Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Broadcasters Seek New Internet Regulation

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the new-interference-commission dept.

The Internet 171

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist's weekly Toronto Star column reports that the Canadian broadcasting community, including broadcasters, copyright collectives, and actor labor unions, are all calling on Canada's broadcast regulator to increase its regulation of the Internet. Some groups want sites such as YouTube to be subject to Canadian content requirements, while the broadcasters want to stop U.S. broadcasters from streaming television shows online into Canada."

cancel ×

171 comments

Canadian content requirement... (3, Funny)

rednip (186217) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575531)

To satisfy the Canadian content requirement, all one needs to do is add a couple minutes of the 'Great White North' [wikipedia.org] to each of the YouTube clips.

I'll karma slut here... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18575957)

The sketch was conceived when SCTV moved to the CBC television network. Each episode to be broadcast on that network was two minutes longer than those syndicated to the United States. The CBC network heads asked the show's producers to add specifically and identifiably Canadian content for those two minutes. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas thought that this was a ridiculous request, since the show had been taped in Canada, with a mostly Canadian cast and crew, for two years. The request inspired them to create a parody that would incorporate every aspect of the humorous stereotype of Canadians.

I also saw the PBS (USA) special about SCTV. It was a funny show.

Oh, PBS (USA) is now airing Dr. Who!!!!!!

Who yeah!!!!!

Re:Canadian content requirement... (1)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576005)

Get in the 00s. = )
http://www.trailerparkboys.com/ [trailerparkboys.com]

Obligatory (1)

sugapablo (600023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576015)

This will go over about as well as the McKenzie Brothers' attempt to get free beer from the liquor store. :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KWzdOKCb-Gw [youtube.com]

Re:Obligatory (1)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576321)

This will go over about as well as the McKenzie Brothers' attempt to get free beer from the liquor store.

The liquor store? In Ontario in the 1980's? Sorry, my friend, it was "The Beer Store".

Re:Obligatory (1)

tb3 (313150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576397)

In Ontario, in the 80's, it was The Brewers' Retail.
You're probably too young to remember. :-P

Re:Obligatory (1)

Howserx (955320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576469)

or a quick run across the border into Quebec to get some at the deppaneur (or SAQ, if you actually were old enough to legally buy)

Re:Obligatory (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18577231)

My Canada *doesn't* include Quebec.

Re:Canadian content requirement... (1)

Xman73x (1032330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576051)

That is sad I watch YouTube..what do they think we have In the America Only bad things? Well you can blame that on the lazy parents today sorry but that fact is true!..But I still think Canada is Paranoid!

Re:Canadian content requirement... (1)

sledd_1 (464094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576073)

I sorta preferred Northern Exposure. Bad humor, and Mounties - what else could we hope for?

take OFF, eh, you hosers (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576171)

for Canada, then, just work up software at YouTube that puts toques and beers on everybody in those videos when the IP request comes from up north, eh.

it worked for SCTV, eh.

so then should shortwave radios in Quebec have translation software so all the stations you listen to come in speaking French? it would be funny to hear Nutjob of Iran on the news, eh, speaking in French. "Death to America. Get me another beer, eh?"

CanCon (4, Insightful)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576429)

Why do they always have to embarass us like this? The great thing about youtube is that all the media is in direct competition. It's exactly the arena where Canadian content should shine -- any of it that is worth seeing in the first place, that is. It's not like with television where networks can be deliberately myopic about only selecting programs that will appeal to American demographics. The very nature of youtube makes nationality irrelevant. Canadians can access all of the Canadian content on youtube just as easily as they can access the American, Russian, or Swahili content.

If Canadian broadcasters want Canadians to see Canadian content on youtube, they should put some awesome videos on youtube and then promote them to people. THAT'S how you encourage the development and advancement of culture. By making things that kick ass and then spreading them far and wide, not by keeping out things that happen to kick asses of the wrong nationality. Maybe if they'd get past their intense penis-envy towards American-style copyright law, they would see that.

Why not take it one step further (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18575563)

Maybe we should also require that when us Canadians are traveling and staying in US hotel rooms, all the channels should be changed to show Canadian content only... regulation of the Internet in this way seems just as stupid to me.

Re:Why not take it one step further (3, Interesting)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575661)

Thought it was still april fools day, still a Typical Canuck response.. "oh our shitty content can't cut it so we better regulate it to death".

Like we need more swivel servants in Ottawa..

Regulating the internet is like trying to regulate the weather.

Fools.. (and my tax dollars would have to pay for this crap) /canuck

Re:Why not take it one step further (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18576889)

I control the weather all the time. I am smart like that. I built a house to prevent the wind and precipitation from getting to me and a heat pump to keep the temperature where i want it.

Re:Why not take it one step further (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576963)

still a Typical Canuck response.. "oh our shitty content can't cut it so we better regulate it to death".

The sad part is we're putting out some great stuff lately. Corner Gas, Trailer Park Boys, Kenny vs. Spenny...

And the sad part is I too thought it was an April fools headline too... How can we be so daft to think we can regulate a site out of our country?

Internet's reply: (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575581)

"Go fuck yourself."

It's one thing for American lobbies to push for government regulation of the internet, given our government can be bought, and we do still control the internet to a significant degree. Just what the hell do these guys think they can accomplish?

Any laws passed in deference to these idiots will have all the power of a UN resolution.

Re:Internet's reply: (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575669)

Any laws passed in deference to these idiots will have all the power of a UN resolution.

No, they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.

Re:Internet's reply: (1)

pasamio (737659) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575715)

So the great firewall of Canada? Makes them sound like another nation that starts with C and what they do with objectionable internet content. The proof is there...I guess Canada would just be the next!

Encrypted Internet Access (2, Interesting)

beckerist (985855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575771)

Somehow I see this as one more huge step towards a boom in anonymous web surfing.

Re:Internet's reply: (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575769)

My statement stands, mostly due to the fact that Canada's government isn't irrational enough to think that a good idea and actually pass that law.

Well, one would hope.

Re:Internet's reply: (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576055)

Oh, exactly. I wasn't saying they will, I'm just saying they can. Your original post made it sound as if they don't have the capability to even attempt something like that, when in fact they do, they just lack the political motivation for something so dumb.

I doubt any country would be dumb enough to try to firewall off commercial content that certain national industries don't want. Based on the rulings regarding Internet gambling, I'd be willing to bet that the WTO would come down against a country trying that as de facto restraint of trade.

I'm pretty sure the only country-wide firewalling we'll see will be ideological, not commercial.

Re:Internet's reply: (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576127)

No, they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.

Nose, meet knife. This is in regard to your upcoming appointment with the face.

Re:Internet's reply: (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576191)

This is EXACTLY the right response. Trying to push all the little conditions on web sites in other countries is irrational (just like the US tries to do with gambling.) This needs to be done at the Canadian ISP level. Of course no matter WHAT "solution" is mandated, it can be bypassed with redirectors / proxies.

The real answer of course it to tell all the whanking whiners to STFU and come up with a valid business model for the modern world.

Objectionable? (2, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576207)

>they can mandate a firewall that blocks all objectionable content from getting into Canada.

Having watched Canadian television, I, for one, find the concept of watching television content that Canadian broadcasters find objectionable terrifying.

Re:Objectionable? (1)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577167)

That sentence was really hard for me to read, and having nailed down some sort of rhythm to reading it, I don't think I understand the point you were trying to make... can you please clarify?

Re:Internet's reply: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18575843)

This is really just another protectionist measure from a bunch of companies that act like a cartel... If direct tv was allowed in - it would wipe the floor with Rogers and Bell and they know it. I'm fed up seeing utter crap Canadian comedy (Air Farce etc) get a place on TV because of 'Canadian content' rulings, the sooner the internet gives me access to HBO et al and allows me to stop paying the Rogers tax.. the better.

Re:Internet's reply: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18576201)

Canada's expected reply: "Well, that's a rather rude way to put it, but point taken. Thank you."

XBL Marketplace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18575593)

No wonder its taking microsoft ages to get the Xbox live video marketplace setup properly in canada.
I want to download HD movies when i want, not when canada wants me to.

What are they going to do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18575611)

Cut the cables at the canadien border? Put a tax on ip packets? Block wireless? I have this great picture of people surreptitiously beaming signal from huts on the US side to "internet freedom" fighters in the great white north...

Re:What are they going to do? (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576389)

Put a tax on ip packets?

There's finally a use for the Evil Bit.

Dear CRTC (5, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575641)

Dear Canadian Radio and Television Commision:

The internet is neither radio, nor television, nor Canadian, so keep your regulatory hands in your pockets.

Re:Dear CRTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18575791)

On second read, I did find insight on you post...

The whole concept of can-con regulation is because those mediums are one to many. Thus, control of distribution is held by the broadcasters.

But the internet is many-to-many, so Canadian artists can get their message out just as easily as their American counterparts.

So you're right, the internet != radio or television.

Re:Dear CRTC (2, Insightful)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575863)

Yeah, good point. It's funny how some people just can't seem to get that the internet changes everything. With radio and television it was somewhat reasonable for the government to insist that a portion be Canadian content. There used to be a limited amount of stuff that could be broadcast across the airwaves. And many people, including myself, wanted to hear/see local (as in Canadian) artists.

But now with the internet it doesn't cost anybody anything extra to get content from everywhere. Having access to terabytes of Japanese anime and American country music doesn't at all limit my access to Canadian artists.

Re:Dear CRTC (1)

i_wanna_be_a_scienti (1042298) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576009)

Precisely Its alot harder to regulate website - if one gets shut down, then you could just set up another one as easily or even set it up in another country, and access it from there

Re:Dear CRTC (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576033)

That's a broad definition of reasonable. Mandatory content is wrong on so many levels, one of which is that it violates freedom of speech, an other that it's basically censorship in reverse.

Re:Dear CRTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18576277)

Mandatory content is pihsrosnec?

Re:Dear CRTC (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575959)

Who's to say it isn't television? Or Radio? Just because the transport is different doesn't mean that it's not television. I'll give you that's it's not Canadian, but neither is Fox,NBC,ABC or CBS. Yet if they're playing the same show as a Canadian broadcaster then then Canadian show (with canadian commercials) gets shown instead.

Re:Dear CRTC (1)

sigzero (914876) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576107)

The "transport" is what makes it not television or radio.

Re:Dear CRTC (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576443)

Yeah, like our agencies don't change names.

Just ask Customs... or CRA... or CCRA... or Revenue Canada... or the Ministry of National Revenue.

(For the non-Canadians in the crowd, that's the same agency, with a few name and focus changes over the years.)

They'll just repackage the CRTC as the Canadian Heritage and Information Agency or something that doesn't spell "CHIA". With the repackaging, they get an Internet control mandate.

I'd be willing to accept this: Downloading MP3s remains legal in Canada as long as 25% or more of my collection is by Canadian artists.

Re:Dear CRTC (1)

tb3 (313150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576679)

Unfortunately for your argument, it's the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission link [crtc.gc.ca] , so it may well be within their jurisdiction.

Re:Dear CRTC (1)

JDHannan (786636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576799)

ACTUALLY its the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Us Canadians dont give up our Radio-televisions easily

Re:Dear CRTC (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576743)

The internet is neither radio, nor television, nor Canadian, so keep your regulatory hands in your pockets.

Wow.

I wish I'd thought of that line. You're my hero for stuffing all that into one sentence and not saying it in the way I had in mind. (for the curious, "Piss off, turdburglars.")

Ok... (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575649)

Since the Canadian Air Force is equipped with those fantastic Avro Arrows [wikipedia.org] , they'll have no problem enforcing this...

Re:Ok... (1)

NeilTheStupidHead (963719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576947)

Didn't you know? The CBC movie and all those books are a cover-up to make everyone THINK Dief scrapped the CF-105 program. Now we're on to the Arrow Mk III which can reach orbit on demand, is built entirely from recycled materials, is solar powered and makes the F-302 [wikipedia.org] look like a pile of crap. :P

eh? (0, Flamebait)

virchull (963203) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575683)

If Canada doesn't want our streaming video, then the US can stop using Canadian newsprint paper supply. Is that a fair trade, eh?

what's a little competition here and there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18575687)

Sounds to me like the broadcasters just can't take the competition. If they are producing quality shows then they shouldn't have to worry about youtube or television networks posting shows online.

Re:what's a little competition here and there? (3, Interesting)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575967)

I think the issue here is Canadian broadcasters pay US networks for the rights to certain shows. For example, CTV has "Lost" and the "CSI" and "Law and Order" franchises, while Global got the "Survivor" series, "Shark", etc. If people are going to stream those videos in Canada, those broadcasters want them streamed from their sites, not US sites. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

And, FWIW, as a Canadian, when I went to abc.com to view the episode of "Lost" I had missed, I was told that I was ineligible to view it, as I was accessing the site from Canada. So at a technical level, it looks like it is feasible to block Canadians, and as I noted above, it's not an issue of Canadian broadcasters producing quality shows or not; it's an issue of them protecting the rights that they have paid for.

Re:what's a little competition here and there? (1)

gripen40k (957933) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576187)

I went to abc.com to view the episode of "Lost" I had missed, I was told that I was ineligible to view it
*cough*torrent*cough*

Re:what's a little competition here and there? (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576347)

If people are going to stream those videos in Canada, those broadcasters want them streamed from their sites, not US sites. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

It's unreasonable because all of these artificial boundaries are bullshit. The internet is a challenge to the established order because the only boundaries it recognizes are those between networks. On the internet we are all peers. Anyone can produce and distribute content. As you may have noticed, this terrifies the entrenched media conglomerates.

Re:what's a little competition here and there? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576759)

these artificial boundaries are bullshit.
Yes, they are, but if company A is going to take company B's money for exclusive distribution rights within an artificial boundary, then they ought to play fair no matter what distribution technology is used. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re:what's a little competition here and there? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576829)

Yes, they are, but if company A is going to take company B's money for exclusive distribution rights within an artificial boundary, then they ought to play fair no matter what distribution technology is used.

The rights to distribute via broadcast and via videotape are different rights. Why should the right to distribute via the internet not also be a distinct right?

The solution to this problem is not a law. It's litigation between the corporations in question. Rather than filtering, which attacks valid content as well, the solution is to account for it in your contracts.

If I wanted to force people to carry something from point A to point B by hand I wouldn't stipulate that they were not permitted not to distribute it by train, automobile, or jet pack, because someone might invent teleportation. I'd stipulate that it must be carried by hand. What's so complex about this concept?

Re:what's a little competition here and there? (1)

w3woody (44457) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577451)

It's unreasonable because all of these artificial boundaries are bullshit.


The boundaries that keep people from walking in your front door and eating your food from your refrigerator before changing into your clothes and walking out of your home with your laptop computer are also artificial.

Hmmm. Wonder if you think those artifical boundaries are also bullshit.

Sure the Internet is turning things on their heads. That's why legal types are still debating what to do about it. Did you think someone was going to give up a few million dollars in broadcast rights because while you think rights to your property should be protected, their property rights are bullshit?

What an excellent way to deal with obesity! (0, Troll)

Semptimilius (917640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575787)

Canada has high levels of obesity. Children are especially blubbery. If they are forced to watch more Canadian content, and can't get around it on the internet and the like, perhaps they'll decide to get out more and exercise.

That's a good one! (0)

Rakarra (112805) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575815)

Hahahaha! Oh, I love these April Fools stories. My favorite day of the year on Slashdot. ...

This is an April Fools Day story, right? ... :-(

A call to arms (4, Funny)

Grashnak (1003791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575819)

Some groups want sites such as YouTube to be subject to Canadian content requirements
Fellow Canadians, I am shocked to learn that YouTube is apparently not meeting its committment to ensure that at least 30% of its content is Canadian. I call upon all of you to immediately get a camcorder and make a tape of: yourself smashing your testes during an ill-fated skateboard stunt; two drunk Canadian girls kissing; a dog (Canadian) biting someone's crotch; your sister, passed out and naked; Canadian ninjas fighting Canadian pirates, or; a montage of guys showing off their plumbers butts at hockey games.

Only by lowering ourselves to their level will we ever be fairly represented on YouTube.

Re:A call to arms (3, Funny)

slashbob22 (918040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575943)

Only by lowering ourselves to their level will we ever be fairly represented on YouTube.
Just make sure we post in both official languages. The French Language Commission may follow up with whatever the CRTC leaves behind.

Re:A call to arms (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576061)

While I realize you're trying to be funny, but you do illustrate the point well. How is a site consisting only of user created content supposed to adhere to content laws? How are they supposed to control the amount of Canadian content?

Re:A call to arms (2, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576615)

While I realize you're trying to be funny, but you do illustrate the point well. How is a site consisting only of user created content supposed to adhere to content laws? How are they supposed to control the amount of Canadian content?
Spam youtube with Clips of Celine Dion?

Re:A call to arms (1)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576871)

If you want a certain percentage of YouTube content to be Canadian, and the non-Canadian content outnumbers Canadian content by an unacceptable margin, you simply require that YouTube make large amounts of non-Canadian content unavailable to Canadians.

YouTube will simply detect your IP, and if you are in Canada, you will have greatly restricted access.

Re:A call to arms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18577369)

I've seen some of those amatuer canada posts on the usenet...and I'd like to say that adding more content of that type would be much appreciated!

Scott (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575833)

Sounds like a request from Scott [wikipedia.org]

They just Talk (1)

wboy (1083035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575891)

Canada loves to talk and explore ideas and treats all ideas equal regardless of merit. They are trying to push Canadian content on anything broadcast in Canada. What is a broadcast? How do they know what is Canadian. If I video my wacky in-laws in Vancouver and put it on say, Youtube.ca, that is Canadian content at it best. Laughs, its impossible to govern and tell what is digitally created in Canada

Canada has the CBC for Canadian content and very few Canadians watch it. It is so bad, it is embarrassing to watch.

Re:They just Talk (1)

IgLou (732042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576157)

It just cheeses me off, how we waste time on talking about things like this?? Now, this is coming from traditional broadcasters who don't have a clue about what they are asking. They're just trying to demonize the internet further and trying to get a piece using guile and bureaucracy. I'm annoyed at how we are wasting dollars even considering this. I started a dialog recently with my MP on the peer-to-peer debate. But rather than agreeing with my "if no one is profiting from it it's not piracy", I was given the answer of "we are commited to finding a solution suitable to all parties involved". That pisses me off. Sometimes leadership means telling people off and sticking up for the public that elects you. Instead there are all these "interest groups" that have the ear of the government that influence the government and make them jump through hoops and I a member of the public is politely told to move along... ARGH!

So, to every Canadian politician out there, grow a pair and stand up for the people that actually elect you not faceless interest groups!

Re:They just Talk (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576261)

I watch the CBC quite regularly, and I really enjoy most of the stuff I watch, so I'd think that your observation is a highly subjective statement.

Re:They just Talk (2, Informative)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576415)

I enjoy watching CBC... Where else can I get my fix of the Royal Canadian Air Farce?...

and Yes I live in the US, but get Canuck Cable, and I could, If I chose to, spit across the border from my bed-room

Re:They just Talk (1)

Brill (691333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577123)

you're such an idiot. CBC does fine.

Streaming from U.S networks (1)

jimand (517224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18575921)

From TFA, the CAB fears that U.S. broadcasters will simply stream their programming into Canada

Except whenever I try to stream something from a U.S. network I get a message like "Not available in your region". There's no advantage for a U.S network to stream to Canada because the streamed ads are intended for a U.S. market. My guess is that the advertisers pay/view and they don't want to pay for Canadian eyes.

Re:Streaming from U.S networks (1)

karmatic (776420) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576501)

There's no advantage for a U.S network to stream to Canada because the streamed ads are intended for a U.S. market. My guess is that the advertisers pay/view and they don't want to pay for Canadian eyes.


That argument holds water only until the US content providers find advertisers willing to pay for ad impressions to Canadians.

Re:Streaming from U.S networks (1)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577151)

That argument holds water only until the US content providers find advertisers willing to pay for ad impressions to Canadians.

Who will those advertisers be? Maybe a handful of global brands? The future of advertising is smart targeted advertising, not creating a vauge global advertising campaign that tries to appeal to all nationalities, sexes, ages, and demographics. I think that if anything, advertising will become even more specialized (you are an 18 year old female, living in suburban toronto, and you show a preference for hip-hop music, so we a stream an ad specialized to appeal exactly to your demographic).

Canada uber alles (0, Troll)

coltrane679 (118528) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576001)

What a fucking joke. What will these clowns do when they get their next Paul Bernado type case? The internet isn't like newspapers--you can't seize them at the border.

I like Canada very much, especially BC, but sometimes the silliness up there can be overwhelming.

Re:Canada uber alles (1)

esobofh (138133) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576237)

This isn't canada, it's government or the CRTC. It's labour unions and other dumb asses that think they can get some more money.

Into Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18576011)

Why would TV be streamed from the US into Canada? Canada airs shows months before the US does.

WTF is Free Trade for anyway? (2, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576021)

If Canada doesn't want to compete with the US in various sectors, why did it opt in to NAFTA?

Canada needs to friggen grow up.

Re:WTF is Free Trade for anyway? (2, Informative)

Howserx (955320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576517)

who says we did? We had an asslicking Reagan toady as a PM that signed us up for it.

Re:WTF is Free Trade for anyway? (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576647)

If Canada doesn't want to compete with the US in various sectors, why did it opt in to NAFTA?
Canada needs to friggen grow up.
1- Soft lumber, STFU.

2- Culture is excluded from trade agreements.

Culture fascism (4, Insightful)

Butisol (994224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576049)

As a Canadian, these kinds of stories are very disturbing. It's not so much that I'm worried about these laws actually passing as I'm worried about the socio-political ideology in which these ideas are born. On the one hand are profit driven enterprises trying to protect their markets, which is nothing new and quite expected. But on the other hand in the ministries is a virulent strain of "we have the right to decide how much of what Canadian viewers get to see in the name of protecting 'Canadian culture'." THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHAT MEDIA I HAVE ACCESS TO. This is just as reprehensible as the Catholic church burning pagan classical writings, without even the excuse that it's for a divine purpose.

Rip those fucking fascists. Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid!!!! Berzerker!!!

I can see the referendum now: (1)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576961)

Vote 'yes' to join with China by installing firewalls at the border so that we can protect your children from nasty American home made videos on Youtube.

Vote 'no' to maintain a free society, but allow evil American culture to seep into the brains of your children. Oh why won't you think of the children!

Read that again (4, Insightful)

LihTox (754597) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576057)

Wait a second...
"The Canadian broadcasting community, including broadcasters, copyright collectives, and actor labor unions, are all calling on Canada's broadcast regulator to increase its regulation of the Internet."

Well, of course they are. The American broadcasting community wants increased regulation of the Internet, too. Heck, the Tongan broadcasting community probably wants it too. We should keep an eye on them, but don't blame Canada for having greedy broadcasters.

Fear the norrth! (2)

josh_db (1082509) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576095)

Canada is slowly becoming the North American equivalent of Britain and France combined in the some of the worst ways - Legislated to death and it rewards its citizens for 'waiting for the government to do something about it.' At least they shave their pits (Or so I believe)

Can't be done. (1)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576113)


I've heard a number of Canadian artists say that the CRTC, the gov, and particularly the cancon rules, have saved Canadian culture and the Canadian artists. So, if what they are asking for could be done then that would be great.

But it can't.

Re:Can't be done. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576305)

I've heard a number of Canadian artists say that the CRTC, the gov, and particularly the cancon rules, have saved Canadian culture and the Canadian artists. So, if what they are asking for could be done then that would be great.

An alternative argument would be that if Canadian culture is so great, it will preserve itself.

Re:Can't be done. (1)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577271)

An alternative argument would be that if Canadian culture is so great, it will preserve itself.
Another arguement would be that there is no real Canadian culture - there is Quebec culture, Newfoundland culture, Alberta culture, First Nations culture, Chinese immigrant culture, etc. - and that attempts to promote an imaginary single catch-all "Canadian" culture actually destroy the many real cultures (plural) of Canada.

Re:Can't be done. (0, Flamebait)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576629)

Well, I've visited Canadian art museums in Quebec and BC, and I'm afraid my viewpoint is that quotas and subsidy have resulted in a lot of really bad third-rate art. Whereas the UK has no quotas forcing anyone to feature UK artists on radio or TV, yet continues to have world-class TV and music.

dont wana be.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18576313)

*sigh* Ignoring the story, just reading this stuff reminds me why everyone hates americans.

BULLSHIT! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18576315)

I'm Canadian and I don't remember requesting nor mandating anyone in our government to make any changes at all to the Internet.
This sounds like another MPAA RIAA or other mafiAA tactic to try to strip our freedom.
Take off, eh, you hosers!
Leave my Internet alone!

Liberals the lot of them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18576423)

Michael (liberal) Geist's weekly Toronto Star (liberal) column reports that the Canadian broadcasting community (liberals), including broadcasters (liberals), copyright collectives (liberals), and actor labor unions (liberals), are all calling on Canada's broadcast regulator (liberal) to increase its regulation of the Internet. Some groups (liberals) want sites such as YouTube to be subject to Canadian content requirements, while the broadcasters (liberals) want to stop U.S. broadcasters from streaming television shows online into Canada.

Yawn... nothing new here. Canadian Liberals never want regulation - unless their monopoly is threatened!

Controlled Content=Censorship (1)

thepacketmaster (574632) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576481)

Of course the CRTC isn't saying we (Canadians) can't watch certain things. But this is certainly giving the feeling of censorship, by trying to impose what we can view...wait...that is censorship! Here's a thought: Disband the CRTC and realize that most Canadian programming isn't worth saving if it needs to be propped up by subsidies.

Re:Controlled Content=Censorship (1)

jeffer00713 (1083261) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577359)

finally a voice of reason..I'm proud to be Canadian, but it gets embarrassing when Cdn. broadcasters can't stand on their own talents and productions and need protection in the way of subsidies and legislation to keep making millions..Now they think they can force the world to abide by that same legislation Cdn's. suffer..Get a grip Cdn. broadcasters and produce quality and u'll get the respect u deserve.

This is free market - government need not regulate (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576541)

Yea.

If you cant compete, quit the field and go do another business.

people are not bound to be LIMITED in their freedoms using the taxes they THEMSELVES are paying, for the sake of any sector's personal profit and protection.

fucking bastards.

Re:This is free market - government need not regul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18577533)

I'm sorry, was this the free market where I get the freedom to pay for your air pollution? Or was this the free market where corporations get the freedom to exploit governmental processes?

I get the two of them confused, y'see.

Flippant remarks aside, you run into real trouble whenever you assert the dominance of one or the other. Neither system is perfect.

I'm not a fan of the free market, but I cannot deny that it's improved the quality of life immeasurably. Similarly, I'm not a fan of government, but I do rather believe in the rule of law, rather than rule of the rich.

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18576807)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/128627013_d4622a d3fa_m.jpg [flickr.com] Screenshot of an article that foreshadows the effects that internet regulation laws could have on Canadian citizens.

What Canadians need more of (1)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576841)

is protection from American hegemony on teh Intarwebs.

Since most Canadians don't know much about what their country stands for, or it's history beyond the lessons gleened from beer commercial slogans, many peer south for queues about what it is to be Canadian. And what is it, in a nutshell? I am *not* American.

Yes, having your national identity centered around something you're not may be difficult for most Americans to understand, but perhaps I can put it in context for you: Not being American generates nationalistic feelings among Canadians akin to the way that being Republican, embracing democracy, Capitalism or the right to bear arms resonates with some Americans.

The broadcasters know this sentiment is strong among a sizable chunk of the Canadian populace, and they're not above using it as a tool to convince the CRTC to protect them from the big bad wolf even when it's clearly absurd to think that a Canadian government entity can in any way regulate or control information on the Internet.

Though I must admit, it'll be fun to watch them try!

Yes I know: cue, not queue. (1)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576907)

Sometimes i rush to post and miss the obvious stuff.

Another dumbass idea by "Stephen Harper" (1)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18576923)

I remember a few years back when the CRTC came to the conclusion that the internet could _not_ be regulated. Thus it didn't try. Now, apparently it has decided it can. IMO, the change in government isn't a coincidence.

But, I have an idea for all the arrogant americans that have posted in this thread. Instead of being assholes (ignoring your own backyard btw), how about just sitting back and being amused when they try. I mean, there's nothing wrong with being critical, but seriously *disappointed*

Mod parent Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18577201)

Good effort, though.

To be fair... (0, Flamebait)

Bishopus (1083259) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577159)

without the many trade policies that protect them, ALL canadian broadcasters, TV and movie production companies, book retailers, book publishers, toy manufacturers and retailers, sporting goods manufacturers, ISPs, cellular service providers, and donutiers would be flat-ass out of business. And GOD I can't wait for the day when that happens. There's nothing more infuriating than mediocrity, served up because someone wanted to protect a nonexistent 'heritage'.

Nothing to do with "Canadian content." (1)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577291)

The arguments from broadcasters and media conglomerates regarding the importance of "Canadian content" is nothing more than a smokescreen for "make them buy my shit or more of my shit." There is plenty of Canadian content on the Internet; possibly disproportionately so given that Canada is an extremely wired country. The problem for the broadcasters is that it isn't the property of Bell/Globemedia/whoever so they can't charge for it.

Actual advocates for Canadian content, such as Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, are really nothing more than cultural elistists who think "our stuff" should be valued more highly than "their stuff", meaning gauche and pedestrian American television and right wing radio. If it was up to these people we would all wear smoking jackets and sit around talking about feminist politics, Leonard Cohen and Margaret Atwood all day.

I love my country, but we often throw money at a problem rather than common sense. What I suspect will happen is that everyone will realize that not only is it technically impossible and politically unpopular, but likely unconstitutional to attempt to enforce Canadian content on the Internet. So, the government of the day will simply add a Canadian cultural tax to our Internet bills, spread the money around and call the problem solved. Which makes the fact that we just spent millions, even billions of dollars to connect schools and communities to a world wide network information network called the Internet look stupid. We could have simply sat the children down and turned on the CBC.

Tell me again (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18577377)

Tell me again how great Canada is? I tend to forget when I read of moves like this. I don't recall USA broadcasters stopping the streaming of Canadian television shows down to their southern neighbor.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...