5 ms·

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 intern

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.
    - abandonliberty 12y ago
      You are correct, pure anarchy can provide the freest speech - until it causes retribution. Pure anarchy isn't great for society, so we have a of laws that trade speech for social benefit. Patent, copyright, criminal, civil. Granted, many of these are broken. I would propose that anarchy is a very undesirable state, so we need laws to protect free speech. Honestly, my heart goes very quickly to democratic free speech. And it's not the same thing. We only had it for a short period of time - the wealthy now have more speech again. Can you really have a democracy when speech isn't democratic? Net neutrality: It's more complex than a monopolistic problem. I would suggest you look more into it.
      - wyager 12y ago
        >my heart goes very quickly to democratic free speech. Democratic "free speech" isn't free. Democracy implies the majority can vote to silence the minority. The only speech that is truly free is anarchic, where no one can preclude anyone else from speech. That is why the internet, with its lack of hierarchy, is a particularly good vehicle for free speech. I don't care much for IP, so we may disagree there. I think any system that relies on violent coercion to (try to) incentivize production is undesirable.
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.

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.
  - abandonliberty 12y ago
    You are correct, pure anarchy can provide the freest speech - until it causes retribution. Pure anarchy isn't great for society, so we have a of laws that trade speech for social benefit. Patent, copyright, criminal, civil. Granted, many of these are broken. I would propose that anarchy is a very undesirable state, so we need laws to protect free speech. Honestly, my heart goes very quickly to democratic free speech. And it's not the same thing. We only had it for a short period of time - the wealthy now have more speech again. Can you really have a democracy when speech isn't democratic? Net neutrality: It's more complex than a monopolistic problem. I would suggest you look more into it.
    - wyager 12y ago
      >my heart goes very quickly to democratic free speech. Democratic "free speech" isn't free. Democracy implies the majority can vote to silence the minority. The only speech that is truly free is anarchic, where no one can preclude anyone else from speech. That is why the internet, with its lack of hierarchy, is a particularly good vehicle for free speech. I don't care much for IP, so we may disagree there. I think any system that relies on violent coercion to (try to) incentivize production is undesirable.

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.