CBC Bans Use of Creative Commons Music On Podcasts 148
An anonymous reader writes "The producers of the popular CBC radio show Spark have revealed (see the comments) that the public broadcaster has banned programs from using Creative Commons licenced music on podcasts. The decision is apparently the result of restrictions in collective agreements the CBC has with some talent agencies. In other words, groups are actively working to block the use of Creative Commons licenced alternatives in their contractual language. It is enormously problematic to learn that our public broadcaster is blocked from using music alternatives that the creators want to make readily available. The CBC obviously isn't required to use Creative Commons licenced music, but this highlights an instance where at least one of its programs wants to use it and groups that purport to support artists' right to choose the rights associated with their work is trying to stop them from doing so."
Is this legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
One has to ask if this is legal. Can you collectively bargain to exclude another group? In the USA, I know that it would likely not be. For instance, Company ABC can require a distributor only sell products from Company ABC in order to be a distributor, but it is flatly ILLEGAL for them to say "You can sell any product you want, as long as it is not from Company XZY". We have seen these lawsuits in my industry. You can require EXCLUSIVITY, but you can't exclude a singular company. I would have to imagine that the same would hold true for music under a single license. The key is whether or not someone will try it in court. And no, it doesn't matter what the contract says, it is illegal here. Then again, Canada is like a whole other country.
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
To add some clarity, I am pretty sure that the basis for the lawsuits in my above statements was due to the Sherman Act, which says in part:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad everyone always brings up Sherman when Clayton is such a cooler anti-trust act.
Anyways, Clayton specifically deals with tying and exclusive deals, whereas Sherman is more general in its nature.
Re: (Score:2)
The grandparent never said it did. They simply stated that it certainly is illegal in the USA and suggested it may be in Canada as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you were. The grandparent Pharmboy (216950) posted twice. The bit where he wrote 'I am pretty sure that the basis for the lawsuits in my above statements' might have been considered a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
The grandparent of his post would be the parent of your post.
In this case, the grandparent of your post is the same as the parent of your post anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case there is the CBCs own mandate "actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression" http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml [radio-canada.ca] and nothing does that more than the creative commons which does it freely.
In relation to Canadian law there is also this "(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view," http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/B-9.01/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_3 [justice.gc.ca]. In one fell swoop they have excluded all Canadians who make use of and contribute to the creative commons and they have effectively barred CBC from contributing to the creative commons in contravention to the law that governs the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
In this case not only should the illegal contract get overturned but the criminals that signed it should be fired.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has better laws then Canadian. Why can't Canadian be more like the US?
I wouldn't stretch that so far. Canada has better copyright legislation on the books. The US has very strong anti-trust legislation on the books. Then again, the US has had many more abuse monopolies over the last couple of centuries, making these laws necessary.
But to answer your question as to why Canada can't be more like the US, the answer is: Quebec. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Necessary no, wanted YES
Go read some history on Standard Oil, Rockefeller, et al. The laws aren't perfect, but when you look at the Robber Baron Age, what you see is greed that killed competition and SLOWED progress down. The roll of government *should* be to only insure the playing field is level. I'm not saying that govt. does a great job at it, but the problem has been enforcement, not the actual laws, which have been around long enough without being replaced to demonstrate their value.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thats not a loophole though, the contract would still be thrown out for doing that. Microsoft worded things that way but still got nailed with anti trust big time, amongst other things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft got nailed for bundling a web browser with their operating system (which was stupid, in a lot of people's opinions).
They should have been nailed for the reasons you suggest, but were not, or the likes of Dell wouldn't be able to put "Dell recommends Windows 7" on every page of their site.
Microsoft continues to use their dominance in the "PC" market to influence downstream vendors and prevent real c
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft got nailed for bundling a web browser with their operating system (which was stupid, in a lot of people's opinions).
MS also got nailed for forcing Dell to pay for a license even on computers that didn't ship with MS software (the original source of the phrase "Microsoft Tax"). This was a separate issue than bundling IE with the OS. And if Dell is putting "We recommend Windows 7" on their website, rest assured that it isn't because they are forced to (the former lawsuit already settled that), it is because they are being paid to. If you read the recent news about how most of Dell's profits weren't from selling computers, but from "rebates" from Intel which have now ended due to ethics issues raised about Intel, then you would see that Dell is looking for any way to make money. A check on their stock price over the last 10 years would also indicate this.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't intel recently fined in the EU for giving kickbacks to distributors for not using or delaying their competitors chips from getting to market?
After reading TFA I was going to post something similar to what I saw in your first post.
Unless canada has useless anti-trust laws I can't see how this could be legal.
If you're the biggest seller of some product it's pretty straightforward abuse of your market position to require your customers not buy from a particular competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are they paid to, but they get (or at least used to get) paid more for the more prominent positions. About five years ago I worked at a company that sold the full range of computer equipment (laptops through to servers) and I worked on the software behind their website. Towards the end of my year there then they moved the "X recommends MS Windows XP" from below their header to in their header. It looked damned fugly and unprofessional to me, but the marketing department just cared that they were ge
In some places probably is (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this isn't a single company being targeted. This is similar to union laws in non-"right to work" states. In those places, if there is a union that represents you in a given job, membership to that union in mandatory. You must be a member and pay dues so long as you work in that position, no choice. Also the unions can and do negotiate union-only contracts with companies. The companies will hire only union shops for work, no non-union contractors may bid. This is all legal.
Now that isn't everywhere, other states don't allow that, but a number of them do.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, if you are a fan of government non-interference in contracts, "right-to-work" re
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I would respectfully disagree. Unions are formed for worker protection, and you can still hire the same worker, they just are forced to be a part of a collective bargaining group: the union. This is different than excluding an entire class of musicians for reasons not related to monetary considerations. This is more like a company saying they will hire workers from one union, but not willing to hire workers from another union, even at the same pay or less. The Sherman Act actually has some teeth and is
Re: (Score:2)
The primary difference is that Unions are legally recognized groups that are given exclusions in many ways. Right or wrong, they are excluded from anti-trust issues, else so many wouldn't be so crooked. Whether or not they should be would be a different issue. In other words, because they aren't treated the same by law, I don't think you can draw a parallel here. The analogy doesn't work because they are too dissimilar in the eyes of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The nature of this should be covered under anti-trust legislation, however the government stopped protecting consumers from dangerous monopolies on not just corporate works but on ideas and concepts. one is reminded of xkcd 129: Content Protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I think it's right, but I can understand the broadcorping castration's reason for doing this too: They need to have the copyrights to their own programmes to be able to defend them, and the CC license prevents that.
The question is what else they could do -- I'm sure there's something, and I hope to see some constructive suggestions here, and not just condemnations.
I'm also pretty certain that this wasn't due to them being fascist-nazi-commie-godfearing-godhating faggot-adulterer-homophobes in the
Re:Is this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? Considering CC is based on copyright, they still have the copyright to their own shows. It's no different than if they licensed boy band of the day and put it on the show.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no good reason the CBC cannot approach the copyright holders of Creative Commons works the same way they approach the copyright holders of commercial works. In fact the CBC is much more likely to obtain permission without having to spend money in the case of CC-licensed works. There's no good reason why they would have to completely avoid this option.
There's no good reason but there is a reason. There is a lot of money and political clout behind the monied copyright interests. This maneuver benefits them, satisfying "que bono?". The question is whether you think that's a complete and total coincidence caused by a completely free, unprompted, un-coerced, un-pressured decision on the part of CBC. Anyone who wants to believe that so badly that they'll dismiss all other notions as "conspiracy theory, get a perspective" is either naive or deluded.
I've got another reason for you. Time and money. Consider this.
Negotiation for license rights = 50/hr (numbers pulled out of my ass. This includes the negotiations, contract signing, accounting to cut any cheque for payment, time for the legal dept to review the contract, etc)
So, to license from a library of works = 4 hours of work.
To license from 750 different license holders = 3000 hours of work.
Hmm....$200 in labour for a blanket license, or $150,000 to license 3 songs / podcast (5 shows a week + 2
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this just as, if not more, likely to happen with a proprietary licence given that there is an obvious financial motive to do so. Anyway what would happen if too such "viral" licences interacted
hat is something I am not completely famil
Canada has the "Competition Act" (Score:2)
It deals with "abuse of dominance" to exclude competition in section 79. If I were creative commons lawyers filing a complaint under this law would be a start.
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/01165.html [competitionbureau.gc.ca]
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
CITATION NEEDED.
1) Go to Jamendo.com.
2) Mark "Find content I can use for commercial purposes." and "Find content I can modify, adapt or build upon"
3) Results: 9307 albums
Not only there is plenty of CC music that you can use for commercial purposes, as it's extremely easy to separate from the rest; there's absolutely no reason for banning CC music as a whole just to prevent uses of other CC licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming CBC == BBC, then there are truly no ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't paid much attention to the CBC at all, but if the high quality of various BBC content is any indication of what happens with the Canadian equivalent...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Care to quote any sources on that claim? The posts by the podcasters involved state that they're not allowed by the CBC to use ANY Creative Commons licensed content, not just those under non-commercial license. This is also specifically noted as a result of negotiations with "artists rights" groups, not as just coming from CBC management.
I'm not sure how CC has the wording on derivative works and thus how that would affect playing music in a podcast (is the entire podcast now considered a derivative work,
Re:Is this legal? (Score:4, Informative)
It would be illegal if the CBC did NOT have this policy.
Bullshit.
their PodCasts are ad supported. Almost all CC music forbids commercial use.
So - because some CC-licensed music is non-commercial, then *ALL* CC-licensed music is illegal on an ad-supported blog?
Logic. You fail it.
The CBC has said that you cannot use music that forbids commercial use
No. They said you cannot use Creative Commons licensed music, some of which (as you have already pointed out) does not forbid commercial use.
Slashdot, of course, went the same rout it always goes with news: Outright lies.
No, that would be you.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot, of course, went the same rout it always goes with news: Outright lies.
No, that would be you.
Now, now, remember Hanlon's razor.
Re: (Score:2)
This argument is based on a very narrow definition of "commercial." If someone offered CC music on a "Best Love Songs" collection, which sold for $14.99, then yes, that would be commercial use. Let's assume that in this case the ad income goes to offset the production costs. Even the GPL allows copyright owners to charge a duplication fee ... "free" is not necessarily zero cost.
Whether or not I am right, the distributor has no obligation to include any particular music, for whatever reason. Arguing legality
Re: (Score:2)
Workaround? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Workaround? (Score:5, Informative)
This would likely not be possible simply because you don't have ASCAP or BMI handling the royalties, and they can't collect royalties on stuff that is both copyrighted as exclusive content and as CC. ASCAP and BMI have to HATE the CC, because there are no royalties to collect, so no way to screw over artists..er, collect on behalf of artists.
Own a bar? You pay ASCAP and BMI based on number of seats. Play only CC music? They will still claim you owe and try to shut you down, usually successfully. You see, a band *might* come in and play a song that they collect for. ASCAP and BMI are pretty much like the mafia, except the mafia has a code they live by.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a protection racket.
The copyright dogs don't care what you actually play, if you play *anything* they will sue.
Re:Workaround? (Score:4, Informative)
That isn't exactly true. What they will do first is send you a contract asking you to list whatever was played and then payup accordingly. If you ignore that, then they send a bill based on what they think you owe. And if you ignore that, then they sue.
I worked for an organization which was hit up by ASCAP. "An annual fan event like SD Comicon" would be close enough. ASCAP didn't know exactly what we played and let us tell them. There is no "does not apply" option. You are assumed to owe for something.
There are tick boxes for live performances, bands, etc.
We ended up paying for an electronic reproduction license for not too much money. It fit us because everything we played was actually from some electronic source. We had little live music. Just some non-ASCAP, non-BMI musicians who played their own stuff.
After we paid once, ASCAP came sniffing around for more money. They assume they are underbilling and you're guilty of underpaying.
Re:Workaround? (Score:5, Insightful)
"And that is called paying the Dane-geld; but we've proved it again and again, that if once you have paid him the Dane-geld you never get rid of the Dane. " -- Rudyard Kipling
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So are they barred from playing public domain music as well then? What about classical?
Recordings of classical music are copyrighted by the group performing the piece... e.g. the L.A. Philharmonic's recorded performance of a Beethoven composition is copyrighted by the LA Phil.
Also, many classical scores have been 'arranged' by someone. The person who did that particular arrangement of Beethoven's composition holds the copyright to the arrangement.
So yeah... Beethoven's score is public domain, but a bunch of other stuff happens that makes classical music technically not public domain
Re:Workaround? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Workaround? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They aren't barred, they are charged a royalty based upon "number of chairs", which is not the same as "seating capacity". (at least that was the standard 20 years ago). Theoretically, they have "sampled" what you play to have an idea of which artists get a tiny, tiny cut of the royalties they charge you. The majority of the money they collect goes to "expenses". It is a racket, and I have no idea who you have to blow if you are a musician and you want a decent cut of "royalties".
In reality, most clubs p
Re:Workaround? Fight back. (Score:3, Informative)
I started to post in order to question your claim, googled, and found lots of news making similar unfounded claims. Every article or blog said piles of people were affected, but then they give a single example. In many cases it's the same example. I'm not questioning that it happens, but it seems more likely to be
1) legitimate claims where BMI-licensed music was played in a place without a license, and they legitimately need to pay (according to law, not me)
2) a number of anecdotes of intimidation withou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Canaduh (Score:5, Informative)
The Harper government has recently muscled in on political control over what government scientists can say publicly. The tar sands (re-branded as oil sands) is an ecological disaster. The list goes on. Don't expect sanity from this band of leaders.
Hm..... (Score:1, Troll)
... Think "anonymous" are looking for new targets.... ^_~
Digging a little deeper.... (Score:5, Informative)
According to Chris Boyce, Programming Director for CBC radio, the reason for the ban against CC music is that evidently most creative commons music is explicitly *NOT* licensed for any sort of commercial use.
I can understand the CBC's reluctance to want to use something that is explicitly barred from being used in any commercial context.
While not all CC music has such prohibitions, I suppose that it's apparently enough that the CBC figures it's simpler to just block it entirely than try to figure out exactly which ones are okay.
Re: (Score:2)
that, and I was also wondering since I don't know how their podcast system works... when you submit a podcast, or sign up to be an author, do you sign something that gives them some (possibly commercial) rights to the material you submit? In that case it would be incompatible to submit a CC licensed work?
Lots of (shady and even not so shady) online forums are that way, little do you know when you use their service to distribute something, that you're signing away a chunk of your rights and they can do what
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Creative Commons stuff that is explicitly not licensed for commercial use is also explicitly marked as Non-Commercial (i.e. CC NC [creativecommons.org]). Furthermore, by default commercial usage is permitted so all they'd have to do is look for the NC clause. It really isn't that hard to figure out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...it's simpler to just block it entirely than try to figure out exactly which ones are okay.
Jamendo filters by types of CC licenses. Google filters by types of CC licenses. And probably a thousand other search engines can do the same. What is so hard to "figure out exactly"?
I suppose that it's apparently enough that the CBC figures...
Why are you giving the CBC the benefit of the doubt? Another CBC employee has already said that "collective agreements" were to blame. Why simply assume that the new guy correcting him is telling the truth?
After all, the CBC is already a big supporter of the "iPod" tax (a tax levy which independent artists will not be a
Re: (Score:2)
CC licensed, even the NC-ND ones, only give additional rights - they do not impose restrictions that aren't found with conventionally copyrighted media. So can't they use whatever means they have to play normal media (get a license from the producers, use compulsory licensing?) to play CC licensed music?
Re: (Score:2)
To CRTC:
"How could the CBC banning Creative Commons (CC) licensing possibly be in the public interest? It is silences a perfectly legal means of licensing that contributes to culture. Banning it is anti-competitive, draconian, and extremely high-handed. CBC needs to get with the times and innovate, not suppress its own citizens. What right do that have to tell Canadians that they can't listen to some Canadian (or other) artists because they don't pay money to the correct large companies? This treatment
This is restraint of trade (Score:4, Interesting)
Some see it as anti-trust and related to things like the U.S. Sherman anti-trust act. If I were a musician I would see it as a very basic restraint of trade.
why not just put the podcast on the net? (Score:1, Redundant)
Jumping to conclusions! (Score:5, Informative)
SinceSpark is available on areas of the net that are being monetized, which can violate Creative Commons rules (non commercial) on the vast majority of music (and most forms of CC-licensed work) available for use.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know much about CC, but from what I understand there are a dozen or so licenses, some of which allow commercial use. If they're so concerned about commercial use down the line, why on earth couldn't they just pick and choose the licenses they want to support? It really can't be that difficult.
Likewise, they could allow music with commerce-restricted CC licenses for those shows which they know will not be used for commercial purposes. This would require flagging those shows in their own library, but
Re: (Score:2)
It's still stupid - finding CC licensed music that allows commercial uses takes 2 seconds in Jamendo: just click "Music I can use for commercial purposes". And it might not be the minority, but 9300 albums isn't that small.
Re:Jumping to conclusions! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately this doesnt seem very credible. There is no explanation for why several employees previously, unanimously, and clearly attributed the ban to a union contract in the first place. The rationale given is contrafactual as well, as much CC-licensed content *is* available for commercial use, and it is trivial to filter the works which do or do not allow commercial use. In light of that, the suspicion arises that this statement is merely a spur of the moment fabrication in response to the justified outrage the original explanation sparked.
Re:Jumping to conclusions! (Score:4, Informative)
Where do you see "several employees previously, unanimously and clearly attributed the ban to a union contract in the first place?"
The most damning evidence I see from the link is the single post from lilyjmills, which she later clarifies with the following:
"I asked around and it sounds like APM was the most cost effective choice for production music. We're actually simply piggy-backing off the use license acquired from CBC Television (a license that can be used for the entire network). "
Sorry, nothing to see here....move along...
Even a moron in a hurry... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Its a shame ... (Score:3, Informative)
... Canada doesn't have a Sherman Antitrust Act [wikipedia.org].
We could loan them ours. We're not using it.
The greedy industry once again proves (Score:2)
that it is just in it for the money and greedy.
Copyright is theft.
screw the CBC - support CC music! (Score:4, Interesting)
You can start by supporting my band, all our stuff is CC licensed. Take a listen, rock / punk : http://theexperiments.com/ [theexperiments.com]
Thanks, and enjoy!
Re:screw the CBC - support CC music! (Score:4, Interesting)
Try one of cc's Free licenses and I would love to. If you need to use NC though I will pass on that.
all the best,
drew
http://freemusicpush.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Uuuuuh .... capitalism ? (Score:2)
They loved it 2 years ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2008/04/we-heart-creative-commons/ [www.cbc.ca]
Re:Electoral death to Harper ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Electoral death to Harper!
You are a bloody moron. Harper did not invent the CBC. It is run by out of touch bureaucrats. If you want to be pissed off any anybody, send your torches and pitch forks at those talent agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Troll? Seriously, people?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
How did this even get to insightful? Even the bureaucratic handlers are liberal appointees. You want to whine, try blaming them for 20 years of mismanagement.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The CBC is union managed and controlled, so focus your ire on the NDP and not the Conservatives. And the CBC is actually protecting themselves from litigation with this ban, there are endless variations of limitations on CC licensing and it would be a nightmare for the CBC to track down and clarify the status of every single piece of CC music they wanted to use.
As for of the claims by some uninformed people that a simple search on the internetz would provide unencumbered music, well, citation need
Re:Electoral death to Harper ! (Score:5, Interesting)
The CBC is union managed and controlled, so focus your ire on the NDP and not the Conservatives.
Ummmm...the conservative government actually has quite a bit of control at the CBC. They appoint the leaders who set the direction of the network. In the last few years, the CBC has taken a subtle but definite shift to the right. One can see it in the way they frame certain news stories. And they have introduced programs with a very right wing slant, such as a Crossfire-like show called The Lang & O'Leary Exchange.
Finally, I'm seeing a lot of ant-Harper spam on Slashdot as of late, seems those poor anarchists and jackboot radicals are still smarting from their bad press after the Toronto G20 summit debacle.
I think that Harper is a dangerous single minded ideologue who has run a minority government as a majority government, and has snubbed his nose at Parliament many times. If this is the way he acts in a minority government, I shudder to think about what he will do with an absolute majority. And I can assure you that I am not an anarchist or a jackbooted radical. If anything, your blanket characterization of those who oppose Harper as extremists is a type of action that is itself in the mould of a jackbooted radical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Electoral death to Harper ! (Score:4, Insightful)
there are endless variations of limitations on CC licensing
Every commercial track has a different separate license. CC is much simpler since there are only a few main variants with version numbers. You can simply say "CC-SA and CC-BY-SA are allowed CC-NC is not". Your claim is fairly simple FUD.
and it would be a nightmare for the CBC to track down and clarify the status of every single piece of CC music they wanted to use.
Wherever you download it from normally has the status. If it doesn't, that version isn't CC licensed and you don't have anything to track down.
It seems like you are making very weak excuses for some reason. Why?
As for of the claims by some uninformed people that a simple search on the internetz would provide unencumbered music, well, citation needed.
Would you bet your job on those results?
Guess what; there have been lots of cases where it was decided, after long court cases, that proprietary songs were copied from other proprietary songs without license. Would you bet your job on that? No, because you don't have to. If you had a good reason to believe the song was okay, for example the CC license attached to it, then you will not likely have a problem and if you do have a problem, the license the song claims to be under will not make any difference.
Finally, I'm seeing a lot of ant-Harper spam on Slashdot as of late, seems those poor anarchists and jackboot radicals are still smarting from their bad press after the Toronto G20 summit debacle.
Ahh. maybe we have the explanation; American style "two team" politics is creeping into Canada. This is not a "football" thing. You do not have to believe something just because it might be convenient to your team. Most of us on slashdot have barely heard of your "Harper" whatever he/she/it is and we do not form our views according to what might be most likely to damage "Harper".
Re: (Score:2)
That's one reason why I rarely submit anything -_-;;
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess the question becomes: how do we get better editors? How does one become an editor, for example?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It felt like I was going for a funny mod. Big words for someone without even any slashdot karma on the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is where I re-post the original, only this time it's funny because of the juxtaposition.
Re: (Score:1)
> Send your concerns to spark@cbc.ca. Slashdotting their mail server would be appropriate.
Um, no? My understanding of the matter is that CBC itself is imposing the restriction on programs such as Spark. I don't think Spark itself is guilty of anything here, so they don't deserve to take any heat.
Re: (Score:2)
no ... I expect with all the smoke you'll just blind them :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
that you found only one misspelling is very good news to my ears.
Unfortunately...
The ban on creative commons works is appalling. You are publicly funded ans thus this shows a deep confilct of interests between you, who supposedly represent the public that fund your programming, and some agreements with private entities to suppress public work. You undermine the work of artists that are thinking ahead and are creating the next generation of thinking, creating and publishing model. As you know dinosaurs are now extincts, I believe you are no longer fit and do not represent our interests. I shall consequently actively lobby for the dismanteling of our once great public broadcaster to my federal representatives unless you correct your awful actions. With all my hearth I hope this will open your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
* That's a W.A.G. -- "wild guess" -- that I completely made up for the sake of a point rather than technical accuracy. "[Citation Needed]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
oops, someone beat me to it, mod me into redundancy's oblivion
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And 3/4 of the jockeys speak with the most pretentious content they can come up with, and sound like they have broccoli up their nose. I don't see the stations maintaining much relevancy for much longer.
(I'm not saying the local stations with their obnoxious, loud, prank-playing jockeys are much better...)