ADISQ, which promotes the Quebec recording industry, raised two noteworthy issues in a French-language article earlier this week (Google's translation). First, it opposes lawsuits against individual file sharers. Instead, it supports actions against Torrent trackers and similar sites.
Second, it would like the CRTC to require ISPs to prioritize Canadian content, noting that if ISPs prioritize content for commercial purposes (ie. non-net neutrality) then they can be required to do something similar to advance Canadian culture. ADISQ is not alone on this one – a growing number of cultural groups want the CRTC to re-examine the new media exception and to consider rules that bring cancon-like requirements to the Internet. If this continues, the anti-net neutrality forces in Canada will include the ISPs, U.S. content owners (who want ISPs to filter allegedly infringing content), and some Canadian content owners (who want ISPs to prioritize Canadian content).
Update: It's not just ADISQ – the Montreal Gazette reports that 18 cultural groups, most Quebec-based, are behind this initiative for more proactive Internet-based regulation.
No! No! No!
The last thing we want or need is the CRTC meddling with Internet content. I am all for a Net-Neutrality type of bill that would prevent ISP’s from prioritizing content but to do the opposite, i.e. to prioritize certain types of content based on CRTC “guidelines” is a complete different matter.
For one thing, the Internet is an open, complex and worldwide network that is practically impossible to regulate. There are always ways to circumvent these types of regulations (just ask the Chinese with their “Great Firewall”).
Secondly, this would require small ISP’s to purchase expensive equipment to attempt to prioritize traffic. You are talking about DPI gear which can be expensive to purchase and maintain.
The music industry should just focus on giving customers what they want: cheap, available and DRM free music downloads. Some Indy labels get it but obviously the CRIA and Co. crowd are just clueless…
Haha, is there any such thing as a small ISP anymore?
Unless we go down the road that China, Italy and Russia has travelled, which requires content filtering at national borders in the worst cases, it is impossible to legislate the internet like this, being how it’s the WORLD WIDE web and all.
Why doesn’t the CRTC demand appropriate content on telephone conversations also? There is not enough “eh?” on the telephone wires, and that should be regulated.
Thomas, there are still hundreds of small ISPs and a lot of them provide high-speed services too. Check out [ link ]…
Yet more proof that the recording industry doesn’t get new technology…
How do they propose that Canadian content be identified for priority? Not all Canadian sites are hosted on servers located in Canada, so that won’t work. You certainly can’t do it based on the language of the content; Canadian content can be found created in many different languages (and that’s a good thing!).
Just how do the propose to do this?
So how’s this supposed to work? Google “Velvet Revolver” and the first 10 or so results have to be Canadian bands. Do a percentage of sites you visit have to be Canadian or else your connection is cut off or re-directed to a list of approved sites? Are Google and all 10,000,000,000,000,000 sites going to get the HBO treatment if they don’t play along?
And the sheeple will just upgrade to Vista and go along with it.
65% Canadian content… no problem. My home computer can be surfing websites 24×7. It’ll be all-Canadian except for a few hours weekend daytime, and workday evenings. Oh yeah, did I mention that I have a full-time job, and I only sit down in front of my computer a few hours weekend daytime, and workday evenings? Ever heard of cron jobs?
Imagine having a cop in our living room revising the percentage of canadian discas and books we have in our living room. What a modern concept.
How is China filtering their content? In essence isn’t this what the CRTC is proposing here? What happened to the freedom of speech, or am I way off the topic here?
[ link ]
PS: With the content filtering isn’t that one step closer to monitoring and ensuring that the content provided is regulated instead of the current technology where content is ranked based on relevancy?
Thanks Edward Palonek edwardpalonek.ca
“First, it opposes lawsuits against individual file sharers. Instead, it supports actions against Torrent trackers and similar sites.”
Are lawsuits against individual file sharers possible given the law as it stands right now? ie. prior to the introduction of the Copyright Bill (in whatever form).
How do you determine Canadian Content?
The title says it all. Is it information from Canadian sites? The would be akin to saying that everything played by a radio or TV station is CanCon (and we all know that isn’t true). Do you do it by file name? I can name the file anything that I want. Doesn’t mean that is what is in the file. In fact, a normal way to get around some email filters is to change the name of a file prior to attaching it. This would be an unenforceable regulation.
Richard Hardacre, president of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) seems to be the source of the Montreal Gazette report.
[ link ]
Perhaps the CRTC needs to be reminded about the Free Speech act and the idea that content should be not be filtered, the moment you start filtering content you might as well move the China. The definition to prioritize content is undefined as well as the list of “proffered” sites. Why don’t we just take away the free will to read, and the right to most “relevant” content – If they do that then at least they are honest in their intention.
Palonek http://palonek.ca @
PS as Kevin points it out. How do you determine and define Canadian content?.
I for one believe in filtering content…. though only of one type. The type spewed by organizations and politicians who have no idea what the hell they\’re talking about, written by media sensationalists who have no idea what they\’re listing to. Canadian content? so what determines if a content is Canadian? Any attempt to implement such a filter would make the Chinese filters look like child\’s play, not only do you have to filter everything going in and out of the country as well as that exchanged within the country itself, you\’d need to inspect everything not only for content, but evaluate the origin of said content, and whether such content could be considered Canadian.
The only redeeming point about the whole thing is the part about \”First, it opposes lawsuits against individual file sharers.\” Then again, its not as if this would have been a problem in Canada if there was not a push for new copyright laws that ignored the rights of the average individual.
@Edward Palonek: Actually, I\’d say this is already one step worse than the Chinese filters which is mostly on traffic going in/out of the country. What is promoted here would ask for something that goes beyond that and monitor as well as manually inspect ALL traffic entering, exiting and exchanged within the country to determine if it is \”Canadian content\” or not… although the reason behind this monitoring is not as \’sinister\’ as the Chinese filter (at least for now) the level of monitoring it indicates is much worse than that already.
Side note: You can define Canadian content by hiring random people without the proper backgrounds and arbitrarily leaving it up to their judgment, as it seems to be the case with the way a lot of Government branches seems to be operating these days.
I think we should filter the message coming from these lobby groups and their pet politicians for Candaian content. Of course the only thing we would hear from them is the occasion ‘eh’ they tag on to make it seem Canadian.
“I think we should filter the message coming from these lobby groups and their pet politicians for Candaian content.”
Filtering information is what DCMA wants in the first place. Information should be horizontal and unfiltered, thus you have information highway with no speed limits. Can you imagine if there were no speed limits on the QEW, or 401? [ link ] Edward Palonek