Surprise, Surprise: Canadians Aren't Interested In ISP Levies

from the who-would-have-thought... dept

Michael Geist points to two new polls released by Angus Reid Strategies, which show that Canadians are overwhelmingly against the idea of ISP levies. It should come as no surprise that 79% of people surveyed about the possible Canadian content levy on new media said it would be an "unnecessary and/or inappropriate fee that would end up being passed along to consumers." In another survey on file sharing, 45% of people said that downloading music free of charge was just "what people should be able to do on the Internet," while only 3% believed that downloaders are "criminals who should be punished by law." 27% said that it's something people shouldn't be doing, but that "it's not a big deal." 73% of people thought that a music tax was "unnecessary and/or inappropriate" (which ought to disappoint a few Canadian creator groups calling for this sort of thing...).

The survey also found that those who download music are "often the most voracious music enthusiasts," more likely to buy a CD in the next month (41% vs. 34% of non-file sharers) and more likely to have attended a concert in the past year (65% vs. 52%), which should, again, not surprise many people around here. This is just another bit of evidence that "piracy" is not a problem and, instead of pushing for ISPs to collect levies or act as copyright cops, musicians should focus on connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy. Though, somehow, I don't expect the whining to stop anytime soon...

Filed Under: canada, isp levies

The Goldilocks Argument For Regulating Online Content In Canada

from the too-much,-too-little dept

The attempts by some Canadian TV writers and actors to get Canadian regulators to regulate internet content is seen by many as pretty ridiculous. The arguments make almost no sense, and seem to center on the idea that there's so much content online, that no one can find Canadian content unless (a) ISPs pay extra to fund it and (b) certain sites are forced to promote Canadian content. What's never explained is what's wrong with option (c): make good content that people want to see. That option would solve all the other issues.

That said, Rob Hyndman points us to a great analysis showing just how ridiculous it is to think that the CRTC needs to regulate online content:

Once upon a time there were only four or five television channels. Hardly anyone had the money to broadcast a television signal, and if anyone did, there were only so many spots available on the dial.

In such a world of "spectrum scarcity," it was argued, government regulation was essential to ensure a diversity of content--and, in Canada, to ensure that some of that content was Canadian. Or as the cultural nationalists had it, to make it possible for Canadians to "tell ourselves our own stories." This was the world in which the CRTC was born.

Flash forward 40 or 50 years, to a very different world. Not only are there now hundreds of conventional television channels catering to every conceivable taste, but with the advent of Internet broadcasting the constraints of cost and spectrum have disappeared. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Canadian websites, each of them, post-YouTube, potentially a broadcaster in its own right. It is now possible for any Canadian with a video camera and a laptop to transmit to every other Canadian. And the cultural nationalists' response? This just makes the case for more regulation.

It's a great point, and it's something I call the "goldilocks argument" for regulation. The original content regulations were because there was "too little" content that could be delivered over TV. Thus, there "needed" to be regulation to ensure that in that limited and scarce space, that some of it would be Canadian. But the argument now is the reverse. It's that there's "too much" content online, and thus it's hard to find good Canadian content (apparently, some people up north haven't discovered Google). So, the argument seems to be that the CRTC is needed to make sure the content is "just right" whether there's too little content or too much content available.

Filed Under: canada, colin mochrie, content, internet, regulations
Companies: crtc

Canadian Court Apparently Decides That Private Facebook Profiles Aren't Actually Private

from the privacy-settings-are-meaningless dept

The folks at Facebook are notoriously proud of the granular levels of privacy their system allows, such that you can pick and choose what you share with different people. Apparently, all of that is meaningless to a judge in Ontario, who has decided that if you use Facebook at all, your profile can be used against you in a civil court case, even if you set it to private. The judge's reasoning is quite troubling:

a court can infer from the social networking purpose of Facebook, and the applications it offers to users such as the posting of photographs, that users intend to take advantage of Facebook's applications to make personal information available to others. From the general evidence about Facebook filed on this motion it is clear that Facebook is not used as a means by which account holders carry on monologues with themselves; it is a device by which users share with others information about who they are, what they like, what they do, and where they go, in varying degrees of detail. Facebook profiles are not designed to function as diaries; they enable users to construct personal networks or communities of "friends" with whom they can share information about themselves, and on which "friends" can post information about the user.

That's sort of true. It is for sharing content with others... but the very point is that you get to choose who those others will be. So, even if it's not exactly like a diary, it could be considered a diary that is just shared with a select group of individuals. Just because I share something secret with one other person, does not mean I automatically have consented to have that information shared with everyone. I wonder if this means that all of the judge's correspondences with others should be opened to the public. After all, the judge is obviously not conducting a monologue with himself, but uses things like email or letters or phone calls to share information with others.

Filed Under: canada, privacy, social networks
Companies: facebook

How Do You Ban Someone From Posessing A 'Recording Device'?

from the seems-to-rule-out-a-lot... dept

Michael Geist points out that a guy in Canada has been convicted under an anti-camcording law for recording a showing of the movie Dan in Real Life (I'm sure it was big on all the torrent sites). However, what struck me as interesting was the punishment handed out. The guy is on 24 months of probation, has to perform 120 hours of community service, is barred from entering a movie theater or associating with anyone involved in movie piracy. And... he is barred from owning any recording device.

That seems a bit broad. After all, most mobile phones these days are recording devices. Any computer is a recording device. An iPod can be a recording device. I can understand the thought process that went into such a ban, but it seems to overreach in its intended impact.

Filed Under: camcording, canada, punishment

Canadian TV Industry: Please, Regulators, Make The Internet More Like TV... And Have ISPs Give Us Money

from the how-to-break-the-internet-in-one-easy-step dept

Last week, we wrote about how the Writers Guild of Canada was pushing government regulators to force ISPs to fund content creation, with a specific focus on promoting Canadian content and trying to tone down or keep out non-Canadian content from online sources. This seemed pretty ridiculous, but the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is in fact holding hearings on the issue.

Perhaps the most ridiculous is Canadian comedian Colin Mochrie, who is making pretty much a mockery of the whole thing by whining about how Canadian content will get buried if ISPs don't pay extra to create and "broadcast" Canadian content. Perhaps Mochrie hasn't noticed, but ISPs aren't like TV networks. They don't choose what content they air. They are the conduit. Mochrie's complaints get more and more silly the further he goes:

Unlike television, when you are broadcasting through new media, the space for content is practically endless. However, being endless, content can easily get lost. So how do we make sure Canadians can find our own content? How do we make sure Canadian content is featured and given "shelf space"?

How about by making the content good so people want to see it no matter where they're from? Or, if he wants to go fund a website that just highlights Canadian content, he's free to do so. It wouldn't even cost that much, thanks to the wonders of the internet. And that's before Mochrie just starts making stuff up:

Most of what we do on the Internet falls under the definition of "broadcasting" and that percentage grows daily as we turn to our laptops, iPods and mobile phones to watch our favourite programs.

No, actually. Most of what people do on the internet falls under the definition of "communications." A small amount falls under "broadcasting," but even then it tends to be a lot more interactive than traditional broadcasting. The broadcasting companies have jumped onto the internet bandwagon (much too late, of course), but they should learn to adapt to the platform -- not force the entire platform to become TV 2.0.

Mochrie goes on to make the argument that basically anyone offering content in Canada needs to be regulated -- meaning forcing them to show Canadian content, and that ISPs and wireless operators should be forced to fund this content? Why? Who needs reasons! It's for the good of Canadian culture or something.

In the meantime, while we agree with ISPs like Rogers, who are protesting any such move, it is worth pointing out how hypocritical they're being as well. Rogers is protesting any such rule by claiming "We're a dumb pipe" who can't be expected to "regulate" the content shown over their network. However, as Michael Geist points out, when it comes to traffic shaping, Rogers has no problem claiming it's "smart" enough to figure out what to shape and block. So which is it?

This whole debate is rather silly of course. Starting to regulate content on the internet would serve to severely damage internet services and culture in Canada -- bringing all of the disadvantages of protectionist cultural policies and knocking out most of the benefits of the internet. Hopefully the CRTC knows better than to follow folks like Colin Mochrie.

Filed Under: canada, colin mochrie, content, internet, regulations
Companies: crtc

Copyright Lobbyists Again Demand That The US Classify Canada As Being A Piracy Hotbed

from the blame-canada dept

Every year, the entertainment industry comes out with some ridiculous report about how Canada is a hotbed of piracy, on par with places like China and Russia. Every year the report asks the US Trade Representative to classify Canada as being on the "Priority Watch List." And, once again, it's that time... the International Intellectual Property Assn., a copyright lobbying group, has again complained about rampant Canadian piracy. In the past, Michael Geist has shown in great detail how silly these claims are. This year, it's gotten so ridiculous that he barely has anything to say at all, but instead simply points back to his responses from the past few years. In the past, the USTR has refused to go along with the IIPA's demands. Let's hope that this doesn't change with the new administration -- who, so far, has appeared much more willing to listen to Hollywood's friends. The only potential good news is that Obama's first choice for USTR (currently representing Hollywood in Congress -- literally) backed away from the job after fearing that "trade" wasn't a priority to this administration. Just imagine what would have happened if he had taken the job.

Filed Under: canada, intellectual property, lobbyists
Companies: iipa

US IP Interests Pressured Canada To Join In Its WTO Fight With China

from the teaming-up dept

In the WTO fight between the US and China -- in which the US declared victory recently, despite losing most of its arguments -- Canada had joined the fight on the US's side. However, as Michael Geist has discovered, by accessing government documents using the Access to Information Act in Canada, Canadian officials didn't see any reason to get involved at all, not believing the dispute impacted Canadians in any manner. However, it appears US officials didn't like that very much, and a rather heavy attempt to pressure Canadian officials into signing up ensued, with both US officials and the Canadian Recording Industry Association (often seen as basically a puppet of the RIAA) applying the pressure. While Canadian officials continually expressed doubt about participating, noting little evidence that China's practices had any impact on Canadians, eventually they signed on in support. As Geist notes, the end result has been quite damaging to Canada. Since the main points of the case were won by China, Canada signed up with the wrong side of the arguments and the effort has damaged Canadian relations with China. That's what you get for getting pushed around by the IP bullies...

Filed Under: canada, china, ip, lobbyists, pressure, us

Canadian Writers Guild Demanding ISPs Pay For Content Creation; Pissing Off Members

from the it-doesn't-work dept

Mark K. sent this in a week or so ago, but I'm just getting to it now. Apparently, Ryan Sohmer, an author of a popular webcomic called Least I Could Do, is pretty pissed off at the Writers' Guild of Canada, of which he's a member, which is supposed to be looking out for his best interests -- but is not. Specifically, it appears that the WGC is pushing for a proposal that would demand ISPs pay content creators for new content produced in Canada. It's sort of the equivalent of the recording industry's desire to put in place an ISP music tax, but for screenwriters for TV and movie content. On top of that, it has a nationalistic bent, that would limit certain foreign content from reaching Canadians in a ridiculous attempt to "promote" made-in-Canada content.

Sohmer points out why he felt forced to join the WGC against his better interest (he needed to in order to work on certain projects) and had mostly ignored them until they decided to push this dreadful idea for regulation. As he notes, what the WGC is trying to do is turn the internet into a version of television, with limited choices and strict regulation on content. He points out how disastrous this would be:

As someone who's been struggling with the television system for the last 3 years, I can tell you very explicitly: it simply doesn't work. It hampers talent, overpays "producers" while taking money out of the real talent budget and you inevitably end up with a watered down excuse for entertainment.

Why anyone would want to re-create the television industry is beyond me. That makes about as much sense as publishing a new newspaper these days, or putting together a new terrestrial radio station.

Say what you will about the web, and there is much to be said, it breeds innovation. The reason for that is because it's non-regulated, because an ass like me can produce whatever he likes, however he likes in an effort to entertain others. The majority of the things we try don't/won't/shouldn't work, but if 1 out of every 100 projects works, that's a success.

You simply can't do that in the traditional media system. It won't let you.

We see it time and time again. The organizations who benefited from the "way things used to be" will almost always work to force any new and innovative platform to be restricted, legally, to force a similar structure. Remember the laws that got passed when automobiles first came around that required people to walk in front of them waving red flags? Yup. The WGC's proposal seems pretty similar.

Filed Under: canada, isps, paying, regulations, writers guild

Once Again, You Don't Get To Use DMCA Takedowns To Remove Any Content You Don't Like

from the it-has-to-be-copyright-infringement-of-your-content dept

Michael Geist has the latest example of what appears to be a company abusing the DMCA takedown process to try to quiet the speech of someone they didn't like who was criticizing them. In this case, Canada Post sent a takedown notice to YouTube for a video from union members making fun of Canada Post's CEO. The video was a parody song, sung to a Dr. Seuss tune, with lyrics making fun of the CEO. Since the song was clearly not covered by any Canada Post copyright, a DMCA takedown would break the law, which requires any takedown be from the copyright holder. Canada Post tried to claim that the infringement was actually an altered photo of the CEO briefly shown in the film -- but that's a pretty clear fair use, and, as Geist notes, recent US court rulings say that fair use should be taken into account before sending a takedown.

This seems like a pretty clear case of abusing the takedown process to try to silence critics. But it's made even more interesting that it involves two Canadian organizations... but is using US law. That's because the video was hosted at YouTube, in the US. It certainly does raise, once again, questions concerning jurisdiction on the internet -- and how laws apply across borders.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, dmca, takedown
Companies: canada post

Canadians Getting More Telemarketing Calls After Putting Names On Do Not Call List

from the whoops dept

When the US first instituted its Do Not Call list, there was some fear that unscrupulous telemarketers would actually use the list as a "good list" of people to call. In fact, many people were nervous to use the list at the beginning for just that reason. However, for the most part, there haven't been that many abuses of the list (there have certainly been some, but it's not nearly as widespread as many expected). Unfortunately, it appears the same is not true in Canada. The Canadian list works by allowing anyone to buy it -- supposedly so they can cleanse their own lists of any DNC numbers. But, it can also be used by unscrupulous scammers -- such as those offshore -- who apparently are buying the DNC list in order to have a "verified" list of people to call with scams. It's reached the point that many claim they're getting more telemarketing calls (for much more scammy reasons) than before.

Filed Under: canada, do not call, scammers, telemarketing