Harper's next victim...CRTC

[Smallc]

So you're advocating censorship. What if I create my own video software running on an entirely different infrastructure than HTTP? Will you be shutting me down? And you didn't answer my question about circumvention.

Circumvention of a law is always illegal, last I checked....and I believe something is already being done about P2P.

If you want, you can go ahead and call it censorship. I don't really care. I support most of the current arrangement (though I think it should be easier for new entrants to enter the Canadian market [even though I doubt it can support any more]) that protects Canadian industry and allows access to foreign industry where they comply with our rules and laws.

[ToadBrother]

Circumvention of a law is always illegal, last I checked....and I believe something is already being done about P2P.

If you want, you can go ahead and call it censorship. I don't really care. I support most of the current arrangement (though I think it should be easier for new entrants to enter the Canadian market [even though I doubt it can support any more]) that protects Canadian industry and allows access to foreign industry where they comply with our rules and laws.

Last time I checked a VPN connection isn't illegal. I'd love to know how you're going to plan on making sure that encrypted tunnels aren't being used to watch episodes of House without Canadian advertising.

And we're not talking about anyone operating on our soil, I'm talking about a guy operating a video feed in Mexico and the only thing hitting Canada is a bunch of electrons.

And yes, it's censorship, and the fact that you seem to think that's fine tells a lot about how little you regard liberty. All of this to make sure I get this precious Canadian programming on the Internet, lest the country die, or something.

Well, I don't buy it, and neither am I so idiotic as to believe that in a world where hackers are working on ways so that Iranians and Chinese can get unrestricted access to the Internet that as pathetic a cause as yours will have any greater success.

But why limit it to video content? I mean, what are you going to do if I go to BBC News' website too much? Insert cbcnews.ca?

Edited August 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

And yes, it's censorship, and the fact that you seem to think that's fine tells a lot about how little you regard liberty.

I believe in freedom, but I believe that freedom is subject to reasonable law. When law is unreasonable, the courts will say so. What the CRTC does seems to be in the realm of the reasonable, and until it isn't, I don't have a problem with it. If that involves extension to some aspects of the internet, so be it. This country has always limited liberty, and i don't see that changing at any time in the future. Like I said, Canada is not some kind of libertarian dream, not was it designed as such.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

I believe in freedom, but I believe that freedom is subject to reasonable law. When law is unreasonable, the courts will say so. What the CRTC does seems to be in the realm of the reasonable, and until it isn't, I don't have a problem with it. If that involves extension to some aspects of the internet, so be it.

I'm asking you how you reasonable expect it to work. The only successful ways I know of to prevent "unwanted" data from coming through is to basically set up massive filters where foreign peers come in, or, as Burma's repugnant regime did, just flip the switch off. It's amazing to see you essentially advocating these tactics to make the Internet stays Canadian. Even China's Great Firewall can be circumvented. You're like King Canute trying to stop the tide. Technology is making your cultural restrictions impotent relics. If Canada can't survive in an open world, then Canada never deserved to be at all.

[Smallc]

But why limit it to video content? I mean, what are you going to do if I go to BBC News' website too much? Insert cbcnews.ca?

We're talking about television here. We're talking about the migration of mainstream television to the internet. We're talking about the continued regulation of that television to protect Canadian content.

Most places I go on the internet already give me Canadian ads because most of them are done by Google and they are targeted. The BBC has no advertising...and is a good example itself of state supported media.

[ToadBrother]

We're talking about television here. We're talking about the migration of mainstream television to the internet. We're talking about the continued regulation of that television to protect Canadian content.

Most places I go on the internet already give me Canadian ads because most of them are done by Google and they are targeted. The BBC has no advertising...and is a good example itself of state supported media.

Actually the BBC has had advertising for some time now.

But at any rate, my point is that it's all bits and bytes. If someone starts broadcasting on other ports other than port 80 via HTTP, a lot of the filtering systems fall apart. You would end up in just the kind of arms race China is in. Is that the model of Canadian freedom you have in mind? This isn't about Libertarianism, it's about the individual's right to consume what content they want, and about a government not having the right to impinge upon that for nebulous goals, or even laudable ones.

Edited August 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

If Canada can't survive in an open world, then Canada never deserved to be at all.

And this statement says a great deal about you.

I fully expect any effort to regulate Canadian TV content delivered over the internet to be circumvented, as it already is for TV. That doesn't mean that the regulation shouldn't exist, and it doesn't mean that it won't exist. I'm not sure where the future will take television regulation, only the future knows that. As of now, I have no problem with what the CRTC does with a few exceptions. I believe that in some cases its mandate should shrink. I don't believe that it shouldn't exist.

[ToadBrother]

And this statement says a great deal about you.

Yes, it says that forcing satellite providers to insert Canadian ads in American programming is moronic, doesn't accomplish anything, and if that is how Canada stays a cohesive entity, then Canada truly had no place to exist to begin with.

I, of course, think it's all nationalistic BS, ad hoc arguments to justify unnecessary interference in the media industry.

I fully expect any effort to regulate Canadian TV content delivered over the internet to be circumvented, as it already is for TV. That doesn't mean that the regulation shouldn't exist, and it doesn't mean that it won't exist. I'm not sure where the future will take television regulation, only the future knows that. As of now, I have no problem with what the CRTC does with a few exceptions. I believe that in some cases its mandate should shrink. I don't believe that it shouldn't exist.

So it will be regulation just to say "We're regulating"? Sounds like a waste of money to me. I certainly have the technical means to not be constrained by the potentates at the CRTC, thank you very much.

[Smallc]

Actually the BBC has had advertising for some time now.

Well they certainly don't have any on their website.

This isn't about Libertarianism, it's about the individual's right to consume what content they want, and about a government not having the right to impinge upon that for nebulous goals, or even laudable ones.

That sounds like libertarianism to me. People will have a right to consume pretty much anything they want in the future, as they do now. I fully expect there to be some kind of controls and regulations on that, and I doubt any government will forever leave the internet completely open.

[Smallc]

Yes, it says that forcing satellite providers to insert Canadian ads in American programming is moronic, doesn't accomplish anything, and if that is how Canada stays a cohesive entity, then Canada truly had no place to exist to begin with.

With that logic, no country has any place to exist. They all need some kind of protection to survive, and they all have communications regulators that do what what the CRTC does to one degree or another. I don't believe that protection of a national identity and a national industry is moronic. I suppose we now know where you stand on such issues.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

Well they certainly don't have any on their website.

That sounds like libertarianism to me. People will have a right to consume pretty much anything they want in the future, as they do now. I fully expect there to be some kind of controls and regulations on that, and I doubt any government will forever leave the internet completely open.

Freedom of thought is Libertarianism?

[Smallc]

Freedom of thought is Libertarianism?

Freedom of thought is inside your head. Unlimited freedom of expression is somewhat libertarian.

Before we go any further with this (and I don't think we'll agree in the end, so I see little point in going further) I'd like to apologize for questioning your patriotism based on your statement. I see where you're coming from on this issue, I simply don't agree when it comes to the Canadian cultural market, which is worth billions and which, unprotected, will almost completely fall prey to the massive US cultural market. I think that people should be able to watch and say what they want. I simply think that given the context of our existence and the history of this country, some protection is and always will be needed.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Smallc

[Evening Star]

To be clear, ToadBrother, I wasn't at any point trying to pass judgment on the artistic worth of Canadian artists before or after Cancon. Believe me, I am the last person who needs to be lectured on the greatness of Joni Mitchell or Neil Young. But all the pre-CRTC artists you mentioned were (exceptionally talented) artists who moved to and recorded in the US with American producers for American labels. One thing that cultural protection and subsidies have enabled is the development of an industry and support network in Canada for Canadian artists such that many post-CRTC artists, including Rush, have not always had to leave. This was just not there prior to the CRTC. Healthy musical scenes and communities have been able to develop more freely within the country. And in fact, sometimes international artists have come here. Where you see restrictions on your freedom as a consumer or taxpayer I also see greater freedom for artists to be able to create in Canada and begin to gain greater access to the marketplace.

Smallc has articulated well much of what I was trying to say. (Thanks!)

[Evening Star]

But all the pre-CRTC artists you mentioned were (exceptionally talented) artists who moved to and recorded in the US with American producers for American labels.

This was more or less what I meant by "assimilated", not that there was something bad about their music. (I like Paul Anka and the Four Lads too btw.) I agreed that it was a poor choice of words.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But all the pre-CRTC artists you mentioned were (exceptionally talented) artists who moved to and recorded in the US with American producers for American labels. One thing that cultural protection and subsidies have enabled is the development of an industry and support network in Canada for Canadian artists such that many post-CRTC artists, including Rush, have not always had to leave....

But many still did, if record labels are any indication. Rush's Moon records soon gave way to better deals with non-Canadian labels like Polygram/Mercury and Atlantic. One cannot credibly maintain that Rush came to the fore under a Canadian label.

Ditto Neil Young or Joni Mitchell. And many others.

The Guess Who's "American Woman" was recorded in Chicago, Illinois, US of A (RCA - Mid America).

[Argus]

Let me turn this around. If the future really is on the internet in terms of almost all media, then do you think that any government is going to leave it completely unregulated? You want to talk about Iran (why not take it further, why not say I'm proposing to turn us into North Korea?), but that has nothing to do with this. The likely scenario is that foreign content will be broadcast on Canadian sites, the same as now, and the video on the foreign sites will be blocked, the same as now. if a site is willing to broadcast canadian commercials to Canadians, it will probably be allowed, the same as now. I'm not prosing changing anything, other than doing the same to the television component of the internet that we do to television.

So you're not so much concerned with what Canadians watch, whether it's foreign or not, just so long as we get Canadian advertising. Do you work for an advertising agency, by any chance? Because I can't imagine just what logical basis you're using to suggest that Canadian culture is dependent upon commercials on American TV shows and internet sites.

[ToadBrother]

Freedom of thought is inside your head. Unlimited freedom of expression is somewhat libertarian.

I don't buy that at all.

Let's put it this way. I have a library of about 600 hundred books. I'll freely admit that, off the top of my head, only ten or fifteen are by Canadian authors. All of these books, with the exception of maybe three were all bought in Canadian book stores.

Clearly, by your logic, there is a serious issue of national identity here. How is that I can create a library with so few Canadian books? Even worse, it looks like, even using Canadian booksellers, I could avoid buying a single book by a Canadian author.

Why isn't anybody regulating the Canadian book industry to assure Canadian content percentages are assured? Why does the Canadian musician and Canadian production company receive all these special grants and the guarantee that whatever Canadians decide to watch on TV, they will be paying a certain percentage of their TV bill to these people, and yet the Canadian author is out in the cold? Why am I not forced to have a Pierre Burton book or two in my collection. My gawd, I don't even own a Farley Mowatt book? Clearly there's some grave disparity here.

Before we go any further with this (and I don't think we'll agree in the end, so I see little point in going further) I'd like to apologize for questioning your patriotism based on your statement. I see where you're coming from on this issue, I simply don't agree when it comes to the Canadian cultural market, which is worth billions and which, unprotected, will almost completely fall prey to the massive US cultural market. I think that people should be able to watch and say what they want. I simply think that given the context of our existence and the history of this country, some protection is and always will be needed.

In other words, even if no one actually watches Canadian content (and at the best times most Canadians prefer to watch American programming), just so long as electrons paid at multiple points by taxpayers/consumers regardless of actual consumption are being beamed out, somehow Canada is being preserved.

[ToadBrother]

To be clear, ToadBrother, I wasn't at any point trying to pass judgment on the artistic worth of Canadian artists before or after Cancon. Believe me, I am the last person who needs to be lectured on the greatness of Joni Mitchell or Neil Young. But all the pre-CRTC artists you mentioned were (exceptionally talented) artists who moved to and recorded in the US with American producers for American labels.

So? It's not like recording on an American label meant Canadians couldn't buy them.

One thing that cultural protection and subsidies have enabled is the development of an industry and support network in Canada for Canadian artists such that many post-CRTC artists, including Rush, have not always had to leave.

Rush chooses to record in Canada. It isn't forced, and pretty much by the late 70s they were selling enough records that they could record anywhere they liked. CANCON didn't make Rush big, selling a helluva lot of records in the US and Europe (the BIG markets) made them rich. The best CANCON can create is a sort of welfare system for artists, but if they want to make better money, they've got to hit Europe and the US (which Brian Adams did, and then got rejected because he was living and recording in London, just to show you how farcical CANCON, as if the blues chords he was playing somehow ceased to be sufficiently Canadian).

And that's the real irony. There's nothing particularly "Canadian" about Nickelback. There are indeed some, how shall I put it, indigenous music, but for the most part when you turn on your radio and listen to music radio that the CRTC requires CANCON, you're listening to rock and roll, pop, jazz, blues or country and western, all of which are musical forms that were largely created in the US, or in the case of rock and pop, were further developed in Britain.

A 12 bar blues progression is a 12 bar blues progression, whether it's played in Saskatoon, Detroit or Liverpool.

This was just not there prior to the CRTC. Healthy musical scenes and communities have been able to develop more freely within the country.

You act as if it was a desert out there before CANCON. There were plenty of acts out there before CANCON, and plenty of small Indy acts now that wouldn't get radio play no matter what who still manage to make a living.

And in fact, sometimes international artists have come here. Where you see restrictions on your freedom as a consumer or taxpayer I also see greater freedom for artists to be able to create in Canada and begin to gain greater access to the marketplace.

Which still doesn't explain why I have to pay for Canadian TV channels or have the American show on the American network I'm watching suddenly have jarringly inserted Canadian advertising.

Edited August 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

I never claimed that all news was market research driven. I said that advertising companies are market research driven... and that modern corporate news networks are at their core advertising companies.

No, they are communications companies that carry advertising. Thank god the crtc doesn't regulate magazine and newspapers, imagine the hoopla that left would have everytime a journal/magazine/paper carried a piece that didn't conform with their idea what the public needed to read.

[ToadBrother]

No, they are communications companies that carry advertising. Thank god the crtc doesn't regulate magazine and newspapers, imagine the hoopla that left would have everytime a journal/magazine/paper carried a piece that didn't conform with their idea what the public needed to read.

That's what I can't figure out. Why aren't bookstores and news stands forced into CANCON rules?

[bush_cheney2004]

That's what I can't figure out. Why aren't bookstores and news stands forced into CANCON rules?

They are....all books and periodicals that use paper with at least 51% Canadian wood pulp are OK for CANCON! LOL!

[M.Dancer]

The government represents the public interest at least some of the time, and corporations by definition NEVER do.

Correct. Media Coporations do not represent the public's interests, they cater to them.

[M.Dancer]

I'm still confused about this editorial thing. Editorials are, by their very nature, biased. That's the point of the editorial section of a newspaper.

By and large many people unconnected with the process confuse opinion and fact. They seem equal confused by choice of opinion providers.

[M.Dancer]

Well they certainly don't have any on their website.

BBC has been carrying ads for a couple of years on their sites. Not only that, they target their ads as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11055144

10 2 1 you get a blackberry ad and an asd for BMW targetted to your city.

[Evening Star]

Rush chooses to record in Canada. It isn't forced, and pretty much by the late 70s they were selling enough records that they could record anywhere they liked. CANCON didn't make Rush big, selling a helluva lot of records in the US and Europe (the BIG markets) made them rich.

They choose to record in Canada because there are high-quality studios and producers in Canada. Cancon requirements stimulated demand for music that was produced in Canada (since if a piece of music is performed or recorded in Canada, that counts for a credit under the MAPL system), which stimulated the emergence and growth of these studios. Even Sylvia Tyson, who, like you, opposed the regulations on principle, acknowledged the importance of regulation in stimulating this growth in this 1975 interview: http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/the_media/clips/6301/

(The Guess Who did mostly record at Number Nine Studios in Toronto, even if "American Woman" was recorded in Chicago.)

Bryan Adams did not get rejected because he lived in the UK. "Everything I Do" did not initially qualify as Cancon because both music and lyrics were co-written by a non-Canadian. However, the criteria were actually revised because of that specific case such that if both music and lyrics were co-written by a Canadian that could count for a point in the MAPL system. As a result, "Everything I Do" did end up qualifying.

Bush_cheney2004 is right that, at least since Seagram's was bought out, the big labels are still mostly not headquartered in Canada but major inroads have been made in other areas. More label offices did appear in Canada after the CRTC emerged and intervened.

Correct. Media Coporations do not represent the public's interests, they cater to them.

They cater to their customers' (and shareholders') interests, which is not exactly the same thing.