The purpose of Canadian content legislation is to protect Canadian cultural industries
Why not let the Canadians choose themselves what media to watch or not watch? Why should this be the business of cultural ayatollahs in the government? It shouldn't.
it is not likely that many Canadian sources could survive against them
In other words, Canadian artists are so inferior that they would not survive without protectionist government censorship to protect them? That is what you seem to be saying.
It does not "ban" foriegn content
Certainly it does: your message describes how the banning works and goes to justify it.
I never said that the college was part of the government; it does not matter in an argument pointing out a major content-censorship problem in the country.
Why would we want to watch ads for products that aren't available in our country?
It's not the ads, it's the shows. Ask anyone near the border tho uses address tricks to get United States satellite TV programming to see the channels censored off the Canadian satellite feeds.
The denial of "human rights" by the parent of your item seems to come across as an excuse to say that oppressive governments that deny rights are quite acceptible: it is "culturally OK".
University of Toronto? Interesting, considering the "Canadian Content"-based censorship laws in Canada, where foreign stations are banned (censored) due to lack of "Canadian Content".
Funny, I've had local channels via DirecTV's satellite service for about a year now, and it looks like they have more packages with local broadcasting than without.
I've never wanted the local channels. I've wanted the network feeds for the major networks that you can get with the waivers. The so-called "local" channels are too distant to bother to broadcast a strong television signal, but they do have blanket "no-waiver" policies.
That's the reason I've had cable for years: the so-called "local" stations are distant and weak.
On top of that, their equipment and signal quality is very poor, and they pre-empt network shows willy-nilly. Why even bother to watch "Enterprise" when the "local" UPN affiliate never shows it on its regular time, preferring to show it 2/3 of the time at midnight Friday night, and the remaining 1/3 of the time at some randomly-chosen unannounced time?
This is not "the world of null-A". The definitions of words are not static
Definitions aren't imaginary, either. The only reason the term "theft" is being used is because it is emotionally-charged, despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on.
No. But if you sell bank robbery kits and tools, and advertise the fact, and such tools are generally, but not always, purchased by bank robbers only, it is reasonable to assume that it is likely a large portion of your client base are robbing banks.
If only this analogy applied. It surely doesn't when these "tools" are being used in one's own home! To make than theft/tools analogy more apt: it is like as if the banks kept dropping safes onto your front lawn. They don't have to this, but they do, without your permission. One day, you decide to open one of them.
However, the vast majority of these people WERE buying the stuff to steal DirecTV
None of them were, as no theft was involved. They were making use of signals given to them by DirecTV when they lobbed to signals into their property.
Fox News Channel is not available to Canada because it has 0% Canadian content
My point exactly. It is being censored by government officials who don't want you to see certain things. I have canadian friends who watch it and other channels by doing the address trick. They live near the border.
Copyright violation is Theft
It isn't, it never was. It just does not meet the definition of theft.
Do you also think hacking someone's wlan from their parking lot is OK
That is an invalid comparison; as hacking someone's lan involves intrusion INTO the lan. It is not "just listening".
If a pervert spies on a lady undressing who forgot to close her window is the pervert justified in taking advantage in your opinion.
Just because it is wrong, or is a crime, does not make it theft.
No Electronic Theft" bill was signed into law a good 7 years ago, the usage is established, stop playing games about it.
The bill's title was unintentionally apt, as there was absolutely nothing about electronic theft within it. Theft means theft, despite semantic games.
and it's really the content suppliers who are losing out of money they'd otherwise be entitled to.
How are the content suppliers losing in this? For example, a Canadian who does this address trick to get Fox News (last time I knew, it was censored in Canada) ends up paying DirecTV for it on the bill, and the appropriate cut goes to Fox.
Seems like the only losers are the control freaks who don't want people to see certain things.
I have something of a problem calling people "thieves" who make use of something that is lobbed into their property by someone else. DirecTV is sending its signal into your yard, after all. It would seem that those who make use of the signal given to them are less "thieves" than granky ol Mrs. McGurdy who kept the football you accidentally kicked onto her porch.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not let the Canadians choose themselves what media to watch or not watch? Why should this be the business of cultural ayatollahs in the government? It shouldn't.
it is not likely that many Canadian sources could survive against them
In other words, Canadian artists are so inferior that they would not survive without protectionist government censorship to protect them? That is what you seem to be saying.
It does not "ban" foriegn content
Certainly it does: your message describes how the banning works and goes to justify it.
It does, in the context of the "robbery" and "theft" analogy. However, as those make no sense (not being appropriate analogies)....
It is censorship based on supposed national origin of content. That is still censorship.
And you know what? The system works
No, as it is censorship and is totally unwarranted, the system stinks.
The notion that 'foreign stations are banned' is patently ridiculous
It's a fact. My Canadian friends have to deal with it and get "illegal" satellite feeds in order to get around the ban.
There are more and better-known Canadian recording artists and actors than ever before
Of course of you censor group B, group A flourishes.
And "Cheers!" to John Ashcroft. How's your quaint little shut-down-the-adult-film-industry crusade going?
The US has a censorship problem, of course. This does not deny the fact that Canada also has a major censorship problem.
Banned, is indeed, the correct word. Your message than goes on to explain why certain stations are banned.
No gauss needed, all you have to have is laws and companies harassing you for daring to receive that evil "foreign" content.
I never said that the college was part of the government; it does not matter in an argument pointing out a major content-censorship problem in the country.
The most popular US news channel is banned in Canada. I'm pretty sure that SciFi channel is also banned; there are others.
Why would we want to watch ads for products that aren't available in our country? It's not the ads, it's the shows. Ask anyone near the border tho uses address tricks to get United States satellite TV programming to see the channels censored off the Canadian satellite feeds.
The denial of "human rights" by the parent of your item seems to come across as an excuse to say that oppressive governments that deny rights are quite acceptible: it is "culturally OK".
University of Toronto? Interesting, considering the "Canadian Content"-based censorship laws in Canada, where foreign stations are banned (censored) due to lack of "Canadian Content".
What am I talking about? The topic, what else. The stealing/theft reference is in the parent by "mindstrm"
Once we get to the revolutionary idea that all crime is not theft, why, yes, you have a good point about crime tools!
It is only an analogy to a bank robbery in which you never leave your house and no money is taken.... in other words, the analogy doesn't work.
The problem, I see, is when something which is not "theft of services" is defined as theft.
I've never wanted the local channels. I've wanted the network feeds for the major networks that you can get with the waivers. The so-called "local" channels are too distant to bother to broadcast a strong television signal, but they do have blanket "no-waiver" policies.
That's the reason I've had cable for years: the so-called "local" stations are distant and weak.
On top of that, their equipment and signal quality is very poor, and they pre-empt network shows willy-nilly. Why even bother to watch "Enterprise" when the "local" UPN affiliate never shows it on its regular time, preferring to show it 2/3 of the time at midnight Friday night, and the remaining 1/3 of the time at some randomly-chosen unannounced time?
Remember what the NYYA says: "If yo-yo's are outlawed, only outlaws will have yo-yos".
We must protect the right to bear arms, and the right to arm bears.
Glad to see you at last on Slashdot, honorable President of Singapore! "Drop a 'yo? get caned!" is a truly admirable public policy.
Yoyo Baggins, is that you?
"Extreme yo-yoing"? Am I the only one who remembers the guy with the buzz-saw yoyo in the James Bond "Octopussy" movie?
This is not "the world of null-A". The definitions of words are not static Definitions aren't imaginary, either. The only reason the term "theft" is being used is because it is emotionally-charged, despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on.
If only this analogy applied. It surely doesn't when these "tools" are being used in one's own home! To make than theft/tools analogy more apt: it is like as if the banks kept dropping safes onto your front lawn. They don't have to this, but they do, without your permission. One day, you decide to open one of them.
However, the vast majority of these people WERE buying the stuff to steal DirecTV
None of them were, as no theft was involved. They were making use of signals given to them by DirecTV when they lobbed to signals into their property.
Fox News Channel is not available to Canada because it has 0% Canadian content My point exactly. It is being censored by government officials who don't want you to see certain things. I have canadian friends who watch it and other channels by doing the address trick. They live near the border.
Copyright violation is Theft It isn't, it never was. It just does not meet the definition of theft. Do you also think hacking someone's wlan from their parking lot is OK That is an invalid comparison; as hacking someone's lan involves intrusion INTO the lan. It is not "just listening". If a pervert spies on a lady undressing who forgot to close her window is the pervert justified in taking advantage in your opinion. Just because it is wrong, or is a crime, does not make it theft. No Electronic Theft" bill was signed into law a good 7 years ago, the usage is established, stop playing games about it. The bill's title was unintentionally apt, as there was absolutely nothing about electronic theft within it. Theft means theft, despite semantic games.
and it's really the content suppliers who are losing out of money they'd otherwise be entitled to. How are the content suppliers losing in this? For example, a Canadian who does this address trick to get Fox News (last time I knew, it was censored in Canada) ends up paying DirecTV for it on the bill, and the appropriate cut goes to Fox. Seems like the only losers are the control freaks who don't want people to see certain things.
I have something of a problem calling people "thieves" who make use of something that is lobbed into their property by someone else. DirecTV is sending its signal into your yard, after all. It would seem that those who make use of the signal given to them are less "thieves" than granky ol Mrs. McGurdy who kept the football you accidentally kicked onto her porch.