Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Broadcasters Seek New Internet Regulation

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist's weekly Toronto Star column reports that the Canadian broadcasting community, including broadcasters, copyright collectives, and actor labor unions, are all calling on Canada's broadcast regulator to increase its regulation of the Internet. Some groups want sites such as YouTube to be subject to Canadian content requirements, while the broadcasters want to stop U.S. broadcasters from streaming television shows online into Canada."

171 comments

  1. Canadian content requirement... by rednip · · Score: 3, Funny

    To satisfy the Canadian content requirement, all one needs to do is add a couple minutes of the 'Great White North' to each of the YouTube clips.

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    1. Re:Canadian content requirement... by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

      Get in the 00s. = )
      http://www.trailerparkboys.com/

    2. Re:Canadian content requirement... by Xman73x · · Score: 0

      That is sad I watch YouTube..what do they think we have In the America Only bad things? Well you can blame that on the lazy parents today sorry but that fact is true!..But I still think Canada is Paranoid!

    3. Re:Canadian content requirement... by sledd_1 · · Score: 1

      I sorta preferred Northern Exposure. Bad humor, and Mounties - what else could we hope for?

      --
      I know a little sig that's just ten words long
    4. Re:Canadian content requirement... by Cygnostik · · Score: 0

      They should just build a big bubble around Canada, covered in anti RF paint. ZOMG! YouTube on teh intarweb! HIDE!

    5. Re:Canadian content requirement... by AdamD1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yikes. :(

      Remember also that in 1996 the CRTC unsuccessfully attempted to pass similar legislation regarding all content on the internet.

      I hate the CRTC. They have effectively ruined everything regarding broadcast and digital technology.

      The CRTC are also are a big reason that Tivo doesn't exist as a service in Canada.

      Sure, nice, fine: we get to hear that extra bit of Nelly Furtado (produced in America, by American musicians and producers, for an American label) and friggin' Nickelback. But can we download TV shows in iTunes? Nope. Movies? Nope. Can we get actual HBO anywhere? Nope. Up until mid-last-year there was also no satellite radio. The only reason we have it now is that they created several Canadian stations, literally none of which anyone I know even listens to at all.

      But we DO get endless reruns of Corner Gas on multiple tv stations. And we have ET Canada now. Which is nice... I guess... (Cheryl Hickie notwithstanding.)

      The CRTC is run by a bunch of 70-year-olds who still probably think Burton Cummings is "hit-worthy." I wish to god they would go away. If it actually led to greater talent discovery and exposure, then I'd be all for it. As it stands the truly good Canadian artists get absolutely no airplay anywhere. CRTC has outlived their usefulness if these are the kinds of battles they're choosing to fight, using my money.

      ad

      --
      Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
    6. Re:Canadian content requirement... by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      Well you knew that the CRTC was on crack when they approved Fox News but banned Aljazeera. In side by side comparisons with my newspeak-O-meter Fox News was the clear leader in dishing out dis/mis-information.

      Lets hope they redeem themselves with a sensible decision here.

    7. Re:Canadian content requirement... by stry_cat · · Score: 1

      If you really want CRTC to go away, you need to take action. Start a group to lobby for the abolition of the CRTC. Wishing to god and Complaining on /. ain't going to help. You're preaching to the choir mostly likely and well most of this choir probably doesn't even live in Canada (god only helps those who help themselves). Please do us all a favor as well as your fellow countrymen and go out and take action.

    8. Re:Canadian content requirement... by nobaloney · · Score: 1
      Up until mid-last-year there was also no satellite radio. The only reason we have it now is that they created several Canadian stations, literally none of which anyone I know even listens to at all.

      I do, but I don't count, because i'm the lower 48 :) .

  2. Why not take it one step further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should also require that when us Canadians are traveling and staying in US hotel rooms, all the channels should be changed to show Canadian content only... regulation of the Internet in this way seems just as stupid to me.

    1. Re:Why not take it one step further by mrbcs · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Thought it was still april fools day, still a Typical Canuck response.. "oh our shitty content can't cut it so we better regulate it to death".

      Like we need more swivel servants in Ottawa..

      Regulating the internet is like trying to regulate the weather.

      Fools.. (and my tax dollars would have to pay for this crap) /canuck

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    2. Re:Why not take it one step further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I control the weather all the time. I am smart like that. I built a house to prevent the wind and precipitation from getting to me and a heat pump to keep the temperature where i want it.

    3. Re:Why not take it one step further by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      still a Typical Canuck response.. "oh our shitty content can't cut it so we better regulate it to death".

      The sad part is we're putting out some great stuff lately. Corner Gas, Trailer Park Boys, Kenny vs. Spenny...

      And the sad part is I too thought it was an April fools headline too... How can we be so daft to think we can regulate a site out of our country?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  3. Internet's reply: by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

    "Go fuck yourself."

    It's one thing for American lobbies to push for government regulation of the internet, given our government can be bought, and we do still control the internet to a significant degree. Just what the hell do these guys think they can accomplish?

    Any laws passed in deference to these idiots will have all the power of a UN resolution.

    1. Re:Internet's reply: by spun · · Score: 1

      Any laws passed in deference to these idiots will have all the power of a UN resolution.

      No, they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Internet's reply: by pasamio · · Score: 1

      So the great firewall of Canada? Makes them sound like another nation that starts with C and what they do with objectionable internet content. The proof is there...I guess Canada would just be the next!

      --
      I always wondered where this setting was...
    3. Re:Internet's reply: by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

      My statement stands, mostly due to the fact that Canada's government isn't irrational enough to think that a good idea and actually pass that law.

      Well, one would hope.

    4. Re:Internet's reply: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is really just another protectionist measure from a bunch of companies that act like a cartel... If direct tv was allowed in - it would wipe the floor with Rogers and Bell and they know it. I'm fed up seeing utter crap Canadian comedy (Air Farce etc) get a place on TV because of 'Canadian content' rulings, the sooner the internet gives me access to HBO et al and allows me to stop paying the Rogers tax.. the better.

    5. Re:Internet's reply: by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, exactly. I wasn't saying they will, I'm just saying they can. Your original post made it sound as if they don't have the capability to even attempt something like that, when in fact they do, they just lack the political motivation for something so dumb.

      I doubt any country would be dumb enough to try to firewall off commercial content that certain national industries don't want. Based on the rulings regarding Internet gambling, I'd be willing to bet that the WTO would come down against a country trying that as de facto restraint of trade.

      I'm pretty sure the only country-wide firewalling we'll see will be ideological, not commercial.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Internet's reply: by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      No, they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.

      Nose, meet knife. This is in regard to your upcoming appointment with the face.

    7. Re:Internet's reply: by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      This is EXACTLY the right response. Trying to push all the little conditions on web sites in other countries is irrational (just like the US tries to do with gambling.) This needs to be done at the Canadian ISP level. Of course no matter WHAT "solution" is mandated, it can be bypassed with redirectors / proxies.

      The real answer of course it to tell all the whanking whiners to STFU and come up with a valid business model for the modern world.

    8. Re:Internet's reply: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada's expected reply: "Well, that's a rather rude way to put it, but point taken. Thank you."

    9. Re:Internet's reply: by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More likely they will push for a new tax much the same as for blank CDs, an Internet connection tax where 10% of your Internet bill goes to the pigoplists, this would of course include Internet phone calls, because all you canucks talk about is new ways to fill blank CDs with pirated content.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. XBL Marketplace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder its taking microsoft ages to get the Xbox live video marketplace setup properly in canada.
    I want to download HD movies when i want, not when canada wants me to.

  5. What are they going to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cut the cables at the canadien border? Put a tax on ip packets? Block wireless? I have this great picture of people surreptitiously beaming signal from huts on the US side to "internet freedom" fighters in the great white north...

    1. Re:What are they going to do? by Andrewkov · · Score: 1
      Put a tax on ip packets?

      There's finally a use for the Evil Bit.

  6. Dear CRTC by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Canadian Radio and Television Commision:

    The internet is neither radio, nor television, nor Canadian, so keep your regulatory hands in your pockets.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Dear CRTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On second read, I did find insight on you post...

      The whole concept of can-con regulation is because those mediums are one to many. Thus, control of distribution is held by the broadcasters.

      But the internet is many-to-many, so Canadian artists can get their message out just as easily as their American counterparts.

      So you're right, the internet != radio or television.

    2. Re:Dear CRTC by i_should_be_working · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, good point. It's funny how some people just can't seem to get that the internet changes everything. With radio and television it was somewhat reasonable for the government to insist that a portion be Canadian content. There used to be a limited amount of stuff that could be broadcast across the airwaves. And many people, including myself, wanted to hear/see local (as in Canadian) artists.

      But now with the internet it doesn't cost anybody anything extra to get content from everywhere. Having access to terabytes of Japanese anime and American country music doesn't at all limit my access to Canadian artists.

    3. Re:Dear CRTC by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Who's to say it isn't television? Or Radio? Just because the transport is different doesn't mean that it's not television. I'll give you that's it's not Canadian, but neither is Fox,NBC,ABC or CBS. Yet if they're playing the same show as a Canadian broadcaster then then Canadian show (with canadian commercials) gets shown instead.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Dear CRTC by i_wanna_be_a_scienti · · Score: 1

      Precisely Its alot harder to regulate website - if one gets shut down, then you could just set up another one as easily or even set it up in another country, and access it from there

    5. Re:Dear CRTC by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      That's a broad definition of reasonable. Mandatory content is wrong on so many levels, one of which is that it violates freedom of speech, an other that it's basically censorship in reverse.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    6. Re:Dear CRTC by sigzero · · Score: 0

      The "transport" is what makes it not television or radio.

    7. Re:Dear CRTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandatory content is pihsrosnec?

    8. Re:Dear CRTC by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like our agencies don't change names.

      Just ask Customs... or CRA... or CCRA... or Revenue Canada... or the Ministry of National Revenue.

      (For the non-Canadians in the crowd, that's the same agency, with a few name and focus changes over the years.)

      They'll just repackage the CRTC as the Canadian Heritage and Information Agency or something that doesn't spell "CHIA". With the repackaging, they get an Internet control mandate.

      I'd be willing to accept this: Downloading MP3s remains legal in Canada as long as 25% or more of my collection is by Canadian artists.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    9. Re:Dear CRTC by tb3 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for your argument, it's the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission link, so it may well be within their jurisdiction.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    10. Re:Dear CRTC by Khaed · · Score: 1

      The internet is neither radio, nor television, nor Canadian, so keep your regulatory hands in your pockets.

      Wow.

      I wish I'd thought of that line. You're my hero for stuffing all that into one sentence and not saying it in the way I had in mind. (for the curious, "Piss off, turdburglars.")

    11. Re:Dear CRTC by JDHannan · · Score: 1

      ACTUALLY its the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Us Canadians dont give up our Radio-televisions easily

    12. Re:Dear CRTC by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Touché. I stand corrected on that part. However, I'd much rather have them deal with spam, telemarketers, and autodialer ads than this.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:Dear CRTC by Dakuma · · Score: 1

      Well put.

    14. Re:Dear CRTC by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      In fact, get your regulatory hands OUT of your pockets, and stop this political wankfest!

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    15. Re:Dear CRTC by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Radio is how television has traditionally been transmitted, at least until the last couple decades. You can have vision-at-a-distance without using precious EM spectrum.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  7. Ok... by Stanistani · · Score: 1

    Since the Canadian Air Force is equipped with those fantastic Avro Arrows, they'll have no problem enforcing this...

    1. Re:Ok... by NeilTheStupidHead · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know? The CBC movie and all those books are a cover-up to make everyone THINK Dief scrapped the CF-105 program. Now we're on to the Arrow Mk III which can reach orbit on demand, is built entirely from recycled materials, is solar powered and makes the F-302 look like a pile of crap. :P

      --
      Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together
  8. eh? by virchull · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If Canada doesn't want our streaming video, then the US can stop using Canadian newsprint paper supply. Is that a fair trade, eh?

  9. what's a little competition here and there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds to me like the broadcasters just can't take the competition. If they are producing quality shows then they shouldn't have to worry about youtube or television networks posting shows online.

    1. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by Brickwall · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I think the issue here is Canadian broadcasters pay US networks for the rights to certain shows. For example, CTV has "Lost" and the "CSI" and "Law and Order" franchises, while Global got the "Survivor" series, "Shark", etc. If people are going to stream those videos in Canada, those broadcasters want them streamed from their sites, not US sites. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

      And, FWIW, as a Canadian, when I went to abc.com to view the episode of "Lost" I had missed, I was told that I was ineligible to view it, as I was accessing the site from Canada. So at a technical level, it looks like it is feasible to block Canadians, and as I noted above, it's not an issue of Canadian broadcasters producing quality shows or not; it's an issue of them protecting the rights that they have paid for.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    2. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by gripen40k · · Score: 1

      I went to abc.com to view the episode of "Lost" I had missed, I was told that I was ineligible to view it *cough*torrent*cough*
      --
      Har?
    3. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If people are going to stream those videos in Canada, those broadcasters want them streamed from their sites, not US sites. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

      It's unreasonable because all of these artificial boundaries are bullshit. The internet is a challenge to the established order because the only boundaries it recognizes are those between networks. On the internet we are all peers. Anyone can produce and distribute content. As you may have noticed, this terrifies the entrenched media conglomerates.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      these artificial boundaries are bullshit. Yes, they are, but if company A is going to take company B's money for exclusive distribution rights within an artificial boundary, then they ought to play fair no matter what distribution technology is used. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are, but if company A is going to take company B's money for exclusive distribution rights within an artificial boundary, then they ought to play fair no matter what distribution technology is used.

      The rights to distribute via broadcast and via videotape are different rights. Why should the right to distribute via the internet not also be a distinct right?

      The solution to this problem is not a law. It's litigation between the corporations in question. Rather than filtering, which attacks valid content as well, the solution is to account for it in your contracts.

      If I wanted to force people to carry something from point A to point B by hand I wouldn't stipulate that they were not permitted not to distribute it by train, automobile, or jet pack, because someone might invent teleportation. I'd stipulate that it must be carried by hand. What's so complex about this concept?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by w3woody · · Score: 1

      It's unreasonable because all of these artificial boundaries are bullshit.


      The boundaries that keep people from walking in your front door and eating your food from your refrigerator before changing into your clothes and walking out of your home with your laptop computer are also artificial.

      Hmmm. Wonder if you think those artifical boundaries are also bullshit.

      Sure the Internet is turning things on their heads. That's why legal types are still debating what to do about it. Did you think someone was going to give up a few million dollars in broadcast rights because while you think rights to your property should be protected, their property rights are bullshit?
    7. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The boundaries that keep people from walking in your front door and eating your food from your refrigerator before changing into your clothes and walking out of your home with your laptop computer are also artificial.

      Not all of them. Some of those boundaries are physical. Like the wall, and the door.

      And by the way, the only artificial boundary that ACTUALLY keeps that from happening is me, with a gun. The cops aren't there to protect you. They're there to punish people.

      Sure the Internet is turning things on their heads. That's why legal types are still debating what to do about it. Did you think someone was going to give up a few million dollars in broadcast rights because while you think rights to your property should be protected, their property rights are bullshit?

      My point is that no new legislation is required. Just make sure that your contracts are correctly written. That's what those lawyers are paid for, yes?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The rights to distribute via broadcast and via videotape are different rights. Why should the right to distribute via the internet not also be a distinct right?

      The solution to this problem is not a law. It's litigation between the corporations in question.

      Hey, I'm not saying I support them, I'm just saying that there's a logic to it.

      Frankly, I find the whole idea of distribution rights evil. It leads to a local channel airing Babylon 5 at 12:05am, or delays in airing, and other assorted shenanigans. But since they made a deal for TV rights, if the TV show is distributed to their customers in the same timeframe by another means, then they are getting screwed, so I see why they're pushing for a law to unscrew them.

      The telecom companies still don't get the net. They still think that a screen is a screen, it's the same cable plugging into it, it should work the same way.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    9. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by norman619 · · Score: 1

      LOL!!! He was talking about BS boundries which peopel are trying to impose on the INTERNET. Some people.... Must be a Canadian. :P

    10. Re:what's a little competition here and there? by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      My point is that no new legislation is required. Just make sure that your contracts are correctly written.

      In my limited experience, that has happened. abc.com won't let me, a Canadian, download shows that their Canadian partners have paid for. I haven't tried it with cbs or nbc or fox, so I don't know if the same holds for them, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. But I can understand why CTV or Global would be pissed if someone posted an entire episode of say, CSI, on youtube that CTV had paid the Canadian rights for, just as I'm sure CBS would be mightily pissed off in the US.

      And there is a market for these shows, even after they've aired originally. For example, I enjoy both "24" and "Prison Break", but with them going on hiatus frequently, changing air times, etc., I've lost track with both current seasons. So I'm waiting for them to come out on DVD, so I can watch the entire season at once - and I'll pay for the privilege of seeing it without commercials. Now if all those episodes were available on youtube (or via torrents), it's pretty clear that the value of the franchise is diminished.

      Now, I think the compromise on recorded music in Canada makes some sense; we pay a premium for rip media, and that is used to compensate artists (and the record companies, of course) in return for allowing us to download music, and basically use our music collections as we see fit. But there currently is no such compromise for TV shows, and I can understand why broadcasters are concerned.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
  10. Encrypted Internet Access by beckerist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Somehow I see this as one more huge step towards a boom in anonymous web surfing.

  11. What an excellent way to deal with obesity! by Semptimilius · · Score: 0, Troll

    Canada has high levels of obesity. Children are especially blubbery. If they are forced to watch more Canadian content, and can't get around it on the internet and the like, perhaps they'll decide to get out more and exercise.

  12. That's a good one! by Rakarra · · Score: 0

    Hahahaha! Oh, I love these April Fools stories. My favorite day of the year on Slashdot. ...

    This is an April Fools Day story, right? ... :-(

  13. A call to arms by Grashnak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Some groups want sites such as YouTube to be subject to Canadian content requirements Fellow Canadians, I am shocked to learn that YouTube is apparently not meeting its committment to ensure that at least 30% of its content is Canadian. I call upon all of you to immediately get a camcorder and make a tape of: yourself smashing your testes during an ill-fated skateboard stunt; two drunk Canadian girls kissing; a dog (Canadian) biting someone's crotch; your sister, passed out and naked; Canadian ninjas fighting Canadian pirates, or; a montage of guys showing off their plumbers butts at hockey games.

    Only by lowering ourselves to their level will we ever be fairly represented on YouTube.
    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
    1. Re:A call to arms by slashbob22 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only by lowering ourselves to their level will we ever be fairly represented on YouTube. Just make sure we post in both official languages. The French Language Commission may follow up with whatever the CRTC leaves behind.
      --
      Proof by very large bribes. QED.
    2. Re:A call to arms by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I realize you're trying to be funny, but you do illustrate the point well. How is a site consisting only of user created content supposed to adhere to content laws? How are they supposed to control the amount of Canadian content?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:A call to arms by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

      While I realize you're trying to be funny, but you do illustrate the point well. How is a site consisting only of user created content supposed to adhere to content laws? How are they supposed to control the amount of Canadian content? Spam youtube with Clips of Celine Dion?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:A call to arms by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      If you want a certain percentage of YouTube content to be Canadian, and the non-Canadian content outnumbers Canadian content by an unacceptable margin, you simply require that YouTube make large amounts of non-Canadian content unavailable to Canadians.

      YouTube will simply detect your IP, and if you are in Canada, you will have greatly restricted access.

    5. Re:A call to arms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen some of those amatuer canada posts on the usenet...and I'd like to say that adding more content of that type would be much appreciated!

    6. Re:A call to arms by gobbo · · Score: 1

      [shameless SP]
      It's a good point, and, fed up with the lowest common denominator, some friends and I are going to be posting about 5 hours of student videos (about 50) to youtube in the coming week, culled from about 4000, from the Gulf Islands Film and Television School near Vancouver and Victoria. They were all made guerilla flim style, with prosumer gear and in under a week. That 'film boot camp' indie style quick training is just what is needed for the lumpen proletubiat to start making something a little more worthwhile than drunken crotchbiting animashup ninjaporn.
      [/shameless SP]

      About 30% of these films involve at least one scene of people running through the woods; how's that for canadian content, eh?

    7. Re:A call to arms by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

      I think the old Beachcombers episodes dubbed into French should all be uploaded into YouTube just to make everyone happy.

    8. Re:A call to arms by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      By monitoring and actively refusing some of the content from other countries?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    9. Re:A call to arms by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      How is a site consisting only of user created content supposed to adhere to content laws? How are they supposed to control the amount of Canadian content?

      But the broadcasters, at least, (I have no comment on CanCon freaks; they are nuts IMHO) are not complaining about "user created content" - they are complaining about the retransmission of content the broadcasters have paid for by people who aren't doing anything in the way of changing or adding to the original content. For example, if someone wanted to cut and clip a bunch of scenes together, as Steve Martin did in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid", I'd defend that as 'fair use'. But to just post entire episodes of TV shows without any significant value added - I don't think that's right.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    10. Re:A call to arms by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 1

      I'll show my plumber's butt at Lacrosse games, thank you very much! Other than that, okay, I'm up to the challenge. BTW, is it alright if I use pictures of your sister, passed out and naked? My sister looks like crap in just snowmobile boots and a toque.

  14. Scott by rlp · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a request from Scott

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  15. They just Talk by wboy · · Score: 1

    Canada loves to talk and explore ideas and treats all ideas equal regardless of merit. They are trying to push Canadian content on anything broadcast in Canada. What is a broadcast? How do they know what is Canadian. If I video my wacky in-laws in Vancouver and put it on say, Youtube.ca, that is Canadian content at it best. Laughs, its impossible to govern and tell what is digitally created in Canada

    Canada has the CBC for Canadian content and very few Canadians watch it. It is so bad, it is embarrassing to watch.

    1. Re:They just Talk by IgLou · · Score: 1

      It just cheeses me off, how we waste time on talking about things like this?? Now, this is coming from traditional broadcasters who don't have a clue about what they are asking. They're just trying to demonize the internet further and trying to get a piece using guile and bureaucracy. I'm annoyed at how we are wasting dollars even considering this. I started a dialog recently with my MP on the peer-to-peer debate. But rather than agreeing with my "if no one is profiting from it it's not piracy", I was given the answer of "we are commited to finding a solution suitable to all parties involved". That pisses me off. Sometimes leadership means telling people off and sticking up for the public that elects you. Instead there are all these "interest groups" that have the ear of the government that influence the government and make them jump through hoops and I a member of the public is politely told to move along... ARGH!

      So, to every Canadian politician out there, grow a pair and stand up for the people that actually elect you not faceless interest groups!

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:They just Talk by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I watch the CBC quite regularly, and I really enjoy most of the stuff I watch, so I'd think that your observation is a highly subjective statement.

    3. Re:They just Talk by spikedvodka · · Score: 2, Informative

      I enjoy watching CBC... Where else can I get my fix of the Royal Canadian Air Farce?...

      and Yes I live in the US, but get Canuck Cable, and I could, If I chose to, spit across the border from my bed-room

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    4. Re:They just Talk by Brill · · Score: 1

      you're such an idiot. CBC does fine.

    5. Re:They just Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French-language sibling of CBC doesn't do too bad actually. They have several of the top watch shows in French Canada (yes, mostly Quebec), which does watch a greater fraction of Canadian content than other stations. Then again, lots of American Network shows are produced in Canada, like Battlestar Galactica, Stargate... (OK, I'm a geek and those are the ones that interest me). . How do those count? .

    6. Re:They just Talk by NetNed · · Score: 0

      Very few Canadians watch hockey night in Canada on CBC? hmmm don't you guy use "eh" anymore either? Geez never thought that would change eh?

  16. Streaming from U.S networks by jimand · · Score: 1

    From TFA, the CAB fears that U.S. broadcasters will simply stream their programming into Canada

    Except whenever I try to stream something from a U.S. network I get a message like "Not available in your region". There's no advantage for a U.S network to stream to Canada because the streamed ads are intended for a U.S. market. My guess is that the advertisers pay/view and they don't want to pay for Canadian eyes.

    1. Re:Streaming from U.S networks by karmatic · · Score: 1

      There's no advantage for a U.S network to stream to Canada because the streamed ads are intended for a U.S. market. My guess is that the advertisers pay/view and they don't want to pay for Canadian eyes.


      That argument holds water only until the US content providers find advertisers willing to pay for ad impressions to Canadians.
    2. Re:Streaming from U.S networks by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      That argument holds water only until the US content providers find advertisers willing to pay for ad impressions to Canadians.

      Who will those advertisers be? Maybe a handful of global brands? The future of advertising is smart targeted advertising, not creating a vauge global advertising campaign that tries to appeal to all nationalities, sexes, ages, and demographics. I think that if anything, advertising will become even more specialized (you are an 18 year old female, living in suburban toronto, and you show a preference for hip-hop music, so we a stream an ad specialized to appeal exactly to your demographic).

    3. Re:Streaming from U.S networks by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      All three of the above posters are idiots who understand nothing about current media policies. The big shows in the US are licensed by various Canadian networks, who use their licenses to create various "mini-markets" across Canada. You don't see exactly the same ads while watching "24" on Global Toronto as you see on Global Vancouver.

      Do some global brands get advertised on this show? Of course! Ford, or Toyota, or Coke: many global brands advertise here. Do some regional brands advertise on this show? Absolutely! I see ads for Toronto services on one channel, and Vancouver services on another. Do some absolutely city specific ads get advertised here? Yes. So, when you talk about 'smart,targeted advertising' in the context of cities like Calgary or Edmonton with roughly 1 million viewers apiece, it seems to me that they are already breaking ads down into the kind of granulation you speak of.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    4. Re:Streaming from U.S networks by karmatic · · Score: 1

      Who will those advertisers be?

      Well, "global brands" aside, how about the obvious? Canadian companies might just be willing to buy ads which are shown to canadians. Despite the fact that my sites tend to be American in focus and demographic, I've still sold ads to companies wanting to reach a specific demographic outside the US.

      Other than rights sold off to Canadian affiliates, what is to stop Fox US from showing 24 on their web site, and doing targeting based off IP address? Viewers in Canada get ads for Canadian companies, sold by Fox US to those companies. Visitors in the US get ads sold to US companies. Costs a couple hundred dollars to license a geolocation database, and a few hours development work to add support to ad serving software. It's not rocket science.
  17. I'll karma slut here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    The sketch was conceived when SCTV moved to the CBC television network. Each episode to be broadcast on that network was two minutes longer than those syndicated to the United States. The CBC network heads asked the show's producers to add specifically and identifiably Canadian content for those two minutes. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas thought that this was a ridiculous request, since the show had been taped in Canada, with a mostly Canadian cast and crew, for two years. The request inspired them to create a parody that would incorporate every aspect of the humorous stereotype of Canadians.

    I also saw the PBS (USA) special about SCTV. It was a funny show.

    Oh, PBS (USA) is now airing Dr. Who!!!!!!

    Who yeah!!!!!

  18. Canada uber alles by coltrane679 · · Score: 0, Troll

    What a fucking joke. What will these clowns do when they get their next Paul Bernado type case? The internet isn't like newspapers--you can't seize them at the border.

    I like Canada very much, especially BC, but sometimes the silliness up there can be overwhelming.

    1. Re:Canada uber alles by esobofh · · Score: 1

      This isn't canada, it's government or the CRTC. It's labour unions and other dumb asses that think they can get some more money.

      --

      ----------------------------
      Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
    2. Re:Canada uber alles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some things are indeed universal (stupid gov't, regulatory agencies, labor unions and other dumb asses)

  19. Into Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would TV be streamed from the US into Canada? Canada airs shows months before the US does.

  20. Obligatory by sugapablo · · Score: 1

    This will go over about as well as the McKenzie Brothers' attempt to get free beer from the liquor store. :)

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=KWzdOKCb-Gw

    1. Re:Obligatory by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      This will go over about as well as the McKenzie Brothers' attempt to get free beer from the liquor store.

      The liquor store? In Ontario in the 1980's? Sorry, my friend, it was "The Beer Store".

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    2. Re:Obligatory by tb3 · · Score: 1

      In Ontario, in the 80's, it was The Brewers' Retail.
      You're probably too young to remember. :-P

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    3. Re:Obligatory by Howserx · · Score: 1

      or a quick run across the border into Quebec to get some at the deppaneur (or SAQ, if you actually were old enough to legally buy)

      --
      I support the troops. I pay f'ing taxes.
    4. Re:Obligatory by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      Too young? I remember when you had to fill out slips at the LCBO, hand them in at one counter, and pick up your package at another one. Apparently, the LCBO heads studied marketing in Soviet Russia.

      But I digress.. yes, the official name was the "Brewers' Retail", but every single person I know (including the Mackenzie brothers) referred to it as the "Beer Store". Seriously, did you know anyone who said "I'm off to the Brewers"?

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    5. Re:Obligatory by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Did I miss something? Did the LCBO start up only recently? Was the beer store really the only place to get booze in the 80s?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    6. Re:Obligatory by tb3 · · Score: 1

      I remember that era of the LCBO too. I think there was a store in Ottawa that used that system up until the early 1980's. Ontario is remarkably puritan. There used to be a law that you couldn't carry your glass of beer around in bars. You had to sit at a table or the bar, and if you wanted to move, the barman or waitress had to move your drink for you.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    7. Re:Obligatory by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      The beer store was the only place to get beer in the 1980's in Ontario. Wine and spirits were from the LCBO, beer from Brewer's Retail. Thank god times have changed.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
  21. WTF is Free Trade for anyway? by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If Canada doesn't want to compete with the US in various sectors, why did it opt in to NAFTA?

    Canada needs to friggen grow up.

    1. Re:WTF is Free Trade for anyway? by Howserx · · Score: 2, Informative

      who says we did? We had an asslicking Reagan toady as a PM that signed us up for it.

      --
      I support the troops. I pay f'ing taxes.
    2. Re:WTF is Free Trade for anyway? by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Canada doesn't want to compete with the US in various sectors, why did it opt in to NAFTA?
      Canada needs to friggen grow up. 1- Soft lumber, STFU.

      2- Culture is excluded from trade agreements.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:WTF is Free Trade for anyway? by rustalot42684 · · Score: 1

      [pedantry]Softwood Lumber [/pedantry].

  22. Culture fascism by Butisol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a Canadian, these kinds of stories are very disturbing. It's not so much that I'm worried about these laws actually passing as I'm worried about the socio-political ideology in which these ideas are born. On the one hand are profit driven enterprises trying to protect their markets, which is nothing new and quite expected. But on the other hand in the ministries is a virulent strain of "we have the right to decide how much of what Canadian viewers get to see in the name of protecting 'Canadian culture'." THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHAT MEDIA I HAVE ACCESS TO. This is just as reprehensible as the Catholic church burning pagan classical writings, without even the excuse that it's for a divine purpose.

    Rip those fucking fascists. Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid!!!! Berzerker!!!

    1. Re:Culture fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian, I think you misunderstand the whole point of these regulations. It's to ensure that Canadian artists, who have a lot less funding than their American counter-parts, get a chance at the same exposure through the same channels - it's not to control what you can and can't see. In fact, name me one thing that you are prevented from seeing by these laws - as far as I know, you're free to go and subscribe to American television and, if you live close to the border, listen to their radio. I think the ideal behind these legislations is good because without it, Canadian culture would otherwise be American.

      That being said, I don't think that legislation is necessary for the Internet - I just don't see how they could enforce any of this. Legislation without enforcement is just posturing and a waste of money and time. The Internet is just too fundamentally different a medium - it has an "unlimited" number of channels and anyone can trivially become a broadcaster for very little cost. This is significantly different than radio and television where the number of channels are limited and broadcasting is price prohibitive.

    2. Re:Culture fascism by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1
      Trying to regulate the internet is just wrong. I know that. However...

      in the ministries is a virulent strain of "we have the right to decide how much of what Canadian viewers get to see in the name of protecting 'Canadian culture'."
      As it stands, I don't think enforcing/subsidising the native culture is too bad. All that they're specifying is a ratio between Canadian content and foreign content. Out of the foreign content, you (the media consumers) can choose whatever you want. This just ensures that the market can try native Canadian culture, without it being washed out by the influential culture pouring from America. And it helps the economy.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  23. Read that again by LihTox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait a second...
    "The Canadian broadcasting community, including broadcasters, copyright collectives, and actor labor unions, are all calling on Canada's broadcast regulator to increase its regulation of the Internet."

    Well, of course they are. The American broadcasting community wants increased regulation of the Internet, too. Heck, the Tongan broadcasting community probably wants it too. We should keep an eye on them, but don't blame Canada for having greedy broadcasters.

    1. Re:Read that again by VE3OGG · · Score: 1

      Especially since many Canadian broadcasters are at the very least dependent on a great deal of American television tripe (as opposed to the Canadian tripe), and in actual fact, many have at least a somewhat significant American ownership...

  24. Fear the norrth! by josh_db · · Score: 2

    Canada is slowly becoming the North American equivalent of Britain and France combined in the some of the worst ways - Legislated to death and it rewards its citizens for 'waiting for the government to do something about it.' At least they shave their pits (Or so I believe)

  25. Can't be done. by Qwavel · · Score: 1


    I've heard a number of Canadian artists say that the CRTC, the gov, and particularly the cancon rules, have saved Canadian culture and the Canadian artists. So, if what they are asking for could be done then that would be great.

    But it can't.

    1. Re:Can't be done. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've heard a number of Canadian artists say that the CRTC, the gov, and particularly the cancon rules, have saved Canadian culture and the Canadian artists. So, if what they are asking for could be done then that would be great.

      An alternative argument would be that if Canadian culture is so great, it will preserve itself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Can't be done. by metamatic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, I've visited Canadian art museums in Quebec and BC, and I'm afraid my viewpoint is that quotas and subsidy have resulted in a lot of really bad third-rate art. Whereas the UK has no quotas forcing anyone to feature UK artists on radio or TV, yet continues to have world-class TV and music.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    3. Re:Can't be done. by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      An alternative argument would be that if Canadian culture is so great, it will preserve itself. Another arguement would be that there is no real Canadian culture - there is Quebec culture, Newfoundland culture, Alberta culture, First Nations culture, Chinese immigrant culture, etc. - and that attempts to promote an imaginary single catch-all "Canadian" culture actually destroy the many real cultures (plural) of Canada.
    4. Re:Can't be done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it gets better.

      The Canadian regulators get REALLY upset and unhappy when Canadian artists become "too popular" in America. Fundamentally, the regulators are the same touchy-feely types who endlessly gripe about big box stores destroying small businesses, and throw away CDs they used to like because the group "sold out" and became "too commercially successful". If they had their way, Canadian artists would spend the rest of their lives as poor indie artists unknown south of the border (at least, as anything besides an ultra-niche market).

    5. Re:Can't be done. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      the UK [...] continues to have world-class TV and music.

      Hahaha. That would be why the shows I (a Brit) do actually watch are The Simpsons, House, South Park, Family Guy, Futurama, CSI, .....

    6. Re:Can't be done. by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't account for your lack of taste. Some people even think Seinfeld is funny.

      The League of Gentlemen, Dr Who, Spaced, Life On Mars, Green Wing, The Office, Wire in the Blood, Spooks... No, nothing worth watching there, eh?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    7. Re:Can't be done. by Qwavel · · Score: 1

      Hum... the BBC gets five times as much per capita as the CBC. I wouldn't call that no subsidies.

  26. take OFF, eh, you hosers by swschrad · · Score: 1

    for Canada, then, just work up software at YouTube that puts toques and beers on everybody in those videos when the IP request comes from up north, eh.

    it worked for SCTV, eh.

    so then should shortwave radios in Quebec have translation software so all the stations you listen to come in speaking French? it would be funny to hear Nutjob of Iran on the news, eh, speaking in French. "Death to America. Get me another beer, eh?"

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  27. Objectionable? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Funny

    >they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.

    Having watched Canadian television, I, for one, find the concept of watching television content that Canadian broadcasters find objectionable terrifying.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Objectionable? by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      That sentence was really hard for me to read, and having nailed down some sort of rhythm to reading it, I don't think I understand the point you were trying to make... can you please clarify?

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    2. Re:Objectionable? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1
      Hmmm.... Yep, pretty tortured syntax. :-) How about this?

      I have watched Canadian television. It already sucks, and I am terrified by the idea that there is television content that Canadian broadcasters find objectionable.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Objectionable? by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      Ahh much nicer. I don't think I got anything near that meaning previously. Well said.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
  28. dont wana be.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sigh* Ignoring the story, just reading this stuff reminds me why everyone hates americans.

  29. BULLSHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm Canadian and I don't remember requesting nor mandating anyone in our government to make any changes at all to the Internet.
    This sounds like another MPAA RIAA or other mafiAA tactic to try to strip our freedom.
    Take off, eh, you hosers!
    Leave my Internet alone!

  30. Liberals the lot of them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michael (liberal) Geist's weekly Toronto Star (liberal) column reports that the Canadian broadcasting community (liberals), including broadcasters (liberals), copyright collectives (liberals), and actor labor unions (liberals), are all calling on Canada's broadcast regulator (liberal) to increase its regulation of the Internet. Some groups (liberals) want sites such as YouTube to be subject to Canadian content requirements, while the broadcasters (liberals) want to stop U.S. broadcasters from streaming television shows online into Canada.

    Yawn... nothing new here. Canadian Liberals never want regulation - unless their monopoly is threatened!

    1. Re:Liberals the lot of them... by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      Some people are dumb, particularly Americans who don't understand the meaning of the word liberal. The origin of the word liberal derives from the British Liberal party who when it first adopted the name in the 19th century when they stood for free-trade and unbridled capitalism as opposed to the Tories or conservatives as they are also called who stood for tariffs and government regulation to keep grain prices high to benefit agricultural landowners.

      Nowadays liberal by and large means a neo-con in sheep's clothing. Personally I think all professional politicians whether they are described as liberal or conservatives should be hung up from the nearest lamppost by their balls (I guess we will have to think of a different part of their anatomy for Hilary and Condi, but then again maybe not).

      Back to the article, professor Geist argues that unregulated new media on the Internet will increase Canadian content available rather than reduce it. This is opposed to the arguments put forward by the big Canadian media corporations and other special interest groups who are using it as an excuse to to try and grab hold of new revenue streams. Two opposed sides whose positions have nothing to do with the much misused word "liberal". Here in Canada we have a big L Liberal Party who in government turns onto craven conservatives but in opposition (like now) shift rapidly to the left (though not with out the odd bit of "law and order waffle" so as not to alienate the rednecks) to prevent being outflanked by the New Democrats and the Greens. They are all corrupt and bought and sold by the corporations like pork-belly futures, just as in the U.S.

  31. CanCon by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why do they always have to embarass us like this? The great thing about youtube is that all the media is in direct competition. It's exactly the arena where Canadian content should shine -- any of it that is worth seeing in the first place, that is. It's not like with television where networks can be deliberately myopic about only selecting programs that will appeal to American demographics. The very nature of youtube makes nationality irrelevant. Canadians can access all of the Canadian content on youtube just as easily as they can access the American, Russian, or Swahili content.

    If Canadian broadcasters want Canadians to see Canadian content on youtube, they should put some awesome videos on youtube and then promote them to people. THAT'S how you encourage the development and advancement of culture. By making things that kick ass and then spreading them far and wide, not by keeping out things that happen to kick asses of the wrong nationality. Maybe if they'd get past their intense penis-envy towards American-style copyright law, they would see that.

    1. Re:CanCon by MyIS · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Internet streaming works specifically to prevent the traditional "brain drain" that Canadian creative industry has had to deal with so far. With YouTube and the upcoming paid content streaming solutions you don't have to go to Los Angeles to be able to distribute you awesome new show to a wider audience. Too bad that this would also mean directly competing with content industries that are *not* spoon-fed by the government and are leaner and meaner that way.

      --
      http://zero-to-enterprise.blogspot.com/
    2. Re:CanCon by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Canadian broadcasters want Canadians to see Canadian content on youtube, they should put some awesome videos on youtube and then promote them to people. THAT'S how you encourage the development and advancement of culture. AMEN!

      Just like the BBC did: Open up a Director channel, upload some cool stuff (like clips of David Attenborough narrating the lives of neat animals, for instance).

      I would love it, LOVE IT, if the Film Board would put some of their content on youTube, or their own version of archive.org, or SOMETHING. Now that would promote canadian culture and content.
      This move, however, seems to be a way for telecoms to cash in, using culture as a pretext.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:CanCon by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      Well, the government support of big media is definitely its own problem. When you look at the pissing matches between California and BC over how heavily they can subsidize film production, or the lobbying that goes on to strip the public of basic free speech rights (let alone the fair-use rights), it becomes pretty obvious that at some point, big media needs to be collapse and allow a refocusing on small scale artistic expression. The factors that led to the existence of big media are disappearing anyway; digital technology renders irrelevant movie theaters, record stores, video rental stores, cable networks, etc. Just replace broadcast television with Youtube, and it's all good. Art has always made more sense as either a patronage-system, individual labours of love, or an added-value component to some other business (like music in playing in bars, during advertisements, etc).

    4. Re:CanCon by Brickwall · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If Canadian broadcasters want Canadians to see Canadian content on youtube, they should put some awesome videos on youtube

      Absolutely! Check out the following "Hinterland Who's Who" from the Canadian Wildlife Service:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    5. Re:CanCon by lbanting · · Score: 1

      This is one of the reasons why I want to leave Canada. (better would be Alberta separate). Could it possibly be that Canadians choose to watch or listen to US content over Canadian is that because US content could sometimes be better? Why not earn the viewer ship of Canadians by actually producing something that is actually good! Or perhaps not in the narrow views of CBC! Instead of Taxing and regulating us into your crappy programming, produce something relivent and not pushing into how we should think politically or about the Kyoto Protocol! This country is fast becoming the Soviet Canukistan! Does the government really think that we are that stupid? I could easily mask my Canadian IP address using a US Proxy server. GOD! I need a drink!

    6. Re:CanCon by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
      Believe me, we wouldn't miss Alberta. A few million close-minded religious zealots who distrust the world's best scientists in favour of belief in imaginary fairytale men? They would fit in just perfectly with the US. Of course, by the time they notice that Americans have significantly less personal freedom than Canadians and are, for the most part, significantly less affluent, they'd be stuck. But stupid people have always allowed themselves to be duped by a small wealthy elite, and since those elite are the only ones who would benefit from being a part of the US, it's only natural that idiots all want it too.

      Of course, unless you're jobless and homeless, you could ALREADY move to the US. Why haven't you? The lack of worthwhile jobs? The total lack of any social support systems (despite tax rates that are only marginally lower)? The invasive government spying, interference in the economy, or the fact that the US government allows corporations to violate peoples rights freely? I mean, none of that matters as long as you can see "Friends" four times a day instead of just three.

      Incidentally, no one -- including the government -- gives a shit if you believe in global warming or the Kyoto protocol. But that doesn't mean you get to ruin the world for the rest of us. By analogy, I don't believe that murdering stupid people is wrong -- but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to go around killing small-minded backwater hicks. Our beliefs don't entitle us to harm other people. And no supporting the Kyoto protocol will ultimately result in mass starvation and displacement, extreme droughts and floods in various parts of the world, and numerous wars over basic resources. Sorry, but your undereducated little subculture's desire to see slightly higher profits doesn't outweigh the lives of the millions that will suffer without emissions controls.

    7. Re:CanCon by iTristan · · Score: 1

      Ironically, CBC Radio3 (podcast, streaming and satellite, but not terrestrial) has flouted exactly this new global audience reality with an unapologetically all-Canadian lineup of Indie music. It's gone over so well, they launched a satellite feed on Sirius and their audience is pretty large - and global.

      I listen to CBC Radio3, not because CanCon told me to, but because it's great and I see my culture reflected in its programming. Does that mean I HAVE to see "Canadian-ness" in everything I watch or listen to? Of course not. But just making it unapologetically great and Canadian works just fine for me; and simply put, I can't get that anywhere else on the planet, internet or not.

    8. Re:CanCon by iTristan · · Score: 1

      This whole discussion seems so ironic. If CanCon hadn't mandated SCTV to "be more Canadian", they wouldn't have created the McKenzie brothers parody of CanCon which, in turn, influenced and entertained an entire generation of Canadian youth.

      I remember too many late afternoon road hockey games where our trash talk was all done in hoser talk. Loved every minute of it.

    9. Re:CanCon by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      If CanCon hadn't mandated SCTV to "be more Canadian",

      This seems a bit revisionist. In an interview with Moranis and Thomas, they said that Canadian broadcast law at the time allowed two fewer minutes of commercial time per half hour than US law allowed. As a result, the show had to create two more minutes of airtime for the Canadian version, but it wasn't mandated to be "CanCon". Moranis: "So we said 'What are we supposed to do? Sit around wearing toques, drinking beer, and saying "Eh?" a lot?', and they said 'Perfect'!"

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    10. Re:CanCon by iTristan · · Score: 1

      I was just responding to parent comment claiming that this was a CanCon mandate. It wouldn't be the first time a post wasn't accurate.

  32. Controlled Content=Censorship by thepacketmaster · · Score: 1

    Of course the CRTC isn't saying we (Canadians) can't watch certain things. But this is certainly giving the feeling of censorship, by trying to impose what we can view...wait...that is censorship! Here's a thought: Disband the CRTC and realize that most Canadian programming isn't worth saving if it needs to be propped up by subsidies.

    --

    --

    Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

    1. Re:Controlled Content=Censorship by jeffer00713 · · Score: 1

      finally a voice of reason..I'm proud to be Canadian, but it gets embarrassing when Cdn. broadcasters can't stand on their own talents and productions and need protection in the way of subsidies and legislation to keep making millions..Now they think they can force the world to abide by that same legislation Cdn's. suffer..Get a grip Cdn. broadcasters and produce quality and u'll get the respect u deserve.

  33. This is free market - government need not regulate by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yea.

    If you cant compete, quit the field and go do another business.

    people are not bound to be LIMITED in their freedoms using the taxes they THEMSELVES are paying, for the sake of any sector's personal profit and protection.

    fucking bastards.

  34. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/128627013_d4622a d3fa_m.jpg Screenshot of an article that foreshadows the effects that internet regulation laws could have on Canadian citizens.

  35. What Canadians need more of by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

    is protection from American hegemony on teh Intarwebs.

    Since most Canadians don't know much about what their country stands for, or it's history beyond the lessons gleened from beer commercial slogans, many peer south for queues about what it is to be Canadian. And what is it, in a nutshell? I am *not* American.

    Yes, having your national identity centered around something you're not may be difficult for most Americans to understand, but perhaps I can put it in context for you: Not being American generates nationalistic feelings among Canadians akin to the way that being Republican, embracing democracy, Capitalism or the right to bear arms resonates with some Americans.

    The broadcasters know this sentiment is strong among a sizable chunk of the Canadian populace, and they're not above using it as a tool to convince the CRTC to protect them from the big bad wolf even when it's clearly absurd to think that a Canadian government entity can in any way regulate or control information on the Internet.

    Though I must admit, it'll be fun to watch them try!

  36. Yes I know: cue, not queue. by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

    Sometimes i rush to post and miss the obvious stuff.

  37. Another dumbass idea by "Stephen Harper" by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    I remember a few years back when the CRTC came to the conclusion that the internet could _not_ be regulated. Thus it didn't try. Now, apparently it has decided it can. IMO, the change in government isn't a coincidence.

    But, I have an idea for all the arrogant americans that have posted in this thread. Instead of being assholes (ignoring your own backyard btw), how about just sitting back and being amused when they try. I mean, there's nothing wrong with being critical, but seriously *disappointed*

  38. I can see the referendum now: by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

    Vote 'yes' to join with China by installing firewalls at the border so that we can protect your children from nasty American home made videos on Youtube.

    Vote 'no' to maintain a free society, but allow evil American culture to seep into the brains of your children. Oh why won't you think of the children!

  39. To be fair... by Bishopus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    without the many trade policies that protect them, ALL canadian broadcasters, TV and movie production companies, book retailers, book publishers, toy manufacturers and retailers, sporting goods manufacturers, ISPs, cellular service providers, and donutiers would be flat-ass out of business. And GOD I can't wait for the day when that happens. There's nothing more infuriating than mediocrity, served up because someone wanted to protect a nonexistent 'heritage'.

  40. Mod parent Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good effort, though.

  41. Nothing to do with "Canadian content." by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    The arguments from broadcasters and media conglomerates regarding the importance of "Canadian content" is nothing more than a smokescreen for "make them buy my shit or more of my shit." There is plenty of Canadian content on the Internet; possibly disproportionately so given that Canada is an extremely wired country. The problem for the broadcasters is that it isn't the property of Bell/Globemedia/whoever so they can't charge for it.

    Actual advocates for Canadian content, such as Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, are really nothing more than cultural elistists who think "our stuff" should be valued more highly than "their stuff", meaning gauche and pedestrian American television and right wing radio. If it was up to these people we would all wear smoking jackets and sit around talking about feminist politics, Leonard Cohen and Margaret Atwood all day.

    I love my country, but we often throw money at a problem rather than common sense. What I suspect will happen is that everyone will realize that not only is it technically impossible and politically unpopular, but likely unconstitutional to attempt to enforce Canadian content on the Internet. So, the government of the day will simply add a Canadian cultural tax to our Internet bills, spread the money around and call the problem solved. Which makes the fact that we just spent millions, even billions of dollars to connect schools and communities to a world wide network information network called the Internet look stupid. We could have simply sat the children down and turned on the CBC.

    1. Re:Nothing to do with "Canadian content." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Anonymous Coward of Slashdot, I account for over 30% of all bandwidth usage in the world.

      I Am Canadian.

      Given that Canada accounts for like less than half of a percent of the world, I think we do extremely well for content on the internet, hell half of slashdot is my posts alone - and thats at least a couple percentage of the internet use in the world alone!

  42. Tell me again by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Tell me again how great Canada is? I tend to forget when I read of moves like this. I don't recall USA broadcasters stopping the streaming of Canadian television shows down to their southern neighbor.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Tell me again by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Replace 'broadcasters' with 'drug companies' and 'television shows' to 'affordable drugs'.

      Canada has a lot of faults, don't get me wrong, but mote, eye, pluck, glass house, stones, blah blah blah.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, our government forces us to broadcast at least a certain ratio of Canadian content, which sucks... ...but they don't kidnap and torture us, or even arrest people for non-profit reverse engineering! In fact... we pay a stupid levy on recordable media that pretty much gives us carte blanche to leech content from P2P networks! And when the cops do come to bust someone, we won't get beaten and arrested for trying to film them...

  43. Re:This is free market - government need not regul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, was this the free market where I get the freedom to pay for your air pollution? Or was this the free market where corporations get the freedom to exploit governmental processes?

    I get the two of them confused, y'see.

    Flippant remarks aside, you run into real trouble whenever you assert the dominance of one or the other. Neither system is perfect.

    I'm not a fan of the free market, but I cannot deny that it's improved the quality of life immeasurably. Similarly, I'm not a fan of government, but I do rather believe in the rule of law, rather than rule of the rich.

  44. The Saddest Industry in the World. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For those who aren't familiar with the context around these kind of issues in Canada, here's a quick primer:

    In Canada, TV and Radio broadcasts are required by law to feature 30-40% "Canadian content", the nature of which is determined by some reasonably complex rules. In addition, there are heavy subsidies to broadcasters, production companiesm, artists and the like to produce domestic and foreign broadcasting in the country.

    However, the media Canadians overwhelmingly prefer to consume is American. Apart from newscasts and some sports, Canadian prime time television lineups and radio playlists are overwhelmingly dominated by American content. In order to meet the Canadian content requirements, dead zones like Saturday nights are filled with mediocre Canadian lawyer and detective shows that have no discernable audience or quality.

    The Internet has effectively sidestepped these regulations, and if Canadians can just tune in to their favourite shows on the sites of American broadcasters, or on YouTube, they ruin the major revenue stream of the big Canadian broadcasters, and sidestep the forced exposure of Canadian content (which few watch or listen to anyway).

    This situation has led to a strange, unholy alliance of big media companies like Bell Globemedia, left-wing "nationalists" like the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting who are trying to combat "American Cultural Imperialism", and the various actors unions, who benefit greatly from the flood of tax dollars into Canadian productions.

    This sad mix of financial self-interest and anti-American nationalism probably won't result in a special 30% Canadian YouTube or anything, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a tax on internet connections that will be put to a program development fund that will further line the pockets of big media companies and the big media unions.

  45. Re:This is free market - government need not regul by unity100 · · Score: 1

    life is balance.

    the balance of the free market vs the government is exploitatively in favor of the corporations. this should not be the case.

  46. Tagging morons by subl33t · · Score: 1

    "blamecanada" tag? WTF for? What nation does this effect except Canada? Has the Canadian Government ruled on something? No, some greedy, private entities are trying to change something. /. needs tag moderators or they'll be completely freakin useless.

    1. Re:Tagging morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because canada has itself to blame for this, you stupid douche.

    2. Re:Tagging morons by subl33t · · Score: 1

      suck it up coward

  47. The age of the new caravelle by Corson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Every once in a while there comes a time of expansion in human knowledge, technology, and commerce. One symbol of such an age is the caravelle, which was the vehicle of geographic exploration and discovery in the middle ages. Caravelles carried explorers, as well as goods, to their destinations. But that expansion would not have been possible if ocean routes had been strictly controlled, if naval traffic across the oceans had been highly regulated.

    Now the Internet is the new "ocean" and the media broadcasters are the new "caravelles". When high quality content is created and exchanged, all parties involved can find a benefit in the process. As the author of that article pointed out, "...Internet streaming and new media create incentives for more Canadian productions since profitability in the emerging environment will depend upon original content that can be distributed across all platforms, old and new... If Canadian broadcasters are unable to rely on cheap U.S. programming, they will be forced to compete by investing in their own original content. This will dramatically alter Canadian content production from one mandated by government regulation to one mandated by market survival."

    In this age of the new "caravelle" it is content creation that can boost commerce, rather than traffic regulation.

  48. I've got a solution by phorm · · Score: 1

    Make Canadian content that people want to watch or listen to. I'm a Canadian, and frankly this stinks of protectionism no better than the issues with the US gambling industry/online-gambling issue and many others.

    Why should Canadian content providers be able to block outside competitors? Isn't that part of free trade? If somebody wants to sell me programming on cable, satellite, or internet... then it seems to qualify is "trade" to me.

  49. Some mondays even cofee can't fix by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    [pedantry]Softwood Lumber [/pedantry]. Ah, thanks. It didn't feel right but I couldn't put my finger on why :)
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  50. Canadians Pissing Off Other Canadians by LiquidFaction · · Score: 1

    As a Canadian, this pisses me off. The CRTC already has their regulatory hands into our TV, Radio and other publishing mediums to the point where its nigh impossible to get any substantial international content anywhere. The only world news I can get on a regular basis is by listening to the college radio station at 7am to hear snippets of the BBC news. If Canadian content was actually good it would get air time. Infact, there are TON's of amazing indie band's filling this quota on my local alternative station, because their actualy worth listening too (not like Nickleback, god knows why they get played). Forcing content does nothing but bring the overall quality of our media down, and force canadians to find other ways of obtaining what we really want to see and hear - like downloads, satellite radio and pirate satellite tv signals (yay!). Fuck You CRTC! -your humble canadian.

    --
    Wherever i go, There i am.
    1. Re:Canadians Pissing Off Other Canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arcade Fire being the most recent prime example. Indie all the way and their European tour sold out in mere days. Too bad Win's throat forced the cancellation of 9 of their gigs but the point is that this Montreal band is at the forefront of the death of the old record companies and a bellwether of the changes to come wrought by the internet.

    2. Re:Canadians Pissing Off Other Canadians by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      Hey I live in the States and i get basically ZERO international content where I live. I have to use Comcast for my cable service and about the only worthy international stuff i get from them is the CFL (thank gawd!) and maybe a hockey game once a week. Forget about news. It's basically all USA all the time here. So you're not alone in your isolation friend.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  51. Telemarketers... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've given up trying to coach them:

    "Do you get paid by the call or the hour?"

    "Uh, the call."

    "Well, having said that I'm not interested, you persist in continuing to sell to me, an uninterested customer. The longer you talk to me, the more money you lose. The smartest thing you can do financially is to tell me to have a good night, hang up, and try the next person on the list."

    "Have a good night, sir."

    I had a telemarketer call the other night. He was selling travel insurance.

    "It's not legal for me to travel outside of BC or Canada right now."

    "What about dependent children?"

    "My oldest is a toddler. That would be illegal too."

    "How about a spouse?"

    "My attorney has advised me not to answer any questions regarding my spouse."

    "You, uh... Have a good night, sir."

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  52. "into" Canada? Fine. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    while the broadcasters want to stop U.S. broadcasters from streaming television shows online into Canada.
    Here's an idea: put servers in Canada to serve your content. It may be dumb but maybe something as simple as that could shut them up.

    Groups like the CRTC can't adapt fast enough to new technologies and actually hold back the people they want to protect.

  53. Lame! by MichelleKenobi · · Score: 1

    Call the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen on them. http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/670/

  54. Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I'm not the only one who smells a rat every time a story like this appears. The powers-that-be are scared of online video because they previously had a monopoly on herding the sheeple through mainstream media. Politically incorrect ideas could easily be thrown down the Orwellian memory hole and ignored, or twisted out of context. They are now losing that power, and want to create authoritarian processes for deciding what you can and can't hear. France just recently created laws to stop non-professional journalists from recording and distributing scenes of violence. The reason given was that uncensored footage of gang violence and riots "aids the far-right". So now telling the truth gets you associated with fascists etc and justifies censorship. How ironic.

  55. Free trade is a bad joke. by xtal · · Score: 1

    Tell that to the softwood lumber producers and your government ignoring WTO arbitration.

    Tell that to any skilled professional trying to work cross border.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    --
    ..don't panic
  56. Remember the time Mohammad gave me a salmon helm.. by celkin · · Score: 0

    You should watch Family Guy. Your sentence sounds exactly like what a FamGuy character would say just before the scene jumps to a random flashback, which in this case would be the YouTube video.

    --
    "Oh c'mon, I wumbo, you wumbo, he/she/me...wumbo, wumboed, womboing...wombology? The study of wumbo? It's first grade,
  57. More appropriate name... by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    In reality CRTC == Commission for Repression and Thought Control

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  58. CBC by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2

    The CBC definitely represents the right way for a government to stimulate the arts. The CRTC represents the wrong way. The CBC actually produces some great programs, and broadcasts some awesome music. "Brave New Waves" anyone? That show was one of the best things to ever grace the radiowaves.