Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video 184
An anonymous reader writes "Last week's very
public fight between the CRTC and Netflix escalated on Monday
as Netflix refused to comply with Commission's order to supply
certain confidential information including subscriber numbers and
expenditures on Canadian children's content. While the disclosure
concerns revolve around the confidentiality of the data, the far
bigger issue is now whether the CRTC has the legal authority to
order it to do anything at all. Michael Geist reports
that Netflix and Google are ready to challenge it in a case that
could head to the Supreme Court of Canada.
While I find it amusing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada we don't have the same adversarial relationship between legislators and regulators. I imagine if the courts were to side with Netflix the government would eventually enact legislation enabling regulation of some sort.
Re: (Score:2)
Many Canadians *support* this idea and we're not too fond of an American company trying to wreck the system of local content production.
In what way is Netflix wrecking local content? They are making something available. You can choose to pay for it and use it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
We as Canadians have a different approach to government and how we want to build our society.
Bully for you! Now, go build your own Netflix that fits your model. Netflix can turn off access in Canada, which a lot of Canadians seemed to complain about before.
Re: (Score:2)
Which all sounds like a good idea, though it's strongly tainted by the nationalist protectionism. The same sort art and education funding system could be setup with penalizing people who aren't lucky enough to currently reside in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
And many Canadians do not.
I hope Netflix entirely wrecks the system of local content production. The idea that that society should pay to produce crap content in order to support culture is ludicrous.
Netflix (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix could also resolve this by simply not serving any tv shows to Canada.... or perhaps being more fine grained, only serve tv shows to subsribers who have verified they have a Canadian cable tv subscription, much like how Canadiian broadcaster websites currently do.
Certainly your solution would work, but there are far less drastic solutions, albeit ones that may pose greater technical challenges to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point in serving an internet service to people that already/only have a cable tv subscription?
I have no TV, neither cable nor via air, so why should I be "prohibited" to subscribe to Netflix?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Canadian TV broadcasters are under CRTC regulation as they are Canadian broadcasters (i.e. Canadian companies). I don't like it either, but I agree they are under the purview of the CRTC.
Netflix is not. They are also not broadcasting. And as the CRTC decided themselves in 1999, should not require a license:
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch... [crtc.gc.ca]
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an indivi
Re: (Score:2)
You can only watch Corner Gas a few hundred times before it gets boring.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only watch Corner Gas a few hundred times before it gets boring.
We have Just for Laughs. Canadian comedy is the best on the planet. Why would we need anything Americans make?
Re: (Score:2)
You can only watch Corner Gas a few hundred times before it gets boring.
We have Just for Laughs. Canadian comedy is the best on the planet. Why would we need anything Americans make?
Comedy isn't hard mate, its not rocket appliances. Anyway just chill out its all just water under the fridge.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the selection to Canadians. I would say they already do not server Canada.
In Canada... (Score:2)
It is generally the case up here that in order to watch many shows online, you generally have to verify that you have a cable subscription, This is often done through a sort of google+-ish login on each individual broadcaster's website that verifies your cable account with the cable provider that you claim to use.
Now this isn't true for all shows, but certainly true for many... and by my own observation, seems to be particularly applicable for shows that happen to be US-made, and where (obviously) a loc
Re: (Score:2)
It is generally the case up here that in order to watch many shows online, you generally have to verify that you have a cable subscription, This is often done through a sort of google+-ish login on each individual broadcaster's website that verifies your cable account with the cable provider that you claim to use.
Now this isn't true for all shows, but certainly true for many... and by my own observation, seems to be particularly applicable for shows that happen to be US-made, and where (obviously) a local broadcaster has paid for the rights to air that program in Canada.
I suspect that if Netflix required such verification, they would not likely be having this problem. It would also not be a problem if the person was watching something that was not a show being aired on a Canadian network (eg, a movie, or else an old tv show that is no longer on the air).
Yes, but requiring a cable subscription is purely to receive the content for free. For example, if you want to watch a streaming episode of Game of Thrones you need to verify that you have a cable account to prove that you have already paid for access to the content. It has nothing to do with the CRTC and everything to do with the show owner making sure that they are getting paid. Your subscription, for that show, is your cable bill. Otherwise, you need to pay for the content through iTunes, Amazon, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Rarely are large corporations the "good guy" in any modern narrative - both from their own actions generally, but also a anti-corporate meme in journalism (as long as we studiously avoid reference to their own corporations, of course).
I'm glad for this, because the only entities that have the power/lawyers/money to tell government to pound sand anymore are megacorps.
CRTC (Score:2)
Radio? No
Television? No
Telecommunications? Maybe
In as far as Netflix is using "telecommunications" infrastructure... I guess that gets the camel's nose into the tent?
But the same could be said of any web site - why doesn't the CRTC ask YouTube, or even Slashdot for subscriber data? What's the difference? They are all web sites pushing on-demand content to users - not broadcasting. Besides, even if they were "broadcasting", one cou
Not surprisingly the CRTC is made up of ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So long as he does a good job (and he has) and does use his position of power to push those beliefs on others (he hasn't) you have nothing to complain about.
Right. It's not like his government is shutting down libraries [huffingtonpost.ca] and burning books [thetyee.ca]. That kind of thing only happens on American TV.
Re: (Score:2)
jurisdiction nightmares (Score:2)
CRTC misjudging its political power (Score:3)
Someone might want to inform the CRTC bureaucrats of the consequences of pissing off at least 4-million voters — election of the party that promises to rid us of the CRTC. (Really, this would be about 25% of the electorate assuming that each Canadian Netflix account corresponds to a household with 1.6 voters.)
Gouge us, go to war, waste tens of billions of dollars, the public doesn't care. But cut off our entertainment — it's torches-and-pitchforks time!
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
A party that pledged to rid us of the CRTC could also declare Thursday's "burn a kitten" day, and still likely be voted in.
Canadians are pretty pissed off at a legislative body that continually bends over backwards for the telecommunications industry, fails to promote a competitive marketplace and consumer choice, and uses our tax dollars in order to tell us what our culture is.
And to make things better, the minute some foreign company comes in to offer us something Canadians actually want, they sta
Irrelevance of CRTC (Score:2)
http://blog.fagstein.com/2014/... [fagstein.com]
Re:Funny how this works ... (Score:5, Informative)
"Can anyone seriously argue that Netflix isn't also rebroadcasting TV content?"
Yes, easily. Netflix has purchased licenses for it's content.
Re: (Score:3)
After years of watching the mess that is the CRTC, I have come to the conclusion that if they don't like it then I probably should.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is the CRTC has no competence to ask anything to Netflix. The CRTC mandate is not covering the Internet broadcasting at all. If I would be Netflix I would tell them to go to hell.
Currently, you already have the traditional broadcasters in Canada, like CBC, ICI Radio-Canada, TVA, etc, which are making content available through the internet without respecting the CRTC regulation when they broadcast the same program over cable or air. And to be very specific, all the broadcasters are in the obligatio
Re:Funny how this works ... (Score:5, Informative)
When it's American broadcasters going after Canada's icravetv, American courts had no problem getting a US court order that basically ended the service, because it was a rebroadcaster.
Can anyone seriously argue that Netflix isn't also rebroadcasting TV content?
Two weights, two measures. What a mess! And really, whatever solution will be a mess.
The difference is that NetFlix gets permission for rebroadcasting -- they have a license. That's why they don't have the same selection that other rebroadcasters do -- because they're licensing content on a show-by-show basis, not taking the OTA stream and routing it over the Internet.
This case is kind of unfortunate, as both the CRTC and Netflix are in the wrong, and both sides are unwilling to back down and come to a reasonable compromise, as that would threaten their power base.
The problem here is that the CRTC can stop all payment via Canadian credit cards to Netflix, and Netflix can support customers paying via alternate methods who are willing to stream over a VPN -- so the result of this conflict is that both sides lose, and the citizen (not consumer, although them too) loses even more.
But this whole thing is really about Rogers and Shaw lobbying the CRTC to block foreign competition for their new Shome project. CRTC is probably quite happy to be flexing their "muscle" in this situation after continually taking a beating from US lobbying interests on allowing US content onto Canadian networks.
So yeah; it's a huge mess to sort out.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, unless you've read some additional Broadcast Act related law that I haven't, the CRTC can do no such thing. Netflix is not a broadcaster per the act and has no authority to ask for that information nor any statutory authority to affect Netflix in any way.
Re: (Score:3)
You probably mean the Broadcasting Act [canlii.ca], which establishes its subject-matter jurisdiction as follows:
âoebroadcastingâ
 radiodiffusion Â
âoebroadcastingâ means any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place;
âoeprogramâ
 émission Â
âoeprogramâ means sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, that are intended to inform, enlighten or entertain, but does not include visual images, whether or not combined with sounds, that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text;
4. (1) This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Application generally
(2) This Act applies in respect of broadcasting undertakings carried on in whole or in part within Canada or on board
(a) any ship, vessel or aircraft that is
(i) registered or licensed under an Act of Parliament, or
(ii) owned by, or under the direction or control of, Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province;
(b) any spacecraft that is under the direction or control of
(i) Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province,
(ii) a citizen or resident of Canada, or
(iii) a corporation incorporated or resident in Canada; or
(c) any platform, rig, structure or formation that is affixed or attached to land situated in the continental shelf of Canada.
For greater certainty
(3) For greater certainty, this Act applies in respect of broadcasting undertakings whether or not they are carried on for profit or as part of, or in connection with, any other undertaking or activity.
Idem
(4) For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to any telecommunications common carrier, as defined in the Telecommunications Act, when acting solely in that capacity.
1991, c. 11, s. 4; 1993, c. 38, s. 82; 1996, c. 31, s. 57.
Re:Funny how this works ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, Netflix does not fit that definition of a broadcaster as clarified by the CRTC themselves in 1999:
“Among the services that also do not fall within the scope of the definition of broadcasting are those where the potential for user customization is significant, i.e., services where end-users have an individual, or one-on-one, experience and where they create their own uniquely tailored content. The Commission considers that these types of services do not involve the transmission of programs for reception by the public and are, therefore, not broadcasting.”
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/pb99-84.htm
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. Look at how great limited regulation fared in 2006-2008 when the financial industry whined and complained about the "burdensome" regulations that were proposed regarding their use of derivatives, capitalization and related matters.
Not having regulations worked out really well, didn't it? It only cost us taxpayers a few billion dollars to clean up the mess.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost to us taxpayers was not due to the lack of regulations, but rather because our so-called representatives voted to bail out the supposed `too big to fail` organizations. Letting those organizations fail -- meaning those directly involved would bear the most pain while the rest of the nation suffers the side-effects -- was an option... though not a desir
Re: (Score:2)
Which was the direct result of the financial industry whining that the proposed regulations would make them less competitive in the markets.
I have an article at home which outlines how the proposed regulations would have either mitigated to a significant degree, or even prevented, the bailout such by requiring higher capital requirements, more diligent use of mark-to-market, risk analysis and so on.
O
Re: (Score:3)
requiring higher capital requirements, more diligent use of mark-to-market, risk analysis and so on.
But having any effective risk analysis would have meant that the banks wouldn't make loans to people who couldn't afford them, and that failure to make loans to such people was the reason for the regulations that were in place forcing them to make those loans. The buzzword was "redlining", and the solution was "community reinvestment", aka The Community Reinvestment Act. If the banks were complaining, it was because they were forced to make risky loans in the first place and then prevented from recapitaliz
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to rob a bank is to get nebulous regulations regarding "community investment" enacted, and then threaten to take the bank to court unless they donate money to your cause. Like Jessie Jackson and many other "community activists" did. Banks knew it was cheaper to donate to ACORN than to face even specious litigation that woul
Re: (Score:3)
My opinion is that there would have been a benefit in having those directly responsible suffer the most
I agree, but it is unlikely that Clinton, Dodd, Frank, Waters, Obama, or any of the others who pushed the Community Reinvestment Act, community activism, and forced banks to make bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back would ever be punished at all, much less "suffer the most".
"Architects of Ruin" by Peter Schweizer is a pretty good eye-opening read regarding the entire history that led up to the bubble bursting. It wasn't an isolated event that happened overnight, it took many years to develop. T
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is that there would have been a benefit in having those directly responsible suffer the most so that they would be a warning to future crooks (err, I mean businessmen) and for us all to suffer a little so society learns to not let organizations get `too big to fail`.
How about a third alternative, given that there were very likely multiple violations of existing law? Charge those directly responsible and sentence them to appropriate jail time along with hefty fines. Oh who am I kidding, laws are made for poor folk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An aspect of this, is the government spending
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as free school or free health care. Someone is paying for it.
The ironic part is that the Hollywood elitists are very much in favor of "spreading the wealth around", yet many of them now do their work in Canada because it ends up being cheaper. So at home in the states, they're all for "free" stuff, but when it comes to their own incomes, they leave the country to earn their living.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah.... it's called taxes... and it feels free because you usually don't even see the money in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see your gross wages up there? You'll never hold that actual amount in your hands, but it was your money before the government made off with it. You call it free but admit that part of your income goes to it. It's not really free then, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'd love to have more of you down here in the states. I'd rather have pay services where I have some illusion of control over how my income is spent. My goal in life isn't to be a servant to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your gross wages are not your money, it is your employers money and if your taxes go down, well your gross wages go down, either directly or through inflation, so your take home pay is the same or a little bit more. Taxes are taken into consideration when pay is calculated. This is why so many large employers push for lower taxes, so they can decrease their payrolls.
Re:Funny how this works ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We as Canadians have a different approach to government and how we want to build our society.
Yes, but not all Canadians buy into the CRTC's approach. I am absolutely opposed to all the CanCon and related regulations imposed by the CRTC. I'm completely fine with the federal and provincial governments subsidizing broadcasters and the arts in general (TVO is a great example of this done well), but I'm utterly opposed to their regulating what private broadcasters have to show.
we're not too fond of an American company trying to wreck the system of local content production.
Speak for yourself. I'm fine with anyone wrecking the Canadian content production system. 90% of content producers will go under because they produce content no-one cares about. The 10% that survive will do so because they produce really good content and are competitive. Ultimately, it will lead to a healthier content-production industry that's not dependent on protectionist measures for its survival. Maybe we'll even be able to open up an export market for Canadian content.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a healthier state than the current one: "laughingstock".
I'm all in favor of free health care, free education, and social assistance for those who require it. I find the idea of a socialized entertainment industry a ludicrous and disgraceful waste of tax dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
And many Canadians are also tired of local content producers whining and bitching that they can't compete with global markets, and need special tax dollars just to ensure our oh-so delicate culture is maintained.
I'm sorry, but if you think our cultural identity is so
Re: (Score:2)
I've been watching Trailer Park Boys on Netfilx, so I assume Netflix is contributing something back to the pot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you'll be pleased to hear that Netflix is reviving Trailer Park Boys
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the Heritage Foundation is then simply trying to smear you by rating your little socialist utopia as more free-market than the US?
http://www.heritage.org/index/... [heritage.org]
The fact that the Canadian effective corporate tax rate is much lower than the US effective corporate tax rate is an expression of your aversion to free
Re: (Score:2)
An aspect of this, is the government spending a LOT of money developing artists, book/movie production houses, etc. This conflict between Netflix and the CRTC is tied to that.
Um... the issue here is just as nasty as it would be in America: Entrenched interests are trying to control the market. Rogers being one of those interests.
This has nothing to do with Socialism and building a better society.
Re: (Score:3)
> So...as an American can we borrow a few of your ideas?
What do you mean? American already did ...
* First Electric Light Bulb
* Basketball
* Heart Pacemaker
* JAVA
* Garbage Bags
* Radio Broadcast
* Portable Walkie Talkie
* Insulin Process
* Newspaper
* Kerosene
* Wondebra
* Odometer
References:
* http://www.dealathons.com/blog... [dealathons.com]
* http://mentalfloss.com/article... [mentalfloss.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and we see what free education did for your math skills ... ~62% overall taxation rate since sales tax is only effectively levied on the remaining money after paying income tax. .52 + ((1-.52)*.21) = .62
On a larger scale, the US wants to be a faux socialist democratic country. In reality we just tax the people and companies who can't afford to avoid paying taxes. Wonderful example - Steve Jobs' wife didn't have to pay income tax on the $billions in stock grants her husband earned during his tenure at
Re: (Score:2)
Canada's not Russia. Russia has far more deeply-ingrained problems than socialism. Try "being run by a gang of criminals".
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you fled to America, how much would your taxes be if the American government wasn't borrowing trillions of dollars to keep your taxes low?
Re:Funny how this works ... (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that you are completely wrong. Most of us are completely confused as to how spending tax dollars to subsidize TV shows and movies that nobody watches actually helps Canadian culture.
If you think Canadian culture is so fragile that it cannot survive without the protection of the CRTC, they you really don't think much of Canadians.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Canadian culture is so fragile that it cannot survive without the protection of the CRTC, they you really don't think much of Canadians.
If you think the American cultural *industry* is less than a whole order of magnitude larger than the Canadian ones (English and French separately), then I don't think much of your understanding of arithmetic.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In many cases regulations actually promote business as they create new requirements, changes in process or limitations that need to be overcome. It's especially good for the tech fields as it sometimes requires system changes. E.g. Our factory had to spend $100k in extra safety equipment due to changes in regulations.
Some regulations are BS but many are reasonable and are in many cases accepted by the majority population.
Broken window fallacy (Score:2)
In many cases regulations actually promote business as they create new requirements
Increasing the cost of regulation compliance in order to stimulate jobs in the compliance industry is the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations aren't destruction in most cases so the broken window fallacy doesn't apply here.
Regulations do many things good things for society on top of forcing changes that result in movement in economies. I know I'm pretty happy there are food regulations as well as electrical regulations. There are many more that could be mentioned that affected you daily.
Re: (Score:3)
Then every website in Canada would require a license because it's broadcasting. The fact that it's video makes no difference. The CRTC has no business on the internet unless it's someone capturing a broadcast signal and streaming it. Even then I would say it is a copyright issue.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the CRTC does not license broadcasting that occurs primarily in textual form. That being said, they excluded themselves from "the new media" in 1999.
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch... [crtc.gc.ca]
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tai
Re: (Score:2)
Here, let me help you out:
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Just in case that wasn't clear enough:
CANADIAN Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
The CRTC has no business legislating Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. There is no company named "Netflix Canada". Netflix is an entirely USA owned company that has a "Netflix Canada" branding for content they have licensed for distribution in Canada.
CRTC should have no more mandate here than they should over Youtube. In fact, they themselves said in 1999 that they should have no mandate over internet media:
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch... [crtc.gc.ca]
45. The Commission consi
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are really ok with the government mandating what type of information flows over the internet? That doesn't seem very Canadian at all of you.
Actually, the best arbiter of this would likely be the CRTC themselves. As they said back in 1991 [crtc.gc.ca]:
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's
Re: (Score:2)
> CRTC - Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
CRTC - Commission for Repression and Thought Control
Fixed that for ya
Re:Funny how this works ... (Score:4, Informative)
That's the real reason.
You may not realize it, but about 5 years ago (it was illegal since 2002, but many companies appealed), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was illegal for Canadians to view US TV via US "grey market" satellite receivers.
No, these were not people hacking DirecTV or Dish receivers to receive content for free. They were normal Canadians who were paying DirecTV and Dish their normal rates to get US TV. It was ruled illegal for companies to provide any sort of service to enable them to do this. (It's called grey market because to Dish or DirecTV, it's a normal subscriber paying full freight on their subscription, except they were receiving it in Canada).
The culprit? Bell.
So yeah, it's a bit bull-headed of Netflix - all the CRTC wants is to have numbers behind Netflix's claim that they provide tons of Canadian support. (That's what Netflix was claiming - that they already fulfil the rules they don't have to follow, and the CRTC basically says "prove it - show me the numbers").
In the end, it's going to be one big nasty fight. Sure, Netflix is worried because those numbers that prove its point are highly sensitive competitive information, but you'd think they could compromise in that Netflix could find a way to give the CRTC what they want without giving it to competitors. But it's better than the alternative which forced an entire industry to shut down.
A remarkably neutral document was compiled out of this - http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePub... [parl.gc.ca]
Their competitors already have the numbers. (Score:2, Interesting)
Netflix is just posturing here, claiming that they don't want to give out "highly sensitive information that might get leaked to their competitors." Their canadian competitors already have those numbers. If you're Rogers or Bell or Telus or Videotron, you just have to look at your customer's internet traffic to get the stats (and you can be darned sure they've all done this, since they're preparing to set up competing services).
So, since the "sensitive market information" is already easily compilable by
Re: (Score:2)
So yeah, it's a bit bull-headed of Netflix - all the CRTC wants is to have numbers
You mean so Rogers and Shaw can have those numbers. Make no mistake, this is a war. That information is exceedingly valuable for Rogers and Shaw to know. THAT is why CRTC is requiring it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that the CRTC can stop all payment via Canadian credit cards to Netflix
Really? A radio and TV communications commission can block legal credit card transactions?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? A radio and TV communications commission can block legal credit card transactions?
Presumably they simply rule the product as being 'illegal' and then the transactions also become such and there are extant mechanisms for interfering with those.
And, yes, political regulators have the ability to find a way to destroy ANY business - that seems to be what most voters want. The current system is based on silent consent - those not loudly objecting are considered to be supporting.
It's a stupid framework,
Re: (Score:2)
No. The CRTC does not have the power to block credit card transactions.
The CRTC has the authority to pull the TV station licenses, pull cable TV licenses, and in general, block or prevent any over-the-air broadcast activity. They also have the authority over any telecommunications providers in canada (over-the-wire or over-the-air.)
Netflix does not fall within any of the CRTC's typical mandates, other than the one that encourages Canadian content. However, the CRTC can only influence Canadian content v
Re: (Score:2)
and Netflix can support customers paying via alternate methods who are willing to stream over a VPN -- so the result of this conflict is that both sides lose, and the citizen (not consumer, although them too) loses even more.
It's a conspiracy by the Bitcoin illuminati! Who knew they had moles inside the CRTC?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Very different, Netflix licenses the content from the copyright owners. So this case is about regulatory oversight, not about copyrights. In particular, it's about knowing if Netflix has to pay to produce "canadian content", it's about knowing if there will be any Canadian TV in the future or not. And the big problem is that English Canadians like the idea of Canadian TV, but they don't watch it and aren't ready to pay for it, they'd rather watch Americans shows, etc.
French Canada (Quebec) is a whole differ
Re: (Score:2)
Other than news and sports, I don't know any English Canadians that like the idea of Canadian TV. We see it as a tax imposed on us for some vaguely defined benefit of promoting Canadian culture by producing TV shows and movies which nobody watches.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that! American courts issuing US court orders! What is the world coming to!
Well, they were a Canadian company and could have ignored the US court order. If found guilty by a US court, they might not have been able to enter the US, transact business in the US, or move money through US banks or their affiliates; that's the way things work. They also realized that they were likely also violating Canadian law and were
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just it. They are YOUR laws and your sovereignty, not Netflix's. YOU are crossing the digital border into the United States as Netflix doesn't appear to maintain a physical presence in Canada. Don't like it? Tough. You'd have the same response if the US tried to enforce it's laws and sovereignty on something that was wholly Canadian but possible to be consumed in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
They're dealing with Canadian banks (credit cards) so do have presence here. Just as the US can order banks not to deal with certain countries, we can order banks not to deal with certain companies.
Whether we should in this case is a whole different question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Except as everyone is noting here, they are NOT broadcasting. They are an on-demand service. Percentage of Canadian content can't apply when your customers pick and choose what they want to see. The CRTC has no jurisdiction here - Netflix isn't radio, television, and it's barely 'telecommunication'. Interesting too that it's being squeezed by the government right after the major carriers announced their own on-demand service... protectionism? Definately.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, as the CRTC themselves decided in 1999
From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch... [crtc.gc.ca]
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The
Popup dialogue (Score:2)
"You have already reached your quota for non-Canadian content. We now present reruns of 'The Beachcombers' whether you like it or not."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Netflix won't lose. The CRTC likes to think that it has control over every bit of entertainment that a Canadian eyeball sees, but regardless of their stupid industry win over the grey-market satellite boxes, this issue is a bit different.
It's different because (a) Canadians are tired of seeing the stuff Americans get that we can't have (mostly due to li
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why does Netflix get shit over this? The people that own the content Netflix sells (Hollywood) will not stream it without DRM. People on Linux wanted Netflix. This was the only reasonable solution.
Their other options were:
1. switch to another closed format from Adobe or similar
2. Stay on Silverlight and tell Linux users to piss off.
3. Remove DRM completely, and abandon all streaming outside of their own self-created content and a bunch of independent moves that few people would pay to see, since they're lik
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already does!
US Netflix has shows that Canadian Netflix doesn't... and vice versa... thats why there are hacks (some as easy as changing your DNS server) to get US netflix in Canada...
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants to see Netflix start shit like "this video is not available in your area".
Start? [blogspot.com]
maybe if Canadian shows were any good, they would get naturally popular as well. Fucking dumbasses.
Hell yeah. If Canada could produce anything as good as The Tudors, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Ray Bradbury Theatre, SCTV, Prisoners of Gravity, This Hour Has 22 Minutes or The Kids in the Hall, then they wouldn't suck.
Re: (Score:2)
The CRTC is supposed to regulate Canadian broadcasting. Netflix is not Canadian. It has no presence in Canada. Regardless of the industry-paid-for legislation over grey-market satellites, the CRTC should not be regulating this at all.
Should the CRTC also be legislating Canadian content on YouTube? Twitch? Instagram? Any random site with a podcast? If their legislative powers exist beyond Canada, then the answer
Re: (Score:2)
Except this has nothing to do with the disclosure of information.
What's really happening is Netflix want's to know is whether the CRTC can actually do anything if Netflix decides to not play by their rules. This opportunity provides a safe test-bed for that idea.
Netflix will not release the information at all. They will claim it's due to CRTC being unable to provide confidentiality (which strictly speaking is true....CRTC is subject to requests under the Information Act if the information can be shown