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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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: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).

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?

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.

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

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

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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?

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.