Not Just Netflix: Google Challenges Canada's Power To Regulate Online Video

An anonymous reader writes Yesterday's report on the regulatory battle between Netflix and Canada's broadcast regulator has now grown as Google has jumped into the fight. Faced with similar demands from the CRTC, Google has refused to provide it with requested information, arguing that it is not part of the Canadian broadcast system and not subject to CRTC regulation. "The Google position is notable because it is presumably not based on the question of presence within Canada, since Google maintains a significant Canadian presence. Rather, the core challenge will likely focus on whether a service such as Youtube (which once went by the slogan “Broadcast Yourself”) can properly be characterized as broadcasting for the purposes of current Canadian law."

Comments

Re:Broadcast rights

[sabri]

Dithering about whether or not streaming is a form of broadcasting for the purposes of canadian content rules is just splitting hairs

No it is not. When looking a a law, you also have to look at the historic reasoning behind it. Until very recently, broadcasting meant that once you put it on a radiowave or a cable TV system, the broadcaster had very little control on who would receive it. A radio or TV system could receive any content that was broadcast by the sender (hence the term broad-cast).

The laws that were setup under that system, are meant for that system as well. It provides a clear definition on what a broadcaster is, so that the law would not be used for other purposes.

Technological advances have changed the landscape, and if the CRTC (an executive branch of government), wants to broaden its authority to 1-on-1 content rather than 1-on-255.255.255.255 content, it should consult with the people first, in the form of the democratically elected lawmakers.

This is not nitpicking, this is respecting the law as it was written.

streaming is not broadcast

[wbr1]

I can see regulating limited spectrum, but streaming is different. Limiting streaming is corporate protectionism at best and censorship at worst.

Netflix / Google's argument is surely valid

[Bruce66423]

The purpose of the BROADCAST regulator derives, historically, from the limited number of channels available on TV, so it was argued that there was a public interest in controlling who put what on the air. The internet is surely more like the press, where there are no such limitations, so there is no justification for regulation. That the broadcast regulator is trying to butt into internet activities does seem like mission creep - always popular with the regulators as generating more jobs for their people, and with politicians who gain some leverage over the media. NOT good for freedom of speech however...

Re:fuck american hegemony

[knorthern knight]

> If the CRTC would not exist no Canadian artist could ever dream of being
> able to broadcast or make anything as american media only care
> about american shit even when operating outside of america, fuck them.

Ahemmm...
* Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians
* Hank Snow
* Oscar Peterson
* Paul Anka
* Ronnie Hawkins (US born, but made it big after moving to Canada)
* Leonard Cohen
* Joni Mitchell
* Neil Young
* and a whole bunch of lesser-known artists

All made their mark before the first "CanCon" legislation/rules took effect on January 18, 1971. At that point, Canadian radio started seriously sucking. (Yes, I was around back then; get off my lawn). We heard the same small group of Canadian artists over and over and over. There was a standing joke that "AM Radio" really meant "Anne Murray Radio".