CanCon, the Opera
The professional shakedown artists otherwise known as Canada's cultural industries -telecoms, broadcasters, TV networks, filmmakers -are gearing up for another operatic hit on Canadians. They want the Internet controlled through new rules and new charges that would expand their existing protection racket that now funnels billions into their hands and limits the freedom of Canadians.
It's a successful strategy that has played out over decades. The objective is to maintain and expand the charges, fees and rules that protect their regulated monopoly strangleholds on Hollywood content in Canada. Without such fees, they say, Canada would have no film funds and media subsidies and Canadian culture would suffer great harm -and nobody would make beautiful Canadian cultural content such as Mulroney, the Opera.
CanCon, the Opera has been running since the early 20th century, when Canadian nationalists seized control of the radio airwaves on the grounds that there were rigid spectrum limitations. Only a couple of dozen radio stations were possible, and they should not be allowed to drift into the monopoly hands of foreigners. Today, even though spectrum and wire communication links are essentially unlimited, and entertainment, news, information, data and movies are literally available in limitless quantities, the opera is still running.
Decades ago they said that because there are technical limits to broadcasting, controls are needed. Now they say that because there are no technical limits, controls are needed. Every new technology -the arrival of television, cable, digital, satellite, Internet -has become a battleground of CanCon special interests seeking to lord it over the Canadian consumer.
Remember the Death Stars? That's the ominous name the CanCon crowd invented to portray U.S. satellite services that threatened to beam content down on Canada in competition with Canadian cable, broadcast and satellite services. The shakedown artists more or less won that battle. Every Hollywood television and movie transmission is now skimmed for cash by a long line of telecom firms, networks, broadcasters, media makers, producers and artists who depend on Ottawa.
The new Death Stars of 2011 are called "Over The Top Services," the industry's spooky name for U.S. and other content providers -such as Netflix -that can deliver movies and other content directly to Canadians over the Internet, bypassing the giant graft machine that sits astride Canadian consumption of visual entertainment and information like marketing boards over the supply of milk and cheese.
Following the usual scenario, the beneficiaries of the CanCon con -from Bell to Rogers, to Corus and Astral -have formed a working lobby group under the name "Over-The-Top Services Working Group." Only two years ago, many of the same players argued against regulating the internet (See Great Moments from CanCon, the Opera elsewhere on this page). But this is operatic drama, and frequent costume and ideological changes are the norm.
The group, which now includes unions and other industry beneficiaries, is headed by Alain Gourd, a veteran baritone who has played many roles in endless epics of Canadian media protectionism. In a letter to the CRTC made public this week, Mr. Gourd asked the commission to follow a recommendation from the House of Commons standing committee on heritage calling for "public consultations" to determine "whether and how ... non-Canadian companies should support Canadian cultural programming." That's a euphemism for a tax on Internet content.
The group also wants the CRTC to start investigating the activities of Netflix and other "foreign over-the-top services" that it says are becoming a significant presence in the domestic market:
It is now public knowledge that a foreign over-the-top service operating in Canada has commissioned new exclusive dramatic content, including for the Canadian market. It is buying exclusive rights with studios in the windows of certain linear Canadian programming services. Therefore, the Working Group submits that the commission should initiate the public consultation recommended by the standing committee.
Second, one of the important elements in assessing the status of foreign over-the-top services in Canada would be to obtain sufficient relevant information on their activities in our country.... While the commission's questionnaire would need to be reformulated to be appropriate for foreign over-the-top services, the relevant Exemption Order permits the commission to require such undertakings to provide such information as the commission may request. In due course, the Working Group hopes to propose to the commission what could be an appropriate form of questionnaire and a list of the foreign over-the-top operators that to our collective knowledge have a sufficient presence in Canada to warrant receiving a questionnaire.
Such fishing expeditions into what is essentially the Internet activities of Canadians who may or may not be using Netflix and other content services are designed for one thing: Get data and technical detail to enable the government to regulate and possibly tax Internet services.
Industry Minister Tony Clement provided what seems like a firm response to the Over-The-Top Working Group. In a Tweet, he said: "My POV is that CRTC regulating Netflix would be offside our directive to encourage more choice and competition." Mr. Gourd's Working Group isn't likely to take that operatic stab in the back as a death scene.
It's a successful strategy that has played out over decades. The objective is to maintain and expand the charges, fees and rules that protect their regulated monopoly strangleholds on Hollywood content in Canada. Without such fees, they say, Canada would have no film funds and media subsidies and Canadian culture would suffer great harm -and nobody would make beautiful Canadian cultural content such as Mulroney, the Opera.
CanCon, the Opera has been running since the early 20th century, when Canadian nationalists seized control of the radio airwaves on the grounds that there were rigid spectrum limitations. Only a couple of dozen radio stations were possible, and they should not be allowed to drift into the monopoly hands of foreigners. Today, even though spectrum and wire communication links are essentially unlimited, and entertainment, news, information, data and movies are literally available in limitless quantities, the opera is still running.
Decades ago they said that because there are technical limits to broadcasting, controls are needed. Now they say that because there are no technical limits, controls are needed. Every new technology -the arrival of television, cable, digital, satellite, Internet -has become a battleground of CanCon special interests seeking to lord it over the Canadian consumer.
Remember the Death Stars? That's the ominous name the CanCon crowd invented to portray U.S. satellite services that threatened to beam content down on Canada in competition with Canadian cable, broadcast and satellite services. The shakedown artists more or less won that battle. Every Hollywood television and movie transmission is now skimmed for cash by a long line of telecom firms, networks, broadcasters, media makers, producers and artists who depend on Ottawa.
The new Death Stars of 2011 are called "Over The Top Services," the industry's spooky name for U.S. and other content providers -such as Netflix -that can deliver movies and other content directly to Canadians over the Internet, bypassing the giant graft machine that sits astride Canadian consumption of visual entertainment and information like marketing boards over the supply of milk and cheese.
Following the usual scenario, the beneficiaries of the CanCon con -from Bell to Rogers, to Corus and Astral -have formed a working lobby group under the name "Over-The-Top Services Working Group." Only two years ago, many of the same players argued against regulating the internet (See Great Moments from CanCon, the Opera elsewhere on this page). But this is operatic drama, and frequent costume and ideological changes are the norm.
The group, which now includes unions and other industry beneficiaries, is headed by Alain Gourd, a veteran baritone who has played many roles in endless epics of Canadian media protectionism. In a letter to the CRTC made public this week, Mr. Gourd asked the commission to follow a recommendation from the House of Commons standing committee on heritage calling for "public consultations" to determine "whether and how ... non-Canadian companies should support Canadian cultural programming." That's a euphemism for a tax on Internet content.
The group also wants the CRTC to start investigating the activities of Netflix and other "foreign over-the-top services" that it says are becoming a significant presence in the domestic market:
It is now public knowledge that a foreign over-the-top service operating in Canada has commissioned new exclusive dramatic content, including for the Canadian market. It is buying exclusive rights with studios in the windows of certain linear Canadian programming services. Therefore, the Working Group submits that the commission should initiate the public consultation recommended by the standing committee.
Second, one of the important elements in assessing the status of foreign over-the-top services in Canada would be to obtain sufficient relevant information on their activities in our country.... While the commission's questionnaire would need to be reformulated to be appropriate for foreign over-the-top services, the relevant Exemption Order permits the commission to require such undertakings to provide such information as the commission may request. In due course, the Working Group hopes to propose to the commission what could be an appropriate form of questionnaire and a list of the foreign over-the-top operators that to our collective knowledge have a sufficient presence in Canada to warrant receiving a questionnaire.
Such fishing expeditions into what is essentially the Internet activities of Canadians who may or may not be using Netflix and other content services are designed for one thing: Get data and technical detail to enable the government to regulate and possibly tax Internet services.
Industry Minister Tony Clement provided what seems like a firm response to the Over-The-Top Working Group. In a Tweet, he said: "My POV is that CRTC regulating Netflix would be offside our directive to encourage more choice and competition." Mr. Gourd's Working Group isn't likely to take that operatic stab in the back as a death scene.
Great moments from CanCon, the Opera
The plot so far Endless wrangling over 65 years staged by a rich parade of Canadian corporate and cultural figures as they manage to extract protection, regulatory favours and billions of dollars from taxpayers and consumers.
The setting for Scene 5 The time is 2009. The action takes place in a CRTC hearing room in Ottawa as executives of various big-name Canadian broadcasting enterprises argue that the Internet should be left free of regulation. There would be no need for regulation to protect their industries or Canadian content.
Commentary They would all later contradict themselves in 2011 as they pressed for Internet regulation.
The characters Shaw Communications, Bell Canada, Corus Entertainment, Telus, Astral.
Shaw "There is more Canadian content on the Internet than on television, more Canadian participation and more customer control. The beauty of the Internet is the power of the customer. The customer should be trusted to make their own Canadian content choices. We are a successful company because every day we engage our 3.4 million customers and try to listen to them. We ask the commission to do the same as it listens to all Canadians and to not try to re-regulate or to change the structure of the Internet now."
Bell "The Internet and mobile networks provide new ways for Canadian content to reach Canadians. Traditional broadcasting distribution channels continue to be available and, in fact, have not even declined in the face of new media's growth. Without a doubt, new media allows broadcasters and content producers to reach Canadians more quickly and directly. Under the circumstances, the appropriate course of action is to maintain the new media and mobile exemption orders and continue to monitor the situation to ensure that new media develops on a healthy course without regulatory intervention. The Broadcasting Act does not mandate that anything be done to change those exemption orders and, based on what we have heard, we believe nothing should be done."
Corus "Imposing a regulatory system of conditions, tariffs and quotas on new media participants will not promote a greater Canadian presence in new media. In fact, it is likely to have just the opposite effect. For this reason, Corus is of the view that the existing new media and mobile television exemption orders remain appropriate now and for the foreseeable future. There is no need for new measures or amendments to these exemption orders."
Telus "With all due respect, what is being proposed by some parties in this proceeding is nothing less than the regulation of the Internet, whether via quotas on online Canadian content, non-net-neutral preferences for Canadian content online, or simply the application of a tax. It would be an understatement to say this would be a slippery slope. Broadcast-style regulation is not compatible with an open Internet, no matter how benign the initial intention to regulate."
Astral Our point is no, that they should not be regulated. This is an open platform. I mean, it's hard to imagine that you might regulate a consumer brand like Kraft or Mazda who is producing compelling audio-video content on the Web, which is a space that we also occupy."
These excerpts from actual 2009 CRTC testimony were provided by Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa. www.michaelgeist.ca
These excerpts from actual 2009 CRTC testimony were provided by Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa.On May 2, vote for a free Internet
In the din of an election campaign, it's hard for so-called "fringe parties" to make their voices heard. This week, the National Post gives smaller parties the chance to tell you what they're all about -and why you might consider giving them your vote.
If you believe in information freedom, civil rights and the importance of allowing technology to fulfill its potential, you should cast your vote for the Pirate Party of Canada. It is essential that as our country enters a new century, we let go of old and harmful ideas and adopt a new standard of information law.
The Pirate Party believes strongly in copyright reform. Currently, copyright is being abused to prevent the internet from acting as an unfettered medium for the exchange of art and information. Non-commercial sharing is not morally wrong, but is under attack by established powers in the same manner as the printing press and the public library were hundreds of years ago. Examples of these attacks abound, the most recent being a $75-trillion lawsuit against Limewire, a file-sharing provider.
In the future, today's debate over file sharing will probably appear quite quaint, as the benefits of an extensive information commons become accepted and obvious. Information is best when accessible. Art is nothing if not a shared experience. The educational power of the world wide web is vast. We must therefore transform copyright law to benefit consumers and artists, not corporations. We could do this by reinforcing fair dealing, and shortening copyright terms to more reasonable lengths than the current "life of author plus 50 years."
Of greater concern are the means employed to enforce these wrongful copyright laws. In order to determine whether or not a person is sharing copyrighted content, the data leaving his or her computer must be directly monitored. This is a major violation of Canadians' privacy: The government watches all of us! E-mail should be protected from invasive search, just like federal mail, but that's not the case. Currently, Canadian internet users are subject to "deep packet inspection," which can tell exactly what a user accesses on the internet. It's scary stuff, and it's happening on your computer right now.
Canadians must choose a better standard of information sharing. Which do you prefer -protecting industry's copyright or having the right to talk in private? The Conservative Party is already promising to push through a new standard for digital law enforcement, Bill C-51, within 100 days if it wins a majority government. This means that every single thing Canadians do online will be monitored. And the cost of this monitoring will be added to our internet bills -which are already among the highest in the world.
The Pirate Party is also the only Canadian political party to voice support of the WikiLeaks organization. We believe in the power and necessity of the fourth estate, and we would like to draft laws to protect whistleblowers and journalists from prosecution. Dissent is the strongest form of patriotism. But on a monitored internet, users may be afraid to voice their real opinions or share critical information with one another. It's already well accepted that the RCMP keeps files on peaceful activists. The chilling effects of freedom of speech on a "wiretapped" web could seriously affect our ability to share ideas with one another and work together for a better future.
Government transparency is essential to a functioning democracy. We should not have to resort to whistleblowers to report the truth about what the government is doing; we should have a transparent, democratic government. On this issue, the Pirate Party tries to lead by example. Logs of our meetings are stored online on our wiki and our members are given the final say in policy. We believe in Canadians' right to govern themselves.
On May 2, I encourage you to cast your vote with the internet. If you are lucky enough to have a Pirate Party candidate in your riding, I recommend you vote for him or her. Pirates currently hold seats in both Sweden and Germany, and we would like Canada to be next. It's not too late to reclaim our democracy from the false left-right paradigm and push for real effective governance. The internet can set us free -if we free it first.
A better way to build a Palestinian state
Since Israel's creation more than six decades ago, militant Arab leaders have imagined that they could create an independent Palestinian homeland by force of arms. But now, finally, the Palestinian administration in the West Bank has embraced an entirely different strategy.
And guess what? It's working. For several years, terrorism has been at a low ebb in Israel. Yes, there are still rocket attacks from Hamas-run Gaza. And in a particularly hideous and despicable crime last month, five Jews -including two children and a baby -were knifed to death in the settlement of Itamar. These unprovoked attacks deserve international condemnation. But the overall death toll is a tiny fraction of what Israelis experienced a decade ago, when Yasser Arafat unleashed waves of suicide bombers.
There are several reasons for this -including Israel's (unfairly) decried security fence and its aggressive use of intelligence sources to flush out terrorist cells before they strike. But it is also the case that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas (shown below) and his Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, have made a conscious decision to pursue statehood through nonviolent means. And this month, they are expected to receive an extraordinary gesture of encouragement from the international community.
At a conference in Belgium next week, the International Monetary Fund will present a report that describes the Palestinian Authority as "able to conduct the sound economic policies expected of a future well-functioning Palestinian state, given its solid track record in reforms and institutionbuilding in the public finance and financial areas." The World Bank, meanwhile, will instruct the same conference that, based on current performance, the Palestinian Authority "is well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future."
These words, by themselves, do not carry any weight in international law. But they will go a long way toward swaying world opinion. PA leaders already have announced that, absent meaningful negotiations with Israel this year, they will apply for UN membership in September.
A UN-recognized Palestinian declaration of statehood would create all sorts of problems, especially for Israel, which cannot live with the West Bank borders that existed prior to June, 1967. The current presence of Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank would instantly be transformed into the military occupation of one UN state by another. No one knows where this would lead, particularly with neighbouring Arab states now wrapped up in their own political upheavals.
But putting that uncertainty to one side, there is at least one strong element of good news here. For years, Western diplomats and opinion-makers -including those in Israel itself -have insisted that Palestinian claims to statehood would be taken more seriously if Palestinians stopped blowing themselves up and instead began building the trappings of a real, modern state. Influential New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, for instance, lamented in 2008 that "after Israel quit the Gaza Strip in 2005, Palestinians, instead of building Singapore there, built Somalia and focused not on how to make microchips, but on how to make rockets."
Very quietly, Messrs. Abbas and Fayyad have taken Mr. Friedman's advice. Their West Bank economy is now growing at an annual rate of 9%. A decade ago, Palestinians were synonymous in the media with human bombs: Who would want to give the powers of a sovereign government to such extremists? Now, the public face of the PA is two somewhat boring men who put on trade shows and celebrate the merits of direct deposit.
In Hamas-run Gaza meanwhile, the economy is a shambles, and the entire territory is regarded by Westerners (aside from the fringe Israeli-apartheid crowd) as one big terrorist enclave. Indeed, even pro-Palestinian boat-for-Gaza types are going to have to rethink their love affair with Hamasistan after the this week's killing of Italian activist Vittorio Arrigoni -apparently by a group of dissident jihadists even more radical than Hamas itself.
The combined message emerging from the West Bank and Gaza is that the path to a twostate solution in Israel and the disputed territories lies not through violence, but peaceful nation-building. Supporters of Israel may be concerned by a PA campaign for statehood that endruns Israeli negotiations. But the nature of that campaign at least shows a welcome turn in Palestinian tactics.
And guess what? It's working. For several years, terrorism has been at a low ebb in Israel. Yes, there are still rocket attacks from Hamas-run Gaza. And in a particularly hideous and despicable crime last month, five Jews -including two children and a baby -were knifed to death in the settlement of Itamar. These unprovoked attacks deserve international condemnation. But the overall death toll is a tiny fraction of what Israelis experienced a decade ago, when Yasser Arafat unleashed waves of suicide bombers.
There are several reasons for this -including Israel's (unfairly) decried security fence and its aggressive use of intelligence sources to flush out terrorist cells before they strike. But it is also the case that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas (shown below) and his Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, have made a conscious decision to pursue statehood through nonviolent means. And this month, they are expected to receive an extraordinary gesture of encouragement from the international community.
At a conference in Belgium next week, the International Monetary Fund will present a report that describes the Palestinian Authority as "able to conduct the sound economic policies expected of a future well-functioning Palestinian state, given its solid track record in reforms and institutionbuilding in the public finance and financial areas." The World Bank, meanwhile, will instruct the same conference that, based on current performance, the Palestinian Authority "is well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future."
These words, by themselves, do not carry any weight in international law. But they will go a long way toward swaying world opinion. PA leaders already have announced that, absent meaningful negotiations with Israel this year, they will apply for UN membership in September.
A UN-recognized Palestinian declaration of statehood would create all sorts of problems, especially for Israel, which cannot live with the West Bank borders that existed prior to June, 1967. The current presence of Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank would instantly be transformed into the military occupation of one UN state by another. No one knows where this would lead, particularly with neighbouring Arab states now wrapped up in their own political upheavals.
But putting that uncertainty to one side, there is at least one strong element of good news here. For years, Western diplomats and opinion-makers -including those in Israel itself -have insisted that Palestinian claims to statehood would be taken more seriously if Palestinians stopped blowing themselves up and instead began building the trappings of a real, modern state. Influential New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, for instance, lamented in 2008 that "after Israel quit the Gaza Strip in 2005, Palestinians, instead of building Singapore there, built Somalia and focused not on how to make microchips, but on how to make rockets."
Very quietly, Messrs. Abbas and Fayyad have taken Mr. Friedman's advice. Their West Bank economy is now growing at an annual rate of 9%. A decade ago, Palestinians were synonymous in the media with human bombs: Who would want to give the powers of a sovereign government to such extremists? Now, the public face of the PA is two somewhat boring men who put on trade shows and celebrate the merits of direct deposit.
In Hamas-run Gaza meanwhile, the economy is a shambles, and the entire territory is regarded by Westerners (aside from the fringe Israeli-apartheid crowd) as one big terrorist enclave. Indeed, even pro-Palestinian boat-for-Gaza types are going to have to rethink their love affair with Hamasistan after the this week's killing of Italian activist Vittorio Arrigoni -apparently by a group of dissident jihadists even more radical than Hamas itself.
The combined message emerging from the West Bank and Gaza is that the path to a twostate solution in Israel and the disputed territories lies not through violence, but peaceful nation-building. Supporters of Israel may be concerned by a PA campaign for statehood that endruns Israeli negotiations. But the nature of that campaign at least shows a welcome turn in Palestinian tactics.
0 comments:
Post a Comment