Canada ISPs Not Subject To Content Rules, Court Says
silentbrad writes "Upholding a 2010 decision from the Federal Court of Appeal, the country's highest court said ISPs cannot be subject to the Broadcasting Act of 1991 because they have no control over the content they distribute. The ruling ends a years-old dispute over whether ISPs that deliver movies and television shows over their networks should be regulated as conventional broadcasters as well as telecommunications providers. A cultural coalition made up of several Canadian media industry groups — including the Canadian Media Production Association (CMPA), the Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) and others — argued ISPs should be required to help pay for the production of made-in-Canada music, films and television. Conventional broadcasters, of which Bell and Rogers already qualify, have long been required to do so by law."
Good ruling. Thanks Canada.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
After all, ISPs don't just deliver movies, despite what the RIAA/MPAA/Stephen Harper say about the amount of piracy in Canada
The irritating protectionism of Canadian content has been going on for quite some time now; indeed, traditional broadcasters are restrained by a requirement to play at least a certain percentage of can-con. Personally, I can't stand anything remotely folksy, and it seems the too much of the cultural output in this country is destined to be forever tainted with wolves, forests and beaver trappers, or otherwise ineptly idolizing its heritage. It's no wonder that stations need to be forced to play the stuff: anything profitable or progressive moves to the US for tax purposes.
One vaguely wonders, with some amusement, if the courts would have tried to force ISPs to obey the can-con requirement if this ruling went the other way. Of course this ruling was really only a question about forcing them to pay another tax, but the concept of applying broadcaster requirements to the Internet quickly becomes amusing. ("Your computer must now play the national anthem at least once every 24 hours...")
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I hope that all forms of greed and unjust enrichment are shot down like this. Listen Artists, if you aren't making enough money, it's not because people are stealing from you, it's because you suck. (either at marketing your production or your productions themselves) I believe that people do pay for materials they believe justify it, and if it's not up to the customer what things should cost, then our whole economic system is based on BS.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
One reason there is no "MPAA" in Canada is we provide the startup funding for film projects through government grants instead. Every movie, TV show, etc. that you see with "Funded in part by the Canadian Government" including the products of some really big name and well known studios leverages that funding.
Would you rather see us have an MPAA type organization pounding us and hounding us over so-called piracy when you preview or prelisten to downloaded or streamed media?
I think Can-Con funding is cheap compared to being raped by an MPAA.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Network companies should be just that, offering network access and not be broadcasters, telephone, and content providers all in one.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Content Providers are one of the few businesses industries where the businesses actively hate their customers and do everything they can do to make things harder and more expensive for their customers.
Its really amazing when you compare it to a more traditional retail or services business.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you