7 ms·

>Netflix's kind of late-1990s view of the internet as some unregulatable space was dragged into the 21st century and was put on notice," said Carleton Universit

>Netflix's kind of late-1990s view of the internet as some unregulatable space was dragged into the 21st century and was put on notice," said Carleton University journalism professor Dwayne Winseck This bit scares me. The view of an open internet isn't a 'late 1990s' view, it's the view it should always be.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- cwyers 12y ago
  Especially in the case of Microsoft, it's more complicated than that. Microsoft is subject to multiple jurisdictions, being a multi-national. US courts are ordering the part of Microsoft that's under its jurisdiction to do something in another jurisdiction that Microsoft feels is against the law there. It's not that Microsoft feels itself above the law, it is in the position of trying to satisfy mutually incompatible laws, because the US and EU both claim jurisdiction in this matter.
abandonliberty 12y ago
Yes, it's unclear. The CRTC is arguing that Netflix is now a legitimate broadcaster subject to the same laws that govern traditional broadcasters. Open internet doesn't mean unregulated and lawless. In fact, we need quite a bit of laws and regulations to ensure an open internet.
- wyager 12y ago
  >In fact, we need quite a bit of laws and regulations to ensure an open internet. Patently false in theory and extremely debatable in practic.
  - DavidAdams 12y ago
    Keep in mind that laws may also exist to inhibit the powers of regulatory agencies. I believe that's what wyager is suggesting.
  - abandonliberty 12y ago
    Maybe we have different definitions of open. For me that includes freedom of speech and net neutrality. These things don't exist unless you make laws to protect them.
    - NolF 12y ago
      No, that is incorrect, you do not need laws to protect "freedom of speech". In fact it is very easy to go from a law that "protects" freedom of speech to one which limits it. E.g. You can say whatever you want as long as... The net neutrality issue is largely due to government granted monopolies and subsidies during the internet revolution era of the dotcom days. Now you have to content with monoliths and a very high barrier to entry by competition.
      - sha90 12y ago
        Oh the irony of this comment given that the very first amendment to the US constitution is a law protecting "freedom of speech". You know, the one that everyone talks about being so important and necessary for the American way of life.
        wyager 12y ago
        >the very first amendment to the US constitution is a law protecting "freedom of speech" The same constitution that is regularly ignored and shit on as part of standard practice? The constitution doesn't mean anything if the government doesn't follow it. We also don't need a government to tell us we have free speech on the internet; we have that by default. The only thing governments have the power to do on the internet is damage free speech (which they have done with great consistency).
    - wyager 12y ago
      > For me that includes freedom of speech and net neutrality. > These things don't exist unless you make laws to protect them. Net neutrality? Maybe. You could argue that network provision is a natural monopoly and therefore needs regulation to keep it "fair". Free speech? Absolutely not. There is no sensible way a law can make the internet freer (as in speech) than it is in the absence of law. Right now, any lack of free speech on the internet is directly due to laws. Please explain your reasoning.
- nickonline 12y ago
  I'm not sure what Canadian content rules the CRTC is trying to enforce, but if it's anything like 5% of content shown must be Canadian I'm not sure how they can enforce that as a content provider where the consumer picks what they want to watch. Additionally if noone is watching the Canadian shows how does the CRTC determine what % content they require netflix to provide.
  - Mikeb85 12y ago
    But with Netflix the consumer doesn't pick the content. They choose a 'channel' they want, just as they would on a normal TV. They don't pay per show, they pay for a curated service and then 'tune in', albeit on demand. The consumer doesn't choose what's on Netflix, they only choose what they watch. They don't choose what they pay for, they pay for what Netflix chooses. This is the same model as every content provider in Canada, which is why Netflix needs to abide by the same laws.
    - ende 12y ago
      Wrong.
      - Mikeb85 12y ago
        Why? Because internet, right...
    - ay 12y ago
      Is the parent comment a sarcasm ? If not - then it's completely incorrect description of how Netflix works. They have one month for free - so you can check for yourself how exactly it functions, before commenting. (disclaimer: I'm a happy streaming-only Netflix user for several years, and I do not own a TV, my cable subscription is internet-only).
      - Mikeb85 12y ago
        I've used Netflix... You've given no example or explanation whatsoever of how I'm wrong.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > The CRTC is arguing that Netflix is now a legitimate broadcaster subject to the same laws that govern traditional broadcasters. Netflix isn't a broadcaster at all. Netflix is unicast. And yes, that matters in practice, because broadcast spectrum is finite and broadcasters have to choose content on behalf of everyone. With Netflix the users choose what content is transmitted and can choose from arbitrarily many alternatives.
  - abandonliberty 12y ago
    Laws can change and will likely have to to cope with the new reality. This is how it starts. The specifics of the implementation aren't really relevant to anyone but lawyers at this time. The How is less important than the Why. How questions: Does Netflix have licenses for all possible content? Do they pay it out at per-view level? Netflix and other online streaming options are replacing traditional broadcasters who were legislated to ensure the continued survival of Canadian content.
mindslight 12y ago
Well to be fair, Netflix has as much relation with the Internet as Amazon has with asphalt.
rtpg 12y ago
It's not the idea of an open internet that he's alluding to, it's the idea of a place that goes beyond the laws of the land. The obvious big ones are Uber and Airbnb, but then we get into things like amazon and sales tax. And then there are companies like Aero , who construct elaborate legal fictions (having a million different antennas does not change much if your service is functionally equivalent to any VOD service by cable companies).
- godzilla82 12y ago
  Oh. The laws of the land! Dont use phrases like that as if they are some sacred scriptures from god. They were put together by a committee. Grow up. Do what is in your best interest and the laws of the land will be forced to change to the best interests of the people.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    I agree that there are regulations that shouldn't exist. But I like sales taxes as a mechanism for paying for public services. I don't dislike anti-subletting regulations (I really don't want to live next to a hotel). Sometimes regulations are there because of an experiment we already tried, and no amount of iPhone app magic will change human nature on certain points.
- caf 12y ago
  Aero's setup isn't a legal fiction, it's the exact opposite - they really do rent out a different individual antenna to each user. A legal fiction is a legal story that doesn't actually match the literal facts.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    Their legal fiction was that somehow that their "service" was renting out DVRs in their space, whereas if you looked at any of their copy or how they were positioned in the market, they were a VOD service. There argument is a legal fiction in that it doesn't match the service actually being advertised and offered. The implementation doesn't matter, because the end result is rebroadcasting material to members of the public.
Mikeb85 12y ago
Broadcasting over the internet is still broadcasting...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cwyers 12y ago
Especially in the case of Microsoft, it's more complicated than that. Microsoft is subject to multiple jurisdictions, being a multi-national. US courts are ordering the part of Microsoft that's under its jurisdiction to do something in another jurisdiction that Microsoft feels is against the law there. It's not that Microsoft feels itself above the law, it is in the position of trying to satisfy mutually incompatible laws, because the US and EU both claim jurisdiction in this matter.

abandonliberty 12y ago

Yes, it's unclear. The CRTC is arguing that Netflix is now a legitimate broadcaster subject to the same laws that govern traditional broadcasters. Open internet doesn't mean unregulated and lawless. In fact, we need quite a bit of laws and regulations to ensure an open internet.

wyager 12y ago
>In fact, we need quite a bit of laws and regulations to ensure an open internet. Patently false in theory and extremely debatable in practic.
- DavidAdams 12y ago
  Keep in mind that laws may also exist to inhibit the powers of regulatory agencies. I believe that's what wyager is suggesting.
- abandonliberty 12y ago
  Maybe we have different definitions of open. For me that includes freedom of speech and net neutrality. These things don't exist unless you make laws to protect them.
  - NolF 12y ago
    No, that is incorrect, you do not need laws to protect "freedom of speech". In fact it is very easy to go from a law that "protects" freedom of speech to one which limits it. E.g. You can say whatever you want as long as... The net neutrality issue is largely due to government granted monopolies and subsidies during the internet revolution era of the dotcom days. Now you have to content with monoliths and a very high barrier to entry by competition.
    - sha90 12y ago
      Oh the irony of this comment given that the very first amendment to the US constitution is a law protecting "freedom of speech". You know, the one that everyone talks about being so important and necessary for the American way of life.
      - wyager 12y ago
        >the very first amendment to the US constitution is a law protecting "freedom of speech" The same constitution that is regularly ignored and shit on as part of standard practice? The constitution doesn't mean anything if the government doesn't follow it. We also don't need a government to tell us we have free speech on the internet; we have that by default. The only thing governments have the power to do on the internet is damage free speech (which they have done with great consistency).
  - wyager 12y ago
    > For me that includes freedom of speech and net neutrality. > These things don't exist unless you make laws to protect them. Net neutrality? Maybe. You could argue that network provision is a natural monopoly and therefore needs regulation to keep it "fair". Free speech? Absolutely not. There is no sensible way a law can make the internet freer (as in speech) than it is in the absence of law. Right now, any lack of free speech on the internet is directly due to laws. Please explain your reasoning.
nickonline 12y ago
I'm not sure what Canadian content rules the CRTC is trying to enforce, but if it's anything like 5% of content shown must be Canadian I'm not sure how they can enforce that as a content provider where the consumer picks what they want to watch. Additionally if noone is watching the Canadian shows how does the CRTC determine what % content they require netflix to provide.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  But with Netflix the consumer doesn't pick the content. They choose a 'channel' they want, just as they would on a normal TV. They don't pay per show, they pay for a curated service and then 'tune in', albeit on demand. The consumer doesn't choose what's on Netflix, they only choose what they watch. They don't choose what they pay for, they pay for what Netflix chooses. This is the same model as every content provider in Canada, which is why Netflix needs to abide by the same laws.
  - ende 12y ago
    Wrong.
    - Mikeb85 12y ago
      Why? Because internet, right...
  - ay 12y ago
    Is the parent comment a sarcasm ? If not - then it's completely incorrect description of how Netflix works. They have one month for free - so you can check for yourself how exactly it functions, before commenting. (disclaimer: I'm a happy streaming-only Netflix user for several years, and I do not own a TV, my cable subscription is internet-only).
    - Mikeb85 12y ago
      I've used Netflix... You've given no example or explanation whatsoever of how I'm wrong.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> The CRTC is arguing that Netflix is now a legitimate broadcaster subject to the same laws that govern traditional broadcasters. Netflix isn't a broadcaster at all. Netflix is unicast. And yes, that matters in practice, because broadcast spectrum is finite and broadcasters have to choose content on behalf of everyone. With Netflix the users choose what content is transmitted and can choose from arbitrarily many alternatives.
- abandonliberty 12y ago
  Laws can change and will likely have to to cope with the new reality. This is how it starts. The specifics of the implementation aren't really relevant to anyone but lawyers at this time. The How is less important than the Why. How questions: Does Netflix have licenses for all possible content? Do they pay it out at per-view level? Netflix and other online streaming options are replacing traditional broadcasters who were legislated to ensure the continued survival of Canadian content.

mindslight 12y ago

Well to be fair, Netflix has as much relation with the Internet as Amazon has with asphalt.

rtpg 12y ago

It's not the idea of an open internet that he's alluding to, it's the idea of a place that goes beyond the laws of the land. The obvious big ones are Uber and Airbnb, but then we get into things like amazon and sales tax. And then there are companies like Aero , who construct elaborate legal fictions (having a million different antennas does not change much if your service is functionally equivalent to any VOD service by cable companies).

godzilla82 12y ago
Oh. The laws of the land! Dont use phrases like that as if they are some sacred scriptures from god. They were put together by a committee. Grow up. Do what is in your best interest and the laws of the land will be forced to change to the best interests of the people.
- rtpg 12y ago
  I agree that there are regulations that shouldn't exist. But I like sales taxes as a mechanism for paying for public services. I don't dislike anti-subletting regulations (I really don't want to live next to a hotel). Sometimes regulations are there because of an experiment we already tried, and no amount of iPhone app magic will change human nature on certain points.
caf 12y ago
Aero's setup isn't a legal fiction, it's the exact opposite - they really do rent out a different individual antenna to each user. A legal fiction is a legal story that doesn't actually match the literal facts.
- rtpg 12y ago
  Their legal fiction was that somehow that their "service" was renting out DVRs in their space, whereas if you looked at any of their copy or how they were positioned in the market, they were a VOD service. There argument is a legal fiction in that it doesn't match the service actually being advertised and offered. The implementation doesn't matter, because the end result is rebroadcasting material to members of the public.

Mikeb85 12y ago

Broadcasting over the internet is still broadcasting...