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 TV to Adopt DRM-Free BitTorrents

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the would-love-that-from-pbs dept.

The Internet 229

An anonymous reader writes "Canada's public broadcast network, CBC, is to adopt DRM free BitTorrent distribution of one of its major primetime shows, Canada's Next Great Prime Minister. The effort has already been hailed by Canadian copyright guru Michael Geist, who expects the decision to add fuel to Canada's net neutrality debate. A CBC producer behind the show told CNET that the motivation for the move was that CBC 'wanted the show to be as accessible as possible to as many Canadians as possible, in the format that they want it in.' As for DRM, she said 'I think DRM is dead, even if a lot of broadcasters don't realize it.' She added that 'if it's bad for the consumers, its bad for the company.'"

cancel ×

229 comments

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

throttling from bell and rogers (5, Insightful)

jmcnaught (915264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798176)

Hopefully this means that Bell and Rogers will both have to stop throttling Bittorrent downloads. Some days on rogers I would get faster downloads on dialup.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (3, Informative)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798202)

An excellent point that I didn't even think of until you mentioned it. I totally agree; I'm on Bell where I am and it's awful; ALL of my P2P traffic is capped to 30KiB/s and it's quite painful when I should be able to access that content in a matter of minutes as opposed to a matter of hours.

Aikon-

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (5, Informative)

esaul (686848) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798704)

Fortunately, as opposed to the US, you do not have to solely depend on large ISPs as Bell, Videotron or Rogers. Remember this [slashdot.org] story? There are dozens of independent ISPs, and while they often use Bell's networks, I have not seen any throttling on P2P as of yet. I routinely get speeds of close to 500KB/s.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799222)

Bell has me "Locked" to their sympatico service. Which means they will let me get Sympatico but they won't allow anyone else to provide it.

Which of course totally blows, I was going to go with teksavvy.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798940)

You'll have to schedule your downloads. Sympatico throttles during prime time ours only. It's a pain but at least it's not 100% of the time.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798984)

My P2P traffic is capped as well, I say we should blame Ca..

Oh wait..

Contrasts? (1)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798370)

Day [slashdot.org] and night [slashdot.org] ? The only thing that can reconcile government's desire to use P2P efficiency and their censorship goals is filtered networks. Day and night may not be so far from each other.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (3, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798408)

Try activating encryption in your bit torrent client. I'm certain you'll see a dramatic difference.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (4, Informative)

TobyWong (168498) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798460)

They don't need to inspect the packets to identify them as p2p. Encryption doesn't do a damn thing for me (Rogers) unless I tunnel it all through a VPN.

Check your options. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798616)

Re:Check your options. (1)

TobyWong (168498) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798706)

Thanks for the tip. My memory is a little fuzzy but I think I did initially check them out and they only offered basic 1mb DSL to my location so I went with Rogers even though I hate Rogers. I will definitely have another look at them though.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (5, Informative)

BForrester (946915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798770)

I'm on Rogers, and it works for me. If there are sufficient seeders and peers, I regularly get up to 600 KB / sec on regular high-speed, up from 20 KB / sec without.

Make sure you're using a non-standard port. Also, don't force encryption, just enable it. That will net you encrypted traffic + whatever low level of throttled traffic your ISP allows.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (3, Interesting)

TobyWong (168498) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799006)

Let me clarify a little. I have encryption enabled and I do get high speed downloads, it's my upstream that is throttled to hell and back. Upstream usually floats around 1 - 4 k/s. Once in a while I will temporarily get a fast upstream connection to some other client and I assume what is happening here is I am connected to another Rogers user so it is exempt from the throttling rules. If I force all my traffic through a ssh tunnel then suddenly my upstream shoots up near where it should be (80+ k/s).

My guess is that under normal circumstances Rogers is able to identify the traffic patterns of p2p (tons of connections to many different clients) without needing to look inside the individual packets. They then go ahead and close off most of the connections which results in the throttling. If I force it all through my ssh tunnel, it's all going to 1 host so it no longer looks like p2p traffic, just some unidentifiable high speed encrypted stream and therefore it's not subject to throttling.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22799132)

Posting as AC 'cause I already modded you up but you are correct in your observations. The only time I get anything above ~10k/s upload is when I'm uploading to a Rogers/Comcast/OtherCableProvider. Download speeds are always fast.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

the brown guy (1235418) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798906)

speaking of VPN's, if i have a vpn connected so i can access online journals with my university.....(i dont really get it, im an arts student not comp sci lol) does all my traffic go through there?

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798980)

You have a VPN just to access your journals? What are you using to connect?

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799094)

Yes, it does.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

cortex3299 (1008009) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799296)

If your vpn connected is using split tunnel it would not. You should be able to tell by looking at the route table.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799000)

They don't need to inspect the packets to identify them as p2p

Uhh, yes, they do. While, unless you're using a standard P2P port. 'course, if you're doing that, you're not that serious about circumventing your ISPs throttling (BTW, I'm on Shaw, and while they throttle, enabling encryption and using a non-standard port gets around it quite neatly).

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (0)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798866)

I don't think that will help. Last I heard, Rogers throttles all encrypted traffic.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798962)

and how are they supposed to know what is and isnt encrypted? are they looking for authentication handshakes? or are they just assuming all non-plaintext traffic is encrypted?

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

Mozaholic (674945) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799028)

Well with Sympatico encryprtion does nothing.
It seems like I get a max of 30kb/sec between like Noon and Midnight.
With full speed coming between Midnight and Noon.

Even plenty of seeders and peers makes no difference.
Around Noon, even with thousands of seeders downloading at about 300kB/sec, just drops to 30kB/sec.

Check you options! You may have other choices... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798526)

...depending on where you live, like Teksavvy: 50-60% of the price, great non-outsourced tech support, no throttles, no hidden caps, no excess-bandwidth gouging, no b.s. [teksavvy.com] Highest user-rated ISP in North America at dslreports' "Good Bad Ugly" [dslreports.com] A to A+ vs. C+ to B- for the twin Borgs.

Re:Check you options! You may have other choices.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22799042)

shh! we don't want them to get too popular too quickly!

Re:Check you options! You may have other choices.. (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799302)

Good option if you live in one of the 4 provinces where they have DSL.
Not so good in the other 6 provinces where they only offer dial-up.
Here in Manitoba there is only 1 DSL provider (MTS) and one cable provider.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799048)

Absolutely. Why would Rogers, whose major business is in selling cable TV services, and Bell, who sell the same content via satellite, _not_ want to provide their Internet customers with high speed free access to TV programs that they would otherwise have to, um, pay for.

That is, pay the big Cable and Satellite providers for.

You know, have to pay Rogers and Bell for.

Wait. Why is this a good idea for them again?

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

neil-ngc (1019290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799062)

Have you tried transport encryption?

Shaw also throttles BT traffic. To the point where unencrypted torrents barely move. Turned on encryption, and speeds went back up to the 300kB/s range.

Azureus supports this feature, and pretty much makes it idiot proof to use. I'm sure there's other clients that it'll work on, but I'm not sure which ones.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799180)

Deluge has encryption enabled by default.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22799074)

Try using an ISP that doesn't insult you by throttling your downloads in the first place. Why pay the bastards when you're not happy with their service? For an alternative, the smaller ISPs come to mind.

I've been using Velcom (velcom.ca for more info) over Bell Sympatico for over a year now and I both pay less and get a better DSL service. YMMV.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22799166)

lol what?

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (2, Informative)

jhylkema (545853) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799168)

Get Shaw, they don't throttle. I'm a Shaw customer and I've had great luck with them.

And no, I'm not an astroturfer.

Re:throttling from bell and rogers (1)

jhylkema (545853) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799266)

Tres' gauche to respond to one's own post, I know. I wanted to add that Shaw's tech support actively supports BitTorrent and will tell you exactly how to set it up.

Again, not an astroturfer, just a very happy customer. Stay away from Telus, they suck. When their guy didn't show up despite my giving them an all-day window, I called Shaw. They were out the next day and got me up and running. Telus finally deigned to grace me with their presence the next day. So, for about two days, I had both Telus and Shaw and had the opportunity to test them head to head. Needless to say, Shaw won hands down. In addition, Telus' wireless router was a piece of shit. It dropped my connection every minute or so even when I was sitting two feet from it. By contrast, my Netgear router has never dropped it a single time.

I've had great luck with Telus' cell phone and AirCard service and will heartily recommend them. Their internet? Not so much. They need to spend less on pretty fish pictures.

No Offense (4, Funny)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798182)

But I'm not sure I would have watched this on T.V. (if I had one), let alone downloaded it (legally or otherwise) =/

Aikon-

Re:No Offense (4, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798246)

But come on, this is so cool, suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, etc etc. Is it just me or is canada suddenly awesome? Eh?

Re:No Offense (4, Funny)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798302)

What it means is that the **AA, seeing the writing on the wall, is going to BLAME CANADA!

This time it will be Bush who accidently says into a live microphopne "We start bombing in 15 minutes."

He'll tell the voters "We're liberating all our oil from their commie socialist rule."

Plus, now that Canadian Tire money is worth more than the US Dollar ... what has he got to lose?

Re:No Offense (5, Informative)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798314)

We've been awesome for nearly a century and a half. People just didn't start noticing until now.

Re:No Offense (1)

David_W (35680) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798688)

We've been awesome for nearly a century and a half.

Says the drooling iguana? ;)

Re:No Offense (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798908)

Oh, we noticed, it's just that we don't think women with mullets are "awesome". Neither are moose.

Re:No Offense (2, Funny)

corychristison (951993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798988)

WTF is a mullet?

I am Canadian. Honestly, I've never actually witnessed one in person.

Re:No Offense (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799106)

It's a haircut. You might call it "hockey hair".

Re:No Offense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798914)

bullshit.

Re:No Offense (2, Interesting)

HungSoLow (809760) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798696)

Canada has a terrific history of human rights reform, health care reform and engineering excellence. The problem with Canada (I am one, eh?) is selling out to American politics and businesses. To name a few:

- Canada should be charging the US with a slew of war-crime related offenses over Khadr.

- We should bitch-slap your current administration over Maher Arar, who by the way, is an amazing person who I speak to daily (he's in the research lab next to mine).
- We should be blocking purchases of Canadian companies by some 'US and A' companies that are the true scum of the Earth. (i.e. RADARSAT sold to ATK). Additionally, we sold THE oldest company in the world (HBC) to an American asshole.


Some parts of Canada seem ready to become America Jr. (i.e. Alberta and Toronto) but where I'm from (Ottawa) there's a strong dislike for Americanism and American politics in general. I love Americans, I just hate your politicians and business leaders.

Re:No Offense (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798322)

Ditto, but I might consider downloading it to do some seeding ... and also, if I'm *really* bored one day after the playoffs, I might watch it. :)

Re:No Offense (1)

Rog7 (182880) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798390)

I had the exact same thought, they could have picked a better show to support this way.

Even if it turned out cool, they'll rerun it to death ala This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

Re:No Offense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798878)

I think that is the point; there isn't anyone wanting to steal it/pirate it/copyright violate it, so they feel that they can just give it away free. After all, who would want to watch it anyway???

Re:No Offense (3, Interesting)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798626)

one point on this. there is a Canadian TV show I really like. I cannot get it here in the States. Even their web page has a "This show cannot be viewed in your country" error when you attempt to load clips. Does this mean that soon the actually good programming in Canada will be legally viewable here? I sometimes see TV from S Africa, Argentina, Singapore and India. it pains me to think I may need to use not legal means to be informed about these countries and about Canada....

Re:No Offense (2, Informative)

Jaeden (24087) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798856)

In Canada, we often have the same problem when trying to view online content from American networks.

Which one? (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799092)

there is a Canadian TV show I really like. I cannot get it here in the States.

Would that be Corner Gas?

Re:Which one? (1)

boardboyda (1136987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799366)

Lol probably Little Mosque on the Prairie or Trailer Park Boys

Finally, someone gets it. (5, Insightful)

Jax Omen (1248086) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798184)

The best way to make money in the long term is to have happy customers. Period. Now if only some US companies would learn that...

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (3, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798238)

That's a gross over simplification. Best way to make me happy is to give me the product/service for free, without any ads. That kills most revenue streams, so how do you make money if you have no revenue streams? Happy customers are better than unhappy ones, but that's not the only factor to consider.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (2, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798320)

But hordes of furious consumers rallying the entire internet against all DRM is a significant factor to consider.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (2, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798352)

There are a lot of ways to make it work. A successful show could pay for itself with product placement, and this doesn't have to be offensive. Alternatively, a 5 second ad at the beginning of the show might be sufficient. We are talking about a global audience, nearly zero distribution cost. You'd make a profit on less than a penny a viewer.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (2, Interesting)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798636)

Hmm. Variable content length (5-20 minutes) and a 5-15 second ad that ties into said discussion.

Easy to watch, and a pain in the ass to remove. The AD companies get their stream of revenue, and we get our content. Win-win.. it seems.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798820)

It seems like shows are already doing plenty of product placement.

For example, I just finished watching 6 seasons of 24 (ugh. really, I should have stopped after the first season).

All the product placement and advertising was funny at first (Apple, Cisco and Fox news being the top contenders) - all the makings of a good drinking game.
But like most drinking games, it got a bit out of hand... all those 'important people' watching Fox News on their cellphones whenever they had a second of free time.

(of course, I don't have any better 'business model' ideas)

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (1)

Jax Omen (1248086) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798410)

I didn't say the best way to make the customers happy. I said the best way to make money is through happy customers. almost all customers will be happy if they are provided with good service, good products, and fair prices.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (1)

Rog7 (182880) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798432)

No, it IS really simple, you're making it more complicated. "Happy" as opposed to "unhappy". Most folks don't need things handed to them for free to be happy, they'll happily pay for something worthwhile.

DRM != worthwhile. If I'm restricted with my usage of something I've paid for, I'm unhappy with it. Period.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798474)

No, but if you focus purely on making the customer happy (which you can do by giving them the product for free), you won't necessarily make money in the long term, which is what the original comment implied (if not said outright).

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (2, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798608)

Happiness for getting schwag is one thing.

Happiness is also getting superior customer service with being treated like a customer (as opposed to thief).

If it comes down for me to make a decision about getting some media and I can either pay for crippled set or download high quality free set, which do you think I'll get?

If you treat me like a thief, I'm'a gonna do it.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799040)

I would think that the reason that you'd go about creating something is because you have something important to say, and that you'd be rewarded if people took the time to listen.

If what you have to say is so unimportant that it means nothing to you if people hear it, and the only motive you have is to sell someone elses message, well, maybe you should find something better to do. Because what you're doing now clearly isn't important enough to waste your time on.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798306)

The best way to make money in the long term is to have happy customers. Period. Now if only some US companies would learn that...
Why is that important to a public company today? A privately owned company has tons of reasons to do that but a public company has few. Stockholders will sell their stock in a heartbeat and they would be more than pleased with the destruction of a company if they made a profit (like buyouts). High level managers and executives have little need to be loyal since they can easily jump ship at any time and even if they run the company into the ground their golden parachutes will ensure a soft landing. The only people who have a strong interest in the operation of a public corporation are the low level employees who hope to have job security and perhaps someday collect a pension. A public corporation only has to *appear* to have a long-term strategy in order to not scare of shareholders. Incidents like the Enron or Worldcom collapses aren't caused by especially evil executives who are extremely abnormal. They are caused by people who realize that executives who make major short-term gains while the company appears to be able to survive for the long-term are much more likely to be retained than executives who make minor profits while actually making the company able to survive in the long term.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (2, Informative)

kaufmanmoore (930593) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798310)

I'm not sure how this would exactly correlate to the US, unless the videos were to include commercials or some other form of revenue. This story says that the program in on the CBC, which is Canada's version of PBS, so they don't have the same commercial interests. Its naive to think that US broadcasters would give away content no matter how "happy" it would make you feel.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (3, Informative)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798824)

CBC is Canada's public broadcaster, but it isn't the same as PBS. For one thing, they do run commercials in programming the same way the other commercial broadcasters do.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798982)

Now if only some US companies would learn that...

What is there to motivate them? All they have to do is tank the economy and the government bailouts flow freely... and then, it's off to Granada.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22799100)

>Now if only some US companies would learn that...

Or... if someone would use this insight, start a company, and turn this superior wisdom
into a direct competitive advantage, maybe that someone could *teach* them the lesson.

Vague complaining and wishing that someone would do something... accomplishes nothing.

Re:Finally, someone gets it. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799300)

That would be like some indie movie production house trying to suddenly threaten the MPAA cartel...

Or some indie record label suddenly trying to threaten the RIAA cartel...

Or some local indepentent TV station trying to threaten the broadcast networks or cable conglomerates...

Or some local radio station trying to threaten Clearchannel...

Empty libertarian rhetoric sounds nice until you actually frame it in terms
of reality. It's kind of like a comic book versus real combat or crimefighting.

Now if only (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798190)

companies in the US would catch on. DRM is a dead horse. And it's been beaten to a pulp.

Add more shows! (3, Insightful)

Filter (6719) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798218)

22 Minutes and jPod would be excellent!

Re:Add more shows! (1)

jmcnaught (915264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798248)

I'm not all that interested in this particular show, but I'll probably download and seed it in hopes that CBC (and others) will do more of this.

CBC is owned by the Canadian people. I think all the stuff they produce on their own should be under a Creative Commons license so regular folk like me can use some of their footage too.

Re:Add more shows! (2, Informative)

FPCat (646737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798260)

Sadly, jPod has already been canceled.

Re:Add more shows! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798442)

Because jPod is the only CBC show being torrented around the world at all.

This is why we can't have nice things.

"Life ain't nothing but bitches and money." - Kam Fong

Re:Add more shows! (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798762)

Bastards! Again with the friday night pid of death that also killed Firefly. What-the-fuck!? Why is it that any show I enjoy seems to be a prime canditate for cancelation?

Canada makes TV shows? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798266)

I thought everyone who was in the Canadian entertainment business was already in the USA.

But Canada (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798286)


is COMMUNIST with Universal Health Care.

That's nice, but wake me up when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798288)

... both channels do this, eh?

Michael Liberal Geist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798334)

Yawn... ...Canada's Next Great Prime Minister eh? The Communist Broadcasting Corporation loves to play politics... with taxpayer money, naturally...

Oh Canada.... (4, Interesting)

molex333 (1230136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798368)

From healthcare to Hockey, why do the Canadiens constantly get things right where we can not. As an example, anyone who has ever gone to Niagra falls can tell you that the Canadiens are better than us at almost everything. The New York side of the falls is horriblly dirty and devoid of any decent food or lodgings, while the Canadian side is clean, has a vast number of resteraunts(including a Hard Rock cafe), and even has gambling. All this and you could eat off the streets! Why is this, does anyone even know?

Not a good example (3, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798450)

Niagara falls is not a good example becase nature itself is on Canada's side. The reason the Canadian side of the falls has grown into such a tourist attraction is the horseshoe falls, which are the most dramatic portion, is best visible from the Canadian side. You can hardly see anything from the New York side.

So, over time, more and more money went to the Canadian side developing the tourist area. Think about it, if you are a developer spending $100 million on a hotel, you want it to have the best possible view - so you put it on the Canadian side.

Re:Not a good example (2, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798568)

The view is one thing. New York doesn't even have volunteer "trash pickers" or anything. It's like the ghetto, but in nature, compared to Canada.

Re:Not a good example (1)

Cidtek (632990) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798732)

That doesn't explain away the dirty decrepit look of the NY side of the falls. Canadian cities do not need the Horseshoe Falls to avoid being knee deep in trash.

Re:Not a good example (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799260)

Canada didn't even TRY to alter its view of the falls; NY used explosives to create a custom effect on their side .. and the view still sucks. Too bad the point wasn't about the view, the point was about the INFRASTRUCTURE.

Re:Not a good example (2, Insightful)

molex333 (1230136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799402)

While this may in fact be true, as a native New Yorker(and usually proud of it) I am really upset about the fact that we can not even keep the American side clean! It is horrible and dirty. Having been to both sides, the dirtiness takes away from what is still a particullarly beautiful site!

Re:Oh Canada.... (0, Flamebait)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798728)

Why is this, does anyone even know?

Lack of Americans.

CBC - It's Publicly funded (5, Informative)

usedtolosing (938953) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798404)

Keep in mind folks.

The good 'ole CBC is a publicly funded crown corp. So yeah, if they want to cut out a revenue stream...go for it...but we're paying for it in taxes.

It's a novel experiment, and I love the idea. But I'm not sure that this exact model would work for a Private US broadcaster or private Canadian Broadcaster.

Keep in mind. PBS has had documentary downloads available forever. PBS Frontline.

Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded (1)

boris111 (837756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798500)

Frontline... true, but I wanted to see Ken Burn's "The War". Guess they wanted to keep the DVD sales. Wonder if public money went into that program.

Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded (2, Informative)

boris111 (837756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798592)

I'll answer my own question from the website:

Corporate funding is provided by General Motors, Anheuser-Busch, and Bank of America. Major funding is provided by Lilly Endowment, Inc.; Public Broadcasting Service; National Endowment for the Humanities; Corporation for Public Broadcasting; The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations; The Pew Charitable Trusts; The Longaberger Foundation; and Park Foundation, Inc.

Now I wonder if the corporate sponsors received a tax deduction. Wonder if they get a return on the DVD sales.

PBS buying shows - Hmph! (2, Interesting)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798642)

Frontline... true, but I wanted to see Ken Burn's "The War". Guess they wanted to keep the DVD sales. Wonder if public money went into that program.

That's one of the things that chaps my ass about PBS. Our local stations have to pay for these shows and some of those folks are making millions on businesses related to the show - Rick Steve's Europe for one. The local station buys the show, he advertises his travel company, which by his own admission on 60 Minutes soes over $20 million in revenues. It's the same with "Sesseme St." Jim Henson's heirs are also making millions off of the merchandising from the show. Ken Burns also.

I think those shows that are pulling in the bucks via side or their primary businesses should at least give their shows to PBS.

Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded (1)

supersat (639745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798546)

Of course, PBS also sets the broadcast flag [livejournal.com] on their digital transmissions.

Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22798738)

I just see that as a good argument in favour of publicly funded institutions.

Because they are not as driven by profitability, they're free to try experiments like this that would be difficult/impossible for private companies to get off the ground.
Then, maybe, the CTVs, NBCs and ABCs, can look at the results and see if there is a way to adapt the model to keep on making fat sacks of cash.

 

Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded (1)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798746)

For publically broadcast media, I don't see why this isn't the best idea since sliced bread! the broadcast was already free. They got advertising revenue when it aired.

By distributing it through torrents, they get:
- no need to manually encode, produce, and deal with formats of the media. It gets released without DRM and nuts everywhere will recode it for them into a dozen formats.
- No real distribution costs, why buy a big pipe when we can use theirs! Push it out to a few hundred people, and millions of copies go out on the net without costing CBC a dime!
- Instant advertising figures. Pull up BT, type in the name of the episode, get 47,000 responses, now the advertiser is certain there's 47,000 copies of their ad distributed and they pay up for the added advertising. Bonus revenue for CBC! This also helps get quick and dirty popularity numbers wihtout paying 3rd parties to survey viewers.
- It helps push net neutrality in Canada, something the broadcast networks need in order to make IPTV both cheap and reliable. Without net neutrality, broadcasters could pay high fees to have networks provide them IPTV priority bandwidth (or hold their signal hostage by degrading it's priority unless a fee is paid).
- Instant fan base FAR beyond their broadcast area, without signing contracts with distributors, without deals with sattelite providers and cable companies, and without putting up new towers, all which extends revenue from advertising.

Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22799144)

The good 'ole CBC is a publicly funded crown corp. So yeah, if they want to cut out a revenue stream...go for it...but we're paying for it in taxes.

Insightfull is well deserved.

What is CBC draw on Ottawa these days. $2.5B/year ? Just over 15M workers? Hm, this works out to about $160 for each taxpayer. I don't include those not paying taxes. $160 isn't free.

Re:CBC - It's Publicly funded (3, Insightful)

Mantle (104724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799468)

What is with you and all the FUD?

Is it cutting out a revenue stream? Or increasing the size of the pie? How do you know they aren't embedding commercials in the bt version and making MORE money by telling advertisers they are reaching MORE eyes? Show me.

Even if we accept that they will make less money with this distribution method, is it going to be significant to overshadow the savings to the CBC by using bt as a distribution channel? About 1/3 of CBC's funding comes from non-taxpayer sources, according to their 2005-2006 annual report. Of that 1/3, only a fraction of it is from advertising. Of that fraction, only a smaller portion yet comes from TV advertising. Is that a significant amount? Show me.

Why are you so ready to draw negative conclusions so early?

Its a canadian thing... (4, Interesting)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798596)

Guys, you may think that this is the rare exceptions, but in reality this is the way the wind is blowing in Canada. We have a privacy act in Canada that many legal scollars agree that DRM violates because it requires to much information about the user of the file. The long and short of it is this. In Canada you can buy a lawnmower take it apart and make something out of it, In the US if you did that you violate the DMCA...do you see the problem here?

Re:Its a canadian thing... (3, Informative)

diodeus (96408) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799392)

No healthcare bills
No DMCA
No "war on drugs"
No billtiontrillion dollar deficit
No gun-toting citizens ...and in Quebec the minimum drinking age (and rules of the road) are merely suggestions!

w00t! (1)

ForestGrump (644805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798634)

When I visit Canadia this summer, you know what I'll be downloading 24/7!
CBC episodes of Canada's Next Great Prime Minister!!! (and I'll be going down to Future Shop for Trailer Park Boys DVDs).

Grump

I think I'm in love. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798772)

As for DRM, she (Guinevere Orvis) said 'I think DRM is dead, even if a lot of broadcasters don't realize it'.

I think I'm in love... :-)
To bad Guinevere [guinevere.ca] is taken.

Before we crown this corpse... (1)

subVorkian (138658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22798904)

They use Windows Media Player to stream the radio stations. Their token ogg vorbis stream is unreliable and barely worth the trouble.

They aint no saint.

Great Canadian TV (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799292)

Well Battlestar Galactica obviously
Traders: Drama about Bay St.(Toronto's Wall St.) Stock market
This is Wonderland: Canadian court drama, very Canadian, problematic legal issues.
Kenny vs. Spenny: Some debate over realism, but intense... roomates competing in a variety of competitons... required stoned viewing.
Road to Avonlea: Now megastar Sarah Polley, kind of like Anne of Green Gables... very very solid show. No action.

There's tonnes more but those are probably the best dramas.

I'd love some recommendations.

Re:Great Canadian TV (1)

hether (101201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22799420)

Not dramas, but try Corner Gas and Little Mosque On The Prairie.

CBC Mandate via Broadcasting Act (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22799362)

"The CBC's mandate, as provided in the Broadcasting Act (http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml), requires it to make its programming 'available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means.'"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>