As some of you may already know, the television channel "Tech TV" has been available in Canada without the use of an American satellite dish since September of 2001. The channel is not without it's faults though, as the "Canadian Content" rules apply to all channels, and that includes digital specialty channels.
The other day while watching Tech TV i was excited to hear that "Max Headrom" would be showing on the network in its entirety. I was a little too young during the "craze" in the 1980's and this would give me a chance to catch them, and even possibly tape them. I noted the times and then went to set a reminder on my digital box for the show, and found that I couldn't find it on my programming guide when it should be on. I searched with the box and came up empty, so I thought that perhaps the box wasnt updated and that i should just try again, later.
Come to today... Friday. The first episode aired a few hours ago in America and should be re-running twice this weekend... But it seems, not in Canada.
If you are familiar with Canadian Content laws (and who isn't), you already know that a network must show a certain ammount of Canadian programming during the broadcast day, and the only thing that I can fathom is that by airing Max Headrom on Tech TV, they would have to cut out an hour of programming that is most likely comminted to the "Dave Chalk" show, and that would put them in violation of the Can-Con laws.
So as a result, Canadians don't get Max Headrom.
Have you actually seen Dave Chalk?!? The other day this guy was reviewing a celeron 550 Hewlett Packard PC!
But hey, at least my culture is protected, right?
I should write a letter to the CRTC and thank them for protecting my heritage. Heaven knows that i might look out my window one day and think that I was an American if it wasn't for the television reminding me where I live every day.
Fscking CRTC. Bunch of socialist censoristic nitwits. If there is a single bee in my bonnet it is that bunch of clowns. I find examples of bull like that about once a month.
There is the obvious "Super Bowl" crap where instead of getting to see million dollar plus spots, we get to see commercials for Joe's oil & lube down the street. Then if we are lucky enough not to work, we can see a few of the choice ones the next day on the morning news show.
I won't even get into the whole NASA tv fiasco....
Then there is stuff like this. Personally I'd say you should write, but having sent several letters to them with zero response, even when asking for specific material, and information I'd say it's useless. They don't want anything to do with the average Canadian, as they are too busy protecting us from ourselves.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ranma Saotome" Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons,calgary.general,soc.culture.canada Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 7:20 AM Subject: Re: Thanks CRTC - This is one of the silliest examples yet of "protecting culture" yet.
Amen. And here I thought it was just me. My personal favorite is the big push to make DirectTV illegal. Gee...I wonder who's pushing the government to do that? Could it be our own anaemic cable and sat. providers?
Why even continue with the pretence that the government exists to serve the people? Anybody with half a brain cell knows they only exist to serve the interests of big business and themselves.
The big question is: what can we do about it? Call me a cynic, but I don't think they give a damn about anyone's angry letters.
Well, DirecTV now _IS_ illiegal here. That is what gets me. If they want us to be proud of being canadian, they should do something to make us proud, not over regulate what we see on tv.
"Doktersteve" wrote in message news:cx%A8.21105$[email]...
us
Actually it's not. They got a stay of execution--so to speak. It's been pushed off a couple weeks. Why should I not be allowed to subscribe to whatever programming I like?
How would you like to pay for a licence for rights to a product and then find somebody else selling it in your market, from behind their own protected turf, without having shelled out the bucks?
I don't like the idea of blocking DirectTV but rather, requiring that the proper fees be paid to the Canadian intellectual property licencees. There's a reason why the US government aggressively pushes against the warez copies of Microsoft in eastern Europe and China.
On Sun, 05 May 2002 10:31:00 -0500, "Gary L. Dare" wrote:
And I wouldn't have a problem paying for Direct Tv. It's head and shoulders above anything available here.
Maybe if we had a bigger population then it would be worth their (direct tv) time to give the government the required kickbacks and to figure some way of dealing with this Canadian content nonsense.
The Unexploded Scotsman wrote in message news:[email]...
You really think people would be willing to pay the going subscription rate, in US dollars, and pay a licence fee to compensate the Canadian owners of distribution rights on top? The story changes every week. First, it was "There are no Canadian services, so I have no choice." OK, I could see that. Then it was "Why shouldn't we be allowed to watch the Sopranos?" OK, less important, but I could at least understand it. But now we have Canadian services, and the Sopranos. There aren't enough really different programmes available to make it worthwhile to pay the full freight for American services, so the argument is really carried by those who steal the signals just because they can, and by those who just plain don't like anything run by and employing Canadians. And yes, I have watched HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime. The Candian services rotate more movies per month. I have watched ESPN. Whoopee ding! During basketball season, there is little other choice on that channel. I have watched Disney, our Family channel is just as good for kids. The American networks and superstations are all available to us. It is not about protecting Canadian culture, otherwise the Beachcombers would be on every channel, right? But it is about turf. It is about territorial rights. If Amway sold you $10,000 worth of products, then went to all of your customers and told them they could buy direct, would you be upset? If you were a GM dealer with 300 new cars on your lot, and GM went to your customers and told them they could order direct from the factory, would you be upset? If you spent money opening up a Rogers franchise in a mall, and Rogers opened up their own direct store next door, would you be upset? It's not a lot different.
On Sun, 5 May 2002 18:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Frederick" wrote:
Why would I have to pay a license fee to compensate the Canadian companies?
If Direct Tv was available here, people would be watching HBO directly from HBO, instead of having everything doled out piecemeal and 6 months late. So they'd finish off their existing distribution contacts and then stop selling it to starchoice and expressvu.
If these Canadian companies wanted to compete globally (it is satellite after all) then they should produce their own programming in Canada and make something worth watching. Let everything stand on it's own merit. HBO took some real risks in developing much of their own programming and it's paid off. It would be nice to see something similar here.
And that's life. It happens all the time. Read up on Subway.
Either way, this will all be a moot point soon enough. As bandwidth continues to grow, programming will start being available over the internet. At least until the cable monopolys start crying/lobbing/funding the government to start filtering everyones net access.
The Unexploded Scotsman wrote in message news:[email]...
rate,
You really don't understand, do you? What do you think these services would cost if they could come and compete directly with Canadian providers?How would any Candian provider be able to show any of the HBO or Showtime exclusive programmes if HBO and Showtime were on these other services. Why do people care so fucking little about the companies that employ their friends and family? Based on economies of scale, these services could undercut prices until ours disappeared, then up they go! After all, they are fed and paid for by a market 10 times the size of ours. And once Expressvu and Starchoice were gone, do you think any American provider would care if you got your local stations, or even any Canadian network feeds?
Do you really think any other countries would licence our satellite services to compete in their markets? Especially the Americans? Their government doesn't want them to have our lumber or our wheat, what makes you think they would level the playing field for satellite providers?
Let everything stand on it's
16,000 and some-odd restaurants in over 70 countries. So what? It's American. You just helped prove a point. This is a company that went international in a big way, but with the huge American market to give it the jump-start it needed. Just like lemmings, Canadians went there to eat, just as they did to Mickey Ds, Wendy's, Burger King, Dominos, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, etc, believing Canadian outlets could not possibly be as good. People are chomping at the bit to do the same thing with groceries. They honestly believe if Wal-Mart starts selling groceries in their towns they will suddenly be so much better off than they were shopping at Superstore and other Candian outlets. Americans want 3 things from us: money, water, and oil. That's it. We are stupid enough to want everything from them, and to complain when we don't get it.
Patrick Gallagher wrote in message news:[email]...
Research, my boy, research, before you speak! http://www.kentuckyfriedchicken.com/about/story.htm "When he was 40, the Colonel began cooking for hungry travelers who stopped at his service station in Corbin, Ky. He didn't have a restaurant then, but served folks on his own dining table in the living quarters of his service station. As more people started coming just for food, he moved across the street to a motel and restaurant that seated 142 people. Over the next nine years, he perfected his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices and the basic cooking technique that is still used today."
"Confident of the quality of his fried chicken, the Colonel devoted himself to the chicken franchising business that he started in 1952. He traveled across the country by car from restaurant to restaurant, cooking batches of chicken for restaurant owners and their employees. If the reaction was favorable, he entered into a handshake agreement on a deal that stipulated a payment to him of a nickel for each chicken the restaurant sold. By 1964, Colonel Sanders had more than 600 franchised outlets for his chicken in the United States and Canada."
"Mr. Frederick" wrote in message news:H0IB8.674$[email]...
Taco
stopped
but
a
himself
of
a
the
And may I add to that that the first FRANCHISED Kentucky Fried Chicken was in Salt Lake City. Mind you, the Colonel retained ownership of the Canadian company after selling the US operations.
On Mon, 6 May 2002 22:40:38 -0500, "Mr. Frederick" wrote:
]Patrick Gallagher wrote in message ]news:[email]... ]> Mr. Frederick wrote: ]> ]> ]> > Just like lemmings, Canadians went there to eat, just ]> > as they did to Mickey Ds, Wendy's, Burger King, Dominos, Pizza Hut, Taco ]> > Bell, KFC ]> ]> KFC started in Canada. Toronto to be exact :) ]> ]> The colonel (who is American) couldn't find backing for his little ]> franchise in the US, so he came to Canada. ]> ]> Patrick ] ]Research, my boy, research, before you speak! ]http://www.kentuckyfriedchicken.com/about/story.htm ]"When he was 40, the Colonel began cooking for hungry travelers who stopped ]at his service station in Corbin, Ky. He didn't have a restaurant then, but ]served folks on his own dining table in the living quarters of his service ]station. ]As more people started coming just for food, he moved across the street to a ]motel and restaurant that seated 142 people. Over the next nine years, he ]perfected his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices and the basic cooking ]technique that is still used today." ] ]"Confident of the quality of his fried chicken, the Colonel devoted himself ]to the chicken franchising business that he started in 1952. He traveled ]across the country by car from restaurant to restaurant, cooking batches of ]chicken for restaurant owners and their employees. If the reaction was ]favorable, he entered into a handshake agreement on a deal that stipulated a ]payment to him of a nickel for each chicken the restaurant sold. By 1964, ]Colonel Sanders had more than 600 franchised outlets for his chicken in the ]United States and Canada." ]
And, just for everyones information. Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's, also started out with KFC in 1956 and even introduced some memorable KFC stallwarts such as 'the bucket', and redesigned their menu so the stores became more profitable.
http://www.wendys.com/dave_history/meet_dave.html
Two years later (1958), Dave and his boss at that time, a man by the name of Phil Clauss, opened The Ranch House Restaurant. It was there that Dave met the enterprising Colonel Harland Sanders. Sanders was the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Clauss purchased a franchise from the Colonel, and, Dave Thomas was now selling chicken. Finally, in 1962, Clauss offered Dave the deal of a lifetime. Clauss told Dave that if he could bring four Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants out of their financial woes, then he would give Dave a whopping forty-five per cent of the business. Since he loved challenges, Dave went right to work on reaching his goal.
One of the first things Dave Thomas did was to reduce the menu down to a few choices. The main focus now became chicken. He used advertising techniques, too. Finally, the four restaurants picked-up business and they went on to become money makers. Dave started four more restaurants, also.
In 1968, Dave Thomas was thirty-five years old. He was also a millionaire. Clauss had sold the restaurants back to the corporate Kentucky Fried Chicken and made over a million dollars from the sale.
The following year, after years of hard work and perserverence, Dave's life-long dream came true when he opened his very first Wendy's Old-Fashioned Hamburger Restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. The name was was his youngest daughter's nickname. Her real name was Melinda Lou, but her older siblings nicknamed her "Wendy".
Since other countries except the US do take foreign services, like Murdoch's and AOL-Time Warner's, a Canadian service would likely succeed. Maybe that's the next frontier for the Aspers or the Craigs.
The US, on the other hand, is a closed market because any broadcaster has to be owned by US citizens (www.fcc.gov). That's why Asper never put in a bid for part of UPN when a dozen of its stations came up for sale two years ago. BBC America is actually a Discovery Communications channel, they have to prove that they have enough money in a joint venture worldwide with BBC (mostly in third countries) to cover the value of any services in the US, not a single pence from the BBC allowed.
So, how many of these non-US services (note that this is for satellite, not cable nor over-the-air which I was referring to) have been granted a spot on said list? Is there even one?
If any of this has moved beyond the proposal state then it's probably in kabuki theatre bureaucracy (you know what I mean if you watch the US sunday morning political talk shows).
Though of course, Izzy could've followed Murdoch's lead and applied for US citizenship, but he didn't (at least, not yet).
I read somewhere, after his acquisition of the WIC stations in Canada, that Izzy wanted to start up some service in the US. But unless it's a cable channel, it'll be hard to do, as he's Canadian. He was able to acquire or start up channels in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, as citizenship rules aren't as restrictive as they are in the US or Canada.
I think the citizenship rules only apply to over-the-air stations and networks -- they are not as restrictive for cable channels. Most of the foreign-owned cable channels in the US are ethnic services.
No, I think that would be paying for a condom franchise and discovering Trojan came along the next week and sold direct to all your clients.
problems
They are also working with the dealer network, though. They have to, because you can't get your defective alternator or tie rod replaced by sticking your mouse under the hood. Your CD-Rom also is pretty useless when it comes time to find out why you have no heat in your car.
In EVERY country, even the US, the local intellectual property licencees safeguard their investments in one form of protected market or another (ask yourself: why doesn't Izzy Asper own UPN or WB already? A: Not a US citizen (www.fcc.gov)).
I'm all for open, worldwide media but touting a service from one protected market in another is asking for one way free trade.
On Sat, 04 May 2002 06:31:47 GMT, "Doktersteve" wrote:
The same government that wants to help Canadian musicians by giving the big fat record labels 40 cents more from every blank CD bought in Canada, even if they're not used for music!
There's a petition to stop this, by the way: http://www.sycorp.com/petition.htm
More information: http://www.plesman.com/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=48531
4/30/02 12:08:40 PM - Every purchaser of recordable media will be compensating artists, even if they don't steal music
by Lynn Greiner <http://www.plesman.com/images/trans.gif> <http://www.plesman.com/images/dark_grey.gif>
Consumers and businesses will be paying a lot more for their recordable media beginning next January if the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) has its way.
It has applied to the Copyright Board to almost triple its levy on blank CD-R and CD-RW disks (to $0.59 per disk!), and to extract <a><img></a> a new levy from buyers of removable memory cards, micro hard drives and recordable DVD media. It also wants to raise the levy on audio cassettes.
Since the levy is collected by the CPCC from manufacturers and importers, this means that resellers of these items will befaced with considerably higher costs, as will their customers. Not only that, but because of the way the levy is collected, the final purchaser will have the privilege of paying GST and provincial taxes on it.
The rationale, says the CPCC, is that consumers are using these media to record music, and it seeks to compensate the artists and other stakeholders through the levy.
The fact that it is, in effect, declaring that every purchaser of recordable media is using it to steal music, and fining them in advance, appears to have escaped the CPCC.
Sure, it has published all sorts of fact sheets and position papers trying to justify the amounts it is requesting. It quotes "reliable research" that proves consumers purchase most of the CD-Rs sold, without specifying the source.
Yet, most companies I know of use substantial quantities of CD-Rs for legitimate, non-musical purposes. They distribute data (that has cost them money to generate) to their clients, as well as back up and archive files. Their costs will skyrocket if the CPCC gets its way.
For fun, I did the arithmetic and discovered the proposed levy on even our fairly modest usage would, over a year, be enough to purchase a PC.
The problem is twofold. It starts with a poorly thought-out law, which does not appear to recognize the possibility that (gasp) someone would record non-musical material. It contains no provisions for determining media usage, or for providing rebates for demonstrable data uses.
And its wording is sufficiently wooly that the definitions can be stretched in all sorts of directions. That gives the CPCC the opportunity to scoop up every penny it can, from all media sales. And since the notice that the levy is about to be set (usually for a two-year period) is in the Canada Gazette, many of those who would protest don't even know what's happening.
The Copyright Board, which sets the levies, does not have the power to correct any of these problems. It cannot dispense with the levy, or offer rebates to businesses. All it can do is determine the rates.
Two years ago, it substantially cut back the CPCC's requested amounts. It will do so again, if it receives sufficient proof they're too high.
That means businesses have to get involved, quickly, or have their media costs go through the roof.
Objections to the proposed levy rates must be filed by May 9. Full details (including the proposed rates) can be found on the Copyright Board's Web site at www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs/proposed/c09032002-b.pdf.
Lynn Greiner is vice-president, technical services for Ipsos-NPD Canada Inc. in Toronto. [email]
The blank CD and tape tax is OK by me. No, not all ofthem are used to copy copyrighted material but a large amount are and it is only fair and proper that artist, musicians and programmers get paid for their works. You would not like it if you were in a band and worked for years to put out the "perfect" album and then everybody comes along with a blank CD and copies it off the internet. That just plain ain't right or fair. KFC will not sell you a cup of Coke and let you bring it back and fill it up as much as you want either. I do agree with you about the record companies. Who needs them? With today's technology, the artist can sell direct to the public without the middleman.
Which is all well and good, but the article didn't mention exactly how this levy is going to get to the artists. Are they just going to hand it over to the record companies? Who's going to decide which artists get money from blank tapes? It sounds kind of half-baked to me.
Funny thing is, the artists and musicians, who are out loud and obnoxious about this <cough><cough>lars ulrich<cough>... sorry, something in my throat, I digress...
These people are the ones who make like $0.02 per album sold. They make the vast majority of their money through concerts (tours) and merchandising.
I can't believe none of them have come out and took a stance for the common mp3 collector. Sure it's biting the hand that feeds you, but surely some of them <cough><cough>metallica<cough>... sorry again... could afford to start their own record company, produce their own stuff and either sell it in stores or distribute it via the net.
I mean, I'm not going to lie to you, since mp3's came along, I haven't bought a single album. In fact, when most radio stations are saying "no one else has this brand new <insert pre-released song here>", I've already downloaded it and listened to it a dozen or more times.
They're never going to be able to stop that from happening...
PS- Let's not forget that bands like Metallica first became popular through widely distributed bootleg copies of their music...
This whole situation has nothing to do with Canadian content, and everything to do with $$ and the corrupt f$cking Liberal government. Rutherford was talking about this issue last week and Bell has made some HUGE contributions to the Federal Liberals. I have an Expressvu system and I'm so pissed off with the behavior of Bell, I'm hunting for a pirate card so I can say "SCREW YOU EXPRESSVU!"
"Doktersteve" wrote in message news:nfLA8.15847$[email]...
What about Max Headroom, eh? And b:, what about Max Headram? Random Access Memory instead of Read Only Memory! And c:, when SCTV is shown down here, the Mackenzie Brothers skits are edited out!
I think by not exposing you to Max Hedrom they are protecting you in many ways that you just don't appreciate. It was a terrible show and I don't even think there were that many episodes. It only ever got on the air because there was such a craze about the stupid coke commercials and they thought they people would actually want to watch thiry minutes of the annoyance.