CRTC threatens future of broadcasting, CTV says

[Wild Bill]

The fundamental issue is consumption. All the Canadian content rules in the world don't mean a thing if the average viewer doesn't watch it. As the age of on-demand video, via the Internet, and the capacity for any government agency to meaningfully do anything about it, and the capacity for any level or branch of government to do anything about it, the question becomes more along the lines "Is the discussion even relevant?"

If someone can completely bypass any of the traditional means by which the CRTC has been able to enforce content rules, then I think the way the war has been waged thus far has come to an end. What I'm watching is a body which really became irrelevant with the rise of Youtube, basically being asked by the traditional broadcasters, as they sink into an economic quagmire, to simply channel money directly to them, and then back away into obscurity.

Pay attention, jdobbin! TB is nailing the point you seem to keep missing! Who is going to be around to watch or listen in 10 years?

I pointed out how the listening/watching habits of my daughters are so different from my generation. I have friends that are DJ's who tell me that the "elephant in the room" that no one in radio wants to talk about is that there is little or NO new blood emerging from the younger generation!

This is a totally new factor that has never been seen before. Your confidence in radio continuing to survive is based on a world that has come and gone. Radio survived because no matter what they did to their programming to attract markets with new tastes and interests there were always markets there that would buy the products and services of the advertisers. The same could be said of TV.

The ratings services break audiences down into programming categories and age groups. Some age groups are known to spend more money than others. The scary thing happening today is that ALL the groups are shrinking! Older folks die off and younger folks are not replaced.

We're not talking about a 10-15% drop here. We're talking 50-60% OR MORE within 5-10 years!

If the CRTC doesn't wake up to the new realities then radio and TV stations are going to go off the air in droves! Several have been closed here in Southern Ontario by CanWest-Global over the past few months. My local CHCH-TV is in imminent danger, hoping desperately for a buyer to save them. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

The CRTC just seems like a bunch of old men and women, still wondering why nobody buys 45's anymore.

[jdobbin]

Pay attention, jdobbin! TB is nailing the point you seem to keep missing! Who is going to be around to watch or listen in 10 years?

On traditional TV broadcasters, who knows?

People will still watch, listen or read something and Canadian content shouldn't be limited to traditional broadcasters.

I pointed out how the listening/watching habits of my daughters are so different from my generation. I have friends that are DJ's who tell me that the "elephant in the room" that no one in radio wants to talk about is that there is little or NO new blood emerging from the younger generation!

Which is why I suggested that the CRTC should have a limit for credit for established artists.

It doesn't mean that your daughters have stopped listening to music or that Canadian content is not important.

In fact, you say they still watch movies. Help Canadian productions and help new writers and directors if that is the case.

This is a totally new factor that has never been seen before. Your confidence in radio continuing to survive is based on a world that has come and gone. Radio survived because no matter what they did to their programming to attract markets with new tastes and interests there were always markets there that would buy the products and services of the advertisers. The same could be said of TV.

My confidence in radio is based on the fact that it illegal to watch TV and movies in a car nor do some jurisdictions allow you to talk on a cell or text message while you drive.

If you want to argue that the car is dead and that radio will die with it then maybe we should start a new thread.

People's habits have changed for radio. They listen while they commute in North America because most radio is free and legal.

The ratings services break audiences down into programming categories and age groups. Some age groups are known to spend more money than others. The scary thing happening today is that ALL the groups are shrinking! Older folks die off and younger folks are not replaced.

We're not talking about a 10-15% drop here. We're talking 50-60% OR MORE within 5-10 years!

And these people have stopped listening to music, watching TV, going to movies or are they getting them in different formats?

You say there is a drop in people using services but does that mean a drop in interest in overall content overall?

If the CRTC doesn't wake up to the new realities then radio and TV stations are going to go off the air in droves! Several have been closed here in Southern Ontario by CanWest-Global over the past few months. My local CHCH-TV is in imminent danger, hoping desperately for a buyer to save them. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

In part this is an aspect of the digital revolution and debt incurred by networks as well as the present recession.

If your argument that CHCH can only be saved by ending Canadian content and allowing a foreign buyer to take over, I don't know if that is the solution. CHCH's problem is a debt laden ownership group that has been running the network like a second tier service with no interest in local content like news that actually does get ratings.

The CRTC just seems like a bunch of old men and women, still wondering why nobody buys 45's anymore.

I have said that the solution might be to end the CRTC and all Canadian content and ownership and competition rules in the past if that is what the industry really wants but that is not what they want. They just want protection from international competition and from international ownership while ending all Canadian content and jacking up their profit margin.

People have opted out of paying for TV by pirating signals and downloading movies and the government turns a blind eye to copyright infringement. This has been as much of a problem as anything and government should realize that entire industries will crumble without fair but enforced copyright, patent protection and trademarks.

What are your ideas for improving the system? Do you think it should all be burned to the ground?

Are your daughters not interested in games, books, music, TV and movies? Are they not interested in Canadian content? Is being Canadian an indifferent thing to youth? Do they not want Canadian influences in their lives?

If that is true, then we don't need Canadian content or a nation of Canada.

Edited April 29, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

For better or for worse, all the traditional broadcasters, here, down in the States, and everywhere, are now going to be competing on a global scale, and notions of "national content" rules (and we're hardly alone in this) will be unenforceable anachronisms. If Canadian content producers want to get people to watch anything it produces, they're going to have to compete on quality. If they can't produce something as popular as the Simpsons, Lost or House, or whatever is passing as entertainment, then at best, they'll become irrelevant leaches, picking our pockets so long as the politicians see fit to permit it.

And everyone will be looking for content to fill this bandwidth.

Support the producers of art then rather than the distributors. Canadian content is important in the same way nationhood is important.

Even in a global world, we are still a nation. Unless that is anachronism as well. I don't think it is.

I think we cease being a nation if we don't have any content in news and entertainment that is Canadian.

Edited April 29, 2009 by jdobbin

[ToadBrother]

People have opted out of paying for TV by pirating signals and downloading movies and the government turns a blind eye to copyright infringement. This has been as much of a problem as anything and government should realize that entire industries will crumble without fair but enforced copyright, patent protection and trademarks.

This is a ludicrous oversimplification. Whatever the effects of piracy, I don't think it's all that relevant. For me, what matters here is that, however it arrives at the TV/computer/whatever, the Internet is providing what traditional mediums have not; audio and/or video on demand. The basic carriers understand this (at long last).

As to piracy itself, the technology has made the traditional models moot. What you're proposing is akin to forcing people to pay for wagon wheels, despite the fact that everybody's driving cars. The jig is up. There was a brief period during the 20th century when large media companies could accrue a vast amount of wealth, and where a few artists could make millions. That's not the way entertainment worked before, and it's probably not how entertainment is going to look moving forward. The genie is out of the bottle. You can't sue everyone, and if a laws end up making a large fractions of society lawbreakers, then the law is doomed.

Besides, the media giants have mockeries of copyright themselves. The notion of Fair Use is being all but dispensed with in this age of locked-down entertainment. They (the media companies) are still trying to deliver things on their terms, but it's useless. You can't jail all the Pirate Bays, you can't send all the college students $10,000 bills for downloading an album, and at some point some of those students are going to be making the laws.

Technology always does this. Rifles put the fletchers out of business. Bridges put the ferrymen out of business. The printing press put the scribe out of business. This idea that essentially trying to criminalize a technology in the hopes of maintaining the status quo is foolish. Just go look at what happened in the 16th century in Japan, where firearms were banned in an attempt to keep the feudal system afloat. They banned the guns, despite, at the time, developing a fairly advanced firearms industry, but by the 19th century had to furiously bring in outsiders to start it afresh or they'd have been overrun by Europeans carving them up like they had China.

The world has shifted, as it is wont to do, and in a way, I don't feel sorry at all. The artists who the media companies claim to be protecting have just as often got the shaft. Bo Diddley made barely anything for a series of a records that revolutionized rock and roll and R&B. Artists were seeing pennies per album sold, while the record companies simultaneously were ripping off the consumer by colluding to overprice units.

And that shift also means the very nature of the medium makes any attempt to control what people watch or listen to will be all but impossible. What are you proposing, gate keepers at every fiber or copper connection coming into the country, counting how many packets contain audio or video data and refusing to route a certain percentage? You have to admit, it's done, the game's up. TV just won't work in a decade in a fashion that makes just about anything the CRTC does on that front meaningful. So either Canadian content producers start producing stuff that people actually want to watch or listen to, instead of being this insular, government-supported community that is basically rewarded for producing a helluva lot of trash, or they'll cease to exist.

[ToadBrother]

And everyone will be looking for content to fill this bandwidth.

Support the producers of art then rather than the distributors. Canadian content is important in the same way nationhood is important.

Even in a global world, we are still a nation. Unless that is anachronism as well. I don't think it is.

I think we cease being a nation if we don't have any content in new and entertainment that is Canadian.

Then content producers better start from scratch. Instead of looking for restrictive content rules and government grants, they're just going to damn well have to make something that Canadians will watch. Because the end of the current system is within a decade, and short of basically being an irrelevant financial leach and grabbing money from ISP customers to maintain an industry that might as well not exist, it's going to be about actually producing things that people will be interested in.

[mikedavid00]

The reality is for the networks it is cheaper for them to bring in foreign content than to produce homegrown content.

That is simply not true.

Good TV doesn't have to be expensive TV. Expensive US shows cost huge.

The Canadian *PRIVATE* broadcasters simply don't have the investment funds for shows like Canadian Idol becuase the CBC steals those funds away from them.

A lot of people here don't get that simple, simple concept. It's the reason why our private media is so bad.

[mikedavid00]

The fundamental issue is consumption. All the Canadian content rules in the world don't mean a thing if the average viewer doesn't watch it.

People don't watch it because it is not good programming by the CBC. Talent does not work at the CBC; only high achievers who went through 'the institutions' do. I listen to CBC radio daily and the 'f-ups' are laughable at times. It's seriously amature hour.

When the CBC takes all the ratings becuase of their public funded monopoly, they take ad revenue away from the private sector leaving them with no money to buy or invest in real talent.

Private media = a host, a news feed, and a weather report. Nothing more becuase they can't afford more. The TV portion is a joke. They simply can't afford the innitial investments.

The CBC takes all the WOULD BE funds from the private media so they cannot produce expensive shows (ie: Canadian idol being put on hold this season).

It's such a simple concept that many here don't grasp because they are not in reality. They are in trudeau land where they feel of roundtable will decide what is good for everyone.

Bad TV is one of the concequences.

Edited April 29, 2009 by mikedavid00

[ToadBrother]

People don't watch it because it is not good programming by the CBC. Talent does not work at the CBC; only high achievers who went through 'the institutions' do. I listen to CBC radio daily and the 'f-ups' are laughable at times. It's seriously amature hour.

When the CBC takes all the ratings becuase of their public funded monopoly, they take ad revenue away from the private sector leaving them with no money to buy or invest in real talent.

Private media = a host, a news feed, and a weather report. Nothing more becuase they can't afford more. The TV portion is a joke. They simply can't afford the innitial investments.

The CBC takes all the WOULD BE funds from the private media so they cannot produce expensive shows (ie: Canadian idol being put on hold this season).

It's such a simple concept that many here don't grasp because they are not in reality. They are in trudeau land where they feel of roundtable will decide what is good for everyone.

Bad TV is one of the concequences.

Um, the BBC has, up until recently at least, put out a lot of pretty damned good programming, so this idea that a public broadcaster somehow leads to mediocrity is false. The problem here is that, in general, Canadian entertainment is pretty sub-standard. I remember hearing years ago about how Wayne and Schuster were supposedly right SOBs, and their explanation was that they wanted quality shows, and the only way to do it up here was basically to be miserable bastards about the whole thing. There's a real culture, not just in the CBC, but in Canadian entertainment in general, of getting by.

[jdobbin]

This is a ludicrous oversimplification. Whatever the effects of piracy, I don't think it's all that relevant. For me, what matters here is that, however it arrives at the TV/computer/whatever, the Internet is providing what traditional mediums have not; audio and/or video on demand. The basic carriers understand this (at long last).

I think you underestimate how much pirating takes place, it is relevant and very costly. Walk down any street in Canada and count the pirate dishes. People have opted out of paying for TV because the government let's them.

As to piracy itself, the technology has made the traditional models moot. What you're proposing is akin to forcing people to pay for wagon wheels, despite the fact that everybody's driving cars. The jig is up. There was a brief period during the 20th century when large media companies could accrue a vast amount of wealth, and where a few artists could make millions. That's not the way entertainment worked before, and it's probably not how entertainment is going to look moving forward. The genie is out of the bottle. You can't sue everyone, and if a laws end up making a large fractions of society lawbreakers, then the law is doomed.

I am afraid that doesn't help those who actually produce content.

If you are stealing electricity off the line simply because you can, don't be surprised if someone cuts the line and arrests you.

Besides, the media giants have mockeries of copyright themselves. The notion of Fair Use is being all but dispensed with in this age of locked-down entertainment. They (the media companies) are still trying to deliver things on their terms, but it's useless. You can't jail all the Pirate Bays, you can't send all the college students $10,000 bills for downloading an album, and at some point some of those students are going to be making the laws.

I agree that big media companies have done well in the past. No one wants to go back to the way it was. However, there is a price to stealing. Eventually, content gets choked off or industry comes up with pays to make you pay such as Internet throttling or by cutting off people who download too much.

Technology always does this. Rifles put the fletchers out of business. Bridges put the ferrymen out of business. The printing press put the scribe out of business. This idea that essentially trying to criminalize a technology in the hopes of maintaining the status quo is foolish. Just go look at what happened in the 16th century in Japan, where firearms were banned in an attempt to keep the feudal system afloat. They banned the guns, despite, at the time, developing a fairly advanced firearms industry, but by the 19th century had to furiously bring in outsiders to start it afresh or they'd have been overrun by Europeans carving them up like they had China.

I am not defending old technology.

The world has shifted, as it is wont to do, and in a way, I don't feel sorry at all. The artists who the media companies claim to be protecting have just as often got the shaft. Bo Diddley made barely anything for a series of a records that revolutionized rock and roll and R&B. Artists were seeing pennies per album sold, while the record companies simultaneously were ripping off the consumer by colluding to overprice units.

And that shift also means the very nature of the medium makes any attempt to control what people watch or listen to will be all but impossible. What are you proposing, gate keepers at every fiber or copper connection coming into the country, counting how many packets contain audio or video data and refusing to route a certain percentage? You have to admit, it's done, the game's up. TV just won't work in a decade in a fashion that makes just about anything the CRTC does on that front meaningful. So either Canadian content producers start producing stuff that people actually want to watch or listen to, instead of being this insular, government-supported community that is basically rewarded for producing a helluva lot of trash, or they'll cease to exist.

So your proposal is exactly what? And what do you see as the outcome?

[ToadBrother]

I think you underestimate how much pirating takes place, it is relevant and very costly. Walk down any street in Canada and count the pirate dishes. People have opted out of paying for TV because the government let's them.

Are you saying that people should be forced to pay for TV?

I am afraid that doesn't help those who actually produce content.

Two hundred years ago do you think that most content producers made the kind of money that, say, Led Zeppelin still does?

If you are stealing electricity off the line simply because you can, don't be surprised if someone cuts the line and arrests you.

And if it were that simple, you might have a point. But the technology no longer permits things like that. In fact, the technology is making it increasingly difficult to nail anyone, and notions like RIAA's idea that you can simply equate IP addresses to individual computers has been debunked sufficient times that it's pretty clear now that using the legal system is rather like shooting into the woods. Yes, you catch a few, but you'll never catch any substantial fraction, and what's more, you only fuel the technological arms race. Look at how fast Blu-ray encryption was busted.

I agree that big media companies have done well in the past. No one wants to go back to the way it was.

You could have fooled me. You have Disney given an effective infinite control over Mickey Mouse, you have artists' copyrights extended to nearly a century after they drop dead. The media companies and artists started the process of subverting copyright by altering it from a temporary period when an artist could control the work before it became public domain, so I don't exactly shed any tears here. Perhaps if they were willing to return copyright to a reasonable period of time, I'd be more sympathetic.

However, there is a price to stealing. Eventually, content gets choked off or industry comes up with pays to make you pay such as Internet throttling or by cutting off people who download too much.

Have you seen your average ISP advertisement. They could care less about pirating, and in fact, suggest heavily that their networks are going to make it better.

I am not defending old technology.

It's not old technology, it's old business models that you seem to be defending. Look, five hundred years ago an artist was either lucky enough to get a patron, or was so fantastically skilled that his works became hot properties, or, for the most part, he made a business as best he could as a portrait painter or minstrel. That's pretty much the way art has worked since the beginning of urbanized civilization. During the 20th century, a unique combination of technologies and capital permitted companies to create mass entertainments and control distribution. It worked because, basically, no one could make a reasonable good reproduction, unlike, say, sheet music. Because making quality duplicates of film and audio was so obscenely expensive, the business could flourish. The media business method that existed since the popularization of the phonograph and the film projector existed because the technologies were sufficiently expensive and complex to give the media companies something of an artificial monopoly. Add to that a practically world-wide distribution system, pretty much owned by said companies, that even smaller labels had a damn hard time competing against (and were basically shut out of most major record store chains), and you had a recipe for charging vast quantities of money for the product. If you were a Beatle or a Rolling Stone, even at pennies a unit, you could make a killing, whereas your counterpart a hundred years before really didn't have much expectation of making more than a living off of it, unless he was really really really good.

So your proposal is exactly what? And what do you see as the outcome?

My proposal is that there is no proposal that will save the current business model. It exists, as I've explained above, because of a unique set of circumstances, permitted it to exist. Once any one variable in those set of circumstances changed (in this case, the capacity to cheaply make and distribute perfect copies), that made the business model impossible in the long-term to sustain.

I used the examples of outmoded technologies to make a point; not that old technologies can be saved, but rather that it is the business models based on those anachronistic technologies that are really doomed. You still have a few fletchers and blacksmiths making wagon wheels, but they are no longer anything but niche industries, capable of only supporting a very small number of people. What would you propose, that everyone, whether they use a rifle or not, or drive a car or not, should support fletchers and blacksmiths? Because that's pretty much what forcing people to pay for TV outlets or to pay some sort of Internet media tax is all about, or using legislative power to keep RIAA's and the MPAA's members afloat.

As to the outcome, it means for recording artists probably a lot more touring, since tours have pretty much been the only way for artists during the Age of Vinyl to make really big money. Royalty residuals unless your one of the megastars ain't all that great.

As to the movie industry, I dunno. Making movies like Indiana Jones or Titanic requires an enormous amount of money, and it could be that piracy may end up wiping out the mega-extravaganza films. Maybe they'll have to do more to make theaters more popular, since that's one place you can still, conceivably, control distribution.

Who knows what the end result will be. We didn't need vast media conglomerates controlling equally vast theater chains to enjoy a staging of The Merchant of Venice, nor did we such companies to go see an orchestra play Chopan, or even a professional singer at a pub. Art will go on, performance will go on.

Edited April 29, 2009 by ToadBrother

[jdobbin]

Are you saying that people should be forced to pay for TV?

Are you saying that people should be able to steal it?

Two hundred years ago do you think that most content producers made the kind of money that, say, Led Zeppelin still does?

I don't care what the band makes. I do care about the Constitution and the law which mentions copyright should be protected.

And if it were that simple, you might have a point. But the technology no longer permits things like that. In fact, the technology is making it increasingly difficult to nail anyone, and notions like RIAA's idea that you can simply equate IP addresses to individual computers has been debunked sufficient times that it's pretty clear now that using the legal system is rather like shooting into the woods. Yes, you catch a few, but you'll never catch any substantial fraction, and what's more, you only fuel the technological arms race. Look at how fast Blu-ray encryption was busted.

The idea that technology makes copyright irrelevant is one that will eventually choke the content that this technology needs to succeed.

You could have fooled me. You have Disney given an effective infinite control over Mickey Mouse, you have artists' copyrights extended to nearly a century after they drop dead. The media companies and artists started the process of subverting copyright by altering it from a temporary period when an artist could control the work before it became public domain, so I don't exactly shed any tears here. Perhaps if they were willing to return copyright to a reasonable period of time, I'd be more sympathetic.

You won't have any disagreements from me on how long copyright has been extended. The Europeans just followed suit this week.

Have you seen your average ISP advertisement. They could care less about pirating, and in fact, suggest heavily that their networks are going to make it better.

That is why they are throttling. They want pirates to pay more. They want us all to pay more for access to the Internet.

It's not old technology, it's old business models that you seem to be defending.

Not defending that model either. I am defending copyright. Not the bloated one that the media companies support or the "everything is free" that some individuals support. I am defending honest to goodness copyright.

My proposal is that there is no proposal that will save the current business model. It exists, as I've explained above, because of a unique set of circumstances, permitted it to exist. Once any one variable in those set of circumstances changed (in this case, the capacity to cheaply make and distribute perfect copies), that made the business model impossible in the long-term to sustain.

The government should be determined to protect copyright. Anything short of that is a violation of the Constitution. I have no problems letting a business model evolve and change but don't make out that laws no longer need to be enforced.

Because that's pretty much what forcing people to pay for TV outlets or to pay some sort of Internet media tax is all about, or using legislative power to keep RIAA's and the MPAA's members afloat.

I would settle for obeying the law and not allowing stealing to place.

I find it no different than other stealing using the Robin Hood argument.

The amount of counterfeiting and theft taking place is harmful to creativity, safety and consumer trust.

As to the outcome, it means for recording artists probably a lot more touring, since tours have pretty much been the only way for artists during the Age of Vinyl to make money.

Artists have always toured. It doesn't mean that their songs have lost copyright. The government has a constitutional obligation to ensure they are not ripped off.

This idea that technology gives permission for theft is just not acceptable.

The law should be enforced in Canada. The punishment should be weighty enough to make people think differently.

For example, if a gray market satellite is found on the premises in the pursuit of any investigation, the fine should be heavy and the person charged with a crime.

As to the movie industry, I dunno. Making movies like Indiana Jones or Titanic requires an enormous amount of money, and it could be that piracy may end up wiping out the mega-extravaganza films. Maybe they'll have to do more to make theaters more popular, since that's one place you can still, conceivably, control distribution.

Once again, why invest in theatres when people are buying the movie even before it is being released from some pirate?

Even China is coming to realize that violating copyright, trademarks and patents can be a bad things. Counterfeit aircraft parts, drugs, software and hardware undermine industry.

Who knows what the end result will be. We didn't need vast media conglomerates controlling equally vast theater chains to enjoy a staging of The Merchant of Venice, nor did we such companies to go see an orchestra play Chopan, or even a professional singer at a pub. Art will go on, performance will go on.

I am not so convinced that some of the arts will go without supports and without copyright protection.

[ToadBrother]

Are you saying that people should be able to steal it?

I'm saying you can't stop it.

I don't care what the band makes. I do care about the Constitution and the law which mentions copyright should be protected.

Is this even an argument?

The idea that technology makes copyright irrelevant is one that will eventually choke the content that this technology needs to succeed.

Yes, of course, if copyright fails, we'll never see a book or a drama or a piece of music again. The world will become dark and grey, and no one will sing or act, no one will put pen to paper or finger to string.

You won't have any disagreements from me on how long copyright has been extended. The Europeans just followed suit this week.

That is why they are throttling. They want pirates to pay more. They want us all to pay more for access to the Internet.

They're throttling because the best way to make money is to create an artificial bottleneck. The Chinese did the same thing with silk, until someone stole the worm. Yet another example of how, no matter how much political and legislative power you throw at something, someone will eventually screw you over.

Not defending that model either. I am defending copyright. Not the bloated one that the media companies support or the "everything is free" that some individuals support. I am defending honest to goodness copyright.

The government should be determined to protect copyright. Anything short of that is a violation of the Constitution. I have no problems letting a business model evolve and change but don't make out that laws no longer need to be enforced.

The business model isn't evolving, it's use legislative and judicial power to try to keep the old system going. Where's the evolution in that?

I would settle for obeying the law and not allowing stealing to place.

I find it no different than other stealing using the Robin Hood argument.

The amount of counterfeiting and theft taking place is harmful to creativity, safety and consumer trust.

Because, of course, no one ever wrote a song before copyright law.

Artists have always toured. It doesn't mean that their songs have lost copyright. The government has a constitutional obligation to ensure they are not ripped off.

The government certainly hasn't done a very good job on that front. Even established artists have to frequently sue their record companies for unpaid royalties.

This idea that technology gives permission for theft is just not acceptable.

And yet, that's what technology has done. The unique circumstances that made certain industries which had not even existed a century and half ago, have now changed.

The law should be enforced in Canada. The punishment should be weighty enough to make people think differently.

Like what? A million dollars? Jail sentences? Work camps?

For example, if a gray market satellite is found on the premises in the pursuit of any investigation, the fine should be heavy and the person charged with a crime.

Because, of course, receiving illicit photons is evil. You see, not even the Universe cares about who owns a signal.

I pay for my signal, that is until Internet speeds and availability of online programming reaches a point where I ditch even that. You see, old technologies and business models evaporate when better ones come along, and watching what I want to watch when I want to watch it is much superior to "pay us a $100 a month and we'll tell you what you're going to watch."

Once again, why invest in theatres when people are buying the movie even before it is being released from some pirate?

Well, there's really no replacing the theater experience. Even a good projection TV doesn't match that, because the theater experience is communal, except of course, that the movie industry, through its distribution arm, basically forces theaters to play the same blockbuster movies for months with ever decreasing ticket sales.

Even China is coming to realize that violating copyright, trademarks and patents can be a bad things. Counterfeit aircraft parts, drugs, software and hardware undermine industry.

That's really a different kind of piracy.

I am not so convinced that some of the arts will go without supports and without copyright protection.

Could you be specific here? We had drama, music, painting, and so forth, long before any concept of intellectual property rights.

Just what do you suppose would happen tomorrow if all copyrights were abolished?

[jdobbin]

I'm saying you can't stop it.

I'd have to disagree.

If the equipment itself or the software itself is the cause of the copyright problem, the charge will have to be of the hardware or the software.

Is this even an argument?

People seem to think things are free now and there are no repercussions.

Yes, of course, if copyright fails, we'll never see a book or a drama or a piece of music again. The world will become dark and grey, and no one will sing or act, no one will put pen to paper or finger to string.

People will definitely be less likely to pursue work in a field where it is public domain the minute it is completed. To think otherwise is naive. I know the argument is that people will still write and sing for the love of it but it won't be a business model that works for many who need to make a living.

They're throttling because the best way to make money is to create an artificial bottleneck. The Chinese did the same thing with silk, until someone stole the worm. Yet another example of how, no matter how much political and legislative power you throw at something, someone will eventually screw you over.

If you can come up with a way to steal the worm on throttling, I am all ears.

The business model isn't evolving, it's use legislative and judicial power to try to keep the old system going. Where's the evolution in that?

If the new business model breaks copyright entirely, it is unsustainable.

Because, of course, no one ever wrote a song before copyright law.

They did. But to spur creativity as an enterprise rather than a hobby, copyright was set into the very early laws of most industrial countries.

The government certainly hasn't done a very good job on that front. Even established artists have to frequently sue their record companies for unpaid royalties.

Contract disputes are settled through our civil courts and legislation and laws are in place to facilitate a settlement. Copyright is what protects the artist from abuse. Artists who sell their copyright are the ones most likely to be abused.

And yet, that's what technology has done. The unique circumstances that made certain industries which had not even existed a century and half ago, have now changed.

The government has made it permissible by not enforcing the present laws.

Like what? A million dollars? Jail sentences? Work camps?

Let's not exaggerate. If you are selling illegal satellites, a large fine based on your business and a criminal record would be suitable. For someone found with an illegal satellite, a large fine based on the industry cost for theft of the signal for a year plus a criminal record.

Because, of course, receiving illicit photons is evil. You see, not even the Universe cares about who owns a signal.

If the content is copywritten, it is theft.

I pay for my signal, that is until Internet speeds and availability of online programming reaches a point where I ditch even that. You see, old technologies and business models evaporate when better ones come along, and watching what I want to watch when I want to watch it is much superior to "pay us a $100 a month and we'll tell you what you're going to watch."

Perhaps the solution is to charge people for their access to the Internet at the rate of a $100 a month and then you can download all you want.

Well, there's really no replacing the theater experience. Even a good projection TV doesn't match that, because the theater experience is communal, except of course, that the movie industry, through its distribution arm, basically forces theaters to play the same blockbuster movies for months with ever decreasing ticket sales.

I doubt most theatres would survive without copywrite protection.

That's really a different kind of piracy.

Is it? Why is it different?

Could you be specific here? We had drama, music, painting, and so forth, long before any concept of intellectual property rights.

Just what do you suppose would happen tomorrow if all copyrights were abolished?

If copyright was abolished, I would likely quit writing. It wouldn't be a profession anymore.

Most of the arts required a patron to survive in the past. It was a very small professional class of artisans. I suppose we could go to the back that very tiny group but it would not be an industry.

[Wild Bill]

People seem to think things are free now and there are no repercussions.

The government has made it permissible by not enforcing the present laws.

Sometimes jdobbin your points remind me of Rush Limbaugh, who wrote a book entitled "The Way Things OUGHT To Be!"

I agree the government is not enforcing the present laws but the deeper question would be "...is it even possible to do so?"

It seems to me you're talking a problem so large that it would require several times what the Liberals spent on their Gun Registry to enforce! It's easy to demand that someone else just "wave a magic wand". To me, you just don't sound at all practical.

We have laws against pot yet millions smoke it. We've always had laws against digital piracy yet millions still do it.

The traditional approach to trying to discourage breaking laws that are difficult to enforce has been to make the penalties levied on the few sinners you do happen to catch exceedingly harsh. The problem with copyright laws in this area is that politically it would be suicide to levy huge fines or jail sentences on 13 year old kids who stole some music through a file-sharing site. Laws directed at the file-sharing site are also ineffective. The sites are usually not in your own country!

This problem has been with us for over a decade and so far governments have been totally ineffective at addressing it. The reason why is simple - there's really nothing "real world" they can do!

Frankly jdobbin, you sound like a grandmother scolding her grandchildren, who know that granny's too old to get up from her wheelchair and chase after them!

Musical artists long ago recognized that the old business model simply could and would not be enforced. Even if the "system" tried, the artists would long have starved to death waiting for something concrete to happen. So they have been developing new revenue streams, with much less emphasis on royalties from the sale of the media carrying their work and much more on live performances and promotional material like tshirts and such. While the club scene is almost dead for making money the small concert venues are growing. Digital piracy of their songs has been morphed into advertising and support for concert tickets.

Meanwhile, my server's home page had this link that you might find interesting, re what we both wrote a few posts back in this thread:

http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/New...c&date=True

It's an article about how TV broadcasters petitioned the CRTC to explain that they simply don't have the money to replace many local area analogue transmitters with the new digital ones mandated for August, 2011.

These things aren't cheap! So they intend to close them down. This means that those without cable or satellite who depend on traditional broadcast TV will be shut out. The estimates run to about 7% of the viewers.

If you read through to the second page you will see how the chair Konrad Von Finckenstein responded:

"Fecan told the CRTC on Monday that he thinks universal access to TV signals is a matter of public policy.

"The question is who pays for it," he said.

He began to add more, but CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein interrupted before he could finish his sentence.

"Precisely - you see it as a business reality," von Finckenstein said. "I see it from public policy reality. I don't see we can live with nine per cent being disconnected."

Von Finckenstein said he is disappointed that the industry working group didn't come up with a solution for what do to with the viewers who will lose their service, other than recommend the government set up a fund to help them."

Perhaps it's just me but I took the tone of his words to mean that he was ignoring the fiscal realities faced by these broadcasters, or at least had no sympathy for them and expected them to just "pony up", taking it for granted that they could afford it.

It goes to support the long-standing suspicions that the CRTC looks upon the broadcast industry as something to be "bled" for political purposes with no thought that it has to be profitable to survive.

[jdobbin]

Sometimes jdobbin your points remind me of Rush Limbaugh, who wrote a book entitled "The Way Things OUGHT To Be!"

I agree the government is not enforcing the present laws but the deeper question would be "...is it even possible to do so?"

I don't see why not. Write an actual law and enforce it. If in the course of other duties, police came across an illegal satellite, they would charge the head of the household with a crime. I see this as no different than people stealing electricity off the line.

It seems to me you're talking a problem so large that it would require several times what the Liberals spent on their Gun Registry to enforce! It's easy to demand that someone else just "wave a magic wand". To me, you just don't sound at all practical.

What registry? This is like the law that was just proposed on car theft. Can you believe there was nothing specific to this problem? It was "theft under $5000" or "theft over $5000." Now, a specific charge on cars is in place and a specific escalating punishment for that crime.

Experts who commented last week said it would an impact on that particular crime.

Do you think it was too much money to enforce this law?

We have laws against pot yet millions smoke it. We've always had laws against digital piracy yet millions still do it.

The law on pot is enforced, why not piracy? Or are you saying that pot should be legal and piracy legal as well?

Hundreds of people are murdered each year as well and the laws haven't stopped it. Too much money to enforce that law?

What other crimes do you want legalized or not enforced?

The traditional approach to trying to discourage breaking laws that are difficult to enforce has been to make the penalties levied on the few sinners you do happen to catch exceedingly harsh. The problem with copyright laws in this area is that politically it would be suicide to levy huge fines or jail sentences on 13 year old kids who stole some music through a file-sharing site. Laws directed at the file-sharing site are also ineffective. The sites are usually not in your own country!

If a 13 year old stole from a music store, the law would be enforced.

If a 13 year old is found to steal in downloading, the law should be enforced.

I am not suggesting huge sting operations. I am saying that in the course of other police duties that piracy actually be charged as a crime.

This problem has been with us for over a decade and so far governments have been totally ineffective at addressing it. The reason why is simple - there's really nothing "real world" they can do!

Frankly jdobbin, you sound like a grandmother scolding her grandchildren, who know that granny's too old to get up from her wheelchair and chase after them!

And quite honestly, you sound like someone on the far left who doesn't believe people should not be charged for crimes for doing something illegal.

There are plenty of laws in place for activities that have been happening as long as there are humans. This is just one other activity.

Musical artists long ago recognized that the old business model simply could and would not be enforced. Even if the "system" tried, the artists would long have starved to death waiting for something concrete to happen. So they have been developing new revenue streams, with much less emphasis on royalties from the sale of the media carrying their work and much more on live performances and promotional material like tshirts and such. While the club scene is almost dead for making money the small concert venues are growing. Digital piracy of their songs has been morphed into advertising and support for concert tickets.

I think you some artists have had to adjust in this market where enforcement is not happening.

Your example does little good for musical acts that no longer tour. The copywritten music and the royalties was in effect part of their pensions.

Meanwhile, my server's home page had this link that you might find interesting, re what we both wrote a few posts back in this thread:

It's an article about how TV broadcasters petitioned the CRTC to explain that they simply don't have the money to replace many local area analogue transmitters with the new digital ones mandated for August, 2011.

The Asper's have been making this argument for money for a long time. This week they blamed the CRTC and not debt and management issues for their problems.

It goes to support the long-standing suspicions that the CRTC looks upon the broadcast industry as something to be "bled" for political purposes with no thought that it has to be profitable to survive.

I have some sympathy for the problems of going digital but the airwaves are owned by Canadians and industry has made huge money for decades. Their whining to add ever more commercial slots, informercials, simulcasting and other protective measures while investing little in news and entertainment made in Canada is exasperating.

From a business perspective, there would be no Canadian TV or radio. It would all be affiliates of larger international media groups and all of the programming would come from outside Canada. I don't know if that would serve the nation.

Edited April 30, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

I have some sympathy for the problems of going digital but the airwaves are owned by Canadians and industry has made huge money for decades. Their whining to add ever more commercial slots, informercials, simulcasting and other protective measures while investing little in news and entertainment made in Canada is exasperating.

That's all very well but the broadcasters are still not going to buy and install new transmitters if they don't have the money. If the CRTC tells them they HAVE to 'cuz they made a lot in previous years I don't think that's going to change anything.

No money means the transmitters go off the air, period and end of story.

Then what?

Edited April 30, 2009 by Wild Bill

[jdobbin]

That's all very well but the broadcasters are still not going to buy and install new transmitters if they don't have the money. If the CRTC tells them they HAVE to 'cuz they made a lot in previous years I don't think that's going to change anything.

The CRTC won't tell them to do it.

I doubt any amount of money would convince them. This week Asper rejected millions for programming because he doesn't have any of his own money to run the station afterwards.

No money means the transmitters go off the air, period and end of story.

Then what?

Then they go off the air.

[Wild Bill]

I don't see why not. Write an actual law and enforce it. If in the course of other duties, police came across an illegal satellite, they would charge the head of the household with a crime. I see this as no different than people stealing electricity off the line.

What registry? This is like the law that was just proposed on car theft. Can you believe there was nothing specific to this problem? It was "theft under $5000" or "theft over $5000." Now, a specific charge on cars is in place and a specific escalating punishment for that crime.

Experts who commented last week said it would an impact on that particular crime.

Do you think it was too much money to enforce this law?

The law on pot is enforced, why not piracy? Or are you saying that pot should be legal and piracy legal as well?

Hundreds of people are murdered each year as well and the laws haven't stopped it. Too much money to enforce that law?

What other crimes do you want legalized or not enforced?

How do you recognize an "illegal"satellite? All dishes look the same! How many homes do the police enter over the course of a year, compared to how many homes have "13 year old music pirates"?

If someone steals a car, the police are virtually always informed about it. The same with murder. The police react, they are not proactive. They are not psychics, after all. However, to know that a dish was illegal and to know a reason to enter a significant enough number of homes to deter online piracy still seems to be a completely unrealistic task..REQUIRING ESP!

Do you really think that "charging the head of a household" would stand up to a Charter challenge? Do you think the parents of all those young pirates would not vote against the party that got them charged in the first place?

Jdobbin, I would LOVE to see your methods become law! As long as it happened as a result of your being an elected Liberal MP, with lots of publicity immediately before an election!

Once again, you remind me of someone who refuses to dodge someone approaching in HIS lane, because "that other guy has no right to be there!"

Your goals may be noble but so far I fail to see ANYTHING "real world" in your "solutions"!

Edited April 30, 2009 by Wild Bill

[jdobbin]

How do you recognize an "illegal"satellite? All dishes look the same! How many homes do the police enter over the course of a year, compared to how many homes have "13 year old music pirates"?

Really? All dishes look the same? I can walk down any street in my neighborhood and point out DirectTV andd Dish Network dishes by their logos. Bell and Starchoice put their logos on their dishes.

Still, I am not saying that the police go up and down streets making arrests. All they have to do is charge people with pirating in the course of other police work.

If someone steals a car, the police are virtually always informed about it. The same with murder. The police react, they are not proactive. They are not psychics, after all. However, to know that a dish was illegal and to know a reason to enter a significant enough number of homes to deter online piracy still seems to be a completely unrealistic task..REQUIRING ESP!

I have already said that it should happen in the normal course of police business. You are acting like it would be illegal searches. If the police have to be present at a home and witness an illegal activity such as pirating a signal with an illegal dish, they should be able to charge the person. They used to do when people steal cable off the line.

Do you really think that "charging the head of a household" would stand up to a Charter challenge? Do you think the parents of all those young pirates would not vote against the party that got them charged in the first place?

Young pirates are being charged now. I see no Charter challenge.

Jdobbin, I would LOVE to see your methods become law! As long as it happened as a result of your being an elected Liberal MP, with lots of publicity immediately before an election!

I would not be advocating searches for the sake of searches. In the normal course of business, the police should charge people caught pirating.

Once again, you remind me of someone who refuses to dodge someone approaching in HIS lane, because "that other guy has no right to be there!"

Your goals may be noble but so far I fail to see ANYTHING "real world" in your "solutions"!

If you are saying saving copyright is impossible, it will kill entire industries. It is meaningless if not enforced.

[Smallc]

Really? All dishes look the same? I can walk down any street in my neighborhood and point out DirectTV andd Dish Network dishes by their logos. Bell and Starchoice put their logos on their dishes.

You can actually use the dishes interchangeably though.

[jdobbin]

You can actually use the dishes interchangeably though.

Call me suspicious but when I see a DirectTv dish on a Canadian house, I think it is probably getting DirectTV.

In any event, I am not advocating that the police search based on who has a dish. However, if they have to be present in a house and see a dish and DirectTv on the screen, I don't think it is beyond the realm that charges should be laid.

[Smallc]

Call me suspicious but when I see a DirectTv dish on a Canadian house, I think it is probably getting DirectTV.

Probably, but I was just pointing out that a dish that says Bell could be reciting DirecTV

[jdobbin]

Probably, but I was just pointing out that a dish that says Bell could be reciting DirecTV

Quite possibly.

I mentioned that many Canadians were dropping out of paying for TV at all and there is very little enforcement preventing that. My belief is that if police come across evidence of pirating that they prosecute it.

The laws in Canada may require an update to protect copyright.

Edited April 30, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

Quite possibly.

I mentioned that many Canadians were dropping out of paying for TV at all and there is very little enforcement preventing that. My belief is that if police come across evidence of pirating that they prosecute it.

The laws in Canada may require an update to protect copyright.

Jdobbin, I repeat and repeat: I'm not arguing with you about laws and that copyright should be protected. I'm arguing about the logistics of enforcing them!

As soon as people realized that the police were noticing dishes, they would paint out the logos!

Besides, how does a policeman know that a dish is legal or not? Unless he has access to the account information, only those psychic powers I keep mentioning could tell him!

Now, I'm sure that Expressvu would love to check their records for a policeman to determine if a home had a 'pirate' dish but I'm not so sure if the police would feel they should devote the time and attention when they have so much on their plate already.

You haven't said anything about pirated music. How would a policeman know that there were pirated songs on the 12 year old's MP3 player? Would he make a point of subjecting every player and computer hard drive he finds in that house THAT HE ENTERED IN THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATING A FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT CRIME to some form of computer forensics?

Again, psychic powers!

So let me ask you, encore un fois, how does the cop know? What's the chances that he would expend the time and energy to find out?

What I've been waiting for is for you to give some kind of practical, working method of enforcing the laws. So far I'm still waiting...

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, I repeat and repeat: I'm not arguing with you about laws and that copyright should be protected. I'm arguing about the logistics of enforcing them!

Some here and around the world seem to arguing for the end of copyright, patents and trademarks. I don't know how that argument can be made without thinking about the costs.

As far an enforcement goes, when product becomes harder and harder to monetize, it will cease to be made.

As soon as people realized that the police were noticing dishes, they would paint out the logos!

Already said that shouldn't be the bases of judging who is pirating.

Besides, how does a policeman know that a dish is legal or not? Unless he has access to the account information, only those psychic powers I keep mentioning could tell him!

Turn on the TV. If it says DirectTV. Pirate signal. In the course of a search of a search warrant for illegal activities that would be one of the charges.

Now, I'm sure that Expressvu would love to check their records for a policeman to determine if a home had a 'pirate' dish but I'm not so sure if the police would feel they should devote the time and attention when they have so much on their plate already.

My personal view of Canadian satellite companies is that they should do more to prevent pirating of their own signals.

You haven't said anything about pirated music. How would a policeman know that there were pirated songs on the 12 year old's MP3 player? Would he make a point of subjecting every player and computer hard drive he finds in that house THAT HE ENTERED IN THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATING A FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT CRIME to some form of computer forensics?

All you need to do is find one pirated song. There is software available to find them.

So let me ask you, encore un fois, how does the cop know? What's the chances that he would expend the time and energy to find out?

What I've been waiting for is for you to give some kind of practical, working method of enforcing the laws. So far I'm still waiting...

I've said it should happen in the course of their normal police operations. Most people would have no problem but they would know that going through something like airport security could result in charges as they do now when hard drives are searched for illegal activity.

Legislation might also be put in place to make repair jobs report suspected pirating when repairing computers as they do now for child porn.