage won the day and Bill C-32 Copyright Legislation is now law." And further to say "The law assumes guilt that everyone who buys a blank tape or CD is pirating music - but anyone who uses CDs for data storage, for instance, knows that's not true!" Distressing that the bill has passed, but refreshing that my MP 'gets it'!"

Comments

makes sense to me.

[empee]

I don't understand why this is such a shock. I mean, did you really expect that it would be LEGAL to rebroadcast television over the internet without proper permission? Do you think that would be "right"?

Re:makes sense to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possibly illegal, but I don't see the problem. They can't tell how many people watch X show (unless you have the box), and you presumably still see the ads. Who cares?

Re:makes sense to me.

[empee]

For one thing, it could hurt local revenues immensely. Say that the NYC major networks are rebroadcast on the 'net (I know this story is for Canada, but it applies anywhere). Now when Jane Q. Public in Nowhere, Texas, starts watching the networks online, the local affiliates in Nowhere TX are SCREWED out of local ad revenues. There's one big problem.

Re:makes sense to me.

[empee]

note: this comment was supposed to be a reply to the comment beneath my original, refuting my original point.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Blkdeath]

I don't understand why this is such a shock. I mean, did you really expect that it would be LEGAL to rebroadcast television over the internet without proper permission? Do you think that would be "right"?

That was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read this story. The fact that it's combined with the blank recording media levy is disingenuous on the part of the submitter/editor responsible for posting it.

The media levy sucks, but quite honestly I can't find sympathy for companies who want to earn a living on the backs of the work of major networks. For commodity hardware at an expense of no more than $500, I could re-broadcast network television to the Internet. That's just not right.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Jason1729]

This is how the cable companies got started. They set up big receiving antennea, and rebroadcast the signal for a fee. They didn't get permission from or pay the broadcasters. It was perfectly legal 30 years ago. Why does the fact that this involves the internet change anything?

Up until today, as long as you didn't modify it (like trimming out commercials), it would be perfectly legal to retransmit a broadcast signal. The whole point of broadcast is that it's freely put out over the public airwaves for anyone who wants to view it.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:makes sense to me.

[WIAKywbfatw]

It's possibly illegal, but I don't see the problem. They can't tell how many people watch X show (unless you have the box), and you presumably still see the ads. Who cares?

The people who care are the broadcasters and the people responsible for the original programming, both of whom are deprived of potential revenue.

If Channel XYZ is being streamed over the internet then there is no incentive to viewers to subscribe to XYZ. (Most people won't pay for something that they can get for free, irrespective of whether it's legitimately free or not.)

Additionally, a drop in subscribers means a drop in measureable viewers. As advertising revenues are closely tied to viewing figures (because the more people watching a given ad, the more it's worth to the advertiser) fewer viewers means less income that way too.

So, unauthorised internet streams hurt a TV channel by depriving it of both subscription (assuming it's not a free to air channel) and ad revenue.

Similarly, if a programme is freely available online then fewer people will watch it on TV or buy it on VHS or DVD. The reduced TV audience will mean a less valuable product in terms of TV rights (programme makers sell their shows to the channels and, again, the value of a show will increase if it attracts more viewers) and the VHS and DVD sales will take a hit as fewer people buy the programmes on those media because they can get it for free elsewhere.

Please note, I'm not attaching any morality to unauthorised internet streaming. I'm just trying to explain (for the benefit of this AC and others who may wonder) why it hurts broacasters and the original content creators.

(Personally, I do believe that such streaming is wrong, for the reasons outlined. At the end of the day, if something costs x and you don't want to pay that price for it then that's your choice. But just because you think it's only worth x/2 or whatever that doesn't give you the right to take it for nothing. Regardless of whether it's legal or not, it sure isn't morally right.

That's my personal view and, frankly, I know it's one that a small minority of /. readers will never be able to understand. Well, at least until it's their income that's being hit - then they'll be crying blue murder.)

Re:makes sense to me.

[debrain]

FYI, it is legal in Canada to rebroadcast television channels so long as it is not modified. (I don't recall any stipulations to that) There are special exceptions to the non-modification clause in that Canadian channels are permitted to play localized advertising over foreign content, as long as the same program is played. For example, we never see U.S. Superbowl commercials. We get the same game. But Canadian commercials.

So rebroadcasting over the internet is perfectly legal, perhaps immoral, but certainly legal in Canada, up until this latest decree. As someone noted elsewhere, Cable companies in Canada get money from customers for the method of distribution, not the content.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's completely different. Back in the early days of CATV there were vast sections of the US that could not receive a broadcast signal. Accordingly, CATV actually benefited the broadcasters because it created a larger audience.

Today, however, nearly everyone with a broadband internet connection is in a location to receive the major networks. So there is no advantage for the networks. And secondly, if allowed and if it became successful, it would hurt the local affiliates.

Re:makes sense to me.

[ShadowDrake]

>Today, however, nearly everyone with a broadband >internet connection is in a location to receive the >major networks.

It depends, and it probably will depend more in the future.

Situation 1. I have a TV tuner card. It's great, but channels below 8 or 10 simply don't come in in a legible form for me. In other cases, other channels don't come in. This is probably due to interference with the computer components.

Situation 2: Low-power broadcasters. I can't get most of the low-power stations even above 10. They're visible across town, but not here. Even on a "real" TV, they come in poorly. I'd rather stream a quality view.

Situation 3: Digital TV. Isn't digital blessed with much worse degradation qualities? If this is true, the acceptable-viewing radius shrinks up.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that not the responsability of the local affiliate to make sure they do not lose revenues? It's really no different than a store that sells online vs your local store.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Sgs-Cruz]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but consider the fact that 30 years ago you couldn't record the show, edit out the commercials, and watch it again and again with the greatest of ease, now could you? I mean, you could, but it took two VCRs (did they exist then?) and a lot of time. Now receiving a TV signal is as good as having a commercial-free perfect recording of it. And that's why it's different. (This isn't a troll or anything, it's the truth. Whether or not you agree that it should be treated differently is your own business, but the technology has changed.)

Re:makes sense to me.

[Jason1729]

It's exactly the same thing as before. The cable companies didn't care about benefiting the broadcasters, they were out for a quick buck and the fact that the broadcasters benefitted was incidental.

Internet TV will help broadcasters in exactly the same way. If more people watch the broadcasters are better off. As far as the problems with local affiliates, there was the same problem with early cable, and it was only solved by regulation; not banning cable.

I'm in a location where I can get 2 channels by broadcast (and I have a cablemodem). For me, broadcast isn't a viable option, but I do have the bandwidth to download a TV stream. I have a satellite dish, so this doesn't affect me much, but if I were limited to broadcast this would make the difference between my watching or not for most of the broadcasters

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:makes sense to me.

[billatq]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but consider the fact that 30 years ago you couldn't record the show, edit out the commercials, and watch it again and again with the greatest of ease, now could you? I mean, you could, but it took two VCRs (did they exist then?) and a lot of time. Now receiving a TV signal is as good as having a commercial-free perfect recording of it. And that's why it's different. (This isn't a troll or anything, it's the truth. Whether or not you agree that it should be treated differently is your own business, but the technology has changed.)

Well, thirty years ago you could simply record it without the commercials--I know I used to stop and start the recording while I was watching shows and after a while, you get quite good at just keeping the commercials from being recorded.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot people are being hit. Do you think that maybe at least one of us is a programmer, someone who relies on distribution of data to recieve income? Do we whine and moan when we know that at a lot of piracy going on about our software? NO, and here's why. The more people that Like our software will eventually buy our software, and those that wouldn't probably wouldn't anyway. I'd really like to think of it as being a Tivo, but a widespread Tivo. You obviously think having a Tivo to watch TV shows that you subscribe through a cable company to watch should be illegal. Get over your mindset of protecting traditional profit, its as illogical as protecting oil companies from evil energy sources that are more widespread.

PS. Posting AC, cause I dont respect you enough to log in.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Jason1729]

My computer can do all that with the signal from my satellite dish too. Should satellite be illegal?

The legalities of all this were hashed out in the betamax case.

It should be illegal for the internet broadcasters to modify the signal (by trimming commercials). I said this in my original post. But as far as the end user's ability to trim commercials, it makes absolutely no difference whether it comes from an internet stream, a satellite signal, cable, or broadcast.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:makes sense to me.

[sudog]

Since when do they have the right to "potential revenue streams" exclusive of our right to do whatever we want with the signals coming into our living room over the airwaves? And I suppose the fact that we're "not supposed" to watch foreign signals is enough reason to deprive us of the freedom to do so too, because it deprives local companies of revenues..?

And so applying your logic further--wouldn't it make sense to illegalize Walmarts because it destroys "potential revenue streams" of the local markets and businesses?

Fuck off with your b/s, you're just as clueless as your corporate master, consumer zombie sheep.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that the original content creators are seeing a nickel from commercials?

Re:makes sense to me.

[shepd]

>Today, however, nearly everyone with a broadband internet connection is in a location to receive the major networks

With wireless networks (professional ones, not your crappy 802.11 home network) popping up more and more giving broadband to the cable improvrished areas your point is becomes less and less true. Soon, you will be totally wrong. I have no cable TV yet I enjoy a 22 mbps (max) broadband connection for only $20 CDN a month. And I'm not the only one.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Feanturi]

It should be illegal for the internet broadcasters to modify the signal (by trimming commercials). I said this in my original post. But as far as the end user's ability to trim commercials, it makes absolutely no difference whether it comes from an internet stream, a satellite signal, cable, or broadcast.

So when you capture that internet stream to share out on Kazaa or wherever, are you planning to leave the commercials in? It's not like the old days of dubbing a VHS tape for your buddies, you'll only do that now and then. Nobody has time to make thousands of copies of tapes for random distribution to whoever wants their recording of last week's Futurama, or whatever the hell's on TV these days.
Yeah lots of us have tuner cards and can have all the digital copies of shows we want. But most users don't know how to do that. A file neatly placed on their harddrive, when all the user has to do is click a URL to get it, is another matter.

Now if they could make these streams so they cannot be modified (hah!) so that the end user can't redistribute it without commercials (but can freely give and copy the piece INTACT) then we can get broadcast TV on the net with everybody happy. It's not going to happen as long as PCs and software remain open. So hopefully, it's just not going to happen.

Re:makes sense to me.

[nhavar]

So what I'm hearing is that for $500 dollars ANYONE could get into a new market distributing television over the internet... interesting that. So there's a whole market out there of eyeballs that can be reached on the cheap and the geniuses at the major networks are wasting their time influencing government instead of doing their due diligence and capitalist duty by exploiting that market. They should all be shot.

Re:makes sense to me.

[shepd]

Canada has been cracking down on TV "piracy" lately. First we lose the right to pirate foreign signals, and now we lose the right to rebroadcast signals over the 'net. The RCMP is treating people who choose to associate their media choice with America as nothing but dirty criminals, and the supreme court just lets it happen. This classism must end.

I have already made a solemn vow to myself over this: I will NEVER for the rest of my life vote liberal in Canada (local, provincial, or federal). My political leanings are certainly towards what their party should stand for, but the thug they have kept in as the leader of the party for the past three terms has tainted the party permanently for me.

I really hope other Canadians will follow me on this. It's time to overthrow this government of opression.

My best choice right now is the Freedom Party, but I know all too well voting for them is probably a lost cause. It'll definately be a VERY difficult choice at the next election, not due to too many choices, but a lack of them. Expect what happened during the last US election to happen in Canada this time.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Jason1729]

Yeah lots of us have tuner cards and can have all the digital copies of shows we want. But most users don't know how to do that.

All it takes is one person who does know how to put it on Kazaa and that's enough. What does this have to do with the internet as another cable-like broadcast medium? Allowing the general public to easily get these files legally (with commercials) much more easily that kazaa spyware will discourage people from downloading the illegal (commercial free) copies. The proof is that people watch and pay for cable with commercials.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:makes sense to me.

[God! Awful 2]

FYI, it is legal in Canada to rebroadcast television channels so long as it is not modified. (I don't recall any stipulations to that) There are special exceptions to the non-modification clause in that Canadian channels are permitted to play localized advertising over foreign content, as long as the same program is played. For example, we never see U.S. Superbowl commercials. We get the same game. But Canadian commercials.

I don't think you understand. When Global broadcasts the Superbowl in Canada it is because they have paid money to the NFL for the Canadian rights. Otherwise, don't you think every single Canadian network would show it?

There is also a rule that if a Canadian channel and an American channel are showing the same thing at the same time, the American channel has to use the Canadian feed. So if you watch the Simpsons on Sunday, you will see the same (Canadian) commercials whether you watch it on Fox or Global. But still, this is because Global has paid for the Canadian rights to the Simpsons.

There is no also right to rebroadcast TV channels unmodified. Honestly, I think you just made that up. The cable and satelite companies have to pay money for the channels they offer. That's why your bill went up when they increased the number of available channels. These channels can't survive by advertising alone, so rebroadcasting them would seriously damage their earnings potential.

-a

Re:makes sense to me.

[Blkdeath]

So what I'm hearing is that for $500 dollars ANYONE could get into a new market distributing television over the internet... interesting that. So there's a whole market out there of eyeballs that can be reached on the cheap and the geniuses at the major networks are wasting their time influencing government instead of doing their due diligence and capitalist duty by exploiting that market. They should all be shot.

I'm afraid you've missed my point.

I was speaking strictly of re-broadcasting pre-assembled signals. Vis; the major networks pay for casting, crew, locations, scripts (writers), makeup, wardrobe, lighting, equipment, and broadcast. Afterwards, I take this signal and, using comodity hardware/software combination I encode it and re-transmit the signal.

That has the effect of stealing their work without any due compensation. Even in the case where someone might re-broadcast with the comercials intact, this isn't a valid form of compensation. Sponsors don't pay to merely have their comercial shown; they pay for a timeslot in a particular broadcast at a particular date and time, aimed towards a specific demographic. Re-broadcasting a primetime show's commercials at three o'clock in the morning to a global audience may benefeit the sponsors, but it doesn't benefeit the network.

This has nothing to do with due dilligence and everything to do with people overstepping their bounds. Much as television content isn't terribly stellar nowadays, I'd hate to see networks remove the ability for people to receive that content without a subscription system.

Re:makes sense to me.

[ball-lightning]

Since when do they have the right to "potential revenue streams" exclusive of our right to do whatever we want with the signals coming into our living room over the airwaves? And I suppose the fact that we're "not supposed" to watch foreign signals is enough reason to deprive us of the freedom to do so too, because it deprives local companies of revenues..?

The signals "coming into our living room over the airwaves" are copyrighted. I know copyrights don't often mean much anymore in this day and age, but the law is the law. They own the copyright, they get to decide how it gets used/distributed.

And so applying your logic further--wouldn't it make sense to illegalize Walmarts because it destroys "potential revenue streams" of the local markets and businesses?

First of all, this doesn't even make sense. Walmarts ARE local markets and businesses. Second of all, Walmart is not illegally taking the products they sell and then sell it to you. Walmart buys its products from suppliers, and then sells it to you. When you distribute TV signals over the internet, you are literally stealing copyrighted information, and distributing it, which is ILLEGAL

Fuck off with your b/s, you're just as clueless as your corporate master, consumer zombie sheep

This just makes you sound stupid. Consumer zombie sheep? What, Because he doesn't want to break the law? God forbid. Grow up and stop trying to "fight the power"

Re:makes sense to me.

[Melantha_Bacchae]

I've been using VCRs for 15 years, and I don't remember a time when you couldn't use the pause button to stop recording during the commercials. Before the VCR, there was the legendary trip to the refrigerator (still very useful since technology has not removed the human imperative to eat).

Yes, the technology has changed. It has responded to customer demand and created easier ways to do what we humans have done for most of the history of TV: avoid watching the stupid commercials. After all, it is not our fault that the broadcasters choose to scam other companies into believing that we viewers will buy their products if they play some silly jingle on TV. (Like I'm going to buy insurance from a company because they named a computer animated lizard their employee of the month. ;)

Remember when the VCR first came on the market and the MPAA were running about in a total panic because this new piece of technology was going to destroy their members' business? Hmm, I wonder how many gazillion dollars they've made off video sales since then.

Nothing has really changed but the technology. Still the same old greedy sharks, either to slow to adapt to change, or outraged that they might loose their precious monopolies. After all, these companies got where they are today because technology at the time they rose to power was exclusive to them. The real threat to them is not piracy, but the availablilty of technology to more people and wider, cheaper methods of distribution.

"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

Re:makes sense to me.

[nhavar]

No I did understand your point and I agree.

What I'm trying to say is that here is a market, an additional area that these supposedly cash strapped networks have known about for years now. This same market has an extremely low cost of entry. As you said $500 for the equipment. It's an area where the networks can do some "value added" services for their customers the "sponsors" and possibly steal away some business from competitors who don't offer the "service". The point really is that instead of the networks themselves jumping into a new growth market, they continue to combat each other over the same demographics in the prime time crowd. They also wait for someone else to make the break into internet broadcasting and yet sue anyone attempting to break in using their content. Right now it's a lose lose situation for the networks because they're too focused on sitting back and waiting for something to happen, for someone else to do something.

Yes there are people out there willing to steal others stuff to make a buck - they learned that behavior from the networks, just take a look at programming. It's just the internet crowd is a little more blatent and a little less defensive about what they do and how they do it.

Re:makes sense to me.

[xingix]

Agreed, good thing Chretien will be stepping down after this term. I'm voting for the Canadian Alliance, however l-)

Re:makes sense to me.

[Intocabile]

Not only do we replace the Superbowl commertials but we go sa far as to superimpose candian ads overtop of american ones on the fields, blimps billboards etc.

Re:makes sense to me.

[silentbozo]

I have no cable TV yet I enjoy a 22 mbps (max) broadband connection for only $20 CDN a month.

You know, you could probably make a lot of money if you were close enough to the border between Canada and US, by putting up access points for Americans to dip into some of that absurdly cheap bandwidth you've got there...

I pay US $80 per month for a 384/768kbps DSL line... :(

Re:makes sense to me.

[ADRA]

hehe you right wing wacko! :-)

They are 'a' voice in the west, but not mine.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Alien Being]

"VCRs (did they exist then?) " //www.cedmagic.com/history/betamax-sl-7200-1976.ht ml

Check out the mechanical timer! I luv it.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Alien Being]

tuner also mechanical, yum!

Re:makes sense to me.

[ADRA]

Digital is just fine (http://www.sundogwebdesign.com/Should%20I%20get%2 0Digital%20Cable%20or%20a%20Satellite%20Dish.html) .
Don't troll on it. I live in Canada with digital, and Movie Central Rocks, IMHO.

But I do agree that the selection of broadcast points are narrow, but that is the way governments / corporations like it. It leads to more reliable performance, be it good or bad. Now, that is probably not always the best for "power users" who want everything under the sun at their finger tips, but for the majority, it suffices paying a little extra and living without wizbang feature #1233 for the sake of reliability.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an ex 'Multi Cable System' owner ( I sold in '99 ) I would like to correct a comment made about "Cable Companies in Canada getting money from customers for the method of distribution, not the content".
Cable Comapanies pay for most of the Channels that they carry on their systems. An example - CBC News World was $.55/month/subscriber to my small systems. TSN was about $1.00/m/s. Most Canadian and American Channels have agreements with the Cable Company and the number of subscibers is tallied each month for payment. The internet could work much the same if you could count the content users and get them to pay. Free is not an option.

Re:makes sense to me.

[evilviper]

They set up big receiving antennea, and rebroadcast the signal for a fee.

Ah, yes. But the big question is: did they have the express written consent of the NFL, or just implied oral consent?

Re:makes sense to me.

[cpt kangarooski]

What about taking that feed and rebroadcasting it in real time to people. I.e. in the sense of putting up a large tv antenna, and letting an entire block of apartments hook into it via cables in the building? This _is_ rebroadcasting. But we even allow that in the US.

Rebroadcasting isn't as bad as you make it out to be. (especially since the network can simply factor in an estimation of the number of rebroadcasters into their advertising rates!)

Re:makes sense to me.

[grahamm]

Some people travel or move away from their home area. These people may be able to receive the TV stations for their current location, but I am sure many would like to be able to receive the programmes from "home" as well. While the major networks may be available throughout the country of origin, there are the ex-pat communities to consider as well.

Re:makes sense to me.

[grahamm]

One way of doing this would be to ensure that the net broadcasts are lower quality than those on cable and off-air. That way only people who could not receive the programme by other means would watch it on the net.

Re:makes sense to me.

[schon]

There is no also right to rebroadcast TV channels unmodified

YES, there IS.

See also this, which states "as of September 1999, Canadian copyright legislation allowed iCraveTV to retransmit television signals already carried on Canadian cable channels".

Where are your links?

Re:makes sense to me.

[billtom]

No, you're completely wrong.

Canadian television networks can only rebroadcast shows when they have paid the copyright holder for Canadian broadcast rights.

Re:makes sense to me.

[mpe]

Similarly, if a programme is freely available online then fewer people will watch it on TV or buy it on VHS or DVD. The reduced TV audience will mean a less valuable product in terms of TV rights (programme makers sell their shows to the channels and, again, the value of a show will increase if it attracts more viewers) and the VHS and DVD sales will take a hit as fewer people buy the programmes on those media because they can get it for free elsewhere.

So how did TV programmes ever get made before VHS & DVD, possibly even before it was considered "normal" to repeat them several times? (Even to the point of the US having a specific term for a process of repeats, sometimes with the content trimmed to allow for more commercials.)

Re:makes sense to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is NOT the exact same thing. Back in the early days of CATV there were VAST areas that could not receive broadcast. So, even though the providers of cable TV were out for profit, the broadcasters did not care as they gained more viewers. And because their were no local affiliates to piss off in those vast areas, that was not an issue.

Fast forward to the present, there are only a few areas that cannot receive the major networks either via broadcast, cable, or satellite. Accordingly, any internet broadcast would only parallel what is already broadcast to the VAST majority of viewers. Furthermore, if people stopped viewing their local affiliates in favor of some internet relay, the affiliates would get pissed and complain to the networks, who have every right to stop the internet broadcast. (Clearly copying an entire show is a copyright violation!)

How exactly are these completely different situations even remotely similar?!

Re:makes sense to me.

[pcb]

My best choice right now is the Freedom Party, but I know all too well voting for them is probably a lost cause. It'll definitely be a VERY difficult choice at the next election, not due to too many choices, but a lack of them.

Like you, I'm looking for an alternative to the current waste land of political parties. After you mentioned them, I checked them out. I was sadly disappointed. They are a proponent of a 'flat tax' system and they spew the normal propaganda, which means they are economically clueless:

In a "single rate" or "flat" tax system, every individual pays a given percentage of his earnings to the government. The result is that those who earn more dollars pay more dollars to the government. Many people would like to earn more money to make ends meet, to save for retirement, to purchase a house, or to put their children through college or university. However, under the current "progressive taxation" system, many individuals are discouraged from making extra money because they are forced to pay a higher percentage of their extra earnings over to the government. Canadians ought not to be discouraged in this way from trying to make life better for themselves and their families. The Freedom Party of Canada is opposed to "progressive taxation". Until a better system can be introduced feasibly to improve the relation between taxes paid and government services provided, we support the transition to a single rate of income taxation (i.e., a "flat tax").

Oh well, they had some good policies. I'll keep looking.

-PCB

Re:makes sense to me.

[ManDude]

Check your facts. Canadians have the right to rebroadcast. It has much to do with geography. Many broadcasters don't want to broadcast in the remote locations, so the guv has given Canadians the right to rebroadcast, more exact, to repeat. I spend some time in remote locations and am always amazed that I can pick up a classic rock station from the south. It isn't that the rock station put up their own repeater in the area, for them it would make no economic sense, but it makes sense for the locals to do so just hear something from the outside world. When you are stuck in Bumfuck it means a lot. This works for both radio and TV. Canadians still have the right to repeat a station, just not on the internet.

Re:makes sense to me.

[God! Awful 2]

I don't have any links. The OP said so many things that were obviously wrong that I had no reason to believe his last statement.

Your links imply that there is such a right, but they are not authoritative and they are vague about the conditions. What I get out of these pages is:

that under certain [unspecificed] conditions, it is okay to rebroadcast a "public" TV station [no definition given] as long as the signal is unmodified and the copyright owners are compensated.

What the OP didn't mention (and probably didn't realize) is that you still have to pay separate royalties/syndication fees for the Internet. That's all I was really saying anyway.

-a

Re:makes sense to me.

[God! Awful 2]

The OP seemed to think that Canadians had the unfettered right to rebroadcast TV. That is clearly not true. Exceptions which apply to remote areas are unlikely to apply to the Internet, unless you can restrict access to the site to remote areas.

-a

Re:makes sense to me.

[patter]

I mean, you could, but it took two VCRs (did they exist then?)

Well the first home VCR I ever saw was in 1979.. not quite 30 years ago. Since TV stations adopted them first, and these folks were an early adopter, not the first to ever get one, I'd say yes, they existed 30 years ago -- or near enough to 30 years ago that it's irrelevant. :).

Re:makes sense to me.

[mre5565]

I don't understand why this is such a shock. I mean, did you really expect that it would be LEGAL to rebroadcast television over the internet without proper permission? Do you think that would be "right"?

What's the issue ... someone puts a signal into the "air" for anyone to pick up, and someone else amplifies it. The amplifier happens to be the Internet. *Copy*right is for protecting copying; extending the range of a broadcast is not copying. Indeed, extending the broadcast of content laden with commercials is a good thing for the original broadcaster.

I'll answer my owner rhetoric ... the issue is the same one that motivates region encoding in DVDs. Which is that content providers do not want a free and competitive market for content, and instead want to balkanize the market into little fiefdoms so as to artificially raise the costs. The value of watching the Toronto Maple Leafs on TV to someone in Toronto is likely less than the value to an ex-Toronto resident watching that same game from his new home in Vancouver. However, the purpose of communications technology is to remove distance as an inhibitor to enjoying life. The costs of the Vancouverite for watching the Toronto hockey game should be in proportion to the cost of retransmitting the signals thousands of miles away. Instead, the government has effectively levied a trade tariff on the content receiver in Vancouver.

Trade tariffs create market distortions and inhibit growth (re: The Great Depression).

This is a slippery slope. Someday it will be illegal to sell or purchase antennae that allow one to pick up TV and AM/FM signals from more than 100 miles away. Let's say someone invents a TV receiver that lets someone in LA pickup TV signals from Chicago. So now a transplanted Chicagoan doesn't need NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV to watch the Bears. Any predictions on whether the broadcasting industry will sue?

But maybe you think it is wrong to receive long distance weak transmissions? I'm sure then, when you manage to pickup an AM radio station from 500 miles away, you quickly change stations, because to fo otherwise, wouldn't be "right".

Re:makes sense to me.

[OrenWolf]

Dead right.

What people don't realize is that the major issue wasn't with the rebroadcasting of the signal, it was that the signal (on the internet) could reach *foreign markets*. If someone came up with a surefire way to keep the broadcast signal *within* the canadian internet topography, it would have been legal.

Re:makes sense to me.

[Pope]

Who's the provider? I'm in Toronto and want to know if that sort of thing is available here. CAN$20 seems pretty damn low.

Re:makes sense to me.

[debrain]

What the OP didn't mention (and probably didn't realize) is that you still have to pay separate royalties/syndication fees for the Internet. That's all I was really saying anyway.

There is no legislation regarding royalties for internet broadcasts of television in Canada. What you are implying is that in spite of written legislation dictating conditional rights to rebroadcast transmissions, there is some implied consent to pay royalties for compliant broadcasts across the internet medium specifically because it is the internet medium.

However, as of yet, the CRTC (the Canadian telecommunications regulatory body) has not identified or specified any such royalties for internet rebroadcasting of television, nor have they identified until this decision, any special regulations applicable to the internet as a medium, and there is no reason to believe that royalties are indeed due.

It is possible that through WIPO (international intellectual property protection treaty) regulatory compliance may some day be stipulated. However this, too, has not yet come to pass. This is less likely to happen if internet rebroadcasting has been banned altogether.

Re:makes sense to me.

[shepd]

>Who's the provider? I'm in Toronto and want to know if that sort of thing is available here. CAN$20 seems pretty damn low.

LookTV. Yup, they should be selling in Toronto. However, their two way service is $40 CDN a month, and I expect that's what they'll want you to sign up for. My town only has line of sight to the Guelph tower, which only offers one way (22 mbps down, modem up), and that's $20 CDN a month. Unfortunately, you have to buy their TV service because the antenna is powered by the TV receiver.

The 22 mbps never peaks that high (hey, it's the net, and my upload is a modem, so it's probably impossible without a 100% UDP download)... it's just my estimate from what I know of their network. I can say that I've had _no_ problems downloading at up to 5 mbps from places that can give it to me (WindowsUpdate, for example). :-)

BTW: Their stuff, at least for me, works like a charm with a Linux box. They just give you a Hybrid cable/wifi modem with Ethernet out. Run DHCP and you have your IP!

Re:makes sense to me.

[God! Awful 2]

There is no legislation regarding royalties for internet broadcasts of television in Canada. What you are implying is that in spite of written legislation dictating conditional rights to rebroadcast transmissions, there is some implied consent to pay royalties for compliant broadcasts across the internet medium specifically because it is the internet medium.

We don't have a lot of information to go on here. One of the links provided by the OP (which seemed non-authoritative) discussed whether iCrave should pay syndication fees rather than royalties.

-a

I'm not very hip

[handsomepete]

"Despite strong opposition by the Canadian Alliance to these and other aspects of the bill, the Minister of Canadian Heritage won the day "

Would someone please explain how the Canadian Alliance and this Minister relate? I'll gladly admit my ignorance as to how Canadian government works in order to get an answer. Is this one individual overruling a lobbying type group or a governmental group? Or something else? Who represents what?

Re:I'm not very hip

[Zork the Almighty]

The Canadian Alliance is the opposition party at the moment. The Minister of whatever is from the governing party. The governing party determines who is prime minister, finance minister, etc.

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mminister is the member of the party in charge and the Canadian Aliance is one of the opisition party.The official opposition, meaning that they were the non winning party having the most people at the national assembly.

Re:I'm not very hip

[Jason1729]

The Canadian Alliance is a political party that is not in power right now. The Minister of Heritage is a member of the party in power now (the Liberals). Since it's a majority government, the party in power can do whatever they want, and the other parties can just slow things down a bit.

There is no viable alternative to the Liberals, so they can and do whatever they want.

For example, a vet got his benefits cut off due to a government error. His representitive (who happened to be Liberal)said "you didn't vote for me, why should I help you?" The prime minister backed up the representitive and basically said they shouldn't have to do anything since they're in charge.

There's hundreds of examples, but Canada is basically being run as a tyranny now, and this new law being muscled through is just another example.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, my political science is a little rusty, but I can give you the general idea...

The Canadian Alliance is a right-leaning political party. They currently hold the 2nd-most number of seats in Parliament and are thus officially known as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, or something to that effect.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps I believe, is the person in charge of the Ministry of Canadian Heritage, a branch of government (like MInistry of Health and Ministry of Finance) to which this ruling applies. She is a member of the left-leaning Liberal party, who hold the most number of seats and are thus form the Government. I am not sure but I believe that she was championing the bill so this would be a victory for her and her party.

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian Alliance = Opposition Party in Canada
Canadian Heritage Minister = Minister appointed by the Prime Minister

A comparative statement: "Despite strong opposition by the Democrats to these and other aspects of the bill, the Secretary of Defense won the day."

Re:I'm not very hip

[myamid]

Well they don't really relate at all except for the fact that they are both members of parliement. The ruling party is the Liberal party which has a majority of the seats in parliements. The Heritage minister (which is the minister responsable for say... culture, the nationnal broadcast system CBC, etc...) is an MP (member of parliement) in the liberal gov.

The Canadian Alliance is the official opposition (ie: party with 2nd most number of seats.)

Each MP is elected to represent a certain area (circonscription) and each of these has roughly the same number of constituents. So ou MP is either part of the government or of the opposition.

To put it clearly, The executive and legislative branches of gov are both in parliement. Hypothetically it's as if the Majority Leader in the US was president, all Secretaries would be elected members of congress...

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, but you've got the polarity backwards. The Alliance is the right-wing party, whereas the Liberals who are in power are the left-wing party.

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how that sounds exactly like George W. and his cast of monkeys, doesn't it?

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

The Canadian Alliance Party is the devil you don't know.

The Canadian Liberals Party is the devil you thought you knew.

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

The Liberals are not a left-wing party. They just happen to be more left-wing than the Canadian Alliance (which is about as right-wing as the Republican Party). Historically, they were left-wing, but they haven't been left-wing since the 70s or 80s.

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, no self respecting american politician would ever say anything so gawd damn retarded!

PS, Im all for moving to the moon and nuking the earth as much as the next psychopath.

Re:I'm not very hip

[Scud_the_disposable_]

Just as a point of interest, one of the names the alliance party was considering was "the Canadian Reform Alliance Party.

=)

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the American President (and cabinet) can more easily be from a party that has a minority in both the House and Senate, whereas in Canada, the Prime Minister is most likely from a party with the most seats in Parliament.

Re:I'm not very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

The Alliance is left of the US Democrats in nearly every way imaginable.

The vast majority of Canadians support the principles the Alliance stands for when they are not directly associated with the party.

Hence, one wonders why Canadians are so opposed to the the CA.

Re:I'm not very hip

[ArtDent]

Actually, it was the "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party," not that the extra "C" in "CCRAP" makes it much better.

Of course, they could have suggested "CRCAP" ("sircap"?), but, given that the whole alliance movement was being driven by the old Reform party, they wanted to make Conservatives feel welcome by giving them top billing.

As it turned out, the Conservatives decided it would be better to go at it alone, and they will remain irrelevant, or eventually die, as a result.

And the Liberals will rule forever.

ummm....

[edrugtrader]

your "MP" doesn't get it. he is reading from the sheet "read this to people that complain about the law" that was prepared by his minions.

Re:ummm....

[sconeu]

Then his staff gets it. And since an MP (or CongressCritter for us American types) relies on his staff for input, that's a Good Thing(tm).

Re:ummm....

[Anonymous Coward]

His staff gets that a person who complains about the law should be led to believe that his MP doesn't like the law, not necessarily that they understand anything about it. More likely, the Canadian Alliance is just doing the common thing for the Official Opposition and that is to just criticise the government on everything they do. This is common, no matter what party is in power or in opposition. If the situation were reversed, the CA would probably be passing a similar law and the Liberals would be criticising.

huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

This surprises you, and you say your canadian...

I'm more curious how they'll keep it themselves instead of giving it to the studio's.

Re:huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that part was obvious...kickbacks

Re:huh.

[crown_whore]

So passe, I doubt it.

Did ya hear the one about "What is really under the black robes of Canadian judges?

No what?

Shiela Coppss' d-ck.

Blame Canada!

[n1ywb]

They legalize weed but label everyone who buys CD-Rs a pirate? I've burned lots of CDs to backup my personal documents, stuff on which I own the copyright.

We should start pirating media via more esoteric mediums, like DLT or mercury delay line, and start doing data backups on VHS, just to fuck with them.

Re:Blame Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

They legalize weed but label everyone who buys CD-Rs a pirate?

In other news, Canada to make mushrooms legal and brightly colored pictures illegal. As well as ectasy legal, but both beds and glowsticks to be made illegal.

Re:Blame Canada!

[kruetz]

They legalised weed? Then who gives a shit about CD-Rs and piracy? Let's just smoke dope!

You negative thinkers just need to turn your frown upside down

Re:Blame Canada!

[Zork the Almighty]

Well, if you have enough escatcy, I don't suppose you'd need a bed. Those glow sticks will be hard to live without though...

Re:Blame Canada!

[Coke in a Can]

We legalized weed? Fuck, either someone's a little TOO high, or I've been living under a rock.

Re:Blame Canada!

[MrYotsuya]

They haven't legalized weed. If I had mod points I'd -1 just for the dumb "Blame Canada" reference.

Re:Blame Canada!

[kendric]

Holy christ!

We legalized weed!! I just heard about it now on slashdot, so it must be true. Seriously, my government had not legalized the reefer, I would know as a university student at one of Canada's prestigious universities. // weed central

It is no big deal what the government has passed, we are not allowed to broadcast tv signals via the web. However, there is nothing stopping us from downloading a mpg from the web. This has put a serious resriction on streaming webcasts, but not on physical downloading of shows. In all my years on the web, I have only watched one show streaming, but I have well over 1000 hours of TV shows downloaded.

Re:Blame Canada!

[akorvemaker]

... and start doing data backups on VHS ...

I could be wrong, but I think VHS tapes face the same type of levy as CR-Rs and any other blank medium. I believe the Copyright Act allows any forms of blank media to be subject to a levy. At least audio media.

Either way, we're hosed.

Re:Blame Canada!

[doowy]

Holy christ!
We legalized weed!! I just heard about it now on slashdot

He must be one of those people too stoned to realize it wasn't a total victory. This is straying from the topic, but here's what's going on.

Canada is decriminalizing weed. We are not legalizing weed. There is a quantity you may posess (I can't recall, but heard it compared to a couple of packs of cigarettes worth) where it is not criminal - but it is still illegal!

You won't get a criminal record. But you will be fined (and should you neglect to pay, you must appear in court). Basically the same as any other non-criminal fines (speeding tickets for example).

Don't be mistaken. This is not a step towards legalizing weed in Canada - quite the opposite in fact. Here's the reason they are doing it:
Cop's are ignoring and not arresting or pressing ciminal charges on people who posess small quantities of weed. A big study was done and it showed they do this because it has such long-lasting effects (criminal record) and such harsh punishment (potential jail time). Basically the cops think these small poseesors are not a threat to society or don't deserve such a harsh punishment.

The decriminalization plan is coming to light so that cops will do their jobs - comphiscate the weed and fine the offender. Now they can do it without the guilt of having 'ruined a life' over something so 'harmless'.

It is still illegal to possess weed in Canada - just now you are MORE likely to get in trouble for it (read: as opposed to overlooking it, they'll write you a ticket).

Re:Blame Canada!

[whereiswaldo]

They legalize weed but label everyone who buys CD-Rs a pirate? I've burned lots of CDs to backup my personal documents, stuff on which I own the copyright.

Exactly. I've burned countless CDs containing downloads, home movies, digital camera pictures, etc..

I commented on this awhile back.

Re:Blame Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not legal. Its just that there are no longer any laws against possessing it. In any amount, technically... Like our senate said, its not a gateway, its less harmfull than alchohol and tabacoo, and it is a stupid, rascist law. Oh and it may also interest you to know that we don't have nuclear weapons pointed at a state that ceased to exist 10 years ago, no death penalty, no-one is very likely to pull a gun on you, and no "camelot" conception of heritary assention to the rank of president, and excellent medical and dental.

Here is the story (you do the math):

Ontario's highest court smashes pot prohibition

(10 Jan, 2003)
Canadian government gets 6 months to change law or else! (they already had two and a half years!)

Prohibition in Canada teeters on the brink as court case after court case tips it further toward its ignominious end.

On January 9, Ontario's highest court, the Court of Appeal ruled that Canada's Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) are unconstitutional, because the difficulty that legal medpot users have in getting a legal supply of cannabis - many of whom are forced to look on the streets. The case was shepherded by lawyer Alan Young and argued by lawyer Leora Shemesh on behalf of nine medical cannabis users and one compassion club founder, Warren Hitzig. In the case, Shemesh and Young asked the court to address several issues including the Ministry of Health's decision to withhold pot grown by the government at their facility in Flin Flon, Manitoba (CC#38, Health Canada claims their pot sucks).

"Ultimately the lack of a lawful source led the court to strike down the MMAR with a 6 months grace period to fix the problem," Young told Cannabis Culture.
If the government fails to meet the 6 months deadline, the judge promised to flush marijuana from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), the law which makes all marijuana possession, trafficking and cultivation illegal. The judge suggested that the government might want to take a look at letting compassion clubs operate with the full consent of the law.

"I think the government will choose to let the law die" said Young. "There may only be 800 exemptees right now, but if the government starts distributing, they will eventually have to distribute for tens of thousands of medical users, and they don't want to be in that position. It will be a major enterprise. It will cost them more money to maintain prohibition."

If you close your eyes while someone reads you the January 9 ruling, you might have a flashback to the Parker case of July 2000 (CC#30, One year to change the law), when the courts told the government to change medpot access rules in 12 months under threat of flushing the CDSA. The spirit of the decision was that the government was supposed to make the laws clearer, giving the Minister of Health less discretion to grant exemptions in what seemed a whimsical, nonsensical fashion. Before the Parker ruling, medpot patients faced seemingly absurd, helter-skelter decisions from the Ministry of Health regarding who would get an exemption and who wouldn't. Two people with the exact same condition could get entirely different decisions, and only a small handful of Canadians received an exemption at all.

12 months later, in July 2001, a seemingly vengeful Canadian government made medpot rules even harder for medpot users, including provisions that put doctors at risk of losing their licenses for prescribing, forcing many patients to find two specialists and a GP to prescribe them marijuana as part of the application process, and still only a small number of people received exemptions, while those who already had exemptions found the annual renewal process suddenly impossible. How will the government react now? Will it use the court decision to put medpot users further out of luck?

One thing's for sure: the political environment is more ripe for change than it has ever been. On January 2, a provincial court judge in Ontario ruled that Section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which relates to possession, was invalid (CC Online, Judge tosses Canadian pot law) when lawyer Brian McAllister argued that the government was supposed to change the law in July 2001, but instead only wrote regulations, a subtle difference that nonetheless has profound implications. Laws must pass through parliament, may face committee hearings, and are not subject to change at a whim, McAllister explained. Regulations, on the other hand, are concocted by Canada's cabinet, and can be changed by a simple publication of the Canada Gazette. McAllister's case was appealed by the prosecution on January 3 (CC Online, Prosecution appeals landmark case), but the appeal means that issue is still undecided, and may become precedent setting.

It all comes down to a time crunch for politicians who now must change the medpot rules in 6 months. Should they change the regulations and face the possibility that McAllister's case will succeed? Or should they navigate the lengthy parliamentary process sometimes necessary for legislative reform, risking the 6-months deadline?

Meanwhile, other court cases are in the wings, waiting to clobber prohibition. The case of Caine, Clay and Malmo Levine, represented partly by lawyer John Conroy and partly by Malmo Levine himself, argues that recreational use and trafficking are protected by the constitution, and is potent enough to make pot prosecutors around the country shake in their boots. The Caine, Clay and Malmo Levine case was delayed late in 2002 because Minister of Justice Cauchon announced that Canada would decriminalize within a few months, and the court wanted to await the outcome (CC Online, Canadian justice delayed). The case will now almost certainly resurface since Prime Minister Chretien cuffed Cauchon with the announcement that decriminalization isn't yet a fate accompli.
Another promising decision came on January 8, when Lawyer Rick Reimer was found innocent of driving while intoxicated. Reimer - who holds a medical marijuana exemption - was pulled over by cops while he puffed a joint in January of last year (CC#40, Driving high). Instead of putting it out, he kept smoking, even as he rolled down his window to face an astonished officer. Reimer argued that there was no way to say if he was impaired, as studies have yet to be done to determine how much a person can consume before they are intoxicated, and because everyone has a different tolerance level.

The courts are sending a clear message to Canadian politicians - "change the destructive prohibition laws, show some compassion to medical users, or face the consequences." There is also a hidden message - the courts are ready to strike down all marijuana laws, and chances are that judges are sick and tired of sentencing people to jail for a harmless, green, happiness-inducing and medicinal herb.

Re:Blame Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

uh sorry about the speeeelling guys, I live in Montreal, see...

Re:Blame Canada!

[artg]

Although there are lots of people who never copy a music CD, or copy one only rarely, there's no way that the stacks of blanks in supermarkets and discount stores are all going for hackers backups. There must be a substantial portion (perhaps 75% ?? more ??) used for music copies.

I don't condone a blanket tax that uses this as a justification, but those sales of blanks to music copiers have a very significant effect on the media price. If the copiers didn't exist, there would be no excuse for a tax. But how much do you think the blank media would be costing you ? How much were they 5 years ago ?

A lot more than a dollar extra ..

Re:Blame Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it was an Ontario Court decision that may only be binding in Ontario, at most. Courts in other provinces may (or may not) accept the same argument. And the government is appealing.

Re:Blame Canada!

[pi radians]

There is a quantity you may posess (I can't recall, but heard it compared to a couple of packs of cigarettes worth) where it is not criminal

It is 30 grams, just over an ounce. About $200 CDN worth. Or 43 joints basically (if you go by .7g joints).

Re:Blame Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong again. In canada there is a legal principle known as equality of federal enforcement. In a sense, it means that the lowest threshold for enforcement applies across the board for federally controlled laws. So, when the law is struck down on appeal by the Ontario supreme court it will apply across the country.

FYI there are also three separate constitutional challenges to the laws (possession, trafficking, cultivation) before the supreme court. It is rather esoteric though, as I live in Montreal, which means that you can stroll around on the streets smoking to your little hearts content, and no one hassles you. Vive le quebecoise.

By appealling, the feds only pound another nail in the coffin of a stupid, harmfull, rascist law.

Re:Blame Canada!

[amokk]

We aren't legalizing weed but we are decriminalizing it.

Under the new legislation, possession of 30 grams or less will be classified as a civil offense, punishable by fine, instead of a federal offence.

Dashed Hopes?

[Devil's BSD]

...it is illegal to put broadcast TV signals onto the Internet without permission, dashing the hopes of entrepreneurs hoping to create new Net TV businesses.

Why would this dash hopes? All they need to do is obtain permission, if they want to create a 'net TV station. Your local TV station also has to obtain permission before they can broadcast too. They're funded by local advertisements, and so the internet TV would just be funded by banner ads and pop-unders (shivers).

Just a question: Would it be acceptable, according to the definition of 'fair use' to stream movies from your own hard disk so that you could watch them remotely?

Re:Dashed Hopes?

[danthedanish]

Another company, JumpTV sought permission for a similar service, but broadcasters denied the request. That start-up then asked Canadian regulators to rule on whether Net services needed permission.

Seems like they aren't too keen on the idea, though.

Re:Dashed Hopes?

[topham]

Under Canadian law it was LEGAL to rebroadcast television without permission. That is how the cable companies in Canada started operating in the first place, but now that they are entrenched and everybody is happy with the status quo they flipped the decision when it is applied to the internet.

(by the way, it was perfectly legal to rebroadcast via radiowaves, so geographical local was irrelevent.)

But don't worry, regulators don't read legislation anyway.

Re:Dashed Hopes?

[Zork the Almighty]

Would it be acceptable, according to the definition of 'fair use' to stream movies from your own hard disk so that you could watch them remotely?

Wrong country. Canada doesn't have "fair-use" protection the way the US does.

Nice self-serving comment

[Theatetus]

The United States National Association of Broadcasters, which assisted in the IcraveTV case and filed comments with the Canadian Commission, welcomed the decision.

"We regard this decision as a major victory for consumers in the protection of free, over-the-air television signals and programming," the group said in a statement.

Free? Since when is broadcast TV free? I pay for it every time I buy something that is advertised on television, since product sales are how those companies make back ad costs.

So, currently, every time I buy something I'm paying for broadcast TV which, except for PBS and some of the few remaining local stations, is absolute unmitigated crap. I also pay for basic cable, and then pay again for the stuff that's advertised on basic cable; I'm paying to watch ads.

OTOH, in practice I applaud anything that will stop the gradual slide of the Internet towards a broadcast-like, producer/consumer relationship.

Re:Nice self-serving comment

[Feanturi]

So, currently, every time I buy something I'm paying for broadcast TV which, except for PBS and some of the few remaining local stations, is absolute unmitigated crap. I also pay for basic cable, and then pay again for the stuff that's advertised on basic cable; I'm paying to watch ads.

Everytime you buy something, you're paying for the thing you bought. Period. The money goes to various places that are not your concern, you got the product you wanted, right? The rest is not important, as you now have a thing that you didn't have before. You need a TV to tell you what to go and buy? Or do you (like most people) go shopping now and then and just buy things that you want/need, based on non ad-related sources? Those ads are there in the *hope* that they might influence your spending. That's what the advertizers are paying for. Are you saying that they have to jack up the price of their merchandise to pay for those ads? Yeah probably, but if they weren't paying for ads it'd probably still cost you what it costs now anyhow, this way they just have a nice excuse to justify that price. But it can even be said that, through large volume caused by a good media campaign, that in many cases the ads pay for themselves without any need to adjust prices.

And absolutely nobody is putting a gun to your head forcing you to pay your cable company to serve you "unmitigated crap". Reading is good, and no ads...

Re:Nice self-serving comment

[ADRA]

"OTOH, in practice I applaud anything that will stop the gradual slide of the Internet towards a broadcast-like, producer/consumer relationship."

Nah, that just means that the media giants that have rules your TV watching existance will soon rule your "internet watching" existance and it will throw out all the little guys. AOL come to mind? They sculpt their service the way they want, and many that use that service will eat it all up. So, yeah I would like control of my internet, but no I don't think this will prevent that problem in the least.

Re:Nice self-serving comment

[poot_rootbeer]

Free? Since when is broadcast TV free? I pay for it every time I buy something that is advertised on television, since product sales are how those companies make back ad costs.

You're under no obligation to do that.

Given that the public owns the broadcast frequency spectrum (fneh), you're under no obligation to buy or do anything in exchange for receiving a broadcast TV signal. It's in the air whether you take it or leave it.

Is the content of that signal protected by copyright? Of course. Can you re-publish copyrighted work in any other medium without repercussions? Of course not!

Bill C-32 already passed?

[Rackemup]

I emailed my Member of Parlament. He responded to me today to say that "Despite strong opposition by the Canadian Alliance to these and other aspects of the bill, the Minister of Canadian Heritage won the day and Bill C-32 Copyright Legislation is now law."

The bill may or may not have passed (still trying to find some confirmation on the various government websites), but the actual hearing on the "proposed" amounts to be charged for the levies on blank media for the 2003-2004 period is just starting (tomorrow actually).

I'm on the official objectors list for the proposed levy, and there is some pretty convincing evidence being presented at the hearing that the proposed levies are WAY too high and should be struck down.

It will be interesting to see the outcome. If it passes the market for blank media and mp3 players in Canada will be hit hard.

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[ZeroZenith]

I wrote an official letter several months ago.
I hope it gets read. I wish I could be there but
Ottawa is just too far for me.

Do they publish transcripts from the hearings?

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be interesting to see the outcome. If it passes the market for blank media and mp3 players in Canada will be hit hard.

Perhaps I should be opening a digital media store/mail-order outlet in Bellingham WA (just over the border from where I live in Vancouver). Considering some of the potential levy rates I've seen thrown around this could more than double the cost of digital media.

To make it even worse, the government has yet to pay out ANY of the money that has already been collected under the current levy. That's right... they collect the money to 'help the starving artists' and have yet to pay any of it out. If it wasn't the gov't it'd be fraud.

I think we need to remind our lovely Heritage Minister that if she has any plans to run for the Liberal leadership this is the sort of thing that might come back to haunt her, never mind the free flags or the GST she promised to resign over (resignations are forever my dear).

Q: When you pay the levy what do you get in return?

A: A license to copy music!

Seriously though, what exactly are we getting in exchange for the levy. Certainly not a warm fuzzy for Sheila Copps and Brian Adams (who needs this levy like he needs a boot to the head... err, scratch that, he needs a boot to the head ;-). So if we're not buying a license to copy music what are we buying?

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[alfredw]

The bill may or may not have passed (still trying to find some confirmation on the various government websites), but the actual hearing on the "proposed" amounts to be charged for the levies on blank media for the 2003-2004 period is just starting (tomorrow actually).

Whoa... Slashdot is giving folks the wrong impression. Bill C-32 was given royal assent (ie: became a law) in 1997!

The bill can be viewed online.
Use the dorky little right-arrow thing to read it.

What the MP meant was that copyright levies are already in place. This was done with C-32, and has been in effect for five years. What is new is that the Canadian Copyright Board is holding hearings on whether or not to increase the existing levies to the astronomical level which /. readers are acquianted. This is not a bill before parliament - it is a request before an unelected board of civil servants and "community leaders." Those hearings begin tomorrow.

So, in other words: CALM DOWN. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[Zork the Almighty]

Just so people don't get the wrong impression, the Canadian Copyright Board is not a bunch of dimwits or lackeys. They are former judges and civil servants. The current levy (which the recording industry is lobbying to increase) is $.21 /disc. As I recall, the recording industry lobbied for a much higher amount, but was turned down for lack of evidence, and that fact that the board "didn't think their request was reasonable".

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[Rackemup]

That's why the "C-32" seemed familiar... they passed it back in 97 and THEN started charging the levies on blank media.

yeah the MP must have meant that the new proposed levy rates had passed, which is wrong because the hearings havent even started yet. An MP wrong about something? I know, shocking.

I still dont agree with these stupid levies... they treat me like a criminal because of what the media MIGHT be used for, make the fees top-heavy so that later technology gets more and more expensive, and you've killed the Canadian market for those items. Government at work.

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[stratjakt]

Isn't it nice to see our (well I'm a permanant US resident now) government working so hard to drive the technology sector out of the country? There's been a ton of good innovation and startups from Canada (ATI springs to mind), but they seem to do all they can to drive 'em away.

I guess they figure having shows like X-Files film in Vancouver is worth more to the country.

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm on the official objectors list for the proposed levy, and there is some pretty convincing evidence being presented at the hearing that the proposed levies are WAY too high and should be struck down.

So, basically, they only go up by 1/4 or 1/2 of the amount and we're all so conveniently happy the recording industry didn't get what they wanted.

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a canadian alliance mp... of course he's wrong...

Re:Bill C-32 already passed?

[Rary]

Q: When you pay the levy what do you get in return?

A: A license to copy music!

Actually, yes. At least that's the way it was when the levies were first introduced. I haven't checked any of the more recent decisions of the Copyright Board, but in the original decisions they explicitly stated that along with the imposition of the levies came the right of consumers to make copies of music for personal use only. And, more importantly, they explicitly stated that you don't just get the right to copy your own music, but you get the right to copy anyone's music. As long as you make the copy for yourself (ie. you can't make a copy to give to someone else -- the person who will receive the copy has to be the one who makes the copy).

I was rather stunned when I read this. I will hopefully find some time in the near future to read some of the more recent decisions to see if they've changed this.

So why aren't guns outlawed yet?

[moertle]

I own a gun, and I haven't shot anyone yet, but obviously its only a matter of time.

Re:So why aren't guns outlawed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sir, if you are in fact Canadian as I presume, you might do a favor to the world and place the barrel in your mouth and pull the trigger. The last thing the world needs is more whiny Canadians. If you're not Canadian, sorry, and Cheerio!

Re:So why aren't guns outlawed yet?

[umStefa]

Here in Canada guns are basically outlawed already...

First: You must obtain a useless gun licence (A guy here in Manitoba registered his hot glue 'gun' and his heat 'gun').

Second: You are required to individualy register each gun you own buy its serial number. Under the legislation this also gives the police the right to spot check your gun storage with any sort of search warrent (and anything else they see in your home while doing this would be admissable in court).

The goverment assumes that all criminals will register there guns, this is logical isn't it?

Re:So why aren't guns outlawed yet?

[Zork the Almighty]

The goverment assumes that all criminals will register there guns, this is logical isn't it?

Actually I think the idea is that over a generation or two most ordinary people will register their guns. Then if criminals steal the guns, the weapons can be traced. Of course, you would need some pretty tight import controls to stop illegal guns from entering the country before a gun-registry system like this would even be RELEVANT, but maybe the government is thinking ahead ? PFFT! {chuckle} sorry couldn't keep a straight face on that last one.

Re:So why aren't guns outlawed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea, government. That way, the criminal gets off scot-free, and the legitimate owner that the gun was stolen from gets 20 to life!

Boy, those Liberals sure are full of innovation and logical thinking!

Re:So why aren't guns outlawed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, that kind of talk triggers a terror alert.

Re:So why aren't guns outlawed yet?

[Krusher55]

Once they get the gun registry fully operating in Canada they are going to invoke a new law. Everyone who owns a gun will be required to spend 5 days in jail because some gun owners are going to commit crimes with their guns.

Re:So why aren't guns outlawed yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I thought they were just going to "accidentally" publish maps showing where gun owners lived, so criminals could just stop by and pick up some hardware...

TV Signals, but what about non-live?

[On Lawn]

For me its much more usefull to find old shows online then live broadcasts. My TV bandwidth is much greater then my internet bandwidth, and I get better clearer pictures.

Instead, I'm more interested in legality of sharing old broadcasts. Some of the best shows (like "Probe") will never be shown again or offered in DVD. We recently threw away boxes of tapes of old "Fall Guy" episodes, and it would be great to watch "Barney Miller" again.

In the case of copyright, Eldred makes my favorite point. That copyrights sould be renewable but for an exponentially higher fee every year. That way the pomposness of the Disney's of the world that still make millions off of 70 year old charectars would not block out the rare but good old shows that have been abandoned.

_________________________
OnRoad: Tempering Detroit iron with our own hot air since, well, last week.

Re:TV Signals, but what about non-live?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you get permission? No? Then it's illegal. Just because no one exists to protest or care does not mean it's not illegal.

Re:TV Signals, but what about non-live?

[TC (WC)]

In the case of copyright, Eldred makes my favorite point. That copyrights sould be renewable but for an exponentially higher fee every year. That way the pomposness of the Disney's of the world that still make millions off of 70 year old charectars would not block out the rare but good old shows that have been abandoned.


Problem: That fucks over the small-time media creator that can't afford to pay for the huge copyright fees. It would give large media companies an even greater hold on popular culture, as they can still afford to hold onto even their smallest items, while the little guy cannot.

Re:TV Signals, but what about non-live?

[On Lawn]

I think the point is that if you are not making money, let it go to the public domain. The size of the corporation is going to change the bottom line.

_______________________
OnRoad: Tempering Detroit iron with our own hot-air since, well, last week.

Re:TV Signals, but what about non-live?

[silentbozo]

You don't need to screw over small-time operators just to make a point. Set up a 2 tier pricing structure, with an upper bound on the number of allowed renewals. Impose a exponential fee for sole distribution rights (where you get to control who gets it and at what cost), and have a lower flat fee for ownership rights that allow mandatory licensing at a set rate.

If you want to milk your property, be prepared to pay what it's worth to you. If you want to maintain ownership of your copyright, but you don't mind licensing it at a reasonable rate, pay the flat fee. You can move from flat fee to exponential by paying the difference between the two renewal fees. You can go from exponential to flat, but you don't get the difference back.

At a certain point, the big corporations will say, screw it, flat fee. And after a certain number of renewals, it's out of their hands. That way, there's no incentive to screw with the copyright laws toward the end of a property's lifetime, as it's already been stepped down to a mass-market licensing model.

Re:TV Signals, but what about non-live?

[mpe]

In the case of copyright, Eldred makes my favorite point. That copyrights sould be renewable but for an exponentially higher fee every year. That way the pomposness of the Disney's of the world that still make millions off of 70 year old charectars

With an exponential system you'd be talking a lot more than millions for it to be worth keeping 70 year old material in copyright.

would not block out the rare but good old shows that have been abandoned.

The abandoned material is the vast majority...

Re:TV Signals, but what about non-live?

[mpe]

That fucks over the small-time media creator that can't afford to pay for the huge copyright fees.

With an exponential charging scheme the only way you get huge fees is by trying to hold onto a copyright for a long period of time.

Impied Purchase

[Foxxz]

So since you purchase CD-Rs with the extra tax, your purchase also implies you have the right to burn music to them? If the RIAA taxes ISP for allowing filetrading then it is implied that I have bought that music and I now "own" or at least have "leased" it. Such as in the way that the US government taxes me which implies that I have the right to "lease" the use of the roads even though they are owned by the government.

Maybe I should be able to redeem my CD-R receipts at a music store for music purchses if I dont use them for musical purposes right?

This all makes me think.

-Foxxz

Re:Impied Purchase

[Zork the Almighty]

Thats not the way it works. It's still illegal, even though you are paying a levy because of it. You must be one of those people that thinks that because you hand over money, you get something in return. You obviously haven't dealt with government that much, or for that matter, the criminals which work "on behalf" of artists.

Re:Impied Purchase

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Canada, we also have levies applied when you break certain traffic violations (excessive speeding, reckless driving, etc). Just because you pay the levy, it does not entitle you to violate those laws on a 'this time it's free' basis.

Re:Impied Purchase

[plague3106]

Perhaps the difference is in your speeding ticket example, you've done something wrong under the law.

Paying an extra tax on blank media when you haven't done something wrong is what people are upset about. but you can bet that if such a thing happened here in the US, i certainly would start copying music. If they're going to take my money b/c they assume (and to make up for) my downloading of music, i might as well.

Re:Impied Purchase

[shepd]

Yes, but unlike your speedin violation, these taxes are paid prior to copying music (that is, if that's your plan, which it may not be).

If I were to have put $100 (fine for not wearing a seatbelt) away, yes, I would be entitled to break the law. That's the way freedom works. It's not free -- I prepaid.

If I were not entitled to break the law, then I would be guilty and would need to prove myself innocent. Which, if you believe you haven't already paid for your music when you put it on a Canadian CD-R, is your alternative. To consider yourself guilty. Hell, why not turn yourself in right now!

Re:Impied Purchase

[FreezerJam]

As a matter of fact, that is EXACTLY how it works. There is a statement from the Copyright Board to this effect.

There are couple of small wrinkles. You are allowed to copy an original sound recording on to levied media for your own use. You are NOT allowed to copy the recording and give it to a friend - that would be distribution.

But - there is no restriction on HOW you get the original recording. Any legal method should be allowable. You can...

* borrow from a friend
* borrow from a library
* buy, copy, and return to the merchant

The last one only works if the merchant allows returns. HMV stopped allowing returns because this was getting to be too common. However, to HMV's credit, in all the announcements and press releases and interviews at the time, nowhere did HMV state that what the customers were doing was illegal - which is good, because it wasn't illegal.

Re:Impied Purchase

[Zspdude]

That is exactly the case in Canada. It is *not* a copyright infringement, or illegal, to make a copy for *personal* use of any musical album. I think this situation(in Canada) is fairly reasonable and acceptable.

People pay the government (in Canada and the US)all the time for services they never use. It's a way of life. If this media levy is the biggest concern to be found, people really aren't looking hard enough. Grab a copy of the budget and start searching for some real injustices!

Re:Impied Purchase

[kendric]

That is one of the big points that I justify burnig music with. I pay an extra charge for every CD-R that I buy. Supposedly this was set up to reimburse the musicians that I was supposedly ripping off. Now that my media is supposedly sending part of the money to the artists, I feel that I can burn their work because I am paying for it. If I pay for something I want to have it. In this case, I am paying for the right to burn music, so I will burn music.

Re:Impied Purchase

[jez9999]

If I were to have put $100 (fine for not wearing a seatbelt) away, yes, I would be entitled to break the law. That's the way freedom works. It's not free -- I prepaid.

You have a very strange idea of how the law works. You do not pay a fine to 'allow' you to break the law. The idea is that *under no circumstances* are you meant to break the law, but if you do, the fine is a *punishment* - you haven't bought the right to break the law. It's not like buying a license or something.

Re:Impied Purchase

[calethix]

Consider this then. You get pulled over while driving the speed limit and the cop gives you a $100 ticket because even though you're driving the speed limit today, you may drive faster tommorrow.

I think that's a better analogy.

Re:Impied Purchase

[shepd]

Okely dokely... Yes, my idea of how the law works is a little unusual. It's always been my opinion, thought, that in a free country one is free to break the law. It's only _after_ you've done it you're "punished". ie: In "Minority Report" the city wasn't free (if you've seen the movie).

If the punishment is always the same, carries no after effects, and harms no one (like the seatbelt example), then it's safe to call the punishment a "license" fee. But that's just the way I look at it.

Just my 2 cents on how I feel things work. You know what the professionals say, if you can't pay the time, don't do the crime! :-)

Re:Impied Purchase

[jez9999]

If a crime carries no after effects and harms no one, it shouldn't be illegal. Granted, there are some dumb laws that exist, but wearing a seatbelt isn't one of them. If you go through the windscreen because you didn't wear a seatbelt, your insurance company have to pay up the cash for your medical costs, if you're still alive. Even if the worst comes to the worst and *you* have to pay the medical costs, it still harms you.

Re:Impied Purchase

[shepd]

>If you go through the windscreen because you didn't wear a seatbelt, your insurance company have to pay up the cash for your medical costs, if you're still alive. Even if the worst comes to the worst and *you* have to pay the medical costs, it still harms you.

Yay... I want more government protection! Can they change my diapers already? Baby made a BOOM BOOM!

But seriously, the answer is already "in the bag" (maybe labelled Coroner?). If I were caught not wearing my seatbelt in an accident, my insurance rates would go through the roof. If I ever want to drive again, I'll be paying some serious rates. Besides, where I live, medical care is covered by the government. One could say that people not wearing seatbelts are wasting everyone's medical money, but that's a really losing argument. I haven't met anyone who in some way doesn't increase the cost of medicare unnecessrialy: They're either fat and will cost money for their heartattack, or they're fit and smoke instead, or they don't smoke and like to jaywalk on their morning fog walks. ;-)

(Now, I care about my life more than that, so I do wear my seatbelt. But, apart from oneself, it truly is a victimless crime, assuming you have no passengers. And, just like foreign satellite piracy in Canada, it doesn't harm anyone, but it's still illegal. ;-)

Re:Impied Purchase

[Zork the Almighty]

The best analogy is that a speeding levy is applied against the manufacturers of new cars, and passed along to consumers, to compensate the "victims of speed". Of course there are many cases where excessive speed is the undisputed main contributor to an accident which results in an injury. There are also incidents of speeding which do not result in accidents or injuries. Speeding may or may not even be against the law, depending on the circumstances. The law may explicitly endorse speeding (under those circumstances) as well.

Re:Impied Purchase

[jez9999]

I totally dismiss your argument that just because there are some people in the country who purposely damage their health, that makes it OK for anyone to. It's ridiculous. It's like saying that just because there are serial murderers out there, it's fine for you to be one. By damaging your health and the government paying, you are INDEED costing taxpayers money. Maybe smoking should be illegal, but the fact is there are a lot of people out there addicted to it, and giving up smoking is extremely difficult, whereas putting on a seatbelt is a hell of a lot easier.

Re:Impied Purchase

[shepd]

> I totally dismiss your argument that just because there are some people in the country who purposely damage their health, that makes it OK for anyone to

Fine. I won't argue with you then. Actually... if you're just dismissing what I'm saying, I'm adding you to my foes list. No point in listening to someone who won't listen to me, is there? Or do you just dismiss that as irrelevant as well?

Goodbye. Forever, actually, since I have foes at -5, and don't get messaged for posts under 0.

>Maybe smoking should be illegal, but the fact is there are a lot of people out there addicted to it, and giving up smoking is extremely difficult, whereas putting on a seatbelt is a hell of a lot easier.

Bullshit. Old habits die hard and occasionally my dad has forgotten to put on his seatbelt, even now, and he's an ex smoker (who's never looked back).

Now go away. Honestly, you have a fucking weak argument if your best support for it is to dismiss the ideas of others out of hand.

No big suprise

[k-rammy]

Well to those of you that are confused, the Minister of Heritage is the elected official in Canadian Government (below our Prime Minister) responsible for (amongst other things--like buying millions of Canadian flags and giving them away for free) intellectual property.

Now for the record, this wouldn't have happened if she didn't have party support, however I must say our Minister of Heritage is a bumbling IDIOT.

Sure, sure... makes sense that we shouldn't be able to rebroadcast TV signal... that's not what I'm arguing. I'm still absolutely LIVID about the CD/Tape tax BULLSHIT.

Shiela Copps rott in hell. Oh and for those of you that have no clue who the "Canadian Alliance" are -- they are the governments official opposition (a political party over here in the great white North).

Anyhow.. my first actual non-anon-coward post in a LONG time...

Mark

Re:No big suprise

[Scrameustache]

our Minister of Heritage is a bumbling IDIOT.

Not to mention the PM, he's actually brain-damaged...sigh, our government is depressing.

Re:No big suprise

[cranos]

You think you've got problems, at least you don't have Deputy John as your PM.

Re:No big suprise

[Dr Caleb]

I heard a reporters comment on Canada Tonight this evening. She was talking about Saddam Hussein being given the opportunity to step down and seek asylum in a neutral country, for which he wouldn't be charged for war crimes. She related that statement to the Iraqi people's point of view, like someone asking for our PM to step down and seek refuge in another country, and I was like - YEA! DoItDoItDoItDoIt!

Re:No big suprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Shiela Copps is actually the Minister Responsible for turning Canadians into a bunch of whiney little bitches who can't get over the fact that the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about anything that happens in this country.

Re:No big suprise

[cdn]

So... Mark... you have started a letter writing campaign? Sent an email to Sheila? Anything? I'm proud to be Canadian but I am so tired of Canadians that just whine and do nothing. Stop complaining and do something! Anything! I'm sending email messages to all MPs and asking my local MPP how much money the provincial government will be giving with this levy with it's purchase of CDs, etc for backing up government data. Cdn

Canadian Politics explained

[arrogance]

The Canadian Alliance is the official opposition. The Minister, in this case responsible for culture/heritage and a member of the Liberal party, championed the bill for "artist's rights" (I guess) and with the support of the Liberal party, which has a majority, pushed it through. I guess the Liberals also miss the point that independent artists (well, OK, NO artists as of now) are getting any money from the levy.

Unfortunately, we live in a not so benevolent dictatorship where one guy rules the roost. In a majority government, there are no real checks and balances: the Senate is pretty toothless here. Ever read Piet Hein? Majority Rule is a pretty cool poem.

I'm sure that Stand On Guard will give you a better perspective on Canadian politics.

Re:Canadian Politics explained

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be added our senate is not elected like in the USstates, but it has no real power. Think of itmore as a think tank than anything else. Some think it should be an elected senate, some think it should remain, and some think it should be abolished. The Canadian Alliance wants it elected.. the party basiclly wants to turn Canada into the United States.

Someone talking about Canada...

[angelkey]

and spelling like an American to do it.

Re:Someone talking about Canada...

[Anonymous Coward]

English is not my first language sorry if my spelling offend you :P

Simple Canadian Government

[nuggz]

Each riding (electoral area) elects 1 representative to the federal government, each elected person is a Member of Parliment (MP).

The political party with the most seats is the governing party, the second most is the opposition.
The other parties don't have official titles.

From the ruling party (generally) all the departments/minitries are run by an MP, the opposition gets their critic for each.

Then they get in a big room, and argue with each other.

That is the house of commons.

Re:Simple Canadian Government

[stratjakt]

You forgot the part where they make a stupid campaign promise to 'scrap the GST' that they couldnt possibly keep as an MP from Hamilton east, then they tearfully resign, force a bi-election, run again aganst virtually nobody in a city that has it's main attractions named after her father and win, and basically piss away hundreds of millions on a stupid ass little whiney publicity stunt.

And then they work on this.

Re:Simple Canadian Government

[cranos]

Ahh the joys of the Westminster system, we run the same system down here in Australia. Mind you its got to be better than some other systems.

Re:Simple Canadian Government

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, leave my city out of this! there were no real alternatives anyway...

But hang on ... are we surprised?

[kruetz]

From the article:

"The law assumes guilt that everyone who buys a blank tape or CD is pirating music"

Okay, that's NOT true, but the RIAA believes it is and the RIAA is the be-all and end-all unfortunately.

But with DRM and copyright extension laws, etc, everyone who uses a blank tape or CD WILL BE PIRATING whatever they put on the tape/CD, because the way we're heading we won't have the right to create backups/copies of anything except what WE create by ourselves. So backing up your ogg collection (ripped from your copy-protected CDs) may end up being considered "pirating". Making a copy of that software CD because it's starting to get a bit scratched and then having to get a crack to ignore the CD-serial check may be considered pirating. Hell, in the end, using computers for anything but content CREATION may be pirating.

Okay, that's a pretty extremist view, but think about the situation we had 10 or 15 years ago - copy-protection? inability to create legal backups? paying a tax to cover alleged piracy as reported by an organisation that can't count CD burners? Where will it end?

Re:But hang on ... are we surprised?

[Mitreya]

Hell, in the end, using computers for anything but content CREATION may be pirating.

Well, what annoys me even more is that when I create original content (like record my own song) I am STILL being charged the tax for the blank CD... so even content creation does not save you from guilt assumption

paying a tax to cover alleged piracy as reported by an organisation that can't count CD burners?

Can anyone expand on that? How much is the blank media in US? When and how was it passed? Is EFF anyone lobbying to have it repealed as ridiculous??

Re:But hang on ... are we surprised?

[MattW]

Okay, that's a pretty extremist view, but think about the situation we had 10 or 15 years ago - copy-protection? inability to create legal backups? paying a tax to cover alleged piracy as reported by an organisation that can't count CD burners? Where will it end?

It isn't that shocking that CD sales are being taxed. In 1992, President Bush Sr. signed into law the Audio Home Recording Act, which included royalty payments by digital audio equipment and media manufacturers. So this has actually been reality for some time.

The RIAA is only the be-all and end-all because people don't get off their asses and go vote. It's very simple. Write your congresspeople, senators, etc, and tell them that the RIAA makes you sick. You don't care WHAT the legislation is, you just want to see the RIAA and MPAA eat it. You tell your congressperson that if they vote for anything you remotely interpret as pro-RIAA or pro-MPAA, that you will vote against them in the next election cycle. If you donate to political causes, note that your donations go with your vote. Then follow through. Register, vote against them, and donate to the other guy if he'll pledge to take a stand.

Next time political causes come up, mention the mickey mouse copyright extension act, or the home recording act, and tell other people how congress gets bought off by the music and movie industry, and how they should express their dissatisfaction with their representatives.

Re:But hang on ... are we surprised?

[AsmordeanX]

10 to 15 years ago it was pretty hard to make backups on some systems just like it is now.

x86 based systems have enjoyed a long history of being fairly copy protection free but the C64, Amiga, Atari ST, etc all had methods which prevented legal backups.

There are even a few notable x86 examples like the first version of Lemmings on the PC.

you write to your Mounted Policeman?

[Anonymous Coward]

great, canadians are represented by guys who ride horses and hand out parking tickets. no wonder...

Not only Canada

[Pieroxy]

I'm French and actually the same kind of law passed one year ago. Blank CD's did reach the (affordable) price of .1Euro when they added this 1Euro tax to it. The justification was that these blank media (as well as blank audio tapes for example) was "stealing" money from the music artists.

Most of the backup-related companies heavily based on CD-R media either moved to belgium or switzerland (or anywhere else) or simply got out of business.

Maybe that's some crazy stuff related to french speaking people ;-)

Re:Not only Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

I can buy 200 cd-rs for 10 dollars, so yes, I think something smells in the land of France.

Re:Not only Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

With that tax for compensation to "artists" then shouldn't copying music be legal? since you are paying for it through a levy, and the record companies get that money, it's not stealing is it?

Re:Not only Canada

[Scud_the_disposable_]

so... what was the price of the cd before the tax? If I read the post correctly, It must have almost been zero =P

Re:Not only Canada

[TC (WC)]

That's how it works in Canada... you're allowed to make a copy of anyone's music, as long as it's for your personal use. (read: you can borrow your friend's CDs, or CDs from the library, and copy them all, as long as the copies are for you to use. You cannot copy your friend's CDs and give the copies to someone else.) I'm really not sure what the legalities of online music downloading for burning to various media are, though... I don't think that's been tested with regard to the current law.

Re:Not only Canada

[Pieroxy]

Blank CD's did reach the (affordable) price of .1Euro when they added this 1Euro tax to it

My english is probably not good enough for you. This sentence means that the CDs were 0.1 Euro a piece at some point and then they added some 1 Euro tax to it. So now a CD is 1.1 Euro a piece.

Is that clear now ?

Re:Not only Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you import the disks from a neighbouring country, ie. Germany? There are no customs checks inside the EU.

Re:Not only Canada

[Ngwenya]

My english is probably not good enough for you. This sentence means that the CDs were 0.1 Euro a piece at some point and then they added some 1 Euro tax to it. So now a CD is 1.1 Euro a piece.

Ouch!

Still, given the EU internal market, wouldn't you be allowed to visit the UK (which doesn't have the levy), buy a shitload of CD blanks and use them? Although, I suspect that unless you lived in Calais, Le Havre or Dieppe, it's probably not worth it.

--Ng

Re:Not only Canada

[Pieroxy]

That's exactly what everybody is doing! But if you live far from any other country it's still painfull...

Re:Not only Canada

[Pieroxy]

That's pretty much what everybody is doing.

But if you live far from any other country, it's a pain... And you always end up buying the hard price sometimes (you know, when you're out of CDs and you really need to burn something)

Re:Not only Canada

[Scud_the_disposable_]

Actually, you can do whatever you want with the copies, you just cant sell them.

Get your Southpark here : Two Dollar Fitty!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst I think this move will have little or no effect on pirated broadcasts being available through various means on the internet (P2P, IRC, FTP etc.), it seems to be a reasonable move by the Canadian government. Otherwise, there can be no control over sites that _sell_ their warez online. That would be as bad as a website that proclaims "Get Windows XP for $5.00".

He doesn't really get it.

[Dominic Shrimp]

Don't think for a minute that he actually "gets it". As a member of the official opposition his opinion becomes the exact opposite of everything the government says. If the Alliance ever won an election they'd be jumping in bed with whatever lobbiest was paying the most, just like any other politician.

Re:He doesn't really get it.

[matman]

Actually, our PM is, in his last year in office, trying to pass a law that would limit corporate, private and union party donations to about a thousand bucks. The days of big corporate contributions may be comming to an end.

http://canada.com/news/story.asp?id=42BA92AC-FBF 5- 4ED8-97C0-137EF8880510

America isn't a democracy either...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a republic by law. Also, what were you saying about democratic representation? I think the rest of world would disagree with that being the case in the US. Do you think we don't notice the vote-rigging, assasinations, stolen bio-weapons, oil wars, secret tribunals, no access to lawyers and general bullying?

Re:Those media levies

[ashitaka]

What is nice to see are some retailers like London Drugs are supporting the end users in the fight against the levy.

It could be though, that they realize that an increased levy would mean less people buying CD-R's, MP3 players etc....

Re: adblock.mozdev.org

[bobbyt]

Is it low legal to burn illegal copies ripped cds since we're being charged for it?

So it's Copps, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with the people of Hamilton, anyway? Is it something in the water, or maybe the polluted air around there? They had the prime opportunity to send Copps PACKING, but they overwhelmingly voted her back in!!!

And now we have to put up with this levy nonsense, courtesy of her little portfolio. Nice.

This is the same MP that wasted a huge wad of taxpayer money on little canadian flags. LITTLE PLASTIC CANADIAN FLAGS. How does she qualify in any way at all to make decisions on digital media?

Only goes to show that it isn't just American politicians who are in the pockets of big business.

Re:So it's Copps, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is, how the fuck is she still alive? With her track record of brain activity, one would think she'd have impaled herself on a staircase or something.

Re:So it's Copps, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called good PR, weaponized psychology. Like that useless imported meat with the bad smell.

Re:I'm not very hip (How CDN Gov't Works)

[shadowspark]

I'm Canadian, and I know there are lot of Canadians who also share the same ignorance/lack of information on how our Canadian government works but I hope this helps:

The Canadian Alliance is the "Opposition party" or the group of elected individuals in our House of Commons (sorta like the House of Representatives in the states). The difference in our elected officials is that we have more than just two large parties. There's the Liberal Party of Canada, NDP, PC Party of Canada and other parties like the Green Party, The Communist party, etc. (I don't have their URLs, but I'm sure google would help)

To better understand Canadian government, check this out: Structure of the Government of Canada

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is this person named Sheila Copps who is in charge of keeping Canadian Culture 'Canadian'. A lot of people don't like what she does as a lot of times it removes freedoms from the people of Canada and makes things more expensive (our taxes pay for her position and her policies/ideas).

To answer your actual question: Is this one individual overruling a lobbying type group or a governmental group?
The bill became law despite the Canadian Alliance fighting against it.

Someone in the know, please answer!

[jhunsake]

The question should be: is it now alright to burn legal copies (for friends) of CDs since we pay extra in the US for Music CD-Rs?

Re:Someone in the know, please answer!

[stratjakt]

I pay twice the property tax to live on this side of a toll bridge, rather than the other. The extra taxes go to bridge maintanence, bridge cops, etc, etc..

Does that mean I should be exempt from the toll too? Of course it does, but government doesn't work that way.

Re:Someone in the know, please answer!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a wonderful analogy, now why doesn't someone answer the question. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Re:Someone in the know, please answer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, not legal. It is legal for them to make their own copy of your music, though.

Let's not pretend that anyone not into mass distribution will be charged, though.

Re:Someone in the know, please answer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why would you ever buy the music CDRs instead of the regular ones?

Re:Someone in the know, please answer!

[bobbyt]

The answer to my question was in another slashdot post: http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml

You can copy your own cds. Or your friends can copy a cd you give them. But you can't make a copy and give the copy to someone else. Nifty.. sorta

I find it hilarious that most modders are american

[Anonymous Coward]

and censor everything they don't like to hear. Free speech indeed. Hear this mods, Canadians are better informed and educated than you could even hope to be.

For the record...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what you were trying to point out, but the parent to your post posts at -1 by default. He wasn't modded down (and has a pretty spot on description, IMHO). HTH. HAND.

yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberalism and socialism will do that. Nice to see the US has a checks and balances system.

Ignorant Leaders

[Typhon100]

And further to say "The law assumes guilt that everyone who buys a blank tape or CD is pirating music - but anyone who uses CDs for data storage, for instance, knows that's not true!"

Remember how people used to have to pass a literacy test to vote? People in Congresses/Parliaments should be required to know something about what they're passing laws about. I mean honestly, this law is ridiculous.

-Typhon

Re:Those media levies

[Zork the Almighty]

If you actually read the rates proposed, it will drive portable mp3 players, and eventually subnotebook computers completely off the market. Remember that hard drive capacities double every two years or so. The mp3 player manufacturers are not going to keep making 5 GB hard drives for iPods forever, they are just going to use whatever is in notebook computers. Your 60GB nomad - add $1000 to the list price. Within 10 years the levy on a portable mp3 player could easily be $10^6. Granted it's Canadian dollars, but still.

The loophole...

[TheBishop613]

For anyone who cares, since the article is awful short on facts and information...

The loophole that has been closed was the right for anyone to re-broadcast a radio or television signal (not cable, we're talking from the airwaves) even without the permission of the originators or owners of the copyright of said material. I do believe there were certain guidelines which had to be followed, the re-broadcast couldn't be edited, and I'm not sure about whether it had to be in near real time or not. Basicly I think it was intended such that a given broadcast could be passed along independant repeaters so that it would have a further range into more remote areas of Canada so that more Canadians could take advantage of the programming.

The bright minded start up companies realized that this might mean they could capture the tv signals their antennas pick up and then re-broadcast those on the net. Incidentally, this included broadcasts from cities close to the US/Canadian border.

Re:The loophole...

[TheBishop613]

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2003/pb2 003-2.htm

Here's the official decision from the CRTC by the way.

Re:The loophole...

[stratjakt]

The 'loophole' never was a hole. It was deliberate.

Canada is huge, you see, and much of the population is squished along the border. So not coincidentally, this is where much of the media is broadcast from. It's not economic for the big guys to set up a tower in the middle of the Yukon.

This made it possible for small time operators to spread the media to all the little remote corners here and their by rebroadcasting the news, weather and entertainment to people.

I guess now if you live way up in the colden yonder, you're shit out of luck if you want to find out what's happening in the world, unless you want to pay for it via satellite (though I'm not sure if even the remotest areas are in satellite service range).

Re:The loophole...

[TheBishop613]

That isn't the loophole, the re-broadcasting in general isn't curtailed. The current regulations only apply to re-broadcasting on the Internet, changing the medium of the re-broadcast was the loophole.

From the report:
"
a) the broadcasting regulatory framework for persons who retransmit, by the Internet, the signals of over-the-air television or radio programming undertakings,
"

License to steal music for Canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

The law assumes guilt that everyone who buys a blank tape or CD is pirating music - but anyone who uses CDs for data storage, for instance, knows that's not true!"

On the flip side, paying the tax on blank CD's is equivalent to a license to copy music from any of the vendors on their payoff list.

-1 Blatant Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Our legal system is actually more fair and just than the "fry 'em!" American system (which itself borrows massively from the British system). Oh, right, every country but the US is "like China".

Fuck you asshole.

Re:-1 Blatant Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, our [Canadian] system fucking sucks. In this system, if you're a white male of working age, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning any court case, unless the person suing you is also a white male of working age.

Re:-1 Blatant Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Canada, I know, lets tell GW Osama Bin Laden is hiding out in Canada! Then bomb them back to the stone, er I mean Fight Terrorism in all its forms!

Simple Stop buying Music !

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't get the fucken message so stop buying music period. Boycott the fucken bastards. That's it, I'm never buying a fucken piece of disk shit cd again, fuck them all that's it fuck em ! I don't even own a fucken sterio. Nobody wanted this fucken bullshit but it passed anyway. Speak with you wallet and boycott them ! USA your next !

Ouch!

[stratjakt]

59 cents per CD-R may be livable, but did anyone else notice the 21$ per gig for an MP3 player with a non-removable HDD?

So you get a 20 gig iPod, thats 440$ bucks on top of the price of the unit.

Yowza.

Re:Ouch!

[Rackemup]

That's right, hence the huge outcry. They charge a "per gigabyte" fee on those mp3 players instead of a "per device" nominal fee. meaning that as the hard drives get bigger they make more money, at your expense.

Re:Ouch!

[MarkLR]

Wait until Blueray DVDs with 40GB of space come out. They're going to claim that since they can hold MPs also, they should be hit by the levy also. They right now want $2.27 per regular DVDs which have only 1/4 the space. Who wants to pay $9 a disk for high def dvds?

Re:Ouch!

[Krusher55]

"59 cents per CD-R may be livable, but did anyone else notice the 21$ per gig for an MP3 player with a non-removable HDD?"

I don't listen to music except occasionally on the radio, never listened to an MP3 and only use CD-R's to back up data and create Linux CDs. Can anyone explain to me why I should have to pay the recording industry anything at all let alone 59 cents per CDR?

Re:Ouch!

[wrenkin]

Though a post above indicated that the levy applies only to 'blank' media. Technically under the law, so long as the manufacturer bundles several tracks along with the player, it shouldn't fall under the levy's jurisdiction. I love lawyers.

Re:Ouch!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a very simple reason. The reason is that the RIAA believes that each and every living breathing being on the planet is a "pirate" who is stealing the money that they are owed for "their" music.

I can't wait until artists start telling the RIAA to shove it and start taking their music to the people over the internet.

wtf is this bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You call that a governement ? Pass STUPID laws without anyone notice them? This is so stupid I can't believe it. I buy a lot of CD to do back-up of my stuff and this has nothing to do with music. I don't want to give my money to some greedy PRIVATE music companies which I don't even listen to music. I don't like music so wtf is up with this bullshit.

Re:wtf is this bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a BIRD!

Re:wtf is this bullshit.

[lux55]

Anyone noticing? This news made /. about a month ago (too lazy to search for the link, sorry but DIY) when it was being proposed. I wrote to three MPs myself about it to say what I thought of it. The problem isn't a lack of the government making itself outwardly known, it's that too many citizens don't give a fuck. With something like a voting percentile of 20%, and a "what's in it for me" attitude, we're sure to look more and more like America soon enough.

Note: OTOH, there are lots of us Canucks who DO care and DO take interest as well as action, which can be said about any country I'm sure.

Unfortunately (depending how you look at it)

[Anonymous Coward]

You are killing yourself with your extremist and terroristic poisonous views.

Re:Unfortunately (depending how you look at it)

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. The war of the ad hominem attacks. Why bother with facts, eh? Anything extreme is automatically wrong?

Nice explanation of a national party supported by a majority of Canadian voters. (They just don't have a majority of seats, a nicety of the political system).

One might think you have a particular axe to grind. Too bad you didn't articulate it.

Re:Unfortunately (depending how you look at it)

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice explanation of a national party supported by a majority of Canadian voters. (They just don't have a majority of seats, a nicety of the political system).

We're gone down several replies so perhaps I'm confused, but from your message, I take your reply to mean that the Canadian Alliance is supported by a majority of Canadian voters... Sorry to disappoint you, but the Liberal Party had the greatest percentage of votes in the 2000 General Election:

Percentage of valid votes:

Liberal Party: 40.8%
Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance: 25.5%
Progressive Conservative Party: 12.2%
Bloc Quebecois: 10.7%
New Democratic Party: 8.5%

Source: Elections Canada

If you're trying to argue (and I'm not saying you are) that the majority of Canadians support the Alliance today, well, the latest poll I saw here says:

Liberal Party: 52.1%
Progressive Conservative Party: 13.8%
New Democratic Party: 13.6%
Canadian Alliance: 10.5%
Bloc Quebecois: 6.9%
Undecided: 25%

But either way, it's the election that counts. Now, if you want to argue that the system doesn't fairly allocate seats in the House of Commons, go ahead, but don't go claiming the Alliance is supported by a majority of Canadians.

Sorry to have bothered myself with facts...

Campaign promis

[nuggz]

And cancel helicopters they are gonna buy now anyway.

Yawn, everyone lies to get elected.

Harris said he'd do many things people wouldn't like, and ignore special interest groups.
Judging by the protests, people weren't happy about that either.

Oh, yes, CA defender of Freedom HAHAHHAHAH

[SubtleNuance]

For those who dont know, the Canadian Alliance is an ultra-rigthist party, known to have realitions w/ race-hate groups. Its sad that they have the support they do, but allot of CA supporters arnt aware of the depths of perversion in the CA ranks.

as for the CA being sympathetic to the loss of Canadians' freedom, Im quite sure that this CA weasel, like the rest, just restlessly wriggle against the Librals... anything to climb back a few extra % of support.

dont be fooled, the CA would make Corporations your masters in a heartbeat - after all, property is king for a plutocrat.

Re:Oh, yes, CA defender of Freedom HAHAHHAHAH

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a tool.

Re:Oh, yes, CA defender of Freedom HAHAHHAHAH

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess asshat, you voted for the current majority dictatorship with a leader at the helm that is so stupid he doesn't know his face from his ass?

Doesn't seeing Jean on TV looking like an escaped mental patient make you feel proud? Hell, he makes GW Bush look like Albert Einstein.

Re:Oh, yes, CA defender of Freedom HAHAHHAHAH

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange and hypocritical.

1. The canadian liberal party lied to get into office, (not one election promise carried through)
2. Bought and bullied it way through the 2nd and 3rd elections by manipulating the media.
3. The most socially irresponsible goverment in the G-7???

The canadian flag was called a "Bloody red rag" (from a governor equivalent) and it fits, it's the way the goverment treats it's people. ie Stats canada getting booed out of a local big chain hotel for reading the result of the survey they'd completed. The survey was on worker satisfaction. The PM deciding where a former US president should his "pride and joy" and forcing out a peer for a much lesser comment.

"The ammunition is endless and the argument was lost, why do you think it's not talked about anymore."

Re:Oh, yes, CA defender of Freedom HAHAHHAHAH

[Anonymous Coward]

the Canadian Alliance is an ultra-rigthist party...

For all you american's out there, and to eliminate any confusion, they are a bit like Ralph Nadar's Green Party on most social issues. You see, Canada falls a wee bit left on the polical map relative to the jackboots down south...

Re:What legal system?

[alfredw]

I'll take the bait...

Huh? I always thought Canada's legal system is based on Common Laws. Now that's pretty much like China's legal system - 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Canada's legal system is based on British Common Law, as is the U.S.'s. However, in Common Law, statues override precedents, and we have a Constitution that defines both the rights of the citizen (see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a part of the constitution) and the division of power within government.

One of the rights is:

I.11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal

There is no blank recording media levy.

[Bishop]

It is not combined with the blank recording media levy. The submitter was smokeing crack. Read Bill C-11. C-11 deals with internet rebroadcasting only. There is no Bill C-32 as referenced. We are only up to bill C-23 (there are many more private member bills starting at 200). In fact there is no pending legislation for a blank recording media levy.

Re:There is no blank recording media levy.

[Bishop]

I need to be more specific. There is the old media levy, Bill C-32, from 1997. There is no new media levy. As other posters have pointed out any changes to the levy will be done by the Copyright Board.

It is worth pointing out to the international readers that Canadian Legislation tends to be either massive overhauls of existing laws in the form of complete rewrites or small very specific changes. The latter is more common.

Because I have purchased a single CD-R,

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider it my right to download all the big-label music I want for the rest of my life for free. Go me.

Tapes

[AlgebraicSpore]

What if you use tapes for data storage?
;-)

Re:Those media levies

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never shopped at london drugs. They advertise recordable media without the levy added which brings their prices in line with every other retailer out there. They then tack on the levy at the till and charge you tax on it as well. They are actually one of the WORST retailers in regards to the levy AND you pay more than any other retailer, e.g.,futureshop 50 cdr's for $30, london drugs same advertised price 50 cdr's for $30 + $10 levy tacked on at till + tax. They usually charge more than 30% more than any other retailer. I'm guessing the reason they have that on their website is that nobody is going to buy cdr's from them when the advertised 50 cdr's for $30 becomes $60 plus at the till.

Misconceptions about how TV works

[shadowj]

Time and time again I see people squawking loudly about their shows being cancelled, pre-empted, or just fucked with. There will be a call for a letter-writing campaign, loud declarations that the TV execs "just don't get it", and much lamentation.

Television isn't free. Every minute of commercial TV is a transaction exactly equivalent to buying a loaf of bread. What people don't seem to get is that the purpose of TV isn't to entertain the masses... the purpose of TV is to sell audiences to sponsors. The sponsors are the consumers; the audience is just part of the product.

Once you understand this, all the seemingly stupid decisions about cancellations and the like become much clearer. OK, they still suck, but at least they're clear.

Re:Misconceptions about how TV works

[Anonymous Coward]

TV doesnt fucking work. Once you understand this, maybe you will go somewhere and die.

Re:Misconceptions about how TV works

[Malc]

You haven't been introduced to the BBC, have you? Well, at the BBC's domestic service. No commercials what so ever. Maybe that's why I have high expectations of TV that constantly fail to be met here in N. America.

Re:Misconceptions about how TV works

[shadowj]

Oh, the BBC is quite different, I agree. But read my post again... I was describing COMMERCIAL television, not public or government TV.

Re:Misconceptions about how TV works

[Malc]

I don't think that the BBC falls in to either public or government categories. In the American sense (I'm making assumptions here), public TV is still commercial (those fund raising drives on PBS always drove me nuts). The BBC doesn't need to even worry about this. It's also not a goverment agency or funded from goverment coffers, and is *supposed* to be independent and impartial.

However, as a consumer, I think I want to disagree with you about TV. I have to pay to watch it through fees to the cable company. I'm paying the cable company for entertainment, not to be advertised at. Who would pay for such a thing? I know I wouldn't, especially considering the dreadful quality and standards of the TV advertising industry. I think that would require a lobotomy first. I guess that's why I don't watch much TV, especially the primetime drivel from the likes of NBC... in my case, the TV execs really don't get it. I've just had a great evening watching "Trial and Retribution", taped from TVO last week, and "Silent Witness" on BBC Canada. Both commercial channels, but nowhere near as offensive as most of the other ones. Now why can't the mainstream channels offer quality TV like that? They must cater to mindless sheep or something.

Re:Misconceptions about how TV works

[shadowj]

When you're talking about cable, you're talking more than one revenue model. The cable company provides conventional commercial channels as a distributor; you're paying them for the convenience of having clear reception without an antenna, not for the content. The commercial channels derive no revenue from the cable company... in fact, they tolerate them at best. So-called "premium" cable channels, such as HBO and Showtime, are another matter. They don't have commercials, and depend entirely on fees from the cable companies, plus revenues down the line from resale and licensing of their original programming. In other words, they're heavily dependent on quality programming... and it shows. While a lot of it is junk, there's much more interesting stuff on HBO and Showtime than you'll see on network TV.

Re:Misconceptions about how TV works

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they did start out as a means to entertain and inform the public, however the process wasn't cheap and the "free money" ran out quickly. 'Sponsors' stepped in to pay for the production and broadcasting of shows for privilege of having their company/product mentioned conspiciously on the shows timeslot if not on the show itself.
Funny how the bozos in big media are now claiming that we are breaking our contract (which never existed)with them and are guilty of stealing if we don't watch the ads. We never made a deal with them, they made a deal with the advertisers, not us. Looks like their souls are gone, and are now trying to get yours.

Oh, and if you don't believe me, just do a little research on early television. Interesting subject, even if 97% of the stuff on it now sucks big time. Especially the stuff about Farnsworth. (Interesting, even if it doesn't have anything to do with ads or rebroadcasting.)

Re:Misconceptions about how TV works

[gfreeman]

I'm afraid you have the misconception.

You seem to think that all television exists to sell audiences to sponsors. Here in the UK, the major broadcaster is the BBC. In this case, the world's first regular broadcaster of high-definition television serves the public, with no main-channel TV sponsorship contracts to tie them.

It works well - they make excellent programmes, which alas are often repeated, but they run from start to finish with no ad breaks. It's funded by the government, who levy a tax (about US$170 per year) applied to people with TVs. The money buys you a licence to watch TV, and gives the BBC a fund to play with as they see fit. So far, it seems to have worked - great drama, documentaries, game shows, news.

So your leap from Television isn't free (true) to Every minute of commercial TV is a transaction (also true) and finally to the purpose of TV isn't to entertain the masses... the purpose of TV is to sell audiences to sponsors (false) misses out a vital step, i.e. that it's not only commercial TV that exists and flourishes.

If you've never enjoyed the BBC, you've missed a lot. My Canadian wife moved here and was shocked that each household had to pay about a hundred quid a year for a licence to watch TV. Now we're planning on moving to Canada, she says she'll miss the BBC a lot. So will I - I've seen North American TV :-)

Chill ...

How to get around the tax.

[Anonymous Coward]

640K should be more than enough for anyone.

This tax penalizes any sort of usage or development in media storage, by cutting into profits and sales severely for any blank media manufacturer. Don't you just love laws that disempower, frustrate, and screw over everybody, and forbid the advancement of society through technology. By any chance, is the Canadian Opposition party Canada's Right Wing, full of reactionaries? I can't wait until we go back to 1950's era technology again.

Decriminalization

[phorm]

They're trying to "decriminalize" it. Which basically means, not illegal to have it in "personal" doses... but still illegal to run a grow-op or to distribute

Re:Decriminalization

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, Washington already vetoed that - its going to die on the order table.

Re:Decriminalization

[Anonymous Coward]

"Decriminalization" of small amounts means that it will still be illegal, but instead of going to court and jail and having a criminal record, the police officer gives a ticket, walks away and it has to be paid, like a speeding ticket.

Re:Decriminalization

[Anonymous Coward]

All those naysayers who go on about us Canadians losing our sovereignty... they act as if we still have it. :)

Re:Decriminalization

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and it won't be criminal either. Dumbass.

Re:Decriminalization

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly suggest you check out:

www.marijuanahomedelivery.com

They are legit, they have a supreme court rulling (Quebec) in their pocket, and they have been doing it for years.

Perhaps you should explain why you believe that someone dying of cancer should be arrested for smoking a herb...

How does one change that?

[yerricde]

Did you get permission? No? Then it's illegal.

Is it possible to get such permission? No? Then the copyright owner is a monopolist. Under the antitrust laws of several sovereign states, monopolists have to play by different rules.

Mod the parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, this post is better researched and has more to say than the article.

-1 Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore this illiterate moron. -1 Troll. Next comment please.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) The Alliance has never supported hate groups of any kind. That's just silly.

2.) The Liberals are owned by corporations more than anyone else. When was the last time BCE paid Tiger Woods to golf with Stephen Harper (leader of the Alliance)?

Re:There is a blank recording media levy.

[Dr Caleb]

There is no pending legislation, because IT PASSED.

I find in the records from last session:

Copyright Act Administration, Minister of Canadian Heritage,
C-337 (Gagnon, C.)
C-11
Other Business No. 10
C-32
C-48
Other Business No. 4
C-337 (Gagnon, C.)
Sections 30.8(8) and 30.9(6) see
Copyright-Ephemeral recordings/pre-recorded recordings
Section 31 see Broadcasting-Redistribution

And I gave up crack hours ago.

This is no joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Canadians have the right to pirate music. If you're compensating the music industry for piracy that is saying that it is okay to pirate but somebody will compensate for the losses and who better to pirate than the compensators themselves.

Re:What legal system?

[jsse]

I'm aware that the Canadian's Constitution upholds the human right. I'm just curious that why his MP would reply him a message like that.

However, most Canadians, unlike you, would become very short-tempered when being questioned on their own civil matters. I'm not an American, but to be honest Americans are more open-minded in this. May be that's their culture.

Thank you very much for your information. You are way better than that bold AC, who is obvious a Canadian who take me as an American. :)

Legal advice needed

[TerryAtWork]

Surely there's some point in law that says that you can't make an activity illegal on one hand and fungable on another.

I mean, if they charge us a fee for music copying onto cdr's doesn't that mean they sanction it?

The record companies can't ban something AND get paid for it as well can they?

Real lawyer advice needed here (I'm sure there's a phrase in Latin for this...)

Re:Legal advice needed

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, some states tried to tax marijuana while keeping it illegal at the same time. It led to some interesting legal cases, if I'm not mistaken.

Re:Legal advice needed

[NewtonsLaw]

The record companies can't ban something AND get paid for it as well can they?

Oh come on -- the recording industry is a law unto itself.

Remember the Dutch(?) taxi-drivers who have to pay a fee if they use their car-radios when carrying passengers?

We have the same setup here in NZ where a cafe or restaurant playing a radio where the customers can hear it have to pay an annual fee to the music industry.

So the radio stations have paid a fee for broadcasting the music, the restaurant owner pays another fee (for the same music) to have that radio going for his customers, and you can bet that some of those customers will already own the CD containing the track that's being broadcast.

As a result, the music industry gets THREE bites of the same apple!

In any other industry this would be called profiteering or unfair trading. However, when you're one of the largest industries on the face of the planet and have some very slick and highly paid lobyists then you can get away with murder right?

Re:Legal advice needed

[DarkFyre]

I can't answer your question in general, but I'd like to point out that Canadians HAVE purchased the right to copy music CD's with this levy.

See http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml for details, if you're Canadian. It basically boils down to the fact that you can make copies of recordings for yourself, even if you don't own the original. The copy has to be for 'personal use,' so you can't give it to a friend, but you can lend that friend your CD, your computer, and a blank CD and let them go nuts.

Re:Legal advice needed

[hhknighter]

In any other industry this would be called profiteering or unfair trading. However, when you're one of the largest industries on the face of the planet and have some very slick and highly paid lobyists then you can get away with murder right?

Probably, as long as you have enough money to hire a squirrel ninja/shinobi to plant a CDR media into the victims hands. If anybody dares to ask, say the victim is a pirate and you were protecting your property?

Re:Legal advice needed

[zcat_NZ]

So if I started charging you an 'air levy' and then told you I was granting you the right to breathe air in return, you'd be happy with that?

Canada TV?

[linuxislandsucks]

Menkenzie brothers TV? I mean what else woould we watch from Canada tha tis any good?

Do Canadians actually produce TV shows..what?

Okay I should not bad mouth as some great sci-fi came from Canada..

but then again as tv production costs lower as with all content it wil be on internet whether canada wants it or not.. either you make it easy to be on internet or lose your lawyer business model lock on making money at higher prices..

Re:Canada TV?

[oogoliegoogolie]

Do Canadians actually produce TV shows..what?


We do, but I can't remember any names since we all watch American shows.

Tell that to (the estate of) George Harrison

[yerricde]

so even content creation does not save you from guilt assumption

That's correct. Nothing is created in a vacuum. When you create a work of authorship, you draw on existing works. The owner of the copyright in a work has the right to prevent you from drawing upon the expression in that work when creating your own work, even if you don't know you're copying.

If you claim that your work is "original", how are you going to defend your claim in court against a multinational conglomerate with several orders of magnitude more cash than you have?

Re:Tell that to (the estate of) George Harrison

[Mitreya]

Nothing is created in a vacuum.

I understand and agree with all your points. But surely there are things for which the copyright has expired? Or that were released by the author? Surely the public domain (though dwindled) still exists?

I don't have to claim my work is "original", it is sufficient that my work is copy or derivative from public domain. I am appaled that a tax like that could pass at all, when there are plenty of cases where it is ridiculously wrong

Re:Tell that to (the estate of) George Harrison

[dandelion_wine]

As you point out, copyright protects the expression. It doesn't protect the ideas (that's for patents to do, in the province of science, not artistry). When someone creates, do they draw on the expression of others or their ideas? Ok, could be both, but drawing on the ideas of other artists is not infringement.

I bought a dictaphone that uses regular-sized cassette tapes, so I could buy a 20-pack of cheapies instead of those pricey mini-tapes. What happens? I get a monstrous levy -- way more than the price of these cheap-ass tapes, and all I'm doing is organizing my study thoughts on tape so I can listen to them in the car on the way to the exam, and have another way to reinforce the memorization. How is this pirating, and why should I be punished for it?! Canadian copyright law has it that even indexing existing information isn't infringment of the original information, so condensing and annotating my own notes certainly isn't infringing the info in the texts I use.

The same would be true if I dictated short story material, as long as I didn't subconsiously dredge up the expression of other works (again, not their ideas).

It bloody well does assume guilt of pirating, and we all pay for it!!

Not Lackeys?

[irix]

the Canadian Copyright Board is not a bunch of dimwits or lackeys

I know the copyright board didn't pass the law, but the CCB are the ones who allowed the current ridiculous scheme to be put in place. I don't care if they reduced the amount requested by the record companies - the fact that I have to pay a flat-rate levy on CD-Rs and the money just disappears into a black hole is a farce.

If the CCB wants to show that they aren't a bunch of lackeys, they will turn down the current proposed increases, and repeal the previous levy too. From what I understand, this is within their power.

I wrote my (Canadian Alliance) MP about this issue, and he replied that they will be opposing the increases. Hopefully they have enough clout to do something about it.

More information on what is wrong with this whole levy system can be found here. If you want to check out the propoganda put out by the record industry group, you can check out their website too, where they freely admit that they have taken in $28M of our money, but have not give a cent out to any of the artists that are supposed to benefit from this screwed-up system. Nice, isn't it?

Re:Not Lackeys?

[Zork the Almighty]

I know the copyright board didn't pass the law, but the CCB are the ones who allowed the current ridiculous scheme to be put in place.

Actually the law stipulates that this levy will be paid, they can not abolish it. Also, setting it to zero or some similiar tactic would be viewed as an attempt to abolish the levy, when the board has no authority to do so.

All I want is my moneys worth

[Krusher55]

They are charging me more to backup my data and make my Linux CDs because other people copy music. I think I am getting ripped off. I want my moneys worth. Maybe I should start copying music.

The really sad thing is...

[Guppy06]

"In response to this Slashdot story I emailed my Member of Parlament."

Canada is a bilingual country, which gives you two correct ways to spell the name of your legislature. That right there isn't either one of them.

In all seriousness, I hope you ran your e-mail through a spell-checker, at least if you expect your message to be taken seriously. In fact, you should probably splurge the $0.48 for a real letter.

Re:The really sad thing is...

[Dr Caleb]

Oh. A speling nazi eh.

Re:The really sad thing is...

[npadgett]

You don't have to pay to mail your Member of Parliament. Just mark the letter "On Her Majesty's Service" and mail it to their office. No $0.48 needed, even for a real letter.

Re:The really sad thing is...

[Guppy06]

But, see, this is no ordinary spelling mistake. This is two in the same word! Surely that deserves special mention!

Re:Canadian Alliance

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, unlike some of us here at slashdot, who seem to give a pile of shit.

Re:Canadian Alliance

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this flamebait? I mean really, It's partially the truth. The Alliance party are the ones who practice politics most like the Americans. (Remember Grassroots for Day?) Anyone who doesn't know what it'm talkin about, Grassroots was a large organisation that supported the Alliance party, (which was an agglomeration of a few parties, if I remember correctly) and turned out to be only 2 people!! They supported the two tier health system, and other travestys of Canadian policy.

-Scud_the_disposable_assassain

start on in another country....

[mexiconettv]

Interested in doing this one thing in the country mexico? I am computer programmer in mexico and i have the interest in this. With little investment and satellite dish it would be easy to set up server with ability to rebroadcast. Here is easy to get signals...like my Canadian friends who get signals from satellite without subscribtion cards. Close to the boarder it is easy enough to set up signal capture and server on high speed connect. Any comments?

The Queen's Loyal Opposition

[Vagary]

Wait a sec, there are other parties in Canada?! Oh, you mean PQ. Whew, for a second there I thought we had a two-party system...

But in all seriousness, I always thought that the Westminister System had better checks&balances than the American System -- because if the leader of the government went crazy, the other MPs could easily throw him out. But lately I've realised that it's not that the US's checks&balances don't work, it's that most possible opponents worship the Govenor^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPresident.

Re:The Queen's Loyal Opposition

[kypper]

The Patriot Party of Canada is a good new party. The progressives are out there, and not all waffles like the NDP or republican-imitators like the Alliance. Hell, technically, the PC Party is still around, albeit dying... you could say the same for Paul Hellyer's Party.

No... you're right... only the Liberal's are around.

Re:The Queen's Loyal Opposition

[Vagary]

The Patriot Party's platform is naive and inconsistent. It feels like the work of one or a very few number of people rather than a party. Their platform has something every Canadian will like and something every Canadian will loathe.

Re:The Queen's Loyal Opposition

[kypper]

It's actually quite consistent, and has a direction instead of wavering around corporate influences (like ... well, every party besides the Green and NDP)

See the National Party to get a better idea.
Granted, everyone hates something in a platform. It's a matter of whether you agree with most of it, and is it an alternative to the current a-holes.

Tells a Familiar Story

[serutan]

"Regulators said they were wary of undermining traditional producers and distributors..."

Says it all. Our duly elected public servants are always wary of undermining commercial interests, but completely okay with undermining the public domain, as we've seen recently in the Lower 48.

Repeat after me: "Democracy is not like pro wrestling. Democracy is not like pro wrestling."

An ignorant canuck ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even know all of your own political parties.
You list most of the parties except one
that has the most MPs beside the Liberals and Alliance.

The Alliance sunk themselves at the last election
because they had a fundy as their leader.
The BQ lost many seats because
1-A moron is the leader
2-People are sick of the fight with the anglos.

The liberals are in power because the opposition
is split between the socialists (NDP), the fundies
and western conservatives (Alliance) and the Québec separatists (Bloc Québécois).
In the days where they were all in the conservative party (except for the red NDPs) they
ruled the country.

Once the separatists from Québec and western Canada get together after dumping their moron
leaders they will regain power.

Re:An ignorant canuck ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, when I list Canadian parties, I leave out "the Bloc" too. Fuck 'em and their pushy ways.

Re:An ignorant canuck ...

[shadowspark]

You're absolutely right! I guess I'm pretty ignorant too :/

The problem is that I never hear about the Bloc Québécois cuz they don't have any seats other than in Quebec and most of their literature is in French which I can't read very well (although BabelFish can sorta translate, I can't really trust the translating).

I think right now the reason why the Liberals are in power is because they're the lesser evil compared to the rest, but that's my two cents.

Re:An ignorant canuck ...

[InadequateCamel]

Getting away from political platforms, the reason the Liberals are in power is because there is more people in Ontario than in BC, and the Liberals have somewhat served the needs of those who elect them, ie. Ontario. I grant that any party interested in gaining/keeping power has to keep the right people happy, but it is interesting to see how poor a candidate the Atlantic provinces rate the elected party, as they usually vote against Ontario (Lib vs PC, for the most part, with a healthy dose of NDP...this is as far as I recall, of course, and I hope someone has a little more info than me).

I don't see how you can consider the Liberals to be the lesser of two evils in a multi-partied system. If Chretien was to continue as Lib leader the Alliance would win in the next election hands down. I would consider the NDP to be as good a candidate as any, but politics in the majority of Canada goes something like:

(a) If you are Central Canadian, vote Liberal.
Otherwise vote PC because Ontario politics is a two-party system.

(b) If you are Western Canadian, vote Alliance. (Friendly note to voters: vehemently deny to all those who question you that once upon a time you thought that Stockwell Day, Canada's answer to "President" Bush, would be an ideal person to run the country.)

(c) If you are Quebecois, vote for the only party that will help you shed the yoke of Anglophone oppression (although that has really backfired recently...)

(d) If you are a Maritimer or a Newfoundlander, don't bother voting because it is just a waste of our time :-)

I know this sounds trollish, but although we sit here and make fun of a system that could allow a trained ape to assume the role of President, at least the outcome of the entire voting process is not determined by only 2 states.

But having said all this, I don't think that the Chretien government has done all that poorly. Sure our dollar is comparable to wooden nickels on the global market, but we have climbed a long way out of deficit. I just think we need a change (and not in the form of the Alliance, thank you very much...)

(end of rant)

Re:An ignorant canuck ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious. Why not in the form of the Alliance?

See, I've heard a lot about how the Alliance are racist, mean, bible-thumping baby-killers...but I haven't seen much in the way of proof. In fact, most of the comments they have made on the Liberals favourite topics (racism, etc.) have been rational, well-thought out, and presented by minorities who are upset that the Liberals treat race as a matter of quotas.

I hear a lot of talk about the dictatorial nature of the Liberals every day, but the same people won't vote for any other party. Their idea of change is to vote for Paul Martin when he becomes available, with the same tired party that didn't have the backbone to stand up for principles for the past three mandates.

I think that Canadians are really just afraid of change. God forbid they look at statements of principles (last I checked the Liberal web site had none, the PC's weren't much better) or become involved in their democracy. Just vote the status quo, and everything will turn out all right, won't it? Sit on your couch flipping the American TV channels and complain. Canada can go to hell, as long as they don't mess with the hockey commentators...

(Of course, more people voted for the Alliance last time than the Liberals, but since an overwhelming majority in one riding counts just as much as a majority of one vote in one riding, anything greater than 50% isn't counted towards anything).

Vote for change. Hell, even if you don't vote Alliance, vote for ANYBODY else. Don't vote for people who have lied to you again and again and again! And don't say "all politicians are the same". Not only does that invalidate the democratic process, but it flies in the face of the fact that you've failed to try other politicians...

Re:An ignorant canuck ...

[InadequateCamel]

You have a good point; that was a fairly poor remark I made in passing. It was meant as more of a jest towards the national view of the Alliance, but I don't think it is entirely founded in truth and I don't think that I really fully believe it. But that will come later...

I don't vote Liberal, and that is kind of the point I was getting at. A lot of the country has a "well if I don't vote Liberal, who am I going to vote for?" attitude and it is very sad. Having said that I don't despise the Liberals as much as some of our cynical compatriots do, but I think it is time for a change.

The Alliance will not be elected, and most of the blame lies on Stockwell Day. The man made a shambles of a good situation and has tarnished his party's image for years to come, and his beliefs and values (as far as we know) are, at best, suspect in a diverse country such as Canada. The "racist, mean, bible-thumping baby-killers" image is entirely his fault and not the party's. Harper seems like a much better man for the job, though, and I hope he does well with it (although they are flagging as we speak).

I think the biggest reason that they will not be elected is simply because the rest of Canada does not want to vote for them, just like they do not want to vote for a Quebec party (separatist or not). They are seen as being a provincial party running in a national election; at least the Tories/Liberals/NDP get seats in a few regions (not so much NDP :-)).

Whether they want to or not, they will serve the needs of their electorate first (again, a sound strategy), but their electorate is Western Canadians, just like the electorate of the Liberal party is basically Ontario. I suspect that a fair number of people who would consider voting for the Alliance would vote for the NDP because they are seen as being pretty similar in a number of issues (though parallels can be drawn with just about every party). I for one, being a NFLDer, would vote NDP because they are closer to me, and are seen as being more of an "Atlantic" party, and for this reason others would not vote for them.

But it is time for the old white man Liberal party to leave, as no one group should hold power indefinitely. I just don't think it will happen until after Martin gets in and then only if he makes a shambles of it.

only blank cd's right?

[mendred]

Then if a new CD can be released in such a way that it contains 1 byte of data (ok perhaps one bit) and can still be used to record then it ceases to applicable under this law??

Re:only blank cd's right?

[NewtonsLaw]

There's an idea. Sell CDRs as per-recorded data disks with just a few Kbytes used in a single session.

The rest of the disk (less the 40MB for starting another session) would then be available for recording your own stuff.

The problem is that I doubt anyone can write one of these dummy data sessions to a blank CDR for less than the CDN$0.59 levy anyway.

Q: Who Sets These Tariffs? A: See below.

[npadgett]

The copyright tariffs are set by the Copyright Board of Canada. You can find out about current tariffs on blank recording media(they already exist) here. Information on proposed tariffs for blank recording media for 2003-04 can be found here. Information about a tariffs on rebroadcasting of signals can also be found on the site.

You copied Beethoven but also copied our client

[yerricde]

But surely there are things for which the copyright has expired?

As the current generation of American senior citizens dies, nobody will remember the publication of any work before 1923, the threshold for perpetual copyright under U.S. law. (Canada is a bit nicer, expiring copyrights 50 years after the last surviving author has died.)

Or that were released by the author?

Until Creative Commons picks up momentum, that doesn't amount to much.

it is sufficient that my work is copy or derivative from public domain.

Mega-publisher's retained attorneys will accuse you: "Sure, you copied a Beethoven work, but a Beethoven work wasn't the only thing you copied when writing that song. Please cease and desist distribution of derivatives of our client's copyrighted work."

Simple? Simple? A bunch of sheep!

[Mashiki]

The Priminister is elected by the number of seats held by each party. It boils down that canada is a socialist country with a dictatorship style goverment.

Fall in line or loose your seat come to mind. We know what's best for the canadian public, not you.
We are above and beyond the law.
CISIS is your friend, don't cross the line after all they are above and beyond the law.
That's a simple bit.

Too much concentration of power at the top here, and the C32 bill with the massive increases in levies shows this all too well. A levy of $21/GB for MP3 players with HDD's?

I think I'll start demanding my levy monies back when I buy CDR's now. Otherwise I'll follow the logic of another poster, since I'm paying a levy I have paid to copy already.

Liar!

[oogoliegoogolie]

known to have realitions w/ race-hate groups
Funny, I remember very racist comments by the ruling Liberals; they willingly, dishonestly, and wrongfully slandered ppl in BC by saying they are burning crosses, bigots, and white supremicists and nothing happens to the person who said it when no evidence was discovered. Gee, I wonder which party is more racist?

dont be fooled, the CA would make Corporations your masters in a heartbeat
Better them than a having the government your master, like it is now. Unlike the government if I don't like one corp, I take my business to another. And unlike the sheep in Ontario and Quebec that keep voting for these festering Liberal scumbags, I have learned to think on my own and make my own decisions on who to support.

Re:Liar!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, indeed. That would be my city that was so gleefully slandered by Hedi Fry. Go Liberals!

At least they allow copying for private use

[Martin65]

Bill C-48, titled "An Act to Amend the Copyright Act", which passed on June 18, 2002, says that copying musical works for private use is legal.

The section of the act that covers this topic is here.

Once Again, Web Learns It's Not Special

[reallocate]

Anyone who wants to put TV programming on the web ought to create original programming, rather than stealing content from someone else.

If someone grabbed, say, CNN, off satellite and rebroadcast it without permission, how long would it take for the lawyers to show up?

If someone grabbed the New York Times page layouts off the satellite feed to the paper's regional printers and put it on the street under another name, guess what would happen?

This action has nothing to do with stifling innovation (at this point, streaming media onto the net is not innovative) or restricting someone's freedom. The web gets no special deals just because its the web.

Corrput

[m3b3l33]

There's not much you can do about it since the governemnt in Canada is so corrupt, the party in power can basically do whatever they want, and the party currently in power has been in power for so long they have become calky and making not so good moves. Apparently the levies collected from blank media hasn't been paid back to any artists yet. For more info on the levies, and who to e-mail about it see http://www.ccfda.ca/ But e-mailing them isn't going to do much (how many people like GST, and I don't see that ever being repealed). P.S. I do live in Canada

Radio and TV Have Always Been Advertising Media

[reallocate]

Commercial broadcast television, and radio, have always been advertising media. The programs are on the air in order to carry commericials, not the other way around. Programs are there to make sure people watch the commercials, and they are cancelled when not enough people watch the commercials. That's why there's a rating system: so programmers can determine what they charge for advertising air time.

Sorry, but it's a democracy

[MrYotsuya]

The caucus can revolt by taking a vote of non-confidence, starting off an election. Chretien is just a smart politician, that's all. Now if our opposition weren't so freaking dumb our government might be held more accountable.

BTW, it's "lose" not "loose"

Re:Sorry, but it's a democracy

[Mashiki]

I don't give a rats ass about spelling.

But, the non-confidence vote was removed when the anti-terrorism laws were passed. Sorry, time to pay more attention to the fine print in them laws my friend.

As I said, a bunch of sheep.

Re:Sorry, but it's a democracy

[lommer]

Are you serious?
Can you back this up?

OTOH, I think i just got succesfully trolled...

Re:Sorry, but it's a democracy

[Mashiki]

Goto ottawa, ask to see the bills pertaining to the "Anti-Terrorism Act", it was a last minute addition added by the liberal party. There are sections that are classified, and it might be that, I on the other hand was in ottawa when it was passed and was promptly thrown out for screaming in the legislature for "expressing undue concern for the goverments total control".

You might think you were trolled, you were not. Sometimes tho, the truth is harder to accept then a lie.

Re:Sorry, but it's a democracy

[JohnnyCannuk]

Nice Troll....

This simply cannot be done because this part of our parliamentary (notice the correct spelling) heritage is enshrined in the Canada Act 1982 (formerly the British North America Act 1867) .... you know the other half of our Consititution along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To change it requires the ratification of a majority of Canadian Provincial legislatures representing 2/3 of the population of Canada. Now Consider Meech Lake (I and II) and the Charlottown Accord and see how successful we've been on changing our constitution since 1982 (and only the British Parliament could change it before that!).

No my friend, you are either a terribly missinformed, ignorant, reactionary, idiot or a bald-faced liar.

Either way, you're a perfect supporter of the Alliance party.;)

And yes, I did study consitutional law (got an A, too!)

Re:Sorry, but it's a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

What you lack in intelligence, sir, you clearly make up for in paranoia.

I understand that you have far too much spare time on your hands, but there are lots of things you can do with that time which, while ultimately as pointless as screaming in the legislature, will at least be less offensive to those around you.

Isn't there an NDP leadership debate you could be attending?

By the way, telling someone to go to Ottawa does not qualify as "backing up" your laughably false assertion.

Have you noticed how, ever since the government lost that vote on committee chair selection, the Prime Minister keeps challenging his backbenchers to vote against him on a matter of confidence (first Koyoto ratification, now campaign finance reform) and force an election? Have you read a newspaper in the last three months? Would you even know what one looked like?

I'm pretty sure spelling is important...

[MrYotsuya]

but I'm sure that he's not going to kill six million Jews to get his way.

THIS ISN'T BAD........

[Kernel Kurtz]

.....for an update of our copyright laws. I don't like the mandatory levies, but there are NO anti-circumvention provisions, and fair use (fair dealing) right are pretty well affirmed.

It could be a LOT worse!!!

Who's service?

[mstefan]

You guys still have that whole Queen thing going, eh? I thought you dumped her a while back. :)

Re:Who's service?

[meringuoid]

You guys still have that whole Queen thing going, eh? I thought you dumped her a while back.

I gather the Australians _nearly_ dumped her a couple of years ago, but decided not to because they weren't entirely sure what to replace her with. However, the heir to the throne talks to trees without the excuse of insanity, so chances are there'll be a whole lot of new republics founded the moment Liz Windsor dies...

Re:Who's service?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I see you guys still have that whole "total ignorance about the world outside our borders" thing going, huh?

Re:Who's service?

[Abcd1234]

Well, we did dump "the whole Queen thing", in that the Queen and the British government in general have no power over Canada as a nation. This happened a while ago (before WWII... can't remember the exact date). However, the Queen is still included in much of our government "rituals" and so forth strictly as a matter of tradition.

more info on the cd levy

[HeyBob!]

Wired article

People who want to enforce it (with exact amounts listed)

People who want to stop it

So, can I borrow your cd's? I want to burn a couple 100 since I just bought a big whack of blanks and have already paid for the right to do so!

Here is the full text of the bill as passed

[Kernel Kurtz]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/bills/government/C-32/C-32_3 /C-32TOCE.html

Canadian satellite TV

[Anonymous Coward]

An increasing number of Americans think otherwise -- and put their money where their mouth is by subscribing to one of Canada's two satellite services, Bell ExpressVu and StarChoice.

For Cdn$40.99/month (about US$26), I get local Canadian TV from every time zone coast to coast (including Atlantic and Newfoundland), full US network feeds from Boston and Seattle (try that on DirecTV), a boatload of U.S. and Canadian cable channels, BBC World news (very important in the current CNN-fueled war frenzy).

Legalities? Nothing in the U.S. prevents it, and in Canada it's simply a big game of don't ask, don't tell with the satellite providers.

Sure, Canadian TV is often a load of rebroadcasted U.S. tripe, but the news and public affairs programming is worth its weight in gold -- would that more Americans know a little bit more about the rest of the world.

Re:Canadian satellite TV

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that it's now officially illegal for us to subscribe to DirectView, thanks to lobbying by Shaw (StarChoice) and BCE (ExpressVu) who were looking for and received some nice protectionist benefits.

Re:Those media levies

[ArtDent]

Future Shop, too.

And, just in case any of our American friends are ever looking for some political support for consumers in the future, I should point out that "Future Shop stores are a division of Burnaby-based Best Buy Canada Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Best Buy Co., Inc."

........and here are the recent amendments.

[Kernel Kurtz]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/b ills/government/C-48/C-48_3/90174bE.html

What doesn't quite make sense to me is. . .

[ripicheep]

If you have a cable modem, I would assume that you have access to a cable television service as well, no?

Fucking media whores

[alexburke]

Here it is (PDF page 7). Not yet final, but might as well be.

*sigh*...

Re:Those media levies

[Aerog]

Pardon my French, but how the hell are London Drugs supporting the fight against the levy? I mean, I like London Drugs a lot, but the last time I bought MiniDiscs from them they more or less openly tacked on a $4 surcharge under the title "Media Levy" (plus tax). $4 on a $15 box of MiniDiscs! No place else that I've bought MDs from has done this, and it was sort of irritating. Now maybe the gov't-required levy had gone through already, but I was under the impression that it wasn't to go through until Jan 1st, 2003 (I bought them in 2002).

Too bad all my MP is good for is getting kicked out of the Canadian Alliance and wasting paper sending me chain letters about how he's calling other people racist when he himself is arguably so. Too bad that out here they would elect a handicapped monkey if it ran under the CA banner.

funny acronyms

[Anonymous Coward]

CRAP is a good one man! here's one from the US, when nixon was running in 72, his election org was entitled the Committe to Re Elect the President--the CREEPS.

heh heh heh

Blissful Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see the US has a checks and balances system

Worked real well with the stolen election of November 2000, didn't it? Just keep living in denial.

Yes, there is

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a RIAA/MPAA tax in Canada and the US _already_. So maybe they didn't get to hike the rates, but we are already giving them money every time we buy blank CDs or tapes (tapes which can be used for digital recordings).

Insightful? No. Blame the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, Canada is not the only country with these laws. Second, these aren't new. Third, it's the US media companies which paid to have them passed. Moderators: stop smoking the crack.

Ahem, cough, cough

[Anonymous Coward]

The levy is applied at the wholesale level, not retail. Sounds like they're engaging in misleading advertising.

In the US too

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use slashdot for your education purposes.

These laws have been passed in a lot of countries.... including the United States of America. Sad, but true.

Also, the article is wrong. This law was passed in 1997 in Canada. So this isn't "news".

Then why are they treating it "special"

[Anonymous Coward]

If it weren't on the web, in Canada you could rebroadcast legally. How does that work into your theory?

Re:Then why are they treating it "special"

[reallocate]

If what you say is accurate, then Canada is being inconsistent.

BTW, I don't have a "theory". I just believe that, in terms of the distribution of media and other content, the Internet will be treated as a medium, like radio, TV, the press, etc. Some argue that will result in the stifling of innovation , etc., so perhaps the web ought to be treated differently, but I doubt that will happen.

In Canada... Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can rebroadcast without permission -- unless it's over the web.

So start your own channel...

[silentbozo]

So what's to stop a show whose fan base is large enough to outright buy the show, or purchase the syndication rights, and put up a streaming station? Say, a Star Trek channel, funded by fan contribution, and incidentally selling Star Trek merchandise, etc., broadcasting every Sunday night between 9 and 12, with reflectors and p2p load distribution in order to minimize bandwidth costs. Instead of interrupting the show with commercials, you could just bookend each episode, like they do with PBS.

Seriously, enough geeks banded together to open up the source to Blender3D, and that was no trivial chunk of change (100k euros.)

Your MP probably doesn't get it...

[PKFC]

More than likely your MP is just reciting the Canadian Alliance policy on bills introduced by the Liberal Party: Oppose them. Who knows what the CA would do if they were in power (which wouldn't happen because of Stockwell "Doris" Day, IMO), but it sure would be nice to think of them as competent... I know Bob Mills is at least so there is one.... *shrugs*

Easy way to make CD-RWs exempt from the levy

[dstone]

The current legislation defines "blank audio recording medium" as "a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced, that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose and on which no sounds have ever been fixed". Details here

So if manufacturers cared to record some sound onto a CD-RW (heck, make it an advertisement, for all I care) then perhaps it would not be subject to the levy.

Um, not quite.

[twilight30]

My submission had nothing to do with the submission on blank levy proposal. I don't live in Canada any longer, so finding news from home can be a bit difficult at times.

It's not a shock, but as someone who used to work in the dreaded field of advertising while abroad, I do think it would be nice to occasionally see the odd show from home. Or the odd show from the foreign country in Canada.

In Anglophone Canada...

[Anonymous Coward]

...right-wing extremists represent you .

It will help. http://www.stopya.com

[0z0*!a]

I think that it will help Promote TV stations it more people find out more about then on the internet. It's like a free ad, so it should not be illegal to broadcast TV stations without permission.

1000 Channel Dial

[Anonymous Coward]

Your both right ! Some TV channels are garbage to me and some are garbage to you. That's why we are building to the 1000 Channel Universe. A channel for every taste. The Jay Leno Channel right next to the David Letterman Channel. But I'll be watching WWF ! Not likely. But we all have our own interest and if you don't like a channel don't watch it ! NBC gets paid for it's ads based on the estimate of how many people watch. Seems that a lot of people wait for the ads to finish so they can watch 'Friends'. Look at the money they get.
I want a Hubble Telescope Channnel with a live feed directly from the data stream. A Galileo Space Craft Channel directly from Jupiter. All coming soon to a cable channel near you.
Or really, on the net, right now if your connected correctly.

Your best bet

[Kwil]

is to vote NDP.

Hey don't laugh.. at least they're in favor of proportional representation, and their provincial governments don't seem to be tanking the economies there like you'd expect.

Re:Your best bet

[Shadarr]

The days of the fiscally responsible conservative are over. Now we have the anti-tax, anti-government, pro-corporation conservative, and to hell with the economy. It's no coincidence that the US federal government and the BC provincial government have both caused recessions in their respective constituencies; their methods and ideologies are the same and their results are the same.

This is bullshit!

[Newer Guy]

I work in TV. TV broadcasters frequently SUE some companies to force them to put their over the air signals over wires so anyone that's connected to those wires can see their picture. In fact,in the USA there's laws REQUIRING the owners of the wires to do it. The wires are called cable TV and the laws are called MUST CARRY. Now..it seems to me that the broadcasters want it both ways. They want to have total control over what's done with their over the air signal. They want to be able to force companies to carry their signals when it benefits THEM and yet force other companies to NOT carry their signals when it benefits THEM! This isn't fair, nor is it right, nor is it moral. Now, I know what many will say..that the cable companies don't modify the signals at all.. BULL! Many cable systems re-modulate over the air TV signals onto other channels and digital cable systems digitize the TV stations' signal. How is this any different then converting their signals to TCP/IP? It isn't. Period. Yet one is legal and the other isn't. This law is wrong. Pure and simple.

Re:This is bullshit!

[cdn-programmer]

Yup - you are 100% correct.

But nobody said Sheila Copps has much between her ears.

All we need is a nice card that will pick up the channels from 2 to 100. Many video cards can already do this. This lets any PC become a video recorder/player. The problem is that in the long term - I don't think this is where things are going to go.

Rather I expect P2P networks to become ubiqutous. I expect that a large number of ppl will set up recorders for whatever their favorite shows are and then they will drop them into a P2P system.

Ppl will compress it and encrypt it and P2P systems will share it. If this happens (and it already is) then the broadcasting industry itself will be challenged (read - reworked). Nobody likes their business model anyway. Personally I HATE the commercials so I don't watch TV. The _ONLY_ reason IMHO that the present system functions is because of a virtual monopoly on distribution. If you can control the distribution then you can drop in your commercials. If you lose control of the distribution (which is what P2P does) then nobody will give a damn about broadcast signals. But this will be the NEXT generation doing this - the present under 25 group.

The law may be there but it is unenforcable and who can prove where anything arrives from? This law only limits CANADIAN wannabe rebroadcasters. It doesn't limit USA rebroadcasters and besides - last I checked there IS no valuable Canadian Content anyway... save for hockey games and I personally don't give a damn about hockey.

What they are trying to do aint gonna work. As soon as the bandwidth climbs (DSL is almost too slow for this) the P2P aspects are going to mushroom and it will be from systems like Kaaza where you can't find a server to attack. In fact - We'll soon see if Kaaza can even be attacked as an organization... US courts are after them of course.

When we have terabyte hard drives and hopefully 36" high res monitors then people are NOT going to pay much attention to cable TV.

It will be much simpler to just pull in an MP4 and play it when you want to.

All we need is a well designed opensource P2P system and of course opensource video codecs. So far we don't have these. But the future is a long time and I figure within 5 years it will happen.

An MP who 'get's it' ? Good one!

[Anonymous Coward]

--refreshing that my MP 'gets it'! Do you really think he 'gets it'? Or did he simply look at what side the Liberals took and picked the opposite one. In Canadian politics it always seems that the efforts of the loyal opposition are geared to thwart whatever the governing party wants. Their primary goal rarely seems to be to help the country evolve and function efficiently, rather its simply to get one's party elected the next time around. The CA is playing this role at the moment but it always seems to be the case regarless of which party is #2. (the Bloc being a special case... they simply don't want Canada to function at all and have no aspirations of ever becoming the governing party )

Leech Alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

> twilight30 writes "Canadian regulators ruled Friday that it is illegal
>to put broadcast TV signals onto the Internet without permission,
>dashing the hopes of entrepreneurs hoping to create new Net TV
>businesses.
>
>
And just what is wrong with this? Do we really want to support leeches who want to make money off this sort of thing? These people don't give a damn about us, thus giving them any support whatsoever is just damn stupid.

levy this, levy that...

[hangingonwords]

as a human living in a modern society i expect to give a percentage of my money for the "greater cause". be it federal taxes to protect me, my health, my family or small levy's to protect an artist's right to make music for a living. i don't mind paying taxes as long as how much they want and what they want it for stays within certain guidelines. i mean i'm sure there's a lot of things out there that my money has gone towards that i wouldn't normally support but to quote a little melody from the 80's, "you take the good, you take the bad, you take em' all and there you have, the facts of life" (i was partial to "jo" in the early years). either way it is ridiculous to make people pay for a "service" they could very well not be using. i just don't get how these agency's claim to be so inclined to protect the artist yet from what i've read the artist doesn't ever see any of this money as they very well should. i am a musician and all i know is that if i were to start a band i wouldn't see any of these dollars. i am aware that money can be spent to further protect copyrights therefore keeping the musician employed but the technique, i feel is all wrong. you don't make people pay for something that they don't use (blank cd-r for data recording, not audio). copyrights may not be honored as far as any p2p user is concerned but from an artists perspective it really isn't fair. create a system in which audio cd's (or whatever the format may be) can only support audio files and cd's for other purposes do not support audio. this way you levy the audio, protect the copyright and keep people from using the blank media from having to pay that extra penny. an idea that may seem farfetched but maybe in a new medium other than cd this can be done.

Disrupting Government

[nuggz]

You are permitted to watch the house of commons, in the very same room. Not many countries permit this.

You're aren't allowed to be a disturbance. Protest outside where nobody can hear you.

huh?

[nuggz]

No, the Prime Minister is elected by the MP's, generally you'd elect the same leader you had during the election.

You don't lose your seat if you piss off your party leaders, at most you lose any appointments, or even kicked out of the party, but you still remain an MP with a vote, and you can represent your constituents.

The ONLY way a law will pass in Canada is if a majority if MP's vote FOR it. Do you know how your MP voted?

Re:huh?

[Abcd1234]

He does make a point, though. Because you can lose your appointments, or get kicked out of the party, MPs are much less likely to voice dissent in parliament. After all, the fact is, at least in my experience, that most people, when they vote, vote by party, not by politician... so, getting kicked out of the party is really akin to political suicide.

For those who are wondering, this practice is referred to as party discipline. It basically ensures that any legislation put forth in parliament and supported by the PM is passed. Assuming it's a majority government, that is. This is what most people are referring to when they complain about the concentration of power in the PMO (amongst other things).

Interestingly, the existance of party discipline likely enforces the aforementioned voting behaviour. After all, if you know a given MP is just going to vote along party lines, who gives a damn who it actually is? Mmm... vicious circle.

As a side note, as I understand it, the practice of party discipline is starting to show up in the British government as well. Specifically, Tony Blair is using the practice to keep members of his party (the Labour Party) in line.

guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

"The law assumes guilt that everyone who buys a blank tape or CD is pirating music..."

It's true you know, I've bought about 4-500 blank cd's; and i have copied cd's, well, 1 cd

Canadian Alliance ... feh!

[mrfiddlehead]

These guys would be all over their corporate buddies if'n they ever got a chance at power, which is unlikely in the current political climate in Canada. I wouldn't trust an Alliance politician as far as I could throw him, which would be about 15 mm given what fatcats they are. BTW, when the party formed they called themselves, The Canadian Reform Alliance Party, aka CRAP. No shit. Bunch of morons.

And, BTW, I'd rather pay a few cents on every CDR if it would mean that the goddamn RIAA would back off on they're idiotic claims about music piracy.

And finally, is it really that much of a stretch to realise that rebroadcasting copyrighted television signals on the net is going to get you into trouble?

George Bush can sleep well knowing that there are morons everywhere.

Re:Canadian Alliance ... feh!

[strangeloops]

Okay, let's get a few things straight, here.

Sheila Copps would never be confused for an anorexic, either.

The proposal was "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party", or CCRAP. And despite the media frenzy that it engendered, nobody, including Shawinigan's most famous ex-resident, ever took the name seriously. They've been the Canadian Alliance party quite happily for a long time.

Further, and more importantly, do you really think that any levy will ever stop the RIAA and their international bretheren from whining, griping; litigating and legislating for further erosions of fair use? Time to scrounge another rock, your crack pipe's empty.

If you think this isn't costing you, think again.

[waterwheel]

Absolutely correct - this bill IS going to make and keep things more expensive for Canadians. This same bill means that where a U.S. publisher has given a Canadian co. exclusive distribution rights, that all Canadian bookstores must BY LAW deal with this distributor. If you don't like the distributor, tough. If you can get the books cheaper in the U.S. or the U.K. - very commonly the case - you are not allowed to import it. Net effect, bookstores are not allowed to find the cheapest prices for books, they have to pay whatever the distributor dictates.

I previously owned a bookstore. A distributor decided not to sell to me simply because I sold online. WTF?

The overall bill is apparently designed to protect Canadian society, writers, publishers, etc. The real effect of the bill is that consumers are getting screwed for the benefit of liberal special interest groups.

(In true slashdot fashion, I haven't read the bill yet, I'm basing this on what I was told by an industry organization).

Re:Those media levies

[Rackemup]

One of the major complaints about the EXISTING media levy is that it's completely hidden. The price you see on the shelf already INCLUDES the levy so many people are under the (mistaken) impression that this media levy is a new thing. Some retailers have since taken to advertising the price of the media itself and then just tacking on the levy at the register so it looks like you're getting a deal on the disks.

I believe that London Drugs has joined with a bunch of other companies (Future Shop, Radio Shack, etc) and made one collective submission as objectors to the proposed increases. The levies are already in place, the current hearings are going to decide how much to INCREASE the levies for the 2003-2004 period.

The reason more people are aware of the process this time is because of the outcry at such a huge increase. Currently a spindle of 100 CDs has a (100 * 0.21 =) $21 levy applied to it... if the proposed increases go through that levy increases to $56. Would you want to pay an extra $56 for your blank cds? me neither.

Didn't they already decide this?

[AyeRoxor!]

Anybody remember the iCraveTV debacle?

Weed isn't legal!

[Colosse]

Weed is legalized? I belive you are misinformed. How did you come with something like that? There are some studies concerning allowing the usage of marijuanna for medical uses, but pot legal? Not at all. I belive you are talking about Amsterdam's red light district cofee shops.

c-32?

[Jon-o]

Where's the text and info about bill c-32? I can't find any information at all on parl.gc.ca (Parliament's web page). The only copyright bill in the last session was C-11, and it only concerns the internet retransmissions, (IcraveTV.com, etc..) and not media levies.

There's no mention of C-32 at all in http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills.asp, and no bills would have passed in the past few weeks as parliament isn't back in session until the 27th!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding our government (wouldn't be the first time), or maybe the article isn't quite right?

Re:c-32?

[Jon-o]

Ok.. that makes sense then. It's not C-32 from THIS session of parliament, but from several years ago... You might want to make that clear in the stories, silly people!

Re:This is BS

[TheSync]

It is silly as well. There are people who are located where there is neither over-the-air TV or cable, but there is Internet (datacenters, workplace, etc.). By cutting off Internet rebroadcasters, network commercials will not make it to these people. Duh!

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well not that I expect anything, but a bunch of compagny was doing just that perfectly legally... But there was a compagny in Canada that did exactly that like 2 or 3 year ago... It have disapear I think but i don't remember why but i think it was a legal question, don't recall exactly but i think they was rebroadcasting american broadcast, and they shutted down cause they could't afford to fight in court...
If you do a little search on Google you'll see that it did get a couple of Child...
Btw it's not cause it's Illegal than US than it's illegal in the rest of the world...

I wanna see the email

[Rocko Bonaparte]

Am I the only person curious about the response timothy got when he wrote in to Canada's Parliament? We discuss writing in all the time, but I rarely see the results of that on here.

not pirating music?

[Synic]

you must be pirating television, movies, or software...

Re:lower quality

[tomhudson]

Most of the shows are of such low quality to begin with (I'm referring to content, not pixel resolution). I didn't think it was possible for them to get any lower - but every year, the networks manage to lower the bar.

Seriously, this is pretty stupid legislation, but then again, so is the average tv viewer.

Some thoughts

[failedlogic]

I objected to the levy by sending a letter to the CPCC. There was a mailing list sent to objectors, to those who included an e-mail address, during the hearings. In it, a formal objector had stated that music industry executive had released its sales figures behind closed doors which should, as part of the hearings, be made publicly available. This has not been the case. If we are to object, it is only fair to see these figures and statistics if the purpose of these discussions is to hear and rebutt each side's arguments.

Why don't Apple and Creative among others help join in the fight? Apple, for example, could sell an iPOD w/o a hard drive. The media player now would not include the hard drive. Then they could sell separately a similar hard drive for data storage which would happen to work w/ the iPOD.

Complain to your MPPs. Boycott companies which belong to the RIAA. Buy music only from used record stores. Import you own CD-Rs.

The money collected from the levy's for over three years now has yet to be distributed to artist. To date some $20 Million has been collected. If the purpose of the levys is to compensate artists, where is the money going to go?

Does Canadian have an EFF?

[Zastrossi]

Recently I've become increasingly interested in digital rights issues. These include things like copyright law, online censorship, file-sharing networks, consumer rights and so on. The biggest NGO for these issues in the US is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Is there an analogous organization in Canada? After a Google search, I turned up the Electronic Frontier Canada. The Web site looked pretty, uh, "old school", so I sent an email to the EFF to enquire. They said that EF-Canada was not associated with them, and just a like-minded organization that was "moribund." If there isn't any such organization, myself and like-minded Canucks may try to ressurrect EF-Canada. Cheers. DB.

"Minister of Canadian Heritage"

[tonysee]

I'm a little confused... I went to the Canadian gov't web site and I couldn't figure out which of these two guys is the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can someone please clarify?

Data CD's

[Anonymous Coward]

The law assumes guilt that everyone who buys a blank tape or CD is pirating music - but anyone who uses CDs for data storage, for instance, knows that's not true!

*Looks at CDR library* Uh, yeah, that's the ticket!

newspapers should be illegal than too

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess, in all fairness, if you can't watch TV from another city-- then why should you be allowed to read a newspaper from another city either. Doesn't this impact the newspaper publisher in your city?

Keep the NY Times in NY... keep the Wall Street Journal on Wall Street! Stop sending it all over the damn country!

You Bastards. You're impacting the St. Paul Pioneer Press market share.

Up-to-date News. Keep informed.

[alexo]

As usual, Google comes to the rescue.

Please raise hell.

info from the government web site

[Alcoholist]

Quick search of www.gc.ca reveals this straight-forward document. I see nothing in it that mentions $21/GB

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/pr og s/pda-cpb/pubs/ompi-wapo/toc_e.cfm

Canadian Government No Different From American...

[Wanderer1]

The Internet has done one thing exceptionally well in it's brief existence in the public conscious; it has revealed that civilized Humanity, as a whole, is in dire need of rebuilding.

First: Building a business model on top of intangibles is foolish. Anyone who believes they should be entitled to making money for singing is a fool.

Second: The fact that the populous of America and Canada has allowed itself to be bullied and ruled by a group of individuals who have no sense of social responsibility is a testament to the fact that humanity loves dictators.

Third: That we sit here debating the right and wrong of paying for music (or a tax on media that could be used for storing music) and rebroadcasting signals that are transmitted in the free air around us is a testament to how feeble minded we've become.

Eventually we'll be faced with something important as a species that threatens our continued existence in this world, universe or general state of matter. We're wasting precious time dickering over things that have no consequence and eventually you will die of old age or disease and have so little to show for your time spent.

If this is our future, to bind humanity over intellectual property rights, I for one, welcome our destruction. What have we done to deserve more?

Bill

get your media from a non-levy country

[feldmark]

If you dont like the media levy, find a friend who reads Chinese, and purchase your media over the Internet directly from China. No levy here.

To paraphrase an oft expressed thought here: Now if every slashdot reader were to purchase their media directly from China and send an annonyous note to their legislator, the local store they usually buy from, and the company who makes the media they usually buy, perhaps someone would be incented to rethink the law.