Slashdot Mirror
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."
From yesterdays post:
Michael Geist reports that Netflix and Google are ready to challenge it in a case that could head to the Supreme Court of Canada.
There is a tiny bit of new news here. It's gone from speculation to being confirmed, but really, this is just a repost of the same thing.
If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?
This fixation on whether or not its 'broadcasting' is just a distraction. If the governments wants to regulate streaming video it will just revise the legislation granting the regulatory body authority over streaming video within the country.
Then what's Netflix/Google going to do?
Think about it. If netflix gets a pass, then Bell/Telus/Shaw just have to switch from a 'broadcast model' to a 'streaming model' and then they too will be exempt from Canadian Content rules. And they are on the verge of launching their own streaming services as we speak ... hell they all 3 already offer video on demand libraries.
The result is that eventually nobody will "broadcast" anything, and the canadian content rules will be mooted.
The end game is either
a) that the CRTC will be granted regulatory oversight on streaming video providers operating in Canada to enforce Canadian content guidelines in some fashion on all operators.
or
b) that the rules on Canadian content will be repealed entirely on all forms of video distribution.
Dithering about whether or not streaming is a form of broadcasting for the purposes of canadian content rules is just splitting hairs, and is lawyering for the sake of lawyering. If netflix "wins" then Canada can just change the CRTC mandate at the stroke of a pen to include them anyway.
The only argument worth having is within Canada with Canadians to decide whether Canadian content rules are desirable or not. If they are, then apply them to streaming service operators. If they are not, then get rid of them.
Its that simple.
If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?
Not to mention that it would put Aereo.com back in business...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
In the US, and probably many other places, the original argument for strict government regulation of broadcast goes like this:
The radio spectrum suitable for broadcast is limited (there can only ever be ~20 TV channels).
It won't work to have multiple broadcasters competing on the same channel.
The spectrum is a public resource.
The public, through their bureaucrats, must choose certain broadcasters and grant them exclusive rights to a channel.
Because the public is granting the broadcaster exclusive rights to a limited resource, they have the right to make demands in exchange.
As representatives of the people, government has the right to make arbitrary demands of broadcasters.
Based on that reasoning, the regulation of cable TV is much less, and of the internet far less.
The internet is not a limited medium, there can be millions of channels, and nobody is being granted exclusive rights to anything.
Of course the majority view in Canada is coming from an entirely different perspective. Canadian reasoning is:
1) ???
2) ???
3) Bureaucrats in Ottawa should tell me what to do, in all aspects of my life, whenever they feel the need. A _reason_, such as a physical limit to the number of channels, is unnecessary.
Sorry I don't know the first part of that reasoning. Maybe a Canadian can explain it to me.
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.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
I can see regulating limited spectrum, but streaming is different. Limiting streaming is corporate protectionism at best and censorship at worst.
Silence is a state of mime.
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...
This is the crux of the matter.
And I honestly couldn't begin to speculate which way the Supreme Court of Canada will decide on this one.
If I may interject my own thoughts on the matter, however... it seems to me that if they rule that Netflix, et al, must be subject to CRTC's authority if they make their service available to Canadians, Netflix may well opt out entirely of serving Canada. Google might make the same decision. This would be bad for Canadians. If the court rules otherwise simply because of the economic impact of that, then the ramifications of this essentially give a foreign commercial entity that has enough of a Canadian presence power over Canada to dictate what Canadian laws are actually allowed to be. How would the USA feel if a foreign company that happened to have a significant influence in America, or with Americans essentially blackmailed them into changing their laws to be favorable to their chosen business model?
I'm not sure whether I'm more terrified or interested to see what the outcome of this is going to be.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And just what do you propose that Canadians do if or when they withdraw their services from Canada entirely because they do not want to comply with Canadian law? Please also bear in mind that one of these companies is Google.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When looking a a law, you also have to look at the historic reasoning behind it.
The Canadian content laws are about
1) promoting and ensuring there is a voice for Canadian culture
2) promoting and sustaining the film / production industry within Canada (American shows produced substantially in Canada qualify as Canadian content.
If the technology for distribution of video changes from primarily broadcast to primarily singlecast then the law must be evaluated and updated to determine whether it still needed and if so to apply to to the current technology.
and if the CRTC wants to broaden its authority to 1-on-1 content [...] it should consult with the people first, in the form of the democratically elected lawmakers.
Which is paraphrasing EXACTLY what I wrote. Thank you very much.
The interesting question isn't whether netflix 'counts' as 'broadcast' or not. The interesting question is whether Canada wants Canadian content rules to apply to them or not. If the Canadian people do (as represented by their government), then its trivial to make it so by legislation.
This is not nitpicking, this is respecting the law as it was written.
Except that is nit-picking. The answer to the question of whether the CRTC has jurisdiction over netflix is a silly legal argument; the answer to which doesn't really matter in the slightest except as a passing interest to the directly involved parties.
It isn't that interesting because it doesn't really matter what the final answer is. If Canada want the answer to be "yes" then Canada will adjust the law accordingly.
So the only question that matters is whether or not Canada wants the answer to be yes or no.
As a result of the CRTC, we have Canadian artists and Canadian companies making content that is indistinguishable from American content so that the Canadians can sell their content in the American market. The CRTC rules do not result in more "Canadian content". The CRTC is a protective mechanism for Canadians to have more jobs.
I believe the thought is they can't get the votes to get the legislature to give the CRTC (or FCC in the US) such broad ranging authority and they are exceeding their current legislative mandate
The conversvative party is running a majority government, and the party under Harper very much votes as a block. Further despite the ramblings of idiots saying the CRTC has got to go, there is no real political will to do that.
"Hollywood North" is a massive industry, that benefits heavily from Canadian Content law, and the convservatives bow to the will of industry, on the flipside funding and protecting Canadian content is sacred to the NDP which is more of a socialist party -- so really they are on board with it too. The laws actually have broad support.
The only companies that object to them are the broadcast companies themselves (Bell / Telus / Shaw / etc ) -- but if they can't escape the rules themselves damn right they are going to make sure any competition coming in form the states is bound by them.
Joe Consumer who is just pissed he can't get American netflix, and that there is too much Bryan Adams and Nickleback on the radio is really the only ones truly against this -- but the question is whether the rules are good for Canada as a whole or not.
And honestly, when you think about it, big picture, they probably are a good thing... at least in some form.
How many times do we have to say it, friend? We're very sorry about Céline Dion and Brian Adams.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
> 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".
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Google and Netflix are still probably the losers in that exchange. The result will be somebody else coming in and serving that niche in Canada, a force which may eventually be able to expand outward into Google and Netflix territory -- a force they would want to nip in the bud with their superior market presence. It's not like the secret of streaming video technology is unknown to Canadian engineers, and its not like Netflix or YouTube are so critical to Canadian day to day life that to cut off Netflix access would cause an overnight revolution.
Possibly, say Rogers and Bell. Who are, coincidentally, trying to setup a streaming service. And who more or less control the CRTC. Hrmm....