Harper's next victim...CRTC

[ToadBrother]

You're right. I never said that government protection was required for music to flourish in any context. But sometimes it may be helpful. The US is much more heavily and densely populated, making it easier and more potentially lucrative for young bands to tour and develop a niche audience. Importantly, it has also been a centre, if not the centre, of the popular music industry for as long as there has been a popular music industry. As a result, prior to Canadian content regulations, Canadian popular music talent simply migrated south and assimilated. For an industry to develop in Canada - something that has very real economic benefits, not just cultural ones - and for more talent to remain, become cultivated, and achieve international success, regulations and intervention have been helpful. Since the late 70s, some of the biggest names in popular music have been recording in Canadian studios such as Little Mountain, which was unthinkable prior to the 'CRTC era'.

(More later.)

Musicians never get rich in Canada. They can make a living. To get rich you need to do what Neil Young and Rush did, you go to the States. The US and European markets don't give a crap about your nationality. If artists remain in Canada, they remain small fry. And saying that people like Joni Mitchell and Neil Young "amalgamated" is pure insult. I'll tell you where the cultural imperialism lies, with guys like you.

I'm a big fan of Rush. The CRTC didn't make them one of the biggest acts in the world. A world-wide fan base did.

Edited August 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[dre]

Thus far the chief risk of Internet censorship has been from... you've got it... governments. The Australian web filter, the UK filter plans, and even talk in Canada.

Don't you people get it? Governments are the greatest threat to liberties, and always have been. And the solution around here is to give governments even more power. I trust governments the least. Their record through the centuries is abominable.

Thus far the chief risk of Internet censorship has been from... you've got it... governments.

Actually thats not true. The biggest risk to freedom of expression on the internet has been from major telecomms that have started to block certain traffic they dont like, and are poised to throttle the bandwidth of some content providers in order to promote their own content dissemination businesses. The government is actually trying to stop them.

[Evening Star]

I'm a big fan of Rush.

At least we agree on something!

(Rush is actually a good example of a band who have remained in Canada, btw, aside from Peart, who moved to the US in the past decade. Many of their classic albums, including Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were recorded in Canada with the producer Terry Brown, who has been in Canada since the early 70s.)

I wasn't thinking of Joni Mitchell or Neil Young, both of whose careers began only shortly before the CRTC era, when I made the "assimilated" comment btw. I was thinking more of earlier artists, e.g. Paul Anka or the Four Lads. Actually, you could argue that there was a distinct earlier Canadian country sound with artists like Hank Snow. So maybe "assimilated" was a poor choice of words, I'll grant.

Still, it was after the CRTC and Cancon were established that we began to see major Canadian hits on a regular basis (e.g. the Guess Who's "American Woman", which was the first Canadian #1 on the US Billboard charts, even though the Guess Who remained and recorded in Canada and made a very public point of it). It was also then that we started to see studios emerge, that an industrial infrastructure developed. Canadian artists did and do still need international success to do extremely well commercially. However, the development of this infrastructure and of a national support system made it more possible for artists to get started on that path. Sarah McLachlan, the Barenaked Ladies, and Bruce Cockburn are examples of internationally successful artists who benefited not only from Cancon but from actual government grants in the earlier stages of their careers.

[Evening Star]

(Heh, and I'm trying to figure out how I'm responsible for cultural imperialism!)

[Evening Star]

Sarah McLachlan, the Barenaked Ladies, and Bruce Cockburn are examples of internationally successful artists who benefited not only from Cancon but from actual government grants in the earlier stages of their careers.

Actually, tbf, with Cockburn, I was thinking of a VideoFACT grant in the 80s, which was not an early stage in his career.

[ToadBrother]

(Heh, and I'm trying to figure out how I'm responsible for cultural imperialism!)

By supporting policies that limit my capacity to partake of any culture I want. Why can't I watch, or more importantly, pay for any other channel I feel like? If I watch nothing but American TV shows and listen to nothing but US musicians and read nothing but US authors, how is it any of your business? Why can't I purchase a satellite package that has absolutely no Canadian content at all?

[ToadBrother]

Actually, tbf, with Cockburn, I was thinking of a VideoFACT grant in the 80s, which was not an early stage in his career.

And the Beatles played Hamburg strip clubs. Clearly one does not need a nickel of taxpayer cash to make it, and make it all the way to the top.

So why should I pay for McLachlan? I don't even like her music.

Edited August 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

So why should I pay for McLachlan? I don't even like her music.

I think you're going a bit far with this now. Cultural policy has always been a part of Canadian government. We live next to the largest media market on earth. If we don't do anything to protect or foster our own industry, we risk losing our voice and any sense of worth in terms of culture and identity.

[ToadBrother]

I wasn't thinking of Joni Mitchell or Neil Young, both of whose careers began only shortly before the CRTC era, when I made the "assimilated" comment btw. I was thinking more of earlier artists, e.g. Paul Anka or the Four Lads. Actually, you could argue that there was a distinct earlier Canadian country sound with artists like Hank Snow. So maybe "assimilated" was a poor choice of words, I'll grant.

Worse than a poor choice, pretty damned ludicrous. The era that Anka became popular was pretty much known in North America as a retraction from the rock and roll of the 50s. Anka made the music that was popular. So what?

Neil Young is probably one of the best respected songwriters of the last forty years. Joni Mitchell is largely seen as the zenith of the singer-songwriter movement. Both have worked with an extraordinary group of artists.

And may I mention probably Canada's greatest musical export; the Band? Save for Levon Helm, they were all Canadians, and they rank up there with The Beatles in a lot of musicians books. They didn't need the CRTC either.

[P. McGee]

You won't find a raging anti-regulatiarian here, I'm afraid. Where regulation is necessary, I see it as a beneficial. But culture... media... entertainment? No, there's no justification for that.

As I said, all the "big evil media" types can point to are nebulous threats, I can give you three or four concrete examples of government interference right off the top of my head. Historically, governments have always been the biggest threat to the free exchange of information. Do you deny it?

Any organization is corruptible, and of course corrupt governments can do more damage than smaller organizations with less power could. I'm not convinced the CRTC's current cultural mandate is beneficial, and I've never argued here that it is. I do believe there can be a role for the CRTC in keeping communications network monopolies in check. Traffic shaping and punitive bandwidth charges by big ISP's to protect their tv offerings may not be a "threat" to the free exchange of information exactly, but they are a big part of the reason that the Canadian internet experience is so overpriced and underpowered.

[ToadBrother]

I think you're going a bit far with this now. Cultural policy has always been a part of Canadian government. We live next to the largest media market on earth. If we don't do anything to protect or foster our own industry, we risk losing our voice and any sense of worth in terms of culture and identity.

Oh BS. What we risk losing is a mediocre entertainment industry. Canadians can compete in the global entertainment market place, and can reach considerable peaks (Rush, James Cameron, and dare I mention Celine Dion). It's not as if the fiddle will disappear from the Maritimes if grants dried up tomorrow.

And the US, despite its massive influence, had its own popular music industry overwhelmed by the British Invasion. Should the US have refused permission for the Beatles to land to preserve Elvis's reputation?

[Smallc]

Oh BS. What we risk losing is a mediocre entertainment industry.

We don't have a mediocre entertainment industry now. I'm sorry you feel that way, but our music and performance industry does very well and is very popular. Newer TV creations from Canada are also popular on both sides of the border. If you don't want to support them with tax money and regulation, that's fine. That said, and I hate to tell you this, but you only have one vote, and it doesn't really matter what you personally want. This isn't some kind of minority rights issue, and Canada isn't a libertarian dream. Canadians don't seem to mind supporting and protecting their industry.

Canadians can compete in the global entertainment market place, and can reach considerable peaks (Rush, James Cameron, and dare I mention Celine Dion). It's not as if the fiddle will disappear from the Maritimes if grants dried up tomorrow.

Canadians do compete in the global marketplace. Canada though, isn't the global marketplace. This country has to protect its domestic industry, because the country itself is too small and spread out for there to be much development without assistance. Similarly, if we have no media (television, radio) which is our own to allow them to gain a voice on, we run into a new problem.

[ToadBrother]

We don't have a mediocre entertainment industry now. I'm sorry you feel that way, but our music and performance industry does very well and is very popular. Newer TV creations from Canada are also popular on both sides of the border. If you don't want to support them with tax money and regulation, that's fine. That said, and I hate to tell you this, but you only have one vote, and it doesn't really matter what you personally want. This isn't some kind of minority rights issue, and Canada isn't a libertarian dream. Canadians don't seem to mind supporting and protecting their industry.

Every once in a while a show like The Border is picked up. That's hardly some mass export. For the most part, despite large sums of money, Canadian TV is horribly mediocre, to the extent that pretty much all the networks, including the CBC, have to put a considerable amount of foreign programming on to keep viewership.

Canadians do compete in the global marketplace. Canada though, isn't the global marketplace. This country has to protect its domestic industry, because the country itself is too small and spread out for there to be much development without assistance. Similarly, if we have no media (television, radio) which is our own to allow them to gain a voice on, we run into a new problem.

I'm not advocating an end to Canadian media, I'm saying paying it with no expectations of quality, or of capturing viewer interest, has simply created an industry that needs government funds for its lifeblood.

At any rate, that's a bit beyond my point. I only have one vote, to be sure. But I'm talking about what comes into my living room. Why is it that I can't buy a cable or satellite package without Canadian TV channels on it? If you can justify taking my tax dollars to pay for garbage like Sarah Mclachlan, how can you justify taking a chunk of what's left for programming I may not even want?

[Smallc]

Every once in a while a show like The Border is picked up. That's hardly some mass export. For the most part, despite large sums of money, Canadian TV is horribly mediocre, to the extent that pretty much all the networks, including the CBC, have to put a considerable amount of foreign programming on to keep viewership.

There is more and more that is good coming out of Canada. Many of the new drams have been popular here, and some have been popular across the border. That includes The Guard, Flashpoint, Heartland, etc, etc.

I'm not advocating an end to Canadian media, I'm saying paying it with no expectations of quality, or of capturing viewer interest, has simply created an industry that needs government funds for its lifeblood.

And I'md saying that isn't true, and that isn't the reason why. Canadian music artists, despite being just as good if not better than many of their American counterparts, cannot sell as well in the US.

At any rate, that's a bit beyond my point. I only have one vote, to be sure. But I'm talking about what comes into my living room. Why is it that I can't buy a cable or satellite package without Canadian TV channels on it? If you can justify taking my tax dollars to pay for garbage like Sarah Mclachlan, how can you justify taking a chunk of what's left for programming I may not even want?

Because that's what has been decided, and people don't seem to mind. There is regulation that protects Canadian media of all types, and I see it as beneficial to our identity, and I'm not sure how you can't. Without Canadian channels, you wouldn't even be able to watch Canadian news media, and reading it on the internet just isn't the same thing. You may not want Canadian programming, but I'm not sure why you would want to limit yourself so much. You live in Canada. it only stands to reason that Canadian TV channels should get to provide the service that you want (and they do). If you get your wish, we might as well simply stop existing as a country, because before long we'll have no real identity or self understanding left.

[ToadBrother]

Because that's what has been decided, and people don't seem to mind. There is regulation that protects Canadian media of all types, and I see it as beneficial to our identity, and I'm not sure how you can't. Without Canadian channels, you wouldn't even be able to watch Canadian news media, and reading it on the internet just isn't the same thing. You may not want Canadian programming, but I'm not sure why you would want to limit yourself so much. You live in Canada. it only stands to reason that Canadian TV channels should get to provide the service that you want (and they do). If you get your wish, we might as well simply stop existing as a country, because before long we'll have no real identity or self understanding left.

If I had the freedom not to purchase Canadian channels, the country would disappear? Give me a break. That's hyperbole to the extreme.

What you're saying is that beyond the taxes I pay, a part of what's left goes to channels I don't want, because somehow this preserves Canadian identity? Half these damn channels, including APTN and W Network play an enormous amount of American programming anyways.

I live in Canada and am a Canadian, and I believe the freedom to spend my disposable income as I see fit without the CRTC as a nanny far outweighs your justifications. To me, freedom of choice so outweighs whether some two-bit network gets on the dial that the two are insignificant, and your justification is either ludicrously hyperbolic or "you get one vote, so suck it up."

And who said I didn't want Canadian news. I just find the TV the worst way to get it. I prefer newspapers and the web. Oddly enough, the web isn't dictated by the CRTC. When the net does become a primary delivery route, does this mean Canada will cease to be?

[Smallc]

What you're saying is that beyond the taxes I pay, a part of what's left goes to channels I don't want, because somehow this preserves Canadian identity? Half these damn channels, including APTN and W Network play an enormous amount of American programming anyways.

They also play a large amount of Canadian content.

And who said I didn't want Canadian news. I just find the TV the worst way to get it. I prefer newspapers and the web. Oddly enough, the web isn't dictated by the CRTC. When the net does become a primary delivery route, does this mean Canada will cease to be?

There will always be television, whether or not it's delivered over the web. Probably, the CRTC will have to regulate that at some point.

When a country becomes nothing more than geography, and you don't even have to be exposed to its TV while you're in it (if you choose to watch TV), then it might as well cease to exist. Canada is snot simply some collection of land and a constitution. It has an identity that is shaped by its culture. Now, TV happens to be the worst part of that (which IMO, is getting better), but the rest of our media does well and needs some protection to continue to do well. Like I said, one vote.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

There will always be television, whether or not it's delivered over the web. Probably, the CRTC will have to regulate that at some point.

Oh do tell. How will this be accomplished? Will Canada become like Iran and Australia, web filters to prevent too much evil influence? Is this how you define Canada, a country of cultural cowards?

Edited August 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

Oh do tell. How will this be accomplished? Will Canada become like Iran and Australia, web filters to prevent too much evil influence? Is this how you define Canada, a country of cultural cowards?

There are already some web filters (though I don't think that they're government). You can't watch video from US sites where Canadian companies have the rights to that video also.

And no, we aren't cultural cowards. We're a country is willing to protect its cultural industry.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

There are already some web filters (though I don't think that they're government). You can't watch video from US sites where Canadian companies have the rights to that video also.

IP address based filtering, which is fairly easy to circumvent. But I find it fascinating that a government should be in the business of censoring the Internet.

And no, we aren't cultural cowards. We're a country is willing to protect its cultural industry.

Because censoring the Internet is such a noble cause.

Edited August 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

IP address based filtering, which is fairly easy to circumvent. But I find it fascinating that a government should be in the business of censoring the Internet.

Because censoring the Internet is such a noble cause.

It may be a simple as requiring Canadian advertising on the site. The idea that we're cultural cowards because we allow in US content but require Canadian content too is definitely hyperbole.

[ToadBrother]

It may be a simple as requiring Canadian advertising on the site.

On a foreign site? How do you propose to do that? And if they say no, what will be your solution? Block access to them?

Are you even pondering what you're saying?

The idea that we're cultural cowards because we allow in US content but require Canadian content too is definitely hyperbole.

Let's deal with how you plan to force, say, a Russian news site to put Canadian ads in. I really want to pursue your desire to control the Internet to make sure I see, um, Canadian advertising.

[Smallc]

On a foreign site? How do you propose to do that? And if they say no, what will be your solution? Block access to them?

Are you even pondering what you're saying?

What about Hulu? Can you watch it now? Seems that's already the way it is.

Let's deal with how you plan to force, say, a Russian news site to put Canadian ads in. I really want to pursue your desire to control the Internet to make sure I see, um, Canadian advertising.

I'm not sure how it would work at this point. We do it for TV, I'm sure there's a way to do it for the internet as well. I'm not proposing blocking content at all, Im saying that similar rules that are used for Tv will also have to be (somehow) put in place.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

What about Hulu? Can you watch it now? Seems that's already the way it is.

I'm not sure how it would work at this point. We do it for TV, I'm sure there's a way to do it for the internet as well.

There are any number of proxies that allow me to view Hulu content. It demonstrates just how moronic believing you can censor the web, save by extreme means used by countries like Iran and Burma is.

From a technical point of view, there are a number of ways. I'm asking you if you think blocking access to, say, a Russian site that refuses to put Canadian ads on is something a country with something like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has any business doing.

And let's take this further. Let's say Canada becomes like Iran and forces ISPs and infrastructure providers to put proxy servers or something similar on all data lines coming into Canada. Would you make it against the law for me to use a VPN or similar technology to get around these servers? Just how far are you willing to cripple the Internet to protect Canadian content? Will some guy using Tor now be treated like someone with a grey dish? Will I become a criminal if I install an ad blocker that stops me from seeing this precious Canadian content?

Edited August 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

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.

We've already talked about free speech protections in the charter not being absolute (if they were, the CRTC couldn't exist as current). This is no different.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

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 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. What if I use VPN peering to gain a foreign IP address. Will the CRTC Internet police be at my door?

You are aware, or at least I hope you're aware, that the Internet is larger than TCP port 80 used by HTTP, Flash video and so forth. What if I'm using NNTP, SMTP or, heck, any other possible type of networking, like P2P?