Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bad News From Canada On NetTV And Media Levies

Posted by timothy on from the where's-the-line-for-cat-scan dept.

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'!"

55 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. makes sense to me. by empee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"?

    1. Re:makes sense to me. by empee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:makes sense to me. by Blkdeath · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    3. Re:makes sense to me. by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    4. Re:makes sense to me. by debrain · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:makes sense to me. by Jason1729 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    6. Re:makes sense to me. by Jason1729 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    7. Re:makes sense to me. by shepd · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    8. Re:makes sense to me. by Blkdeath · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    9. Re:makes sense to me. by nhavar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
    10. Re:makes sense to me. by grahamm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:makes sense to me. by mre5565 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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".

  2. Blame Canada! by n1ywb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
    1. Re:Blame Canada! by doowy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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).
      --
      ..mork
    2. Re:Blame Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  3. Re:ummm.... by sconeu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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).

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  4. Dashed Hopes? by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...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?

    --
    I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
    1. Re:Dashed Hopes? by topham · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  5. Nice self-serving comment by Theatetus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  6. Re:I'm not very hip by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  7. Bill C-32 already passed? by Rackemup · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:Bill C-32 already passed? by alfredw · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, sig types you!
  8. TV Signals, but what about non-live? by On+Lawn · · Score: 4, Interesting


    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.

  9. Impied Purchase by Foxxz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Impied Purchase by FreezerJam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Impied Purchase by Zspdude · · Score: 2, Informative
      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!

      --
      What's in a Sig?
  10. No big suprise by k-rammy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  11. Canadian Politics explained by arrogance · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:I'm not very hip by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  13. Simple Canadian Government by nuggz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  14. But hang on ... are we surprised? by kruetz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    --

    This sig intentionally left bla... dammit!
    Who's got the whiteout?
    1. Re:But hang on ... are we surprised? by MattW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  15. Not only Canada by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 ;-)

    --
    Write boring code, not shiny code!
  16. He doesn't really get it. by Dominic+Shrimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Those media levies by ashitaka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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....

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  18. Re:I'm not very hip (How CDN Gov't Works) by shadowspark · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  19. Ignorant Leaders by Typhon100 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

  20. The loophole... by TheBishop613 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  21. Ouch! by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Ouch! by Rackemup · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  22. There is no blank recording media levy. by Bishop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:There is no blank recording media levy. by Bishop · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  23. Misconceptions about how TV works by shadowj · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    --Larry

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

  24. Re:There is a blank recording media levy. by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
  25. The really sad thing is... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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.

    1. Re:The really sad thing is... by npadgett · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  26. Re:I'm not very hip by Scud_the_disposable_ · · Score: 2, Funny
    Just as a point of interest, one of the names the alliance party was considering was "the Canadian Reform Alliance Party.

    =)

    --
    tcpa SUX!!!!
  27. Sorry, but it's a democracy by MrYotsuya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"

  28. THIS ISN'T BAD........ by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2, Informative

    .....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!!!

  29. Canadian satellite TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  30. Re:Legal advice needed by DarkFyre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  31. Re:Legal advice needed by zcat_NZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  32. Re:An ignorant canuck ... by InadequateCamel · · Score: 2

    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)

  33. Re:This is bullshit! by cdn-programmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  34. Some thoughts by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?