Slashdot Mirror


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'!"

24 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 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.

    2. 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

    3. 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.

  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
  3. 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
  4. 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!
  5. 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!
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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?
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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
  17. 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.