lol - I have to say though I feel rather vindicated. In the http://science.slashdot.org/st... discussion I was making this argument (though probably not as well) and got mocked for it.
Obviously, when talking about "the jurisdiction of Canada over Netflix", we are already assuming that the Canadian court has jurisdiction according to Canadian law (otherwise the discussion is moot), and we are talking about the ability of Canada to enforce its laws against Netflix Inc.
But previously you said
Jurisdiction only exists where governments can enforce that jurisdiction.
The document states that personal jurisdiction exists "... a court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company: First,if the company is regularly and continuously doing business in a state (even if it is not registered to do business there),it can usually be sued in that state’s courts and the federal courts located there,for a claim which arose anywhere in the world. Doing business may include systematically selling products into a state."
No "both kinds of jurisdiction" - just the one.
As to enforcement, aside from numerous treaties between Canada and the US where it could be enforced, international law also allows for it to a certain extent. Also, simply enforcing a judgement by preventing funds from leaving the country or extraditing those responsible are options. There are probably some I'm not even aware of.
You're right that the US has a lot of ways of pressuring foreign companies, but that's for the simple reason that the US is a big and desirable market. Saying "if you do X, you can't use US banks, you can't travel to the US, and you can never open a branch in the US" is pressure, but it doesn't establish jurisdiction.
Not pressuring, taking legal action against. Try giving this a read: http://www.kelleydrye.com/imag... in particular paragraph 2 of page 8.
You're an idiot if you think governments don't have mechanisms for dealing with companies outside of their physical territories. Especially Canada and the US.
Except this appears to be case of using regulatory power grab to do something that is probably not within the regulatory statute i.e. having to identify users.
As stated in about half a dozen posts, the CRTC did not request user information - they requested the total number of Canadian subscribers. They do have the authority to request any non-personal information for the purpose of implementing their mandate.
Does any other regulated service have to do so? cable? Broadcast?
Yes, those and internet, and radio, and so on.
Since they can't just order it via a judge or some other method apparently, they are trying to strong arm by threatening with an unrelated to the issue regulation they CAN control.
No, they have the authority to make the order; it's part of the Broadcasting Act. They cannot order or even request a court disclose personal information, otherwise, if it has anything to do with TV/Movies/Radio/Internet/etc they have the power to gather information, regulate (or not), and take action against those who do not comply in order to meet the requirements of their mandate. They have very similar, one might argue even broader, powers than the FCC in the US.
The law deals with "signals which carry sound and images" - it's not technology specific. That's why, years ago, they introduced the "digital exemption" for internet based services to allow them to grow/keep entry barriers low for new services. That exemption is granted (or revoked) a the CRTC's discretion and that's what this set of hearings is for - to figure out whether to regulate, deregulate, or maintain the status quo on both traditional broadcasters and new media.
In Canada corporations are not people, they do not have free speech rights.
They are "cracking down" on it by using a 3rd party to identify/block IPs - but it's so simple to bypass, even after being blocked that just about anyone can do it.
> I suspect they just want to know how many customers they have, not specifically who they are.
Nonsense.
I am sure that Netflix is more than willing to BRAG about how many Canadian customers it has, or how many customers it has in ANY country.
Way different kettle of fish than actual subscriber info.
Watch the hearing, I posted the YouTube link above - they only asked for the total number of Canadian subscribers and Netflix considered that "sensitive" information and refused to give it.
FTA: "(conversely, U.S. regulators can provide guarantees of confidentiality)"
WHY does ANYONE other than Netflix need to know who the subscribers are or what they watch?
CRTC didn't ask for that information
What they did ask for was:
a) Total number of subscribers b) Anonymous data on total views of content found in the "Canadian" genre that Netflix maintains c) How PIPEDA was being complied with, especially given the way the Netflix recommendation algorithms work d) How much they were investing in Canadian produced content
They won't end up with any list - they didn't ask them for a subscriber list they asked them for the total number of subscribers. A very different thing.
CRTC has a lot of issues but I'm actually encouraged by Blais' actions - he's actually willing to use the power given to him to get things done. Slower than I'd like and with far too many compromises to protect incumbents in the short term but everything has been moving in the right direction, generally speaking.
There are numerous treaties/agreements that can be used, but usually they just place a lien on their accounts for any fines levied. It's also not going to be chaos because it's been done for decades. How do you think US lawsuits got money out of foreign manufacturing companies with no presence in the US?
The lawyer was the one being questioned by the commission and the commission has the authority to obtain the documents just as the FCC has the same authority in the US.
In 2012 Time Warner lost more revenue ($29 billion) than the top 10 grossing media companies in Canada made in 2011 ($24 billion combined) and still managed $3.5 billion in profit.
If CanCon and Canadian media ownership rules didn't exist, there would be no Canadian media/content - it would have been bought up decades ago.
That's what the CRTC is trying to accomplish - their end-game is that there will be companies paying for the production of good/high budget content from Canada. Not to be confused with "about Canada" - they really don't care if it's Caillou or Porkeys as long as money continues to be put back into the Canadian industry not just taken out.
Netflix isn't subject to the CanCon requirements nor has anyone indicated they should be. In that particular model the focus is not on the amount of time watched it's on the level of promotion received and amount/quality available. In this regard, if you watch the video I posted, they focus on questions regarding how much Netflix is investing in production of Canadian works (that meet the CanCon definition), how their promotion of Canadian content works, etc.
Global, CBC, ATV, CTV, etc have to to comply. The stations that rebroadcast or simulcast American Television content.
I believe you are mistaken. The act makes no exceptions for rebroadcasts or simulcast (do you mean simultaneous substitution?). The 55% rule applies or if they are exempt from that rule for being a "remote station" the 50% rule applies. A station that rebroadcasts doesn't have to meet the requirements only in that the station which they are rebroadcasting must be licensed and compliant. ie: when they want to go after someone for not complying they go after the originator not the rebroadcaster.
Slashdot Mirror
lol - I have to say though I feel rather vindicated. In the http://science.slashdot.org/st... discussion I was making this argument (though probably not as well) and got mocked for it.
Obviously, when talking about "the jurisdiction of Canada over Netflix", we are already assuming that the Canadian court has jurisdiction according to Canadian law (otherwise the discussion is moot), and we are talking about the ability of Canada to enforce its laws against Netflix Inc.
But previously you said
Jurisdiction only exists where governments can enforce that jurisdiction.
The document states that personal jurisdiction exists "... a court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company: First,if the company is regularly and continuously doing business in a state (even if it is not registered to do business there),it can usually be sued in that state’s courts and the federal courts located there,for a claim which arose anywhere in the world. Doing business may include systematically selling products into a state."
No "both kinds of jurisdiction" - just the one.
As to enforcement, aside from numerous treaties between Canada and the US where it could be enforced, international law also allows for it to a certain extent. Also, simply enforcing a judgement by preventing funds from leaving the country or extraditing those responsible are options. There are probably some I'm not even aware of.
Politics? Darn, I should have read the article - I thought this was about http://obamacare.com/
You're right that the US has a lot of ways of pressuring foreign companies, but that's for the simple reason that the US is a big and desirable market. Saying "if you do X, you can't use US banks, you can't travel to the US, and you can never open a branch in the US" is pressure, but it doesn't establish jurisdiction.
Not pressuring, taking legal action against. Try giving this a read: http://www.kelleydrye.com/imag... in particular paragraph 2 of page 8.
You're an idiot if you think governments don't have mechanisms for dealing with companies outside of their physical territories. Especially Canada and the US.
That makes no sense what so ever. Netflix doesn't pay Canadian taxes and the CRTC is not responsible for taxes - that would be Revenue Canada.
This was addressed in another post.
Except this appears to be case of using regulatory power grab to do something that is probably not within the regulatory statute i.e. having to identify users.
As stated in about half a dozen posts, the CRTC did not request user information - they requested the total number of Canadian subscribers. They do have the authority to request any non-personal information for the purpose of implementing their mandate.
Does any other regulated service have to do so? cable? Broadcast?
Yes, those and internet, and radio, and so on.
Since they can't just order it via a judge or some other method apparently, they are trying to strong arm by threatening with an unrelated to the issue regulation they CAN control.
No, they have the authority to make the order; it's part of the Broadcasting Act. They cannot order or even request a court disclose personal information, otherwise, if it has anything to do with TV/Movies/Radio/Internet/etc they have the power to gather information, regulate (or not), and take action against those who do not comply in order to meet the requirements of their mandate. They have very similar, one might argue even broader, powers than the FCC in the US.
The law deals with "signals which carry sound and images" - it's not technology specific. That's why, years ago, they introduced the "digital exemption" for internet based services to allow them to grow/keep entry barriers low for new services. That exemption is granted (or revoked) a the CRTC's discretion and that's what this set of hearings is for - to figure out whether to regulate, deregulate, or maintain the status quo on both traditional broadcasters and new media.
In Canada corporations are not people, they do not have free speech rights.
Netflix agreed to pay the 2% VOD tax for their upcoming launch in France.
Yeah, and being 2nd, they account for less than 5% of their total subscriber base.
True, but if that's accurate that means they have 13% penetration in the Canadian market and only 12% in the US.
They are "cracking down" on it by using a 3rd party to identify/block IPs - but it's so simple to bypass, even after being blocked that just about anyone can do it.
> I suspect they just want to know how many customers they have, not specifically who they are.
Nonsense.
I am sure that Netflix is more than willing to BRAG about how many Canadian customers it has, or how many customers it has in ANY country.
Way different kettle of fish than actual subscriber info.
Watch the hearing, I posted the YouTube link above - they only asked for the total number of Canadian subscribers and Netflix considered that "sensitive" information and refused to give it.
OMG - how many times is this going to be repeated.
CRTC did not ask for their subscriber lists. They asked for a total number of Canadian subscribers.
FTA: "(conversely, U.S. regulators can provide guarantees of confidentiality)"
WHY does ANYONE other than Netflix need to know who the subscribers are or what they watch?
CRTC didn't ask for that information
What they did ask for was:
a) Total number of subscribers
b) Anonymous data on total views of content found in the "Canadian" genre that Netflix maintains
c) How PIPEDA was being complied with, especially given the way the Netflix recommendation algorithms work
d) How much they were investing in Canadian produced content
They won't end up with any list - they didn't ask them for a subscriber list they asked them for the total number of subscribers. A very different thing.
CRTC has a lot of issues but I'm actually encouraged by Blais' actions - he's actually willing to use the power given to him to get things done. Slower than I'd like and with far too many compromises to protect incumbents in the short term but everything has been moving in the right direction, generally speaking.
There are numerous treaties/agreements that can be used, but usually they just place a lien on their accounts for any fines levied. It's also not going to be chaos because it's been done for decades. How do you think US lawsuits got money out of foreign manufacturing companies with no presence in the US?
The lawyer was the one being questioned by the commission and the commission has the authority to obtain the documents just as the FCC has the same authority in the US.
In 2012 Time Warner lost more revenue ($29 billion) than the top 10 grossing media companies in Canada made in 2011 ($24 billion combined) and still managed $3.5 billion in profit.
If CanCon and Canadian media ownership rules didn't exist, there would be no Canadian media/content - it would have been bought up decades ago.
That's why the CRTC is focusing on availability, investment, and promotion in their questions to Netflix.
That's what the CRTC is trying to accomplish - their end-game is that there will be companies paying for the production of good/high budget content from Canada. Not to be confused with "about Canada" - they really don't care if it's Caillou or Porkeys as long as money continues to be put back into the Canadian industry not just taken out.
It happens all over the place. Even in the hearing they discussed the French equivalent of the CRTC and how Netflix was dealing with the 2% VOD tax.
Netflix isn't subject to the CanCon requirements nor has anyone indicated they should be. In that particular model the focus is not on the amount of time watched it's on the level of promotion received and amount/quality available. In this regard, if you watch the video I posted, they focus on questions regarding how much Netflix is investing in production of Canadian works (that meet the CanCon definition), how their promotion of Canadian content works, etc.
Global, CBC, ATV, CTV, etc have to to comply. The stations that rebroadcast or simulcast American Television content.
I believe you are mistaken. The act makes no exceptions for rebroadcasts or simulcast (do you mean simultaneous substitution?). The 55% rule applies or if they are exempt from that rule for being a "remote station" the 50% rule applies. A station that rebroadcasts doesn't have to meet the requirements only in that the station which they are rebroadcasting must be licensed and compliant. ie: when they want to go after someone for not complying they go after the originator not the rebroadcaster.