Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video
An anonymous reader writes "Last week's very
public fight between the CRTC and Netflix escalated on Monday
as Netflix refused to comply with Commission's order to supply
certain confidential information including subscriber numbers and
expenditures on Canadian children's content. While the disclosure
concerns revolve around the confidentiality of the data, the far
bigger issue is now whether the CRTC has the legal authority to
order it to do anything at all. Michael Geist reports
that Netflix and Google are ready to challenge it in a case that
could head to the Supreme Court of Canada.
"Can anyone seriously argue that Netflix isn't also rebroadcasting TV content?"
Yes, easily. Netflix has purchased licenses for it's content.
When it's American broadcasters going after Canada's icravetv, American courts had no problem getting a US court order that basically ended the service, because it was a rebroadcaster.
Can anyone seriously argue that Netflix isn't also rebroadcasting TV content?
Two weights, two measures. What a mess! And really, whatever solution will be a mess.
The difference is that NetFlix gets permission for rebroadcasting -- they have a license. That's why they don't have the same selection that other rebroadcasters do -- because they're licensing content on a show-by-show basis, not taking the OTA stream and routing it over the Internet.
This case is kind of unfortunate, as both the CRTC and Netflix are in the wrong, and both sides are unwilling to back down and come to a reasonable compromise, as that would threaten their power base.
The problem here is that the CRTC can stop all payment via Canadian credit cards to Netflix, and Netflix can support customers paying via alternate methods who are willing to stream over a VPN -- so the result of this conflict is that both sides lose, and the citizen (not consumer, although them too) loses even more.
But this whole thing is really about Rogers and Shaw lobbying the CRTC to block foreign competition for their new Shome project. CRTC is probably quite happy to be flexing their "muscle" in this situation after continually taking a beating from US lobbying interests on allowing US content onto Canadian networks.
So yeah; it's a huge mess to sort out.
Former and current employees of Bell and Rogers, members of their former lobbyist groups, and lawyers and other "VIPs" who have strong ties to Rogers and Bell. They're about as neutral on this matter as PM Harper is about his evangelical religious ties. Not very. The CRTC is looking out only for the entrenched players in this market, not consumers. Just yesterday a report came out that once again showed that Canada pays more than any other developed country except Australia for it's wireless phone pricing. The CRTC ignores this fact. Bell and Rogers are the incumbents and don't want anything changed. hell, Rogers has testified in front of the CRTC that wireless rates could be much lower here ... they just don't want to (obviously). And when competition threatens? They twist the CRTC's arm and they are safe again. The CRTC needs too be abolished and we need some real competition up here. The fact that Rogers and Bell so easily control the CRTC and the CRTC just bends over for them and it's decisions is disgusting.
DaveyJJ
Except as everyone is noting here, they are NOT broadcasting. They are an on-demand service. Percentage of Canadian content can't apply when your customers pick and choose what they want to see. The CRTC has no jurisdiction here - Netflix isn't radio, television, and it's barely 'telecommunication'. Interesting too that it's being squeezed by the government right after the major carriers announced their own on-demand service... protectionism? Definately.
We as Canadians have a different approach to government and how we want to build our society.
Yes, but not all Canadians buy into the CRTC's approach. I am absolutely opposed to all the CanCon and related regulations imposed by the CRTC. I'm completely fine with the federal and provincial governments subsidizing broadcasters and the arts in general (TVO is a great example of this done well), but I'm utterly opposed to their regulating what private broadcasters have to show.
we're not too fond of an American company trying to wreck the system of local content production.
Speak for yourself. I'm fine with anyone wrecking the Canadian content production system. 90% of content producers will go under because they produce content no-one cares about. The 10% that survive will do so because they produce really good content and are competitive. Ultimately, it will lead to a healthier content-production industry that's not dependent on protectionist measures for its survival. Maybe we'll even be able to open up an export market for Canadian content.
Yes, Netflix does not fit that definition of a broadcaster as clarified by the CRTC themselves in 1999:
“Among the services that also do not fall within the scope of the definition of broadcasting are those where the potential for user customization is significant, i.e., services where end-users have an individual, or one-on-one, experience and where they create their own uniquely tailored content. The Commission considers that these types of services do not involve the transmission of programs for reception by the public and are, therefore, not broadcasting.”
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/pb99-84.htm
If Lost Girl is something you subsidize, please increase your taxes. Or Continuum.
Almost as good as the New Zealand show This is not my life.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.