Canada ISPs Not Subject To Content Rules, Court Says 84
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."
Re:Great ruling (Score:2, Informative)
You leave Gordon Pinsent the fuck alone, he's a Canadian icon. The Supreme Newfoundlander. The Codfather.
Re:Thanks Canada (Score:5, Informative)
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:Good (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
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].
Re:Thanks Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Great ruling (Score:5, Informative)
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