dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
11125

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to El Quintron

to El Quintron

Re: Canadian private companies want more taxpayer subsidies

said by El Quintron:

said by BACONATOR26:

Not sure what law would be broken in Canada.

No laws are being broken because exclusivity agreements are between content providers.

But exclusivity and distribution rights are being violated, which are big, big dollars. You are right, however. It's a civil and not a criminal matter.
DKS

DKS to elwoodblues

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

It's not the copyright holder you are violating, it's the Canadian rights holder.

Sorry, that's not true. If you are accessing a program from the US from Canada for free, you have violated the rights of the copyright holder, who has lost the revenue they could have negotiated with a Canadian supplier. Basically, you are getting the free lunch. And there is no such thing as a free lunch.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

I'm sorry what have you been smoking?
To use an example.

CTV pays CW to air Arrow in Canada, they have paid $X. Now if CTV airs the show, or doesnt, the copyright holder has been compensated.

If I watch Arrow on CTV, or via a third party app in the US, the copyright holder has still been paid.

How many times have you read that one of teh Canadian broadcasters bought a show, and put it on the shelf, (no time slots to air it) simply to prevent a competitor from getting the show?

Once again, the copyright holder has been compensated. The Canadian broadcasters own no rights, except the broadcast and any ancillary platforms they may may negotiated to air that show on.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to paddy_g

Premium Member

to paddy_g
said by paddy_g :

well technically a USA vpn is technically illegal, your breaking the law,

What law am I breaking by accessing a US VPN?
said by paddy_g :

you live in canada and should access net flicks canada,

Seems to me that this is a largely untested legal theory. Should someone arrest my when I watch the US Fox feed from Buffalo rather than Global with an antennae?

So, the Government wants me to pay properly Canada licensed entities because those entities paid the Government for those broadcast rights? I don't recall getting my cut of those license fees. Ever. Who decided that it was the Government's right to sell access to me without due compensation to myself?

I don't see this going anywhere. The technological arms race will probably outpace ham-handed legislative attempts at stifling competition.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

But exclusivity and distribution rights are being violated, which are big, big dollars.

This is true, however I don't know how feasible it's going to be to enforce an agreement between two parties when the enforcement falls on a third party and they agreement is being violated by a forth party.

Let's take South Park as a practical example, it's not available on any Netflix except for the UK based one, AFAIK

So Comedy Central has an agreement with the Comedy Channel in Canada, and Netflix has no agreement with either of them, and can't carry South Park in Canada, so it doesn't.

The end user uses a DNS-redirection service to watch South Park on Netflix UK, as far as Netflix knows, they're actually accessing the service from the UK. So the only party that's going out of bounds here, would be the DNS-redirection user, and maybe the service provider.

It's going to be more and more difficult to enforce logistically, and morally because, in the case of Netflix it's a using a paid service inappropriately, and not outright infringement.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to elwoodblues

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

I'm sorry what have you been smoking?
To use an example.

CTV pays CW to air Arrow in Canada, they have paid $X. Now if CTV airs the show, or doesnt, the copyright holder has been compensated.

If I watch Arrow on CTV, or via a third party app in the US, the copyright holder has still been paid.

Only if you are watching in Canada. Watching on a US link, no.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Gheez DKS,

Sure they have, you don't buy "episodes" of a series, you buy the entire season. To continue with my example, CW doesn't care if one person or 1 million persons are watching Arrow on CTV, they've been paid. CTV loses in the sense in which the viewership is down resulting in lower ad revenue.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

1 recommendation

IamGimli (banned) to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

Another dumb law from the "Law and Order" Harper Government.I'd love to see a judge throw someone in jail for using a VPN (or DNS service) to watch Netflix.

Please explain what the current Government has to do with a section of the Criminal Code that was first drafted in 1985 and last revised in 1997.
said by humanfilth:

The problem with that is, people are still paying Netflix.
No theft of services.

Theft of service has nothing to do with that article of the Criminal Code. Besides just because you leave money behind it's still theft to take something that's not for sale, and the American Netflix service is not for sale to people located in Canada.
accord1999
join:2011-10-14
Calgary, AB

1 recommendation

accord1999 to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
But the amount that CTV pays is dependent on the audience size and demographics it gets.

In the extreme case that only one person watches it on CTV, then CTV cancels the Arrow and the CW gets nothing for the next year. If half of the expected audience watches the Arrow on CTV, it may keep it but re-negotiate the licensing fee.

If all the missing Canadian audience happened to watch it on the CW, it's of little benefit to itself since its primary advertisers probably aren't selling to Canadians and will not pay for Canadian viewers.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to IamGimli

Premium Member

to IamGimli
According to your link, it was last amended 2013-12-12.

Barry
join:2008-11-04
Burlington, ON

Barry to BGB

Member

to BGB

Re: Canadian Film Producers want a netflix "tax" and to stop vpn to us netflix

No exportable content please, we're Canadian film producers.

humanfilth
join:2013-02-14
river styx

4 edits

humanfilth to BGB

Member

to BGB
said by IamGimli:

theft of services.
Theft of service has nothing to do with that article of the Criminal Code.

All laws are based on a primary crime. And if that 'crime definition' violates the Charter, that law/crime-definition is struck down.
People pay Netflix. Netflix gets paid, no matter where you stream from.
We are citizens of the Internet and we sit our fat asses on the couch and travel the world digitally. And we do not support being blocked from travel or having our Right of Freedom of Communication blocked.

Check out the Charter of Rights and that section on 'Freedom of Communication'.
The big 3 media moguls(shaw/rogers/bell) have violated that Right for decades under their illegal 'signal substitution'.
Canada's TV networks are mostly just a repeat of U.S. TV channel content. Such a shitty business model to show other's creation and collect an easy paycheck without lifting a finger.
There is no law that says they have to carry the U.S. stations and they are now just bribing for the government to ban the U.S. channels, so they can shunt the blame.
Ban the U.S. stations from rebroadcast in Canada and thats the start of the cord-cutter revolution.

To be followed by....

Coming soon: the great Firewall of Canada. brought to you by Rogers and by Bell, with its TV Tax.
»www.cbc.ca/news/business ··· .2491463

Edit: and according to overly played commercials on Canadian TV, I must be the only one around who is not a drunk-driving, dope injection, family beater.
LastDon
join:2002-08-13

LastDon to DKS

Member

to DKS

Re: Canadian private companies want more taxpayer subsidies

said by DKS:

said by elwoodblues:

I'm sorry what have you been smoking?
To use an example.

CTV pays CW to air Arrow in Canada, they have paid $X. Now if CTV airs the show, or doesnt, the copyright holder has been compensated.

If I watch Arrow on CTV, or via a third party app in the US, the copyright holder has still been paid.

Only if you are watching in Canada. Watching on a US link, no.

If you are watching a US link that viewing rights have already been paid by the US rights holder to air that show.

if you watch it on cw , been paid for.
u watch it on ctv, been paid for.

TOPDAWG
Premium Member
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB

TOPDAWG to BGB

Premium Member

to BGB

Re: Canadian Film Producers want a netflix "tax" and to stop vpn to us netflix

I don't care law or no law. I'll watch what I want when I want. I don't even have cable so the so called poor cdn content folks don't make shit off me and can suck both me nuts.

I will say switching netflix reigns is great the UK has some great stuff. Truth be told netflix Canada really picked up its game too a lot of great stuff is on there. I use the cdn one US and UK myself. Some reigns have forced subs on everything it's to bad as some great movies in their native language such as English but have native subs you can't turn off.

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to elwoodblues

to elwoodblues

Re: Canadian private companies want more taxpayer subsidies

said by elwoodblues:

Gheez DKS,

Sure they have, you don't buy "episodes" of a series, you buy the entire season. To continue with my example, CW doesn't care if one person or 1 million persons are watching Arrow on CTV, they've been paid. CTV loses in the sense in which the viewership is down resulting in lower ad revenue.

True. But that is also based on estimated ad exposure and estimated audience. If you watch it through an illegal link, you and anyone else can't be counted. It's about metrics and how they play into the price paid. Screw the metrics and you skew the price.
DKS

DKS to LastDon

to LastDon
said by LastDon:

said by DKS:

said by elwoodblues:

I'm sorry what have you been smoking?
To use an example.

CTV pays CW to air Arrow in Canada, they have paid $X. Now if CTV airs the show, or doesnt, the copyright holder has been compensated.

If I watch Arrow on CTV, or via a third party app in the US, the copyright holder has still been paid.

Only if you are watching in Canada. Watching on a US link, no.

If you are watching a US link that viewing rights have already been paid by the US rights holder to air that show.

if you watch it on cw , been paid for.
u watch it on ctv, been paid for.

Only to watch it in the US market. The audience of leechers isn't paid for.
DKS

DKS to TOPDAWG

to TOPDAWG

Re: Canadian Film Producers want a netflix "tax" and to stop vpn to us netflix

said by TOPDAWG:

I don't care law or no law. I'll watch what I want when I want.

Guess what? It's not about you.

TOPDAWG
Premium Member
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB

1 recommendation

TOPDAWG

Premium Member

Really I had no idea I did not have the right to pay and see what I want. Fuckem let all cdn content die shit if I care.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS

Re: Canadian private companies want more taxpayer subsidies

said by DKS:

If you watch it through an illegal link,......

There's NOTHING illegal about the link.
Where in law does it say that you can't operate a VPN link?
If it is illegal, why isn't Gord Nixon, CEO of Royal Bank, doing a perp walk now? Banks use VPN's all day, every day.

Besides, there's no need to make VPN's illegal.
The NSA has compromised most VPN chips and can read what's going down the pipe, and I'm sure that their little cousin, CSEC, has also been given access to the keys. So CSEC reads every VPN and then hands you over to the Conservatives Canadian TV industry for a 3-year contract with substantial termination summary execution fees (your family pays for the bullet).

angryrant
@135.0.32.x

angryrant

Anon

another problem is that if you spent money to help keep the capitalism game show going then copyright bullshit hasn't been violated... if you purchased any computer equipment then you have participated in the money bullshit game... if it is all about f***ing $$$$$$

this is all that they care about $$$$$...
god...

rednekcowboy
join:2012-03-21

3 edits

rednekcowboy to DKS

Member

to DKS

Re: Canadian Film Producers want a netflix "tax" and to stop vpn to us netflix

said by DKS:

said by TOPDAWG:

I don't care law or no law. I'll watch what I want when I want.

Guess what? It's not about you.

Actually, that is where you are wrong. It is completely about me and every other consumer out there.

What you always fail to see is that it's not about the content provider. You cannot force someone to watch something they don't want to watch, no matter how hard you try.

To take this one step further. I have a TV sub, so the Canadian content providers are getting paid. Any shows I do watch, I FF through the commercials or mute them. I've done my part. If I cannot watch a show at the time specified by the provider and I did not record it on my pvr for whatever reason, they aren't losing money by me watching that show through other means.

Even if I did not have a sub. The content provider would not be getting paid through me regardless because I do not have a sub, therefore this is not lost revenue as I would not have paid for it in the first place. A loss of a perspective customer does not equate to lost revenue. You can't count the money before it's received.

You seem to think that just because something gets created it's an automatic cash cow. In fact the whole industry has this attitude. This industry needs to wake up from whatever dream world they live in because the world does not operate in this fashion. You don't deserve money just because you made something. The potential customers determine if what you made is worth the price you are asking for. Unfortunately more and more people are determining the gouging going on in this industry just is not worth it any longer. No amount of laws or regulations are going to force people to pay for something they have no desire to use.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

1 recommendation

IamGimli (banned) to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues

Re: Canadian private companies want more taxpayer subsidies

said by elwoodblues:

According to your link, it was last amended 2013-12-12.

ROFL

The ACT was last amended 2013-12-12, that specific SECTION was last amended through Section 18 of Chapter 18 of the Statutes of Canada 1997. That's what the following line at the end of the section means.
quote:
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 45; 1997, c. 18, s. 18.
said by humanfilth:

All laws are based on a primary crime. And if that 'crime definition' violates the Charter, that law/crime-definition is struck down.

rofl the pseudo-legal force is strong in this thread.

How about you provide any evidence of that section of the Criminal Code having been struck down on a constitutional basis by the Supreme Court of Canada. Case details please, preferably along with a link to that case as posted on CanLII (not that I expect you to know what that is).
said by humanfilth:

People pay Netflix. Netflix gets paid, no matter where you stream from.

Again, when you fraudulently trick someone to accept your money after they've made it clear that they do not wish to sell you the service they are offering the exchange of money is legally meaningless to establish colour of right. The fruit of a fraud is fraud itself.
said by humanfilth:

Check out the Charter of Rights and that section on 'Freedom of Communication'.

You're going to provide a better reference because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't actually have the words 'Freedom of Communication' anywhere in it. Here's a link to the Charter to help you dig your pseudo-legal hole even deeper:
»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· -15.html

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to rednekcowboy

to rednekcowboy

Re: Canadian Film Producers want a netflix "tax" and to stop vpn to us netflix

said by rednekcowboy:

said by DKS:

said by TOPDAWG:

I don't care law or no law. I'll watch what I want when I want.

Guess what? It's not about you.

Actually, that is where you are wrong. It is completely about me and every other consumer out there.

What you always fail to see is that it's not about the content provider.

Actually, it is. They own the intellectual property and they have the right to monetise their property in the way that want. That's what the law protects.

You seem to think that just because something gets created it's an automatic cash cow.

Not at all. The content creator simply deserves the opportunity to monetise their property. That's what copyright and trade laws do. Allow that to happen. When the consumer, for whatever reason (usually cheapness) wants to short circuit that, then the content creator as every right to cry "foul".
DKS

DKS to MaynardKrebs

to MaynardKrebs

Re: Canadian private companies want more taxpayer subsidies

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by DKS:

If you watch it through an illegal link,......

There's NOTHING illegal about the link.

There is if you are accessing material for which the rights have not been paid for. And it's a civil matter, not criminal.

Forlorn Time
@cloudsigma.com

Forlorn Time to rednekcowboy

Anon

to rednekcowboy

Re: Canadian Film Producers want a netflix "tax" and to stop vpn to us netflix

said by rednekcowboy:

said by DKS:

said by TOPDAWG:

I don't care law or no law. I'll watch what I want when I want.

Guess what? It's not about you.

forlorn
Actually, that is where you are wrong. It is completely about me and every other consumer out there.

What you always fail to see is that it's not about the content provider. You cannot force someone to watch something they don't want to watch, no matter how hard you try.

To take this one step further. I have a TV sub, so the Canadian content providers are getting paid. I've done my part. If I cannot watch a show at the time specified by the provider and I did not record it on my pvr for whatever reason, they aren't losing money by me watching that show through other means.

Even if I did not have a sub. The content provider would not be getting paid through me regardless because I do not have a sub, therefore this is not lost revenue as I would not have paid for it in the first place. A loss of a perspective customer does not equate to lost revenue. You can't count the money before it's received.

You seem to think that just because something gets created it's an automatic cash cow. In fact the whole industry has this attitude. This industry needs to wake up from whatever dream world they live in because the world does not operate in this fashion. You don't deserve money just because you made something. The potential customers determine if what you made is worth the price you are asking for. Unfortunately more and more people are determining the gouging going on in this industry just is not worth it any longer. No amount of laws or regulations are going to force people to pay for something they have no desire to use.

This ^^^^^ 100%.

Prices a currently far off from reasonable. In the entertainment sector, all cost are muddied and/or shrouded in mystery, there is no transparency and they (those that have already well settled into the business) keep doing accounting magic too keep their cost as low as possible and extract as much money they can from consumers. What kind of magic? Well, for one, VFX studios are being downright "enslaved" and "sub-contracted" by major producers where they work for months and months for literally free without compensation beyond the "hope" of making it big. Moreover, a lot of major studios are over representing their costs so that they can show that they made "little" or "no" profit on their production.

That's not all, I don't even need to mention music labels.... my god, how the world could had been a different place had they never taken hold like a cancer. Slowly but surely, kicking and screaming at their plight, they are a dying off. Good riddance.

Let's not forget what started it all with these stupid pricing disconnects; old school "art" (painting, sculptures, potteries, and whatever). Most "artists" cannot live off their own work. As macabre as it may sound, often, they need to "die" before all their masterpieces are actually considered as such, by then its too late and the profit goes from deep pocketed owner to owners. It is sad that things have been entrenched this way.

I hate seeing useless parasitic middle-mens/womens portraying artificial pricing based on whomever their talking to. So, in the end, why should I care considering my money does NOT actually go to whomever I have been led to believe that it is going to?

Fortunately, today, with the advent of our modern telecommunication, one can reach a greater and wider audience for their work without being at the mercy of whimsical "bureaucrats/curators" that may or may not share interest or understand the "true" value of your work. Of course, there needs to be a balance between the awful to mediocre work of a god-complxed idiot and the truly incomparable masterpiece of a reclusive hermit; but that is for the audience to decide, not me, not you, not someone else.

Overall, it doesn't matter, I don't go out of my way to listen to "pop" music neither do I watch "pop" movies/episodes/whatever. There is so much content/media available nowadays, my lifetime would not be enough to absorb them all. Most of my time is spent by just trying to live; exploring, working and sharing with people I meet along the way. If "The Beatles", "Lord of the Rings" or "Wall-E" turns up at some point, so be it.

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1 to MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

to MaynardKrebs

Re: Canadian private companies want more taxpayer subsidies

said by MaynardKrebs:

The NSA has compromised most VPN chips and can read what's going down the pipe, and I'm sure that their little cousin, CSEC, has also been given access to the keys.

Unlikely.

There are no VPN "chips". It's a server using a variety of encryption protocols. OpenVPN uses the OpenSSL encryption library, which does NOT use the Dual EC DRBG encryption algorithm, believed to be one weakened by the NSA. CSEC does not have access to the client or server-side keys unless they compromise them at either end.

Would CSEC spend the time and money to make sure you weren't watching a US version of Game of Thrones? Doubtful. Call me optimistic, but I think they have wildly more productive things to do....
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned) to DKS

Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by DKS:

If you watch it through an illegal link,......

There's NOTHING illegal about the link.

There is if you are accessing material for which the rights have not been paid for. And it's a civil matter, not criminal.

It's actually both.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

There is if you are accessing material for which the rights have not been paid for. And it's a civil matter, not criminal.

Therein lies the rub, because in this case I'm 99.9% sure the DNS-redirector service pays for Netflix access, (or peers them on such a mass scale Netflix should be paying them).

So if there's anything going on here it's unauthorized redistribution, but the transnational nature of Netflix, and the fact that the services are usually provided by hosting companies that are easily as big as Netflix themselves, it may simply be not be worth it for Netflix to pursue the companies that provide these services.

There are so many different to analyze this it's not even funny.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
said by DKS:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by DKS:

If you watch it through an illegal link,......

There's NOTHING illegal about the link.

There is if you are accessing material for which the rights have not been paid for. And it's a civil matter, not criminal.

Again, the link is not illegal. VPN's are NOT illegal.
Maybe watching some movie over a VPN infringes on somebody's territorial rights.
Maybe that watching is a civil matter, or maybe it will be criminal (TPP).
But the VPN itself is NOT illegal - yet.
fred999
join:2012-02-09
Scarborough, ON

1 recommendation

fred999 to DKS

Member

to DKS
The law is bad, and eventually will be changed, when enough people circumvent it.

Just like in the 30's when they tried to ban booze.

Just like for decades censorship laws.

Just like for decades pot has been banned, and now it's gradually changing as enough people flout the law.