Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Groups Call For Massive Net Regulation

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the driving-websites-offshore dept.

The Internet 318

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist is reporting that Canadian cultural groups including ACTRA and SOCAN have called on Canada's telecom regulator to implement a massive new Internet regulation framework. This includes a new three-percent tax on ISPs to pay for new media creation, Canadian content requirements for commercial websites, and licensing requirements for new media broadcasters, including for user-generated content."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No Seriously (4, Insightful)

schlick (73861) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039347)

Blame Canada

Suddenoutbreakof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039473)

thestupid.

ACTRA/SOCAN (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039359)

What are these organizations? TFA doesn't elaborate.

Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (4, Informative)

Oh no, it's Dixie (1332795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039405)

ACTRA and SOCAN are Canada's recording industry associations. They parallel the US's MPAA and RIAA.

Ob SP Ref (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039619)

ACTRA/SOCAN are not your friend, pal.

Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (4, Informative)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039863)

ACTRA and SOCAN are Canada's recording industry associations. They parallel the US's MPAA and RIAA.

Not quite. CRIA is Canada's RIAA.

SOCAN is a performing rights organization, so it parallels the US's BMI and ASCAP.

I know nothing about ACTRA.

Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (5, Informative)

someguyintoronto (415253) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040449)

More than not quite. More like completely different than MPAA and RIAA.

As stated above, SOCAN is a performing rights organization. Specifically they handle the authoring and composition royalty of a piece of music. So I write a song, I become a member of SOCAN (as a Canadian), they track the usage of that song (typically radio play only) and they pay out a royalty for the authoring (lyrics) and composition (music) of the song.

ACTRA represents musicians to broker the royalties as they relate to (what is defined in Canada as) Neighbouring Rights (http://www.nrdv.ca/) which is essentially the "performance" of a recorded piece of music. So I play as a musician on a recorded piece of, it gets played (again, typically on the radio) and they pay out based on my performance on this piece.

This later concept differs greatly in the US, where terrestrial (AM/FM) radio does not owe "performance" royalties. SoundExchange via a whole heck of congress lobbying is the closest equivalent to ACTRA (or the two other Canadian associations that deal in these royalties), however, it only deals in Internet streaming and satellite radio. And, yes they totally fucked up.

SOCAN and ACTRA have historically helped to look after the little musicians. They are not inherently evil despite what the likely opinion on slashdot will be.

Now, as a musician, in Canada, who writes songs, gets airplay and, yes, has leftish values, I think that this is an acceptable compromise. Bars, restaurants, dentist offices, etc all get surcharged for playing music in Canada at their workplaces (as music is seen to add value to their business). The same argument can apply to ISPs who have more demand/usage by people looking to listen and become exposed to music. I think ultimately the impact to consumers will be negligible in terms of a rate increase (which is likely to be also monitored by the CRTC).

Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039995)

ACTRA and SOCAN are Canada's recording industry associations. They parallel the US's MPAA and RIAA.

I'd like the government to pass some sane laws for a change. Like for every million blank CDRs, DVDRs, or HDs sold a random employee or member of MPAA and RIAA gets randomly one or more of the following: jailed, fined, shot out of a cannon, or just shot in a random spot by a taser or large caliber gun. All these events should be recorded and aired as both entertainment and a lesson that there are just some things that we don't want people to do any more.

If we run out of MPAA or RIAA members/employees, we can just change it to lawyers and elected politicians.

Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (2, Informative)

Misch (158807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040169)

ACTRA and SOCAN are Canada's recording industry associations. They parallel the US's MPAA and RIAA.

No, SOCAN is more along the lines of BMI and ASCAP. They represent artists and songwriters, not movie studios and record labels .

Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (2, Informative)

Easy2RememberNick (179395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040705)

I used to work for my uncle who had video games, pool tables and jukeboxes. One bar bought a jukebox off my uncle and the next week I went back they told me SOCAN had been flipping through the songs to see which were Canadian and then making the bar pay a license fee for them, I haven't worked there since 2002 and this was long before that so at least ten years ago.

  Even the bands that played were made to pay up for any songs written by Canadians or rather considered 'Canadian content' meaning the artist may not be Canadian but the majority of the work; music, lyrics, arrangement was created by a Canadian (think David Foster).

Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (4, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039589)

According to this site. [wordsmith.org] They are apparently some sort of order founded around the worship [answers.com] of dolphins [answers.com] .

Or, possibly they are just a bunch of special [wikipedia.org] interest [wikipedia.org] groups similar to the RIAA in the US.

I'm trending to the Sancta Orca theory myself.

Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039965)

TFA or TFAA?

Nothing Good (1, Offtopic)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039383)

Nothing good can come from this. Notice, tax and spend. New tax, and spend on a new program. Don't the "Do Gooders" ever learn?

Why can't they (the gov) just let us be! DAMN IT!!!

Re:Nothing Good (5, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039441)

First, ACTRA and SOCAN are not the government, they are special interest groups. Secondly, given the current political situation in Canada... don't expect this to go anywhere in the near future.

Re:Nothing Good (0, Troll)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039513)

Secondly, given the current political situation in Canada...

Which is...?

Re:Nothing Good (5, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039639)

Currently they are in a state of cannibalism. Moose vs. man, man vs. wolf, wolf vs. baby strollers. Their leadership has abdicated to Keanu Reeves, having mistaken the recent remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" as a documentary. The moose (meeses?) have taken advantage of this power vacuum and having no natural predators outside of orcas, are wrecking havoc and destruction through out the great land of Quebec.

Re:Nothing Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039763)

wat

Re:Nothing Good (4, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039765)

Their leadership has abdicated to Keanu Reeves, having mistaken the recent remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" as a documentary..

Woah....

Re:Nothing Good (2, Funny)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040175)

Lemme fix that for you:

Woah, dude....

Re:Nothing Good (4, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040333)

Lemme fix that for you:

Woah, dude....

Woah, eh?

Re:Nothing Good (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039801)

The moose (meeses?) have taken advantage of this power vacuum and having no natural predators outside of orcas, are wrecking havoc and destruction through out the great land of Quebec.

We, your friendly neighbors to the West (Alaska) will very happily lend (very favorable terms, 50 year lease for 1 US dollar) our famous Governor [latimes.com] . She knows how to deal with Meese.

Really, she's not doing much at the moment.

Re:Nothing Good (5, Interesting)

Oqnet (159295) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039707)

The Prime Minister decided to try and pass a budget that would cut funding to opposition parties and make sure that civil servants couldn't go on strike. This was met with a lot of yelling and wining. So the opposition parties(which consist of the majority of members of ailment) decided to get together and form a coalition government. The Prime Minister freaked out and asked the Governor General for a time out of ailment(prorogue), until after the new year. This basically makes it so that the opposition parties can't have a confidence vote and try and form a new government with them in power, or have a new election. This was given to the Prime Minister, now ailment is stuck only able to do everyday tasks and not do things like pass new laws and bills and crap.

It's all a big freaking gong show, so nothing will pass until the new year, and even then they will probably be focusing on each other and crying about how they got kicked out of the sandbox. Once that's done they will probably work on pushing the budget through(if we don't have a new election) which will consist of incessant debate over bailouts and more wining about what happened last week.

That's the political situation in a nut shell.

Re:Nothing Good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039775)

man, i wish i had the power to just cancel work if i thought i was going to get fired.

Re:Nothing Good (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039825)

nut shell.

So to speak ...

Re:Nothing Good (1)

IgLou (732042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040405)

Strangely, I'm finding this to be the most enjoyable period of time politically here for the last 2 years. It's so quiet and peacefully and no new stupid legislation!
Dare I say it? I want it to last longer!!

Re:Nothing Good (2, Interesting)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040517)

Strangely, I'm finding this to be the most enjoyable period of time politically here for the last 2 years. It's so quiet and peacefully and no new stupid legislation! Dare I say it? I want it to last longer!!

Oddly enough, I feel the same way... I'm of the opinion that the more time they spend bickering, the less damage they do.

Re:Nothing Good (2, Funny)

IgLou (732042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040589)

Either that or we change the debate process to involve weapons and the thunderdome. 4 go in 1 comes out!

Re:Nothing Good (1)

Adriax (746043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039517)

Butbutbut, taxing the general populace and giving it to people who sit around and "represent" artists, lightening their workload in the process, will create jobs! Honest!

Re:Nothing Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039549)

Not until January 26th at the very least ;)

Re:Nothing Good (1)

someguyintoronto (415253) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040495)

Neither are "special interest groups". They are both associations with members who are songwriters (SOCAN) or musicians (ACTRA) who have assigned them rights to manage their authoring/composition (SOCAN) and "performance" (ACTRA) royalties.

Both take administration fees from royalties collected but are not-for-profit (or at least I believe this is how they are both defined).

Re:Nothing Good (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039461)

O thats alll I nead, I am in canada and the red tape here and fourms and crap are nuts and now they want to add more for really what I can see as no good reason. The tac for example will be passed right on to the consumers and then they have to pay for new content, um the content is usually FREE. Next thing they will say is the content to someone house in canada has to be at least 20% Canadian, fine we have that for radio stations and such which don't work out to bad. But for the internet, ya enforce that. But Realy come on, first we get the new proposed DMCA Canadian version that thy want to put in here that was not influlenced by the us one, (and I have 5billion in the bank) that is just going to kill consumers right to media and now they want to regulate the internet, wow if this all goes through Canadian internet will get really screwed up. At that point I will be finding one of those proxy servers who bypass all this crap and doing all surfing through that.

Re:Nothing Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039861)

Notice, tax and spend.

I'm sure they would gladly drop the tax, as long as the spending took place anyway. Would that make you happier?

What if everyone got a piece? (5, Insightful)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039391)

I wonder how Canadians would react if the other industries that get pirated off of the internet started getting a cut, too. Start snapping up 2% to movies, 3% to games, some money for tv and radio, et cetera. Then maybe pornography could get a free slice, then the books and magazine articles who are getting wholesale copied, et cetera. Suddenly people might start saying "hey, I've never pirated one of those, I don't even play games" or whatever. It's not like music is significantly more pirated than other things are.

I honestly don't understand why the music industry gets to tax Canadians as a whole for the behavior of a few. Why do media sources get different treatment than the other industries? Shouldn't canadians be paying a Photoshop tax at this point?

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (2, Funny)

jornak (1377831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039431)

Uh, c'mon... Who here has ever really paid for porn?

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (2, Interesting)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039501)

Well, it's like the tax on CD-Rs, isn't it? Clearly, they're just adjusting to the increased bandwidth and HDD space to legalize copying and sharing music and movies.

Er... right?

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (5, Interesting)

Frymaster (171343) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039841)

and the tax on cd-rs is such a wild success.

witness my band. we suck. people hate us. no one comes to our shows. so, we release a cd. since we're not big enough to be granted an exemption, we pay the cd-r tax on all the blanks we use (and, yes, we used a legit duplication plant). of course, our cd sells miserably and we get nowhere near the beak-even point.

which means.... we lose $300 putting out our cd, and the tax we paid on the blanks goes straight into the pockets of a big-name canadian act. perhaps avril levign. that's right: levign makes more money off my artistic creation than i do.

thank you socan!

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26040133)

and the tax on cd-rs is such a wild success.

witness my band. we suck. people hate us. no one comes to our shows. so, we release a cd. since we're not big enough to be granted an exemption, we pay the cd-r tax on all the blanks we use (and, yes, we used a legit duplication plant). of course, our cd sells miserably and we get nowhere near the beak-even point.

I really can't tell if your post is ironic or not.

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (5, Funny)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040339)

Well there's your problem. You're trying to promote yourself. You need to become recluses, only playing shows every so often so that very few people can figure out that you guys actually suck (or even who you are).

Then, become friends with a series of emo, or even better, kids that call themselves "scene". Ask them if they have heard of your band (without making note of the fact that it's your band). Inevitably, they will not have heard of it. You will then be the coolest person among this crowd for knowing a band that no one has heard of. From there, make a CD of your shitty music, and give it to them.

At this point, you sell your CD. Never perform a show again, but always make dates around town to perform, and then bail (if you like the club owners, tell them you're not going to show up in advance, and just put a poster on the door). You'll sell at least 1000 CD's before your manufactured unknown band fad bubble pops. Then, your band "breaks up", you form a new band with mostly the same members, and you do it again.

I've never had the patience to deal with emo kids but if you do this could end up making you millions.

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039761)

Just out of curiosity, who are you referring to "Canadians." These groups aren't representative, they're just a SIG with currently high visibility and low intelligence.

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (1)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040321)

People from Canada are already paying taxes on music supplies, such as blank CDs and blank tapes. Those people, known as "Canadians", are to whom I refer.

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (2, Interesting)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040021)

I honestly don't understand why the music industry gets to tax Canadians as a whole for the behavior of a few. Why do media sources get different treatment than the other industries? Shouldn't canadians be paying a Photoshop tax at this point?

More to the point, why should they get to collect a toll off the internet but not me? I didn't make any music that is getting pirated by a few individuals, and neither did these guys.

Re:What if everyone got a piece? (4, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040203)

I wonder how Canadians would react if the other industries that get pirated off of the internet started getting a cut, too.

Why stop at "industries"? Every person capable of holding a copyright to anything, should get a cut.

Hurts the honest man (1)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039421)

Honestly I don't see the point. Why use taxpayers money to create an infrastructure that is easily circumvented?
Think of the children? Please. If some creepy dude wants pictures of children he'll a proxy.
As far as schools go, it should be on their shoulders to filter what their students should or should not be able to view. This is the concept of gun control all over again - it hurts the honest man, as lawbreakers will easily find a way to circumvent it.

Sounds like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039449)

job creation program for lawyers. Just what we need: more babysitters for the Intertubes.

Re:Sounds like (1)

Adriax (746043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039701)

Hrm... That works for me, let canada do the stimulus program to create jobs for lawyers, while america starts the infrastructure rebuild program. All the american lawyers will immigrate to canada for the better job prospects.
Course then the canadian government will close the borders to protect their natural born lawyers, and the american lawyers will have to hop yachts and jump fences to get across the border. Soon immigrant lawyers in canada will be treated as second class citizens, sitting on street corners waiting for people with day-lawsuit work to drive by in a truck and grab them. Some will bring their entire families, others will just do work and save every bit they can to send a measly $100k a month to their poor, destitute families they left living in condos with only 2 vacation homes in the US.

Oh, Canada (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039455)

Earlier today there was a slashdot story about how Obama was critical that "it is 'unacceptable' that the US ranks 15th in broadband adoption."

I don't think he has to worry about the Canadians.

This includes a new three-percent tax on ISPs to pay for new media creation,

This is stupid. People around the world are creating content daily. Did the Bushes move north?

Canadian content requirements for commercial websites,

This is no different than their TV, I doubt it will really hurt anything... except for that tax thing. And it depends on how high the tax is.

and licensing requirements for new media broadcasters, including for user-generated content.

That's just brain-dead stupid, and meant to keep the unwashed rabble from having their say.

And to think that Bush had me thinking of retiring to Canada despite the fact that I hate winter. I guess nowhere's safe from rich, egtistical, authoritarian idiots.

Re:Oh, Canada (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039573)

The government is not saying this. This is SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) and ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists) proposing this.

It's analogous to the wailing the RIAA and MPAA put up in the US, aside from that it doesn't get as much traction up here.

Re:Oh, Canada (2, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039999)

It's analogous to the wailing the RIAA and MPAA put up in the US, aside from that it doesn't get as much traction up here.

More ice, eh?

Re:Oh, Canada (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039637)

I guess nowhere's safe from rich, egotistical, authoritarian idiots.

Let's all move there then.

On a more serious note, living in international waters may be possible. Or maybe some of the northernmost regions of Antarctica? Korea's Demilitarized Zone?

That's Scott (1)

hamburgler007 (1420537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039483)

He's a dick.

Oh yeah, and Canada too.. (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039503)

I really am scratching my head over England and Australia. It almost seems like they see the US going down a path and are racing each other to beat us to the end.

I just posted this in the story on Australia. Who else did I miss - Bermuda? the Virgin Islands? The Falklands?

I don't like it (5, Insightful)

Oqnet (159295) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039525)

I live in Canada and we have a simular thing with radio. They have to play X amount of hours of Canadian content, which is good because it gives the local artists some play(usually unless they blast Celine Dion *winmper*). But to do this for Candadian websites seems just weird. How is this going to benifit Canadians to have X amount of Canadian content on the sites. I don't see why it needs to be regulated any further than not allow children from seeing explicit material(excess violence and sexuality), which probably doesn't stop most children anyways(didn't when I was 16), but I can see it's usefullness.

Regulation of the internet in any way takes away apart of what the internet is. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and rarly do you have to listen to someone bluber an idiotic viewpoint. Regulating the internet goes against what it has come to represent raw informtion. Not always accurat not always sensable but I wouldn't change it for anything.

If people are afraid of the internet so much that they want to change it, I would like to ask them why? Why do they need to confine Canadian websites to having a certain amount Canadian content when it's a global community. The content shouldn't be limited because of the location the domain is in. Places like CBC.ca TSN.ca and CTV.ca are always going to have the canadian content I want. news.google.ca maps.google.ca all have local content for me if I need them. People do a good job of keeping canadian content and other out there for everyone because it's in their best interest.

This group is silly and I would like to know if there is somewhere I could send a letter telling them as much.

Re:I don't like it (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039563)

Somehow freedom of speech, freedom of expression don't apply to radio according to you?

Re:I don't like it (3, Interesting)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040319)

Not that I necessarily agree with him (or don't), but I think his point was something along the lines of Radio being a somewhat localized medium, requiring a certain amount of local content makes it easier for local performers to get exposure. The internet on the other hand, being massively non-localized and more or less free to everyone, it makes no sense and serves no purpose to require "local" websites to carry a certain percentage of local content, as the location of the servers hosting a website makes no difference to the content of that website, nor where it can be accessed from (barring local regulations, censorship, or routing issues).

The worlds copyright and patent systems are in need of massive reform, as they don't seem to be living up to the ideals they promised (namely providing incentive for the production of new works). Rather in most cases modern copyright and patent seems to function primarily as a crutch to prop up record companies (as opposed to artists), and as a stick that corporations can beat each other with. Does copyright and patent have some good ideas and good uses? Yes, but nowhere near as many as the abuses it seems to be put to lately.

Unfortunately I don't have a better system to propose, nor even a set of suggestions on how the current one can be fixed, other than perhaps by reducing the span of copyright to something like say 10 years, and putting more stringent requirements on the issuing of patents. What I do know is that the current system doesn't seem to cut it, and hopefully we can come up with something better.

Re:I don't like it (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040689)

Those concepts have nothing to do with radio. Playing American music for ratings has nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression. TV and radio stations are not beings, they are methods to distrubute audio and video.

Re:I don't like it (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039703)

I live in Canada and we have a simular thing with radio. They have to play X amount of hours of Canadian content, which is good because it gives the local artists some play(usually unless they blast Celine Dion *winmper*). But to do this for Candadian websites seems just weird. How is this going to benifit Canadians to have X amount of Canadian content on the sites. I don't see why it needs to be regulated any further than not allow children from seeing explicit material(excess violence and sexuality), which probably doesn't stop most children anyways(didn't when I was 16), but I can see it's usefullness.

Regulation of the internet in any way takes away apart of what the internet is. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and rarly do you have to listen to someone bluber an idiotic viewpoint. Regulating the internet goes against what it has come to represent raw informtion. Not always accurat not always sensable but I wouldn't change it for anything.

If people are afraid of the internet so much that they want to change it, I would like to ask them why? Why do they need to confine Canadian websites to having a certain amount Canadian content when it's a global community. The content shouldn't be limited because of the location the domain is in. Places like CBC.ca TSN.ca and CTV.ca are always going to have the canadian content I want. news.google.ca maps.google.ca all have local content for me if I need them. People do a good job of keeping canadian content and other out there for everyone because it's in their best interest.

This group is silly and I would like to know if there is somewhere I could send a letter telling them as much.

Send it to Steven Harper and whoever your elected officials are. Couldn't be easier. If you want them to listen, make a phone call. If you really want them to listen, demand to visit in person.

Re:I don't like it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039993)

I live in Canada and we have a simular thing with radio.

Looks like you learned the same English as Dubya. Nucular is simular to nuclear.

Once again I shout ABOLISH THE CRTC! (1)

Powercube (1179611) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039535)

Seriously, if we don't get rid of them- this shit is going to keep happening. No longer are they interested in even just screwing consumers for big business, they are living in some sort of totalitarian dreamworld. This must end or Canada's high-tech economy is doomed.

Re:Once again I shout ABOLISH THE CRTC! (2, Informative)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039857)

Maybe you should look at the article again, or even the summary. This isn't the CRTC, this is ACTRA and SOCAN. While groups like this are pretty powerful in the U.S., they're really not too powerful up here.

And do you really think the CRTC is going to tax ISPs? That would be Bell and Rogers? When have the CRTC ever sttod up to either of those companies?

The day this will come to the US (2, Interesting)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039541)

It will be disguised as "net neutrality".

More crappy can con(canadian content) (5, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039559)

Actra is a performers union and socan is basically an artists union. Socan actually got a law passed that taxes blank media that supposedly gives money to the artists that lose money from IP theft. So don't underestimate these bozos. The key is that the internet allows us to do an end run around the stupid laws that keep forcing crap content onto Canadian TV and radio. What the hell would be Canadian content on the Internet? The whole idea of these stupid can con laws was to put Canadian artists on a "level" playing field with the US. But with the Internet a level playing field would basically be a combination of bandwidth and a lack of stupid laws. So if they create a bunch of stupid laws then Canadian web sites would be disadvantaged not helped. The only winners would be these organizations that collect these fees. I wonder how much of the present money collected from the media tax goes to artists when calculated as a simple percentage of monies collected and not a number generated by some convoluted accounting. If you are Canadian, write your MP and tell them that this will hurt Canadian IT badly.

Tag ^5. (0, Troll)

Uchiha (811374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039569)

HUGE bonus points for the fuckactra tag.

Gawd... (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039621)

As a Canadian, allow me to say these people need to fuck the hell off.

Please.

What? No need for me to be rude...

Re:Gawd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039731)

As an American, allow me to say I completely agree with you.
 
Why can't the world have a damn break from all the absurdities? Keep slapping the greedy, pocket-lining bastards down.

Re:Gawd... (4, Funny)

euxneks (516538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039815)

As a true Canadian, you would have known to say:
"As a canuck, let me say these hosers need to Piss off eh!"

;P

Just doing my part to help spread stereotypes.

Re:Gawd... (2, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039909)

As a Canadian, allow me to say these people need to fuck the hell off.

Babelfish doesn't have an option to translate to American from Canadian. Does it mean the same thing here?

It seems to me, that the positions are: (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040375)

Canadian Groups Call For Massive Net Regulation

. . . and, from the posts from the Canadian folks here:

Canadians, on the other hand, call for massive re-regulation, of Canadian Groups.

Re-regulation, with extreme prejudice.

Michael Moore argued that Canadians are more armed to the teeth than US Americans, but are not nearly as trigger happy.

I now think that the Canadians have been wisely conserving their ammunition, for times of ideas like Internet Cultural taxes.

Wrong day! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039625)

Isn't it 4 1/2 months until April 1?

...laura

Morons (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039653)

Stupid Canadians They wonder why we all hate them?

Tie porn to it and it will die (4, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039659)

How many copyright porn movies/images get copied over the internet.

How much of this money would be funneled directly to the porn industry compared to other copying.

Make that number public it will quickly be pushed under the table.

I don't think we have to worry (5, Informative)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039733)

With our embattled prime minister basically shutting down Parliament until end of January, at which time he is likely to get turfed in a confidence motion, I don't think this proposal will see the light of day.

In fact, (crosses fingers) I don't think given how the opposition finally grew some gonads and ganged up to toss him out of his chair, he will dare re-introduce a C-61 clone either.

Re:I don't think we have to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039983)

I wish you were right, but the Liberals introduced similar bills when they were in power too.

CanCon for the Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039753)

As if Canadian Television and film (with RARE exception) isn't dull enough. We just made our political landscape as interesting as the US, let's not dull-down our internet by CanCon regulations (where rural angst and bad hairstyles will flourish).

Re:CanCon for the Web (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039799)

As if Canadian Television and film (with RARE exception) isn't dull enough.

Stargate?

Re:CanCon for the Web (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040075)

Corner Gas?

Not enough French content, Eh? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039803)

Seriously, this is really stupid. If they add 3% to the cost of 'Net content in Canada, it will just go elsewhere.

OK, wait a minute... (2, Interesting)

theoriginalturtle (248717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039809)

Canadian content requirements for commercial websites? What, so walmart.ca would have to sell at least 80% hoser merchandise? The Globe and Mail website would have to feature at least 75% Canadian news even if nothing happened in the Great White North that day?

Re:OK, wait a minute... (1)

sanso999 (997008) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040195)

And this forum would need to be 3/4 Canadian or we would get the "Not available in your area" message?

anti-telecom (1)

Spartz (1164699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039849)

Woahhh, Canada seems to be increasingly anti-telecommunication. Maybe all of this internet and connectedness means the end of nationstate governments and big business monopolies/cartels. They're fighting to protect it. I hope Canadian citizens aren't suckers.

Re:anti-telecom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26040669)

Ah, but we live next to the States, so a lot of stupidity rubs off on us.

Don't get me wrong though... Canada comes up with whole new flavours of stupidity to introduce back into the States in return.

I thought (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039929)

I thought Rush had split up?

So uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039973)

if I build my own micro-scale intranet inside a building which models how the "real-world" internet works am I still subject to an ISP tax because I'm providing myself with "internet" services which I have to maintain and costs me money? What if I post user-generated content on my miniature web model? Do I have to bill myself for that, or moderate what I put up on my own servers? Am I confusing the shit out of myself?

Re:So uh... (2, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040265)

What's 3% of $0 ?

Re:So uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26040477)

11

Minority Mandates (2, Interesting)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039985)

Canada has a proud heritage of this. One province forced the entire country to have to be effectively bilingual. Then when that province wanted to secede, the First Nations who owned the land that 2/3 of their hydroelectric power came from, regardless of actual population numbers, refused to go along, and stopped it cold. So I've no doubt this could actually go into practice in the Great White. I also have no doubt that nobody can require an artist to conduct their business from any given country without forceably restraining them. Canadian artists will simply produce elsewhere, leaving the ISPs to fork over 3% of what Serenity's staff theoretical mathematician Jayne Cobb described as "let's see, nuthin', plus nuthin', carry the nuthin'..."

Re:Minority Mandates (2, Informative)

Lapsed_Pacifist_2876 (1367731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040395)

One province forced the entire country to have to be effectively bilingual. Then when that province wanted to secede...

That's just so completely inaccurate and misleading. Even in my home province of Alberta, about as redneck and xenophobic as Canadians get, has several francophone communities. There were a lot of reasons to become officially bilingual. Not everything bad that happens in Canada can be blamed on Quebec. 30%, tops.

Re:Minority Mandates (4, Informative)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040489)

One province forced the entire country to have to be effectively bilingual. Then when that province wanted to secede, the First Nations who owned the land that 2/3 of their hydroelectric power came from, regardless of actual population numbers, refused to go along, and stopped it cold.

Are you trying to be funny? You've got modded "Interesting", so let me set some records strait. First, the "entire country" is not "effectively bilingual". It is officially bilingual as a whole, yes, but try speaking French in most parts of Canada outside the Province of Quebec... Even in several areas of Montreal, the biggest city of the francophone province (where I live), it can sometimes be hard to be served in French!

Second, as a French Canadian myself, I'm convinced First Nations did not play a big role at the last referendum. Sure, they were part of a very large equation, but clearly did not "stopped it cold" as you claim. And they don't "own" the 2/3 of electricity-providing land of the province.

Re:Minority Mandates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26040645)

One province forced the entire country to have to be effectively bilingual.

The crazy part of that is the English won that war and GAVE them the right to be able to use that bucket of sand on us.

Re:Minority Mandates (1)

ve3oat (884827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040729)

"Canada has a proud heritage of this. One province forced the entire country to have to be effectively bilingual."

Sorry, but there is only one bilingual province in Canada and that is New Brunswick. Quebec is not bilingual (try to get service in English!) and Ontario is not bilingual (try to get service in French!), and British Columbia and Alberta will never be bilingual (well, maybe English and Japanese). The other provinces, well ... it's not an issue.

I propose legislation... (1)

thenewguy001 (1290738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040007)

to ban members of these groups from the internet. How's that for regulation? Motherfuckers

Cultural Coercion? (3, Funny)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040049)

I, for one, welcome my Canadian Cultural Overlords!

EH?

Why always north america ? (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040281)

why is it that such greedy corporate shill organizations always come out of north america and try to scuttle even the biggest inventions mankind made, just for their own shitty gain ?

Re:Why always north america ? (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040569)

Well,

Dennis Leary said it best: "I'm an asshole!"

Seems the whole world is full of em now. Never seen so many pissed off people for so many different reasons in my life.

how outragous laws get passed (4, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040481)

Over the past decade or so, I've noticed a trend. I'm not terribly bright, so I don't think I can be the only one who has noticed it but regardless, nobody is saying anything about it. No Slashdotters or bloggers ever raise this point, no journalists write explicitly about it even though it's right there in the news almost every day.

Let's say you're a huge government entity or industry coalition. You want a law (or series of laws) put into effect that, if passed by congress, would net you huge amounts of cash, power, or both. The problem is that almost everybody who hears about it is going to oppose it because they'll probably see it for what it is. Lobbyists are worth their weight in gold, but lobbyists don't outweigh enormous opposition from the press and public.

How do you get this extremely profitable but unlikely law passed? The solution turns out to be relatively easy:

1) Submit the bill for vote.
2) When the public outcry inevitably happens, reaffirm to the public that the bill must be made into law. Make a couple of unimportant token conciliatory changes and make a big deal about how you're willing to compromise.
3) Resubmit almost the exact same bill.
4) Watch it pass.

I've seen this happen in the U.S. for every almost single major unpopular bill that's been passed recently. The wall street bailout is the number one perfect example. This bill was an undisguised farce from the beginning. As dim as the American public tends to be, even they saw the evil in handing out hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street millionaires as a thank-you for screwing the world's economy while those who were *really* hurt (and without homes to boot) received not a single dime out of the deal. They presented the bill, the press and public said, "No effing way!" They presented it again with practically no changes and it passed with flying colors. Tell me, how does that happen?

I haven't been able to figure it out myself, but I wager it's to do with human psychology. You expose someone to an extreme idea once. After they get all done with being shocked and appalled, you expose them to it again (or to a slightly less shocking one) and they'll readily go along with it. Maybe when the idea is presented the second time, they think, "hey, it's not as bad as that first proposal." Or possibly people are just lazy and give up the fight after expending so much energy in the first opposition. I dunno. Another interesting point is that the more shocking the first presentation, the better the chance it has succeeding the second time around.

We're seeing it again with the Detroit bailout. The car companies made such an incredibly poor show the first time around, that Congress will probably say, "Well, they rode over in limousines this time at least, we should probably give them a few billion dollars to keep making shitty cars."

There's definitely a psychological effect and it's one that we, the public, would do well to wise up to soon because this is one tactic that's nearly 100% effective and has no effective counter-strategy because no one seems to be paying attention.

Re:how outragous laws get passed (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040719)

Yep. It's a transparent farce, and yet they keep getting away with it over and over again. The "concessions" are usually things that were deliberately put in the original bill with the aim of scuttling it, for repealing at a later date.

The other thing is that a few years after the second (or third) iteration of the bill has become law, they can introduce the 'TOO objectional' parts again, and have a decent chance of getting them through.

57 channels and nothing on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26040573)

God dammit, I take the weekend off and suddenly the Internet goes mainstream!

If someone tries to tax ISPs 3% I guarantee the ISPs will levy their customers (us) 5%.

CanCon on the Internet is hilarious! Absolutely hilarious. How do they gauge the percentage? Number of HTML pages? Aggregate minutes of video? Number of times "U" or "RE" appears in words? If I put Bryan Adams entire discography up for download that won't even qualify. (har!)

Radio and TV are linear media that operate along time's arrow. This arrow must go straight through the heads of these trade union putzes because they clearly have no concept of how the Internet works.

The numbers never add up (1)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040713)

I wish I could find the newspaper article (I thought it was the Toronto Star or National Post but can't seem to find it) which, at the end of the first year of the copying levy for blank media, gave a breakdown of how much money the levy brought in.
The most interesting part about the article was that the amount of money (in millions) that the blank media levy generated was more than double what the groups had claimed they lose on an annual basis.
Nothing changed though... hmmmm

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?