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."
Thanks Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Good ruling. Thanks Canada.
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, ISPs don't just deliver movies, despite what the RIAA/MPAA/Stephen Harper say about the amount of piracy in Canada
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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...")
as we progress (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Now we need a new ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Network companies should be just that, offering network access and not be broadcasters, telephone, and content providers all in one.
Re:Thanks Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Big Content Providers and their Customers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.