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."

Comments

Thanks Canada

[gmanterry]

Good ruling. Thanks Canada.

Re:Thanks Canada

[Mashiki]

It is a good ruling. Because this whole thing, the ruling, the idea, the whole concept of 'protected content' exists to "protect" canadians from the "evil" american culture. You know, despite the fact that the majority of the population lives within 100 miles of the US. And can get FTA broadcasts. It's actually so bad here, that they simulcast stations, stripping out american channels and replace them with canadian ones. So you only see what the government(cancon) allows you to see.

For those that don't understand let's try this as an example, on channel 3(cdn) you have family guy. On channel 7(US) you have family guy. Now, they pull channel 7, and put channel 3 in it's place. So, now you have channel 3, on channel 7's place as well. Enjoy. Oh, did I mention that American satellite dishes are illegal in Canada? It's a $10k fine if you have one(theft of service). You can't get subscriptions legally here either. Though you can get around it, kind of by having a US address, it's a grey area still. There was actually a few cases a few years ago where the police were going around and seizing the equipment of people, dishes and all that.

Oh Canada, land of the free and all that right? Remember, what S.2 of our charter of rights and freedoms says:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

What does S.1 says?

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Yep, you read that right. Your fundamental rights are determined by what the government, courts, and special government bodies(like the CRTC) says they are. In other words, the charter is worth less than the paper it's written on.

Re:Thanks Canada

[Mashiki]

Cancon made it illegal, because they couldn't simulcast. No content control, means they restricted the sales.

You know it's funny, for all the hate that people have for Fox. If you look at their stats on things like Sirius, and media stats they're more popular than any other broadcaster in Canada. By the way, I was part of the group that got Fox News in Canada, and also got the time restriction removed from CTV|Newsnet. Because whatever you belief, broadcast whatever the hell you want. If you don't like it, turn the damn channel or dispute it based on facts.

Re:Thanks Canada

[Mistlefoot]

That is not the only reason ads are substited, which is what you are referring to when you discuss "For those that don't understand let's try this as an example, on channel 3(cdn) you have family guy. On channel 7(US) you have family guy. Now, they pull channel 7, and put channel 3 in it's place. So, now you have channel 3, on channel 7's place as well. Enjoy."

What incentive does a Canadian company have to pay for rights to Canadians when half the market is lost to an ad on an American station that is not paying anything to advertise in the Canadian market? How does CTV then afford to pay for content when their ad space is devalued?

In your example, Channel 7 ads are mandated to be substituted to Channel 3 ads. There is an easy way to do that, as in theory, the content is the same, and that is by just subsituting the entire Channel 3 feed over. Sometimes this can't be done - as in one recent situation, where the Super Bowl Canadian ads were substituted over American ones. The entire feed was not substituted as some of the content (play by play or colour guys) where not the same on the US channels as they were on the Canadian channels.

Re:Thanks Canada

[RandomAvatar]

I do hope you have read the CRTC's statutes and Regulations acts before you did this. The thing that makes it illegal for FOX news to broadcast in Canada is the fact that it has been proven in court that they willfully lied on the news. This is illegal because it is illegal for news broadcasters to broadcast false or misleading news in Canada.

Re:Thanks Canada

[tlhIngan]

Actually, having U.S. satellite dishes in Canada was made illegal (what was it? 10 years ago? I can't remember) because U.S. broadcasting corporations were accusing Canadians of stealing content. In order to comply with their complaints, and to make sure that U.S. corporations that sell these services in Canada follow Canadian law, they made it illegal.

It wasn't US broadcast corps. Sure Dish and DirecTV were angry about people stealing content and thus made things like leased boxes (you must return the box), as well as various smartcard tricks that change the authentication and encryption systems. But those applied more to the US subscribers.

The reason why US satellite dishes are illegal in Canada is because Bell went to sue all the Canadian US dish providers. These companies were providing services that allowed Canadians to purchase US satellite dishes and receivers, and providing the necessary services to activate them legitimately. These grey-market dishes were what Bell was suing about - seeing all those subscribers that didn't want their service.

Once Bell obtained their injunction (happened around 2007-2008), Dish and DirecTV then began proceedings against these grey-market providers to discontinue service (yes, they wanted people who were paying for the service to not receive it anymore).. This happened in early 2009.

As for legality - it's questionable. Should someone be able to purchase a service from another country if there's a method to get that service? I mean, we moan and groan when some internet TV or radio station becomes "country only" and refuses to sell service outside that country. But if using a VPN service lets you get access to that service - should it be legal? It's the same for grey-market satellite TV, and also applied to other US-only services like TiVo, satellite radio (until Canada approved it), and still does to US Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't want to sponsor that crap anyway. I loathe it when Canadian channels feel the need to shove that crap down our throat and make a big deal about which show is Canadian or which star/band is Canadian. Maybe I'd resent it less if they didn't play up the distinction so much. Canadians used to make fun of american advertisements which said "America's favorite ____" or "America's #1 _____" because it seemed like *everything* was considered #1 in America, it was just slapped on to anything where it would apply. Now the same cliche is being applied to everything in Canada and it smacks of opportunism. If you want to get my attention, just make a good product and don't try and make everyone think it's special just because it's from the country in which they reside. That's just incidental, and it just makes you look arrogant if you believe something is better just because it's local. Everything should be judged on an equal level.

Re:Good

[Samantha Wright]

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...")

Re:Good

[grub]

Just up CanCon requirements to 100% and the 24 hour Beachcombers channel I've dreamed of for years will become realty!

Re:Good

[msobkow]

Before you bitch too much about supporting the CBC and other Canadian content, consider this:

The fact that Canadian consumers of media and tax payers pay a significant share of the production costs of Canadian media has a great deal to do with why the general public in Canada has a right to copy, backup, and otherwise consume media they own.

The very fact that we are allowed to OWN media stems in part from the fact that we pay for part of it, even if we don't buy a copy of a particular finished product.

We would not have the liberal copyright laws in Canada that we do were it not for Can-Con funded at public expense.

Although the ISPs should not be subject to trying to provide any particular percentage of Canadian content in a global web environment, I don't think the content creators are being unrealistic or unfair if they expect the ISPs to pay a portion similar to what cable providers pay to fund Can-Con.

The content producers are right: It's the traditional "Canadian Way."

Re:Good

[msobkow]

Just to clarify:

Historically, Canadian broadcasters had to have a certain minimum percentage of Canadian content in their broadcasts. That's what we can't expect ISPs to deliver, because they have no control over what content their subscribers choose to view, download, or transmit.

But paying a percentage of revenue into the national funding pot the same as broadcasters do is not at ALL unreasonable, as a significant chunk of the content the ISPs stream IS Canadian content that they should pay a share to fund. CTV, CBC, Global, etc. all have web streaming services that the ISPs carry into Canadian homes, and they should pay their tithe like any other content distributor.

Re:Good

[msobkow]

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.

Re:Good

[realityimpaired]

You'd be surprised how much on TV these days counts as CanCon.... pretty much everything I watch these days is CanCon. Actually, *everything* I watch these days is CanCon, except for Dr. Who, and even that counts for the CanCon rules, because it's co-produced by the CBC and the BBC (despite mostly being filmed in Wales). Most of the best sci fi on North American TV is produced in Vancouver, and some of the best dramas on TV are produced in Vancouver or Toronto, with one notable exception which is produced in St. John's, NF. (and also one of my favourite shows)

Re:Good

[wrook]

The difference between a cable TV service and an ISP is that the cable TV service chooses which content to carry. The ISP does not. Even though they physically carry the streaming data, they don't actually stream it themselves. CTV, CBC, Global, etc do. Those streaming services should pay. And they do already.

Adding another fee for ISPs is an interesting idea, but it is essentially a new levy. As a consumer that would ultimately have to pay that levy, I want something in return. The internet is more than a broadcasting medium. In fact, I barely use it for that purpose (although Slashdot might qualify). Similar to the levy on blank media for sound recordings, if I'm going to pay the levy (whether I consume the media or not), I want concessions. Allowing private copying for said media would be appropriate I think.

Ha ha ha. OK... I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that. I'd love to see the lobbyists' faces if they were told that was the price of opting in ISPs.

Re:Good

[CanEHdian]

Hi msobkow. I guess you're in the US, looking north towards all that beauty. Unfortunately the grass isn't greener over here:

And what have we here? MPA "The Voice and Advocate for the Major International Producers and Distributors of Movies, Home Entertainment and TV Programming in Canada"

We also have a Canadian RIAA, formerly and still colloquially known as CRIA, but renamed Music Canada to obfuscate the Recording Industry interests. "Representing Canada's Major Labels".

And "pounding us and hounding us over so-called piracy" - they do that too. And like MPAA/RIAA want to change the (proposed) laws to fit their own interests; see Dr. Geist's blog entry.

Makes sense

[Stormthirst]

After all, ISPs don't just deliver movies, despite what the RIAA/MPAA/Stephen Harper say about the amount of piracy in Canada

Great ruling

[EmperorOfCanada]

I am sick of having my "Culture" dictated to me from Ontario. Canada has thousands of cultures. But in summary our culture is primarily a mix of British and American. Just check out our spelling and pronunciation. So a mix of British and American content serves me just fine.

The worst part of the Can Con crap is that it suffers the problem of any single source of wealth. A tiny few have mastered draining this well before anyone else can get a taste. Then they pump out some crap starring Gordon Pinsent or some other Canadian "No-fail-mainstay". I am not sure is the worst Canadian genre: when Torontonians try to imitate sophisticated New Yorkers, when they are covering "important issues" such as Indians or gay kids being bullied, or some depressing crap about some salt of the earth town that has collapsed resulting in domestic abuse and drinking. The Canada of most Canadians is none of the above. I strongly doubt that Canadians download hardly a lick of anything made in Canada about Canada. But that is not to say good stuff isn't made here. Stargate, battlestar galatica, and the x-files were all made here but they weren't aimed as Canadian Content. They were just smart people making good shows. No internet tax required.
Then there is our public radio CBC. Some of it is great but nearly every show is regularly interrupted while they showcase some band that would have trouble getting a gig at a shady nightclub.

Re:Great ruling

[msobkow]

Did you ever watch "X-Files?" How about "Stargate SG-1?"

Any show that was produced by "Alliance" or "Atlantis" pictures was a can-con product.

Don't confuse the CBC with being THE source of can-con -- it's not. The CBC is just more prone to produce documentaries and docu-dramas than the other can-con providers, and are more famous for it because they used to be our only national broadcaster.

You bitch about it being an "Ontario centric" media form. Was "The Beachcombers" set in Ontario? How about "Little Mosque on the Prairie" or "Corner Gas?"

Careful, man, your generalizations are showing... :P

as we progress

[alienzed]

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.

Now we need a new ruling

[future assassin]

Network companies should be just that, offering network access and not be broadcasters, telephone, and content providers all in one.

Big Content Providers and their Customers

[tkrotchko]

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.