Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada The Courts The Internet News

Canada ISPs Not Subject To Content Rules, Court Says 84

Posted by timothy
from the for-once-a-good-call dept.
silentbrad writes "Upholding a 2010 decision from the Federal Court of Appeal, the country's highest court said ISPs cannot be subject to the Broadcasting Act of 1991 because they have no control over the content they distribute. The ruling ends a years-old dispute over whether ISPs that deliver movies and television shows over their networks should be regulated as conventional broadcasters as well as telecommunications providers. A cultural coalition made up of several Canadian media industry groups — including the Canadian Media Production Association (CMPA), the Writers Guild of Canada (WGC) and others — argued ISPs should be required to help pay for the production of made-in-Canada music, films and television. Conventional broadcasters, of which Bell and Rogers already qualify, have long been required to do so by law."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada ISPs Not Subject To Content Rules, Court Says

Comments Filter:
  • Thanks Canada (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmanterry (1141623) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @07:16PM (#39007983) Journal

    Good ruling. Thanks Canada.

    • Of course, this ruling is of no consequence should our absolutely despicable, elected-just-for-a-lark styrofoam-Conservative government feel the least bit gutsy. Le neutralite de reseau est mort; vive le neutralite de reseau.
      • (Substitute appropriate feminine articles and throw in accents as appropriate. Curses!)
      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        Le neutralite de reseau est mort; vive le neutralite de reseau.

        Let me translate for those non-French speaking readers:

        "My buddy Mort refused to buy a beige sofa. He tried to smother his wife with a cushion, but those meddling EMT's revived her."

        I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with this story. Google translation can only take me so far, I guess.

        • by chromas (1085949)
          In other words:
          • "It's old man Mort!"
          • "And I would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
      • Le neutralite de reseau est mort; vive le neutralite de reseau. Network Neutrality is dead; long live Network neutrality. (that is the french translation) is such a BS response. I Think it was an excellent ruling. They get similar safe harbor provisions. And relying solely on elected leaders is dangerous.

        • by tqk (413719)

          Network Neutrality is dead; long live Network neutrality. (that is the french translation)

          Thanks, but that's actually the English translation, of course. :-)

          I Think it was an excellent ruling.

          Me too. Then again, Canadian law has often seemed capable of turning on a dime dependent only on which way the wind's blowing atm.

          I'm glad my ISP's not going to be dinged for something they shouldn't be getting dinged for, not to mention all the "freedom for all of us" connotations. Michael Geist should be pleased.

          "Outbreak of common sense reported. Film at 11:00, or 10:00 on CBC. In other news, Wendy Meslie *still* thinks Peter Mansbrid

    • Oh come on. Shouldn't we get 10% Canadian content? I'd love to see Bell and Rogers/Shaw duopoly try to make 1 in 10 pages :-) What they would probably do instead is make 100 pages and than block enough to keep their content ratio. Still would be amusing the amount of crap that they could come up with if they try. Can't do that on Interwebs anyone?

    • Re:Thanks Canada (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@gmail. c o m> on Saturday February 11, 2012 @08:54PM (#39008565) Homepage

      It is a good ruling. Because this whole thing, the ruling, the idea, the whole concept of 'protected content' exists to "protect" canadians from the "evil" american culture. You know, despite the fact that the majority of the population lives within 100 miles of the US. And can get FTA broadcasts. It's actually so bad here, that they simulcast stations, stripping out american channels and replace them with canadian ones. So you only see what the government(cancon) allows you to see.

      For those that don't understand let's try this as an example, on channel 3(cdn) you have family guy. On channel 7(US) you have family guy. Now, they pull channel 7, and put channel 3 in it's place. So, now you have channel 3, on channel 7's place as well. Enjoy. Oh, did I mention that American satellite dishes are illegal in Canada? It's a $10k fine if you have one(theft of service). You can't get subscriptions legally here either. Though you can get around it, kind of by having a US address, it's a grey area still. There was actually a few cases a few years ago where the police were going around and seizing the equipment of people, dishes and all that.

      Oh Canada, land of the free and all that right? Remember, what S.2 of our charter of rights and freedoms [justice.gc.ca] says:

      Fundamental freedoms

      2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
      (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
      (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
      (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
      (d) freedom of association.

      What does S.1 says?

      1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

      Yep, you read that right. Your fundamental rights are determined by what the government, courts, and special government bodies(like the CRTC) says they are. In other words, the charter is worth less than the paper it's written on.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by RandomAvatar (2487198)
        Actually, having U.S. satellite dishes in Canada was made illegal (what was it? 10 years ago? I can't remember) because U.S. broadcasting corporations were accusing Canadians of stealing content. In order to comply with their complaints, and to make sure that U.S. corporations that sell these services in Canada follow Canadian law, they made it illegal.

        I actually agree with this decision as it takes FOX news out of Canada for being a "news channel" but lying during the news.
        • Re:Thanks Canada (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@gmail. c o m> on Saturday February 11, 2012 @09:26PM (#39008707) Homepage

          Cancon made it illegal, because they couldn't simulcast. No content control, means they restricted the sales.

          You know it's funny, for all the hate that people have for Fox. If you look at their stats on things like Sirius, and media stats they're more popular than any other broadcaster in Canada. By the way, I was part of the group that got Fox News in Canada, and also got the time restriction removed from CTV|Newsnet. Because whatever you belief, broadcast whatever the hell you want. If you don't like it, turn the damn channel or dispute it based on facts.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Fox in Canada? You did your countrymen an incredible dis-service. :/

            • by tqk (413719)

              Fox in Canada? You did your countrymen an incredible dis-service. :/

              If we didn't have Fox in Canada, how the hell would we make any sense of the Daily Show?

              "Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney? Are those some kind of Middle-Eastern sandwiches, or what?"

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by RandomAvatar (2487198)
            I do hope you have read the CRTC's statutes and Regulations acts before you did this. The thing that makes it illegal for FOX news to broadcast in Canada is the fact that it has been proven in court that they willfully lied on the news. This is illegal because it is illegal for news broadcasters to broadcast false or misleading news in Canada.
        • Re:Thanks Canada (Score:4, Interesting)

          by tlhIngan (30335) <<slashdot> <at> <worf.net>> on Sunday February 12, 2012 @03:34AM (#39009857)

          Actually, having U.S. satellite dishes in Canada was made illegal (what was it? 10 years ago? I can't remember) because U.S. broadcasting corporations were accusing Canadians of stealing content. In order to comply with their complaints, and to make sure that U.S. corporations that sell these services in Canada follow Canadian law, they made it illegal.

          It wasn't US broadcast corps. Sure Dish and DirecTV were angry about people stealing content and thus made things like leased boxes (you must return the box), as well as various smartcard tricks that change the authentication and encryption systems. But those applied more to the US subscribers.

          The reason why US satellite dishes are illegal in Canada is because Bell went to sue all the Canadian US dish providers. These companies were providing services that allowed Canadians to purchase US satellite dishes and receivers, and providing the necessary services to activate them legitimately. These grey-market dishes were what Bell was suing about - seeing all those subscribers that didn't want their service.

          Once Bell obtained their injunction (happened around 2007-2008), Dish and DirecTV then began proceedings against these grey-market providers to discontinue service (yes, they wanted people who were paying for the service to not receive it anymore).. This happened in early 2009.

          As for legality - it's questionable. Should someone be able to purchase a service from another country if there's a method to get that service? I mean, we moan and groan when some internet TV or radio station becomes "country only" and refuses to sell service outside that country. But if using a VPN service lets you get access to that service - should it be legal? It's the same for grey-market satellite TV, and also applied to other US-only services like TiVo, satellite radio (until Canada approved it), and still does to US Netflix, Hulu, etc.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TFAFalcon (1839122)

            Well politicians and corporations LOVE globalization. So if a corporation can go and outsource, or buy things in a different country, then why should it be ok for consumers to be limited by borders?

            If you product A is available at a better price in another country, they should be free to buy it there and import it. If corporations don't want them them to do that they have two options:
            a) lower prices in the place where the person lives
            b) raise prices everywhere else

            Isn't free market grand?

            • by tqk (413719)

              Well politicians and corporations LOVE globalization. So if a corporation can go and outsource, or buy things in a different country, then why should it be ok for consumers to be limited by borders?

              ACK, ACK, and ACK![*] Most people think we're long past the Age of Enlightenment. I think we're still in the thick of it, and that war's still yet to be won. It's not at all a sure thing that we will win.

              [*] Not to be confused with "Mars Attacks!"

      • Re:Thanks Canada (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mistlefoot (636417) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @09:29PM (#39008719)
        That is not the only reason ads are substited, which is what you are referring to when you discuss "For those that don't understand let's try this as an example, on channel 3(cdn) you have family guy. On channel 7(US) you have family guy. Now, they pull channel 7, and put channel 3 in it's place. So, now you have channel 3, on channel 7's place as well. Enjoy."

        What incentive does a Canadian company have to pay for rights to Canadians when half the market is lost to an ad on an American station that is not paying anything to advertise in the Canadian market? How does CTV then afford to pay for content when their ad space is devalued?

        In your example, Channel 7 ads are mandated to be substituted to Channel 3 ads. There is an easy way to do that, as in theory, the content is the same, and that is by just subsituting the entire Channel 3 feed over. Sometimes this can't be done - as in one recent situation, where the Super Bowl Canadian ads were substituted over American ones. The entire feed was not substituted as some of the content (play by play or colour guys) where not the same on the US channels as they were on the Canadian channels.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by CastrTroy (595695)
          But it removes the choice from the consumer. Maybe some of us want to watch the US commercials. Especially during events like the SuperBowl. I to get ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX and a bunch of other US networks on my TV. I want those channels to come through unaltered.
      • You know, despite the fact that the majority of the population lives within 100 miles of the US.

        Don't forget that the majority of Americans live within 100 miles of their borders as well.

      • by compro01 (777531)

        Yep, you read that right. Your fundamental rights are determined by what the government, courts, and special government bodies(like the CRTC) says they are. In other words, the charter is worth less than the paper it's written on.

        As opposed to every other country where they simply assume such a clause out of whole cloth.

      • by H0p313ss (811249)

        I'm trying to promote the idea that the very existence of the CRTC is unconstitutional.

        • by tqk (413719)

          I'm trying to promote the idea that the very existence of the CRTC is unconstitutional.

          First, you'll have to prove that the concept "unconstitutional" actually exists in Canada. I'm not sure that's the case. Either the feds have jurisdiction, or the provinces have jurisdiction, or something has jurisdiction. The idea that, "No, that's not allowed", is a fiction here.

      • by tqk (413719)

        1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

        Yep, you read that right. Your fundamental rights are determined by what the government, courts, and special government bodies(like the CRTC) says they are. In other words, the charter is worth less than the paper it's written on.

        FWIW, we out here in the West at the time were screaming from the rooftops that that's the way it was going to turn out. Easterners were too busy worshipping Trudeau to listen. Fox, chicken coop, ...

    • Only in Canada, you say?
      Pity. :-)
  • Good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 11, 2012 @07:20PM (#39008001)
    I really don't want to sponsor that crap anyway. I loathe it when Canadian channels feel the need to shove that crap down our throat and make a big deal about which show is Canadian or which star/band is Canadian. Maybe I'd resent it less if they didn't play up the distinction so much. Canadians used to make fun of american advertisements which said "America's favorite ____" or "America's #1 _____" because it seemed like *everything* was considered #1 in America, it was just slapped on to anything where it would apply. Now the same cliche is being applied to everything in Canada and it smacks of opportunism. If you want to get my attention, just make a good product and don't try and make everyone think it's special just because it's from the country in which they reside. That's just incidental, and it just makes you look arrogant if you believe something is better just because it's local. Everything should be judged on an equal level.
    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @07:35PM (#39008095) Homepage Journal

      The irritating protectionism of Canadian content has been going on for quite some time now; indeed, traditional broadcasters are restrained by a requirement to play at least a certain percentage of can-con [wikipedia.org]. Personally, I can't stand anything remotely folksy, and it seems the too much of the cultural output in this country is destined to be forever tainted with wolves, forests and beaver trappers, or otherwise ineptly idolizing its heritage. It's no wonder that stations need to be forced to play the stuff: anything profitable or progressive moves to the US for tax purposes.

      One vaguely wonders, with some amusement, if the courts would have tried to force ISPs to obey the can-con requirement if this ruling went the other way. Of course this ruling was really only a question about forcing them to pay another tax, but the concept of applying broadcaster requirements to the Internet quickly becomes amusing. ("Your computer must now play the national anthem at least once every 24 hours...")

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by grub (11606)
        Just up CanCon requirements to 100% and the 24 hour Beachcombers channel I've dreamed of for years will become realty!
        • Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)

          by realityimpaired (1668397) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @09:37PM (#39008757)

          You'd be surprised how much on TV these days counts as CanCon.... pretty much everything I watch these days is CanCon. Actually, *everything* I watch these days is CanCon, except for Dr. Who, and even that counts for the CanCon rules, because it's co-produced by the CBC and the BBC (despite mostly being filmed in Wales). Most of the best sci fi on North American TV is produced in Vancouver, and some of the best dramas on TV are produced in Vancouver or Toronto, with one notable exception which is produced in St. John's, NF. (and also one of my favourite shows)

        • by jamstar7 (694492)
          At least you'd be spared American Idol. Lucky bastards.
      • by game kid (805301)

        Of course this ruling was really only a question about forcing them to pay another tax, but the concept of applying broadcaster requirements to the Internet quickly becomes amusing. ("Your computer must now play the national anthem at least once every 24 hours...")

        It gets worse--the content guys would sue if the anthem sounded too much like one of their versions (something about losing revenue from commemorative CDs and such crap), so it has to be played in MIDI.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You should just move to US. It'll be much easier for you to kiss their ass... There's nothing wrong with can-con, it protects us partly from the load of stinking soul-less shit that those money-grubbing bullies south of the border try to shove down our throats. Can-con for the internet would be very wrong, but our culture definitely needs protection because of our geographic position.

        • My point is this: perhaps, but that's irrelevant as long as our culture is so preoccupied with canoes.
        • by tqk (413719)

          ... our culture definitely needs protection because of our geographic position.

          I take it you're fully in favour of Quebec's language laws?

          If your "culture" needs to be protected via gov't fiat, what's that say about your population's view of your culture?

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by msobkow (48369) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @08:58PM (#39008591) Homepage Journal

        Before you bitch too much about supporting the CBC and other Canadian content, consider this:

        The fact that Canadian consumers of media and tax payers pay a significant share of the production costs of Canadian media has a great deal to do with why the general public in Canada has a right to copy, backup, and otherwise consume media they own.

        The very fact that we are allowed to OWN media stems in part from the fact that we pay for part of it, even if we don't buy a copy of a particular finished product.

        We would not have the liberal copyright laws in Canada that we do were it not for Can-Con funded at public expense.

        Although the ISPs should not be subject to trying to provide any particular percentage of Canadian content in a global web environment, I don't think the content creators are being unrealistic or unfair if they expect the ISPs to pay a portion similar to what cable providers pay to fund Can-Con.

        The content producers are right: It's the traditional "Canadian Way."

        • Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)

          by msobkow (48369) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @09:01PM (#39008603) Homepage Journal

          Just to clarify:

          Historically, Canadian broadcasters had to have a certain minimum percentage of Canadian content in their broadcasts. That's what we can't expect ISPs to deliver, because they have no control over what content their subscribers choose to view, download, or transmit.

          But paying a percentage of revenue into the national funding pot the same as broadcasters do is not at ALL unreasonable, as a significant chunk of the content the ISPs stream IS Canadian content that they should pay a share to fund. CTV, CBC, Global, etc. all have web streaming services that the ISPs carry into Canadian homes, and they should pay their tithe like any other content distributor.

          • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

            by wrook (134116) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @09:58PM (#39008833) Homepage

            The difference between a cable TV service and an ISP is that the cable TV service chooses which content to carry. The ISP does not. Even though they physically carry the streaming data, they don't actually stream it themselves. CTV, CBC, Global, etc do. Those streaming services should pay. And they do already.

            Adding another fee for ISPs is an interesting idea, but it is essentially a new levy. As a consumer that would ultimately have to pay that levy, I want something in return. The internet is more than a broadcasting medium. In fact, I barely use it for that purpose (although Slashdot might qualify). Similar to the levy on blank media for sound recordings, if I'm going to pay the levy (whether I consume the media or not), I want concessions. Allowing private copying for said media would be appropriate I think.

            Ha ha ha. OK... I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that. I'd love to see the lobbyists' faces if they were told that was the price of opting in ISPs.

            • by msobkow (48369)

              Do the cable and satellite distribution companies that carry those broadcasters pay?

              Then so should ISPs.

              Maybe there should be an exception for business-contract ISP clients because they aren't media-hungry "typical" consumers, but if the other signal carriers are being charged a levy, so should the ISPs.

              • by msobkow (48369)

                But you are correct: If there is no current levy paid by the cable and satellite content delivery systems, then nor should there be one applied to the ISPs.

                But I've always been under the impression that the cable and satellite content delivery systems do pay a levy.

        • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

          by msobkow (48369) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @09:11PM (#39008655) Homepage Journal

          One reason there is no "MPAA" in Canada is we provide the startup funding for film projects through government grants instead. Every movie, TV show, etc. that you see with "Funded in part by the Canadian Government" including the products of some really big name and well known studios leverages that funding.

          Would you rather see us have an MPAA type organization pounding us and hounding us over so-called piracy when you preview or prelisten to downloaded or streamed media?

          I think Can-Con funding is cheap compared to being raped by an MPAA.

          • Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)

            by CanEHdian (1098955) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @10:49PM (#39009035)

            Hi msobkow. I guess you're in the US, looking north towards all that beauty. Unfortunately the grass isn't greener over here:

            And what have we here? MPA [mpa-canada.org] "The Voice and Advocate for the Major International Producers and Distributors of Movies, Home Entertainment and TV Programming in Canada"

            We also have a Canadian RIAA, formerly and still colloquially known as CRIA, but renamed Music Canada [musiccanada.com] to obfuscate the Recording Industry interests. "Representing Canada's Major Labels".

            And "pounding us and hounding us over so-called piracy" - they do that too. And like MPAA/RIAA want to change the (proposed) laws to fit their own interests; see Dr. Geist's blog entry [michaelgeist.ca].

            • by msobkow (48369)

              But OUR Canadian version does not have nearly the teeth nor the clout that the American MPAA do, much though they might wish they did. And I believe that stems from the simple fact that ours is only an association of labels, not a FINANCE house for the labels as is the case in the US.

              (I'd have though you'd realize I'm Canadian from the domain of my company in my sig -- why would an American get a .ca address? *LOL*)

        • by epp_b (944299)
          I dunno ... I can only watch so many reruns of Air Farce and 22 Minutes.
      • by toriver (11308)

        Maybe the broadcasters can just start counting

        a) Any show or movie shot in Vancouver - a popular location for U.S. producers wanting to save a buck, at least until Prague got even cheaper

        b) Any show or movie starring Michael J. Fox, Dan Aykroyd, Pamela Anderson, Jim Carrey or the many other Canada-born actors

        Then the 10% should be easy to reach...

        • by tqk (413719)

          Unfortunately, can-con rules are insane. We have Canadian artists producing works that aren't considered "Canadian enough" to fit because they were produced in conjunction with USA-ians. Holy !@#$ing nanny-state overreach!

          BTW, how many of you knew that William Shatner played a central character in "Judgement at Nuremburg"? He did a damned good job, too. I nearly fell off my chair when I saw it.

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stormthirst (66538) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @07:20PM (#39008007)

    After all, ISPs don't just deliver movies, despite what the RIAA/MPAA/Stephen Harper say about the amount of piracy in Canada

    • Say I have both cable TV and internet from Bell. A show I want to watch is available, in digitized compressed format via protocol A over cable TV, or via protocol B via the internet. All the bits travel down the same wire to my house. So the *only* difference is in the transmission protocol. Why should one method be taxed, and the other not? How does that make sense?
      • by Xeno man (1614779)
        Because on your cable you don't have a choice about what is available or not available and over your internet connection, Bell does not have a choice about what is available or not available.
        • So if I want to watch, it is tax free. If I don't want it, or don't watch at all, it is taxed. Huh?
          • by tqk (413719)

            So if I want to watch, it is tax free. If I don't want it, or don't watch at all, it is taxed. Huh?

            You're trying to make sense of a nonsensical situation. You should take Mark Twain's advice at times like that: "Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until the urge goes away."

            I like to imagine Mark Twain and Richard Feynman in a sitting room together shooting the !@#$.

      • by toriver (11308)

        No, there is another difference: Bell can choose not to broadcast a given channel, so they act as a non-neutral intermediary.

        Now, should Bell choose to start non-neutral filtering, e.g. blocking or throttling content sites they don't want you to access, then Bell-the-ISP seems to become subject to the same rules as Bell-the-cable-company.

  • While I like this ruling, I completely disagree that ISPs have no control.
    They do not have the same type of control as television, but they have the ability to control everything if they saw fit.
    And are exercising more and more control all the time.

  • Great ruling (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @07:39PM (#39008123)
    I am sick of having my "Culture" dictated to me from Ontario. Canada has thousands of cultures. But in summary our culture is primarily a mix of British and American. Just check out our spelling and pronunciation. So a mix of British and American content serves me just fine.

    The worst part of the Can Con crap is that it suffers the problem of any single source of wealth. A tiny few have mastered draining this well before anyone else can get a taste. Then they pump out some crap starring Gordon Pinsent or some other Canadian "No-fail-mainstay". I am not sure is the worst Canadian genre: when Torontonians try to imitate sophisticated New Yorkers, when they are covering "important issues" such as Indians or gay kids being bullied, or some depressing crap about some salt of the earth town that has collapsed resulting in domestic abuse and drinking. The Canada of most Canadians is none of the above. I strongly doubt that Canadians download hardly a lick of anything made in Canada about Canada. But that is not to say good stuff isn't made here. Stargate, battlestar galatica, and the x-files were all made here but they weren't aimed as Canadian Content. They were just smart people making good shows. No internet tax required.
    Then there is our public radio CBC. Some of it is great but nearly every show is regularly interrupted while they showcase some band that would have trouble getting a gig at a shady nightclub.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Rheostatik (1628895)

      You leave Gordon Pinsent the fuck alone, he's a Canadian icon. The Supreme Newfoundlander. The Codfather.

      • by jamstar7 (694492)
        His daughter is becoming one too. And DAMN is she cute!
      • by tqk (413719)

        You leave Gordon Pinsent the fuck alone, he's a Canadian icon. The Supreme Newfoundlander. The Codfather.

        Fuck that. He's Benton Fraser's dad!

    • The Trailer Park Boys.

    • Re:Great ruling (Score:5, Informative)

      by msobkow (48369) on Sunday February 12, 2012 @01:28AM (#39009547) Homepage Journal

      Did you ever watch "X-Files?" How about "Stargate SG-1?"

      Any show that was produced by "Alliance" or "Atlantis" pictures was a can-con product.

      Don't confuse the CBC with being THE source of can-con -- it's not. The CBC is just more prone to produce documentaries and docu-dramas than the other can-con providers, and are more famous for it because they used to be our only national broadcaster.

      You bitch about it being an "Ontario centric" media form. Was "The Beachcombers" set in Ontario? How about "Little Mosque on the Prairie" or "Corner Gas?"

      Careful, man, your generalizations are showing... :P

      • by jamstar7 (694492)
        Trailer Park Boys: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
        Intelligence: Vancouver
        Republic of Doyle: St John's Newfoundland
        Call Me Fitz: (Unknown) Nova Scotia (filmed in New Minas)
        Da Vinci's Inquest/Da Vinci's City Hall: Vancouver

        Lotta good Canadian shows made outside Toronto, most of which you have to pirate to get in the States.
  • If i get this right that "coalition" wanted companies like rogers and bell to pay twice for movies and television show's that they already pay $$$ to the tv company they pay money to to show that channel?
  • as we progress (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alienzed (732782) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @08:25PM (#39008397) Homepage
    I hope that all forms of greed and unjust enrichment are shot down like this. Listen Artists, if you aren't making enough money, it's not because people are stealing from you, it's because you suck. (either at marketing your production or your productions themselves) I believe that people do pay for materials they believe justify it, and if it's not up to the customer what things should cost, then our whole economic system is based on BS.
  • by future assassin (639396) on Saturday February 11, 2012 @09:24PM (#39008699) Homepage

    Network companies should be just that, offering network access and not be broadcasters, telephone, and content providers all in one.

  • by tkrotchko (124118) on Sunday February 12, 2012 @08:18AM (#39010407) Homepage

    Content Providers are one of the few businesses industries where the businesses actively hate their customers and do everything they can do to make things harder and more expensive for their customers.

    Its really amazing when you compare it to a more traditional retail or services business.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    that we can finally get Hulu and other US based services in Canada now? What about merging the US content from Netflix into the CDN one...?

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...