Canadian Groups Call For Massive Net Regulation 318
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist is reporting that Canadian cultural groups including ACTRA and SOCAN have called on Canada's telecom regulator to implement a massive new Internet regulation framework. This includes a new three-percent tax on ISPs to pay for new media creation, Canadian content requirements for commercial websites, and licensing requirements for new media broadcasters, including for user-generated content."
No Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
Blame Canada
What if everyone got a piece? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how Canadians would react if the other industries that get pirated off of the internet started getting a cut, too. Start snapping up 2% to movies, 3% to games, some money for tv and radio, et cetera. Then maybe pornography could get a free slice, then the books and magazine articles who are getting wholesale copied, et cetera. Suddenly people might start saying "hey, I've never pirated one of those, I don't even play games" or whatever. It's not like music is significantly more pirated than other things are.
I honestly don't understand why the music industry gets to tax Canadians as a whole for the behavior of a few. Why do media sources get different treatment than the other industries? Shouldn't canadians be paying a Photoshop tax at this point?
Re:Nothing Good (Score:5, Insightful)
First, ACTRA and SOCAN are not the government, they are special interest groups. Secondly, given the current political situation in Canada... don't expect this to go anywhere in the near future.
I don't like it (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Canada and we have a simular thing with radio. They have to play X amount of hours of Canadian content, which is good because it gives the local artists some play(usually unless they blast Celine Dion *winmper*). But to do this for Candadian websites seems just weird. How is this going to benifit Canadians to have X amount of Canadian content on the sites. I don't see why it needs to be regulated any further than not allow children from seeing explicit material(excess violence and sexuality), which probably doesn't stop most children anyways(didn't when I was 16), but I can see it's usefullness.
Regulation of the internet in any way takes away apart of what the internet is. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and rarly do you have to listen to someone bluber an idiotic viewpoint. Regulating the internet goes against what it has come to represent raw informtion. Not always accurat not always sensable but I wouldn't change it for anything.
If people are afraid of the internet so much that they want to change it, I would like to ask them why? Why do they need to confine Canadian websites to having a certain amount Canadian content when it's a global community. The content shouldn't be limited because of the location the domain is in. Places like CBC.ca TSN.ca and CTV.ca are always going to have the canadian content I want. news.google.ca maps.google.ca all have local content for me if I need them. People do a good job of keeping canadian content and other out there for everyone because it's in their best interest.
This group is silly and I would like to know if there is somewhere I could send a letter telling them as much.
More crappy can con(canadian content) (Score:5, Insightful)
Gawd... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please.
What? No need for me to be rude...
Re:Nothing Good (Score:3, Insightful)
So to speak ...
Re:What if everyone got a piece? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why stop at "industries"? Every person capable of holding a copyright to anything, should get a cut.
Re:So uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's 3% of $0 ?
Why always north america ? (Score:3, Insightful)
how outragous laws get passed (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the past decade or so, I've noticed a trend. I'm not terribly bright, so I don't think I can be the only one who has noticed it but regardless, nobody is saying anything about it. No Slashdotters or bloggers ever raise this point, no journalists write explicitly about it even though it's right there in the news almost every day.
Let's say you're a huge government entity or industry coalition. You want a law (or series of laws) put into effect that, if passed by congress, would net you huge amounts of cash, power, or both. The problem is that almost everybody who hears about it is going to oppose it because they'll probably see it for what it is. Lobbyists are worth their weight in gold, but lobbyists don't outweigh enormous opposition from the press and public.
How do you get this extremely profitable but unlikely law passed? The solution turns out to be relatively easy:
1) Submit the bill for vote.
2) When the public outcry inevitably happens, reaffirm to the public that the bill must be made into law. Make a couple of unimportant token conciliatory changes and make a big deal about how you're willing to compromise.
3) Resubmit almost the exact same bill.
4) Watch it pass.
I've seen this happen in the U.S. for every almost single major unpopular bill that's been passed recently. The wall street bailout is the number one perfect example. This bill was an undisguised farce from the beginning. As dim as the American public tends to be, even they saw the evil in handing out hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street millionaires as a thank-you for screwing the world's economy while those who were *really* hurt (and without homes to boot) received not a single dime out of the deal. They presented the bill, the press and public said, "No effing way!" They presented it again with practically no changes and it passed with flying colors. Tell me, how does that happen?
I haven't been able to figure it out myself, but I wager it's to do with human psychology. You expose someone to an extreme idea once. After they get all done with being shocked and appalled, you expose them to it again (or to a slightly less shocking one) and they'll readily go along with it. Maybe when the idea is presented the second time, they think, "hey, it's not as bad as that first proposal." Or possibly people are just lazy and give up the fight after expending so much energy in the first opposition. I dunno. Another interesting point is that the more shocking the first presentation, the better the chance it has succeeding the second time around.
We're seeing it again with the Detroit bailout. The car companies made such an incredibly poor show the first time around, that Congress will probably say, "Well, they rode over in limousines this time at least, we should probably give them a few billion dollars to keep making shitty cars."
There's definitely a psychological effect and it's one that we, the public, would do well to wise up to soon because this is one tactic that's nearly 100% effective and has no effective counter-strategy because no one seems to be paying attention.
Re:I don't think we have to worry (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless of course we have an election and the idiots who don't understand how parliament works and are angry over Harper getting booted turn around and give him a majority. Which really seems like the most likely possibility at this point.
Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (Score:4, Insightful)
As the only other Canadian on slashdot, I second these opinions.
SOCAN isn't anywhere near as evil as the RIAA. The CRIA on the other hand, they're a bunch of creeps serving the big distributors, and the CRTC is the industry's sock puppet. Those last two don't add much value for Canadian artists, not unless you're a platinum-selling act who can afford to buy one of their reps.
Re:Minority Mandates (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrible news (Score:3, Insightful)
There should be no regulation of what content flows over the internet. particularly these are attempts by an ever paranoid government to shut down dissent and monitor its opponents. Monitoring and censorship such as this is a sure sign of an end to a democratic, free society and one where people live in shackles, are arrested for any reason, have no privacy and are afraid to say anything, living in constant fear of the government. Regulation, by ISPs or government is unacceptable, this includes any blocking or monitoring of content. Net Nuetrality is designed to basically prevent regulation or censorship of the internet by prohibiting ISPs from blocking access to certain web pages or impeding or altering content. We need to assert our free speech rights and not allow these to be taken away by big corporations or government.
Re:What if everyone got a piece? (Score:1, Insightful)
uhhh, thing is, I don't think this has anything to do with piracy. I think these groups are trying to use the old "Canadian content laws! Save us from US cultural domination" bs to get money from isps.
Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're OK with taxing (if I read the article correctly) EVERYTHING that goes through an ISP regardless of the fact that the vast majority of it has nothing to do with what they're trying to protect?
I'm sorry, as a Canadian, that's overkill.
Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm also a Canadian on Slashdot, and a hobbyist musician.
I have no issue with Socan collecting royalties when someone plays Canadian commercial music for financial benefit.
What I don't support is the blanket coverage "guilty until .. nah, guilty" that they promote along with the CRIA.
For example: anytime someone books a local hall for rent, you have to pay a couple hundred bucks to Socan, even if you were playing your own originals, or perhaps you're a Beatles cover band etc.
They don't send these royalties to non Canadian artists, only to Canadian Artists with a "recognized commercial recording contract", who recorded and produced their music in Canada,
proportional to the number of record sales said artist has, so Celine Dion rakes in lots more free cash, and little or no benefit to independent or self published artists.
A similar thing happens to the tax on blank CD's etc.
This is utter socialist bullshit.
Considering nowadays people can create their own music for under $1000.00 and promote it on the internet for free, this welfare system for commercial artists is quite ridiculous.
The commercial recording industry is an obsolete and dying business model that should be taken off of the government provided life support, and they know it. It's a good time for them to try to get a new source of income from the government, while said government is in a shambles.
Re:ACTRA/SOCAN (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know? Have you tried?
The amazing thing about complaining is, sometimes you find you were the first person to complain about that particular issue. And if you create enough noise, there's always the chance that you will eventually get a majority of the population to agree with you -- at which point, the government can either listen or be replaced.
Re:No Seriously (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing Good (Score:3, Insightful)
You are so naive. Layton never had a real job in his life, he speaks for the 'common men'? He wishes he was Lenin, but he is not even that, too lazy for that.