My thoughts on the 2020 Speech from the colonial Throne

This afternoon, on unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory currently the subject of treaty negotiation, a British colonial ceremony was held. With parliament only retaining British tradition, we were reminded by a "speech from the throne" that to this day the settler-state doesn't fully recognize the two groups who make up Canada: European colonialists/settlers and the peoples who had already been here for thousands of years.

As I read the text of the Speech from the Throne I noticed a few themes. I could easily put them under an overall headline of the continuation of narrowly harnessing European world views to attempt to further public policy goals.

• A  romanticization of over 150 years of the members of our European settler-state parliament dealing with challenges, with no recognition or harnessing of the experiences of the peoples who were already here for thousands of years.
• The continuation of the European entitlements vs responsibility world view around rights, which generate the wealth and power inequality at the heart of the gaps in social responsibility.
  
• A continuation of creating excessively large centralized entities which then need excessively large government regulatory and police interventions, rather than enacting policy to decentralize.

 

The speech properly recognized that we are in a series of crises, including not only COVID-19 but also climate change. There is also a crisis of legitimacy, where more Canadians are questioning the status-quo of how government has been operating.

Solving these problems requires far more change than postponing travel plans.  I believe it will require re-evaluating our world views, including abandoning the entitlement concept which allows individuals and groups to exploit resources (land, animals, people or ideas) to extract private benefit without any responsibility.  We need to think of rights as responsibilities we have to each other, not as entitlements we take from everyone and everything else.

 

Systemic racism is mentioned, but only in the unfortunately common "white" way of incorrectly believing that systemic racism relates to systems which include individual racists.  Systemic racism relates to the norms and practices within society or an organization. Good individuals can participate in systemic racism, as it is not about individual attitudes.

One large class of examples is the use of police forces as a top-down mechanism to ensure conformity to policies that deliberately avoid discussing the roots of the disputes that armed officers are thrown into. Those who are talking about defunding or abolishing the police are discussing changing our focus to solving societal problems at their roots.  This is not limited to the "war on drugs" or "war on mental illness", but many other government policy manufactured armed conflicts.

While claiming to recognize that Black Canadians and Indigenous Peoples are over-represented in the criminal justice system, the government had already stated it believed that criminal code amendments were needed for those who neglect seniors.  It is Canadian society, including the federal and provincial governments, that are neglecting seniors and yet through a "white" lens the solution is always seen to narrowly focus on criminalizing individuals.

I feel there is a similar problem with bringing up that it is unacceptable that any citizen be arbitrarily detained in relation to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. The same is true of Meng Wanzhou being detained in Canada as a barely veiled part of trade and other disputes between the USA and China.

The RCMP has excessively close ties with a specific subset of foreign agencies and foreign political interests, and none of the above listed people would currently be detained if it were not for the hypocritical structural failures of the Canadian government.  The Five Eyes (FVEY) membership overlaps with the countries that opposed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States -- all British colonies, with the UK itself being the fifth member of FVEY). This should cause us to openly question what world views and values these agencies have in common.

The government can claim in a speech that this is something for which all Canadians stand united, but that doesn't make it true.

The backward-facing discussion of "Web giants" is another example of the government trying to hide its own policy failures.  Our communications infrastructure involves government granted monopolies in the form of right-of-way for physical wired infrastructure and spectrum allocation for wireless.  Phone companies were created by provincial and federal governments, and cable companies via municipal monopolies.  While this infrastructure exists as a matter of government policy, private interests were allowed to buy up all these monopolies such that only a handful of private sector companies claim exclusivity over most of the right-of-way and spectrum.  These companies then also bought most Canadian media that would be communicated over those wires and wireless, including television stations, radio stations and newspapers. (Note: Given their lobbying record, I consider CBC to be a Bell partner and not a public service)

When companies involved in physical entertainment distribution (Book/tape/CD/DVD sellers including Amazon, DVD rental by mail including Netflix) wanted to move existing distribution online, they were blocked by these vertically integrated monopolists. When possible Canadian online competitors to cable were formed, the monopolists blocked it (convincing parliament to pass targeted legislation against already existing iCraveTV and JumpTV). The same was true even of companies that offered search engine services that could be paid by advertising. These companies that could not get big enough were forced out of existence, and those who did were forced to move into the media creation and/or distribution business in order to be allowed to exist at all in a policy world controlled by analog-era media monopolists.

So the "Web giants" are a result of failed government policy around phone and cable companies, and compounding these failures can't possibly solve anything.

I have come to believe that the only solution to this problem is structural separation. The monopolies, whether for right-of-way or spectrum, should be returned to municipalities and managed as a utility in the same way as all other critical infrastructure is.  All over-the-top (OTT) services, including two-way voice (phone) and one-way simultaneous video (cable/etc), would compete on a level playing field and no longer be legally allowed to leverage government granted monopolies.

Taxing new media to perpetuate problems caused by old-media monopolists will only make existing problems worse. This will only increase the cost of those services for Canadians, when those services are providing far better value than the old-media monopolists.

Shitts Creek was able to break the Emmy's record for the most wins of a single reason of a comedy only after it was able to break free of CBC and get wider distribution internationally on services such as Netflix. While we should be providing more stable funding to Canadian production through accountable government subsidies (not anti-competitive old-media entitlements), that money and any other subsidies should be moved entirely away from legacy OTT media companies (broadcasters, and BDU's like cable companies).

Having a "Universal Broadband Fund" is also counterproductive when that money is handed over to old-media monopolists.  Necessary government support from the provincial and federal level should only be to municipalities building their own municipal infrastructure, and never to continue the harm of allowing private-sector monopolists to gain unaccountable control over that infrastructure.  It is the local communities, through their municipalities, that should be setting infrastructure priorities and not those priorities being set in the boardroom of some distant private sector monopolist.

I was happy to hear a renewed commitment to reverse almost a hundred years of Canada's opposition to the policies that became the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada needs to abandon its colonial period, and no longer side with Australia, New Zealand and United States as settler colonies of the United Kingdom.  We should instead be moving forward with decolonisation in order to become a republic. As a settler Canadian I do not support the continued implication that Canada was formed only by two sets of European colonists (French and English), and that these Europeans took over this land through conquest rather than being honorable with our existing treaty partners and within ongoing treaty negotiations.

Yes, CBC, I'm waiting for Alias Grace to be on Netflix.

CBC runs InCanada, an "online" Canadian Media Panel. I put "online" in quotations because while the panel is online, the CBC's broadcaster bias is always visible in how they ask questions. The latest survey is no exception.

The survey was essentially about Alias Grace, a Canadian-American miniseries that will air on CBC on September 25, 2017, and on Netflix on November 3, 2017.

The survey typically conflates Netflix with broadcasters, when Netflix is not a broadcaster. This is about as nonsensical as confusing a radio station with a record store when discussing music, and yet the legacy broadcasters continue to try to push this nonsense.

I sometimes make the comparison to the difference between an outhouse and indoor plumbing: Like broadcasting, people made use of outhouses before modern conveniences like indoor plumbing came along. And like indoor plumbing, people aren't likely to want to go backwards once they get used to online streaming.

While outhouses still exist in places where indoor plumbing is not available, it is not the predominant way that people "do their business". Unlike with an outhouse, there is no sense of urgency to use the outmoded platform to watch Alias Grace.


The survey asked if I saw the American series The Handmaid's Tale (TV series). While this was distributed by Hulu starting in April 2017, the series was blocked from Canadian access by Bell until they made it available on CraveTV in late July. Bell blocking, hiding and/or delaying lawful access to content is typical, and I consider them to be the largest Canadian contributory copyright infringer for their ongoing inducement of infringement.


If the NAFTA negotiations were intended to modernize trade relations within North America, the trade barriers disallowing cross-boarder shopping for telecommunications services and creative content would be a top priority. I believe we could massively reduce copyright infringement in North America if we moved to a single content market, where creators from the entire of North America had unrestricted access to the audiences of North America. That includes the content distribution services. North American audiences should also have the right to subscribe to any North American streaming service, and regional content restrictions within North America would be prohibited.

The concept of Canadians not being to view content at the same time as US audiences, including having the option to subscribe to the same online distribution services, must quickly become a distant memory.


Canadian Content policy should be focused on content, not on outdated distribution mechanisms. Hopefully a pro-free trade agenda will be part of the current Heritage Minister's thinking: you can't promote Canadian production capabilities and wide global distribution of Canadian content while still allowing regional content blocking.


Bell's anti-free trade agenda is trying to push policy in the opposite direction, including asking for mandated blocking when Canadians wish to access content that is not lawfully streamed in Canada. Bell is asking for mandated blocking because they want competitors to have to block the same competing distribution sites Bell already wants to block, which is also why they oppose VPNs (Apparently the technology, not only the perfectly legitimate cross-boarder-shopping use).

If I wanted to watch The Handmaid's Tale when US viewers were (or those that can tolerate the smell of an outhouse/broadcaster), or on the devices of my choosing, I would be forced to infringe copyright (easiest) or use a VPN (Less convenient, but currently more lawful).

There was no sense of urgency to watch The Handmaid's Tale. While there are shows that are important enough to me that would warrant finding alternative streaming options, none of these TV series based on Margaret Atwood novels are of sufficient interest.


My wife and I watched Handmaid's Tale on CraveTV. CraveTV is a horrible streaming service: there is a difference between the indoor plumbing at a 5-star hotel and an out-of-the-way truck stop. We only watch programming on CraveTV when it is not available anywhere else. The CraveTV Android App crashes fairly regularly. CraveTV works on few of my devices, compared to Netflix which pretty much always works -- and Netflix even has a simple app built into the SmartTV such that my wife and in-laws can also use it (CraveTV is too messy for less technical people to put up with).


While CBC isn't as bad as Bell when it comes to policies, I believe their outdated broadcaster-era thinking is harmful to Canadian creators and taxpayers.

Van Helsing #DigiCanCon via Netflix Canada

I just finished season 1 of Van Helsing via Netflix Canada. Filmed in Vancouver with most cast members being Canadian, this is the type of Canadian content that makes me feel proud of Canadian talent.  There were so many familiar Canadian actors from other series out of Vancouver including Flash and Sanctuary, and it even had Amanda Tapping directing 4 episodes. Nomadic Pictures, the producer, operates out of Calgary.

I'm excited to hear that season 2 has already been ordered, and that production starts next month.  My hope is that for future seasons that legal Internet distribution will be simultaneous with any broadcast-era distribution.

The Wikipedia page for the series suggests that some fortunate events happened for this to be released on Netflix Canada on December 23'rd (after the September 23 broadcast launch) rather than being tied up in broadcast-only licensing for much longer : Super Channel's ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. In earlier articles (Ad free CBC? Why not shift money to creators? and Space (Bell) has no Class when it comes to protecting copyright) I discussed how I consider broadcasters and BDUs to be in a conflict of interest when it comes to the modern lawful distribution of video content. I consider it a sign of ongoing progress when broadcast channels close and new OSI layers 3+4 (what ISPs provide) neutral video distribution systems open (like the launch of Amazon Prime Video in Canada).

I hope that in the new year we will continue to see more Canadian content with wide international distribution on modern layer-6 neutral video distribution services like Netflix, Google Play, Amazon Prime Video and CraveTV. I further hope that opponents to the ongoing cycle of technological change like Denis McGrath, councillor for the Writers Guild of Canada, will not be able to confuse politicians into continuing to favor broadcast-era distribution and distributors over the interests of Canadian creators and Canadian audiences.

Creator groups must Focus On Creators

When the current Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly suggested that someone saying "Without culture, nobody would be on the internet" was thoughtful, and possibly even a new idea, I became aware that this is a area of policy that is new for Ms Joly.

We now see a new campaign aimed at the Minister called Focus On Creators launched by several associations which has a similar message the Minister may not have a context for.

While I am an author of software and non-software works, and in my policy analysis and activism I always have a Focus on Creators, I do not agree that all the groups who are promoting this campaign have that same focus.  All too often representatives of these groups claim the interests of some intermediary is synonymous with the interests of a group of creators, and are focused on that intermediary.
 

Technology giveth, and technology taketh away

It is normal technological and societal progress that new technology disrupts old technology, as well as the businesses and business models that formed around the older technology.

As new communications technology comes forward the creators that embrace it will succeed, and those who do not will tend to have diminishing audiences as well as diminishing financial success. When yet another communications technology comes forward to disrupt that technology, those who succeeded with the older communications technology either need to move forward or be as left behind as those who did not embrace the previous generation of technology.

From a public policy standpoint the most important thing to remember is that while technologies and the businesses that surround them will come and go, there is absolutely no reason for the interests of any specific technology provider to be thought of as synonymous with the interests of the cultural and content industries.

Opponents to the ongoing cycle of technological change

This cycle has been true since humans first started to write stories down.  There were those who thought storytelling would die if it was written down and not kept alive by storytellers passing it down from generation to generation.


There have been quite strong personalities that have been opposed to change.

• Composer John Philip Sousa was hostile to recording, arguing in 1909:

"These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."

• Jack Valenti, longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America, was also hostile to new technologies suggesting in 1982:

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

• Denis McGrath, Canadian screenwriter and councillor for the Writers Guild of Canada, a little over a week ago had the following to say about Netflix:

"So if you were to take this out of the context of an argument about film and television, I would make the case that what we're talking about here is industrial dumping. We have laws against stuff like this."

While Mr McGrath's words may be the most recent, what he is expressing is similar to what has been said throughout written history.  There is no reason for anyone to believe the current technological changes are all that different than what we have seen in the past: some creators who tie themselves to a specific previous generation technology (and the companies and business models that form around that technology) will have problems succeeding, and creators who embrace the new technology under its own terms (including related business model changes) will prosper.

I've interacted with Mr McGrath only a few times over the years (as he tries to quickly end conversations), but all evidence suggests that he confuses the interests of the creators of television with the interests of broadcasters.  Broadcasters are the companies that formed around a very specific type of distribution technology, and should not be seen as being part of the content creation or cultural industries. Mr. McGrath and some others in the "small screen" (Television) industry have gone so far as to suggest that anything that uses wired and wireless means of communicating small screen shows, whether that communication is programmed or not, should be regulated as if they were broadcasters.

I provided more details for this scenario in: Ad free CBC? Why not shift money to creators?
The shortform is that Netflix is not a broadcaster.  While this claim helps the interests of companies that are actually broadcasters, it harms the interests of creators of "small screen" shows.

Creator groups must Focus On Creators

In my participation in Copyright revision process starting in the summer of 2001 I have interacted with many fellow creators from a wide variety of creative sectors.  I have come to know many of the creator groups and their spokespersons. I have formed a good sense of which ones are helping members navigate change, and which ones have confused the interests of their members with the interests of specific intermediaries (technology providers, business model services, funding agencies, etc).

As a creator I can't sign on to this specific "Focus on Creators" campaign.  While I strongly believe that related government policy should focus on creators, I do not believe the groups behind this specific campaign are actually focused on the interests of creators.

Intermediaries sometimes barriers to creators getting paid

During the DigiCanCon consultations, many creators wanted to speak about funding.   I believe it is important for the Minister and the department to be aware of some of the barriers some intermediaries have been putting up to creators getting paid.

We are often told how copyright infringement is a cause of declining revenues for creators.  If we focus for a moment on scripted content for the big screen (Movies) and small screen (Television) we see a number of barrier put up by specific intermediaries which make it hard for audiences to access and pay for that access.

• "Heritage Minister and Department must reduce barriers between creators and audiences" is an article discussing issues one Canadian writer and director came up against when making his movie available to audiences.
• "Notes from watching Supergirl via VPN" and "Space (Bell) has no Class when it comes to protecting copyright" discuss the problems with accessing and paying for "small screen" content, and how the business practices of Canadian broadcasters and BDUs are inducing people to infringement.
• Minister Joly wrong to want to bring tech companies "into the system". reiterates using both screen format content as examples.

Video creativity is not the only creative sector where we see changes in technologies, and the related changes in business models, being claimed to be a threat to creators.

• "Access Copyright activism disconnected from realities in educational publishing" discusses how some author activists, most notably specific individuals associated with the Writers Union and the Professional Writers Association of Canada, confuse the interests of Access Copyright with the interests of writers.  New technology has made direct licensing via online databases easier, as well as new peer production mechanisms possible, and the educational community is moving in that direction.  This only has an impact on fiction authors because of their ties with Access Copyright, with Access Copyright's primary money being an unrelated marketplace for non-fiction educational works that is being disrupted by modern technology.  The so-called "educational fair use" debate is largely about modern technology disrupting Access Copyright's older business services.

During the Bill C-32/C-11 consultations there was considerable discussion about the music industry.  In that case the interests of major labels were being confused with the very different interests of composers and performers.   The major labels were primarily a specialized banking sector formed around the high costs of the technology used to record and distribute music.  Technological advancement changed this business dynamic to where a successful industry flips the power dynamic to one where the interests of composers and performers must be the focus, and labels are only the "hired help" when and if needed by the musicians. In other words, a "Focus on Creators" is a focus on the interests of composers and performers, which are interests quite different from major labels whose interests often conflict with creators.  In Canada the major label interests are represented by "Music Canada", one of the groups behind this campaign.

Minister Joly wrong to want to bring tech companies "into the system".

I own Samsung and ViewSonic televisions,  Philips and Panasonic DVD players, and mobile devices from ASUS, Huawei and LG.   I don't think I know anyone who only uses Canadian designed and manufactured technology to watch scripted programming.  I never heard a Minister of Canadian Heritage claiming that these technology companies should be brought "into the system", confusing these technologies as being part of the broadcast system and thus should be regulated as part of it.

Why does Minister Joly apparently believe that other technology products and services such as Netflix, Google (YouTube, and Play Movies and TV), or Amazon Video should be brought into the system?  These technology companies are no more part of the system than the hardware manufacturers.


When discussing how Canadian Content Creators harmed when Netflix claimed to be a "broadcaster" I discussed the differences between content libraries and broadcasters/BDUs.  There is a need to regulate companies using Canadian airwaves such as broadcasters, as well as those putting wired above and below public and private property (something that would otherwise be trespass) such as BDUs and telecommunications companies.

None of these regulatory reasons apply to technology companies offering content libraries or technologies used to access content libraries.  Online libraries are not in any way part of the "broadcast" system, and should be regulated as providers of technology products and services as is the case for other technology products and services.

This outmoded way of thinking of "online" content distribution as being related to "broadcasting" is harming both Canadian creators and Canadian audiences.

 

Barriers to Canadian Content creators reaching audiences.

On Wednesday I wrote about the case of writer and director Christopher White who is using Amazon Prime video to distribute a movie.

My #cdnfilm is now on Amazon Prime. 400+ M Potential audience. Didn't cost a $. There are no barriers. https://t.co/wlaGSTtCmC #DigiCanCon pic.twitter.com/9kUPehMz3Q

— Christopher White (@CWhite20XX) November 22, 2016

Amazon is already a content distributor in Canada, but only when the movie or TV series is stored on DVD and Blue Ray disks.  Their Amazon Video service is not currently offered in Canada, most likely because of regulatory barriers and other red-tape when dealing with Canadian governments -- most likely policy under the jurisdiction of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Why is Minister Joly threatening to force Amazon Video to be "part of the system" if it enters Canada, while Amazon's existing distribution of physical disks to Canadians doesn't concern her?  The Minister should be trying to reduce barriers to Canadian content creators, not erect new ones!  It's not her job to "build a wall".

 

Barriers to Canadian audiences accessing Canadian Content

While some narrowly concern themselves with the headquarters of the company financing the production, or the nationality of some tiny number of writers, I consider the amazing creativity filmed and and produced in Canada to be Canadian content.  I've been a big fan of the Stargate and related franchises (including Sanctuary), Battlestar Gallactica, and recently all the DC comic Superhero series -- all primarily out of Vancouver!

I have been looking forward to next week's DC Superheros Crossover Event since it was announced last spring.





Because of the type of thinking that Minister Joly is demonstrating, the event may be ruined for me as I may not be able to see the first episode of the event before I watch later episodes.

All 4 shows are financed by The CW network.  Unfortunately because of broadcast-era regional licensing these shows are not made available directly to Canadians in a single modern first-run content subscription library (such as Netflix), but on distribution channels controlled by "Canadian" broadcasters.

Three of the four series are exclusively licensed in Canada by CTV, and Supergirl is licensed by Showcase.

While Bell owns both CTV and CraveTV, new episodes are not made available on CraveTV as that service is operated as a second-run service and isn't attempting to compete with first-run content library services like Netflix.  This outdated attitude more than anything else is likely why Shomi failed as Canadians want a first-run streaming content library which makes new episodes of series available as soon as they have been published.

I've been having a hard time watching Supergirl via Showcase -- first their website was so poor that I was having a hard time enjoying the show.  Then I gave up and paid money via Google Play for the season 2 pass.  It is now Friday, and Monday's episode is still not been released by Showcase for Canadian viewers.

I may, if I'm very lucky (unlikely) get a response from Showcase to my various only questions (twitter and email), and have Mondays episode available in time. It is far more likely I will be forced to get from some other source (VPN to access US source, or some "other" less authorized source).

I'm left wondering why I have to deal with Showcase, CTV or Bell at all?  I'm not interested in going back to broadcasting or BDU services to access scripted programming any more than I'm interested in giving up indoor plumbing and other modern conveniences.   There is no reason for the government to be supporting regional exclusive licensing in a world where technology makes most of these restrictions counterproductive (See Bell's inducement of copyright infringement).

Audiences should be able to directly access these shows from the copyright holders, not from some irrelevant and outdated country-based intermediary.

(Update:  Notes from watching Supergirl via VPN)

Core cultural policy changes

While I have written a series of articles during the DigiCanCon consultations, if there is one thing I can recommend to the Minister of Heritage and the Department of Canadian Heritage is that they need to separate the creation, distribution and access to Canadian content from each other.  Having the entity that distributes the content be "Canadian" is no longer any more relevant than the brand of television people are using in their homes.  Thinking that entities which are carrying out activities entirely unrelated to broadcasting should be brought "into the system" is facing backwards into the past and rejecting the possibility of supporting Canadian content into the future.

• Canadian Content funding should be to creators, not intermediaries
• Each different content distribution mechanism should be regulated separately.  Online content libraries are no more part of the "broadcast" system than retail DVD distribution is.  These retailers do not not use our "spectrum" and they do not use "right of way" privileges to put wires above and below public and private property.
• Barriers for creators reaching audiences should be removed.  If this means actively soliciting non-Canadian content-distribution companies to offer their services to Canadian creators and audiences, then that should be quickly pursued.
• While broadcasting is a different market, legal content libraries directly compete with copyright infringing content libraries.  As a measure to reduce copyright infringement, the Canadian government should be supporting (financially and otherwise) legal content libraries.  For those who believe that infringement is a substitute for payment, they should support the government creating as many new payment options as possible.

Quick ways to contribute during final week of #DigiCanCon consultation

The deadline to participate in the Canadian content in the digital world consultation is this Friday, Nov 25, 2016 (See end of post). While you may not have time to publish your own ideas, you should still take the time to voice your support for ideas you agree with.

As a new media supporter who "cut the chord" (well, unsubscribed from Cable TV -- the cabling is still all over the house ;-) a few years back I have a pro-Internet perspective. This is true regardless of the type of creativity we are talking about, and while most of my submissions focus on scripted television (as much of the other submissions did), the ideas apply equally regardless of the type of digitally stored and communicated content.

As a software author and fan of the creativity of others I want Canadian creators to be well paid for their contributions, but don't believe that subsidizing old-media intermediaries is the way to do it.

I have made a number of submissions to the consultation since it was launched in September.    What I'm hoping you can do today is click on one or more of the links below to my submissions and, if you agree with them, vote them up.

Subscribing to the consultation site is easy. Where it says "sign In | Register", you can do so using your existing Facebook or Twitter account.  You don't need to remember yet another password to interact with this consultation site. There are only a few extra things you need to fill in to register the first time, and it only takes a few moments.

So please register (or sign in again, if you have already been there) and take a look at the following ideas. 

Ideas from Russel McOrmond

• 30 ideas in one: Defend #DigiCanCon through Modern Management of Communications Convergence
• Canadian Content Creators harmed when Netflix claimed to be a "broadcaster"
• Subsidise services like Netflix as a measure to reduce copyright infringement
• Heritage Minister and Department must reduce barriers between creators and audiences
• Recognize that citizen choice protects creator rights: The customer is always right.
• Ensure results of government subsidized creativity is available to all Canadians
• If a Netflix tax is created, it must be conditional on results being available through Netflix
• Modernise Copyright law to focus on "low hanging fruit" of contributory infringers
• Return CanCon policy to being centred on Canadian audiences
• Reduce animosity expressed by cultural industry against technology industry
• Links between digital copyright and online voting

Other ideas I voted up

I only voted up a few ideas as most of the ideas seem to be from old-media folks who want to increase taxes and/or levies on neutral communications technology to subsidize the content industry.  There is also a lot of protectionism talk (IE: only allowing Canadians to work on Canadian projects), which is counterproductive if we want our talent to earn a living in the larger global marketplace.  Protectionism is incompatible with expanding to global markets, and the bulk of what I saw on the site were impractical or counterproductive ideas.

• Support the development, production, distribution and promotion of Canadian content by funding its creators and producers.
• Watch what I want, when I want
• More Canadian content on video streaming services
• Expand material available to consumers!
• Keep Can-con out of streaming

If I missed any that are worthy of being voted up, please let me know in a comment.

---

Seems there was a mistaken tweet this morning from @CdnHeritage suggesting that Wednesday was the final day for submissions.

That tweet was deleted:

Creators, distributors & consumers: tomorrow is the last day to have your say in our #DigiCanCon consultation https://t.co/3QTlGoJ5pV

— Canadian Heritage (@CdnHeritage) November 22, 2016

An older tweet confirms this Friday.

Please retweet! November 25 is the deadline to contribute to our #DigiCanCon consultation. https://t.co/4V4fZ1rkMy

— Canadian Heritage (@CdnHeritage) November 19, 2016

Making sense of the #Netflix, ISP, ICT #DigiCanCon tax

There are a number of people active in the DigiCanCon debate that are claiming that Netflix isn't paying its fair share of taxes and also that Internet Service Providers (often meaning Internet transit routing providers, or access providers) and other parts of the Information and Communications Technology industry should pay special taxes to subsidize the content industry.

As there are a wide variety of issues being lumped together, I'll try to break them down and comment on each individually to make sense of them.  The types I have seen so far are as follows:

• GST/HST issues
• Canadian Media Fund contributions
• Copyright levies on content distribution mechanisms
• Because the ICT industries somehow owes the content industry

GST/HST issues

There are many flaws with the GST/HST, but I'm confused what these flaws have to do with a Heritage Canada consultation, the content industry, or parts of the ICT industries.  When people say they are against a Netflix tax, this is not what they are talking about.

There is an important matter of the perception of fairness, whether or not the amount of money is small.  There is no reason for Netflix to be called out as if they are somehow being dishonest when it comes to taxes.  Netflix should be treated as any other company offering a subscription to a digital multimedia library.  They should be treated as any other company headquartered outside of Canada that does business with many Canadians.   They should not be taxed as if they were delivering a physical product across the boarder as they are not.  They should not be taxed if if they were broadcasting as they are not.

Much of the rhetoric on GST/HST has little to do with taxes, and everything to do with trying to find fault with a foreign headquartered company providing Canadians (including content creators) an extremely valuable service.  One, I might add, that Canadian companies part of the vertically  integrated and concentrated Canadian media companies aren't even trying to offer.

If any Federal Minister outside the Finance minister should be active on the HST file, it should be the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Honourable Catherine McKenna.  We need to modernize tax policies to make repair cheaper than replacement, and one way is to increase taxes on products (the "Goods" part of GST) and remove taxes on services.  We should be encouraging digital distribution over the manufacture and distribution of physical product.

When the HST replaced the GST this increased taxes on services, when a much more environmentally responsibly policy would have been to remove services from HST entirely.

The payment of a membership fee that grants network access to a multimedia library is a service that I believe shouldn't be paying HST, while the manufacture of physical media and distribution via physical transport of physical media (a DVD rental service, like Netflix did in the past) should.

Canadian Media Fund

This is a fund established by the CRTC to levy broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) as well as receiving money from the department of Canadian Heritage (Canadian federal taxpayers).  As Netflix and ISPs are not BDUs, that should be the end of the conversation but it hasn't been.  There are those who are suggesting that the mandate of the CRTC should be expanded to collect levies from industries which are outside what the CRTC would normally be regulating such that entities which aren't broadcasters, BDUs, or telecommunications companies can contribute to the CTF.

In a longer submission that included 30 DigiCanCon ideas I suggested this is a counterproductive proposal.  Rather than expanding the role of the CRTC, all funding programs should be removed from the CRTC.  A funding program like the CMF should exist as far as the destination of funding is concerned, but the source should be tax money accountably flowing through Heritage Canada.

Some funding recipients don't like this idea as they are worried about ongoing cuts to government funding programs.  What they are essentially asking for is for their funding to be less visible and thus less accountable to Canadian taxpayers.  Rather than trying to get funding under the table they should be doing more to promote their value to Canadians.  This includes reducing animosity with the public, a topic I'll be discussing later in this posting.

Copyright levies on content distribution mechanisms

This is a close relative to the existing Private Copying regime that levies audio recording media for the purpose of compensating music authors, performers and makers of sound recordings for activities which would otherwise require permission under copyright.  The idea would be to extend a similar levy to other distribution mechanisms such as the Internet itself, applicable to a larger range of copyrighted works.

I believe the government, possibly outside of the Department of Canadian Heritage, should study the impact of the existing regime before contemplating a new one.  While this regime is claimed to increase revenues to creators, all evidence I've seen is that it reduces revenues.

• Indirect statistics based on different content distribution mechanisms are used to distribute royalties, so the wrong copyright holders are compensated.  This creates a disincentive for new entrants, and is generally unfair.
• The regime is hard to explain, and audiences presume it covers more than it does, so the regime induces copyright infringement
• The more types of copyrighted works that are included, the larger the levy, and the more visible the levy will be to audiences
• Levy redistribution will be primarily to the already richest copyright holding groups.  It won't be the small musician or literary author that will be receiving money, but the existing large business software and entertainment software industries, and motion picture and television studios.
• The more visible the levy, the more audiences will feel they have already paid for the content, and the more likely they are to do activities they are even aware infringe copyright.

This has been a discussion for decades, and I answered in the digital-copyright.ca forum a question about this in October.  I even debated the policy with Sheila Copps, the Heritage Minister at the time when the regime was implemented in Canada.  She always had a closed mind about the subject, never being willing to study to determine the level of harm it was causing to the music industry.

I have for decades suggested that strong stable funding directed at Canadian artists, direct from funding agencies manged by each level of government, is the best solution for taxpayers and for fellow creators.  In the context of the existing Private Copying regime I suggested it be replaced with a regime modeled after the Public Lending Right.  I strongly opposed the counter-productive proposal of extending the existing levy from blank media to ICT devices, and obviously oppose this type of levy being applied to the Internet.

While I'm convinced we need to expand government funding programs for Canadian creators, I believe any tie to any distribution mechanism or technology is counterproductive.  Special taxes or levies on distribution systems, media or devices will induce audiences to activities considered infringement, whether or not the new tax/levy comes with a change in the copyright act to exempt any activities.

Because the ICT industries somehow owes the content industry

Possibly the most infuriatingly misinformed comment made during these consultations was from the Minister of Canadian Heritage herself.

Thoughtful words from @patrickwatson "Without culture, nobody would be on the internet" #DigiCanCon #cdnpoli https://t.co/jRr5w7eXoy

— Mélanie Joly (@melaniejoly) October 29, 2016

This received many replies from people reminding the Minister that accessing the products of the cultural industries represent only one of an infinite number of activities carried out on the Internet.  The idea appeared to be new to the Minister, but it is all to familiar to anyone who has been involved in this area of policy for even the smallest amount of time.


We have been having this debate since the creation of the printing press, through player pianos and audio and video recording, to digital editing and distribution technologies, past the Internet and onward to the wide variety of technologies that have emerged in recent years and will emerge in the future.

The cultural industries owe their success, and in most cases their very existence, to advances in information and communications technology.  As each technology has been invented the artists and industries formed around those artists have opposed the new technology or any changes it might bring.  This has been true even when it is clear that the new technology will greatly benefit the cultural industry.

This round we don't have people claiming that our "vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape" as John Philip Sousa claimed about recording technology, but the emotion being expressed seems to have the same basis.  At least we are only taking about inappropriate taxes on technology, rather than even more harmful attempts to control ("technological measures" inappropriately added to copyright law) or outlaw advances in technology.

If we did a fair and full accounting of "who benefit from who", I believe it would easily be found that the cultural industry owe more to the technology industry than the other way around.  And yet it has been the cultural industry that has been allowed by government to demand compensation from, and in far too many cases allowed control over, the ICT industry.


It is not the amount of the money that is the issue, so this is not about a possible small increase in the costs of Internet access or Netflix media library subscription fees.

As a taxpayer I am quite willing to pay more in general taxes to all levels of government that flows into funding programs for the arts.

As a software author, system administrator managing Internet connected servers, and part of the ICT sector my entire career I am continuously offended by those in the cultural sectors who believe the ICT sector somehow owes them something because of some odd perception on their part that we wronged them.

This discussion only creates animosity between sectors that should be working together, and is an animosity that the Government of Canada (and specifically the department of Canadian Heritage) should be actively seeking to minimize  rather than inflame.  This animosity can only be detrimental to creating a cultural ecosystem in which Canadian artists, content creators and cultural entrepreneurs can thrive -- or any of the other stated goals of the consultation.

I've spent decades involved in the copyright reform process trying to protect the interests of independent creators including software authors.  While I find infringing copyright offensive, I understand how frustrated some in the ICT sector and many in the general public feel when this blame game crops up again and again.  I know that if the Heritage Minister approves a special tax/levy on the Internet that is directed to funding programs for Canadian creators that this will backfire through inducing more copyright infringement.  This perpetuates a vicious circle where the increased infringement will further be blamed on technology rather than on the harmful rhetoric as well as failed policies and business models of the cultural sector itself.

Note: I'm not suggesting every company in the ICT sector is innocent of harm to creators, but rather than Netflix and independent ISPs they should be going after companies like Bell, Rogers and Telus.

#DigiCanCon Comments on @shomicanada @whoismrrobot @GooglePlay TV , @HBOCanada @GameOfThrones

I've been a happy Netflix customer since 2011, dropped cable TV in 2012, and frequently purchase DVD's of movies or seasons of scripted TV programming. This year I've reviewed CraveTV,  CTV GO and Showcase's website, and decided to subscribe to Shomi to do a review.

As with other services offered by broadcaster or BDUs (cable companies) I didn't expect to be happy with Shomi.

What I (and a growing percentage of the market) want is to be able to conveniently watch the shows I want, at a location I want, at a time of my choosing, on devices of my choosing, and at a reasonable price.

What the broadcast industry wants to offer is programming of their choosing, at a time of their choosing, on devices of their choosing, and at the maximum price they believe the market will bear.  The digital transition for cable was several steps backward from analog where subscribers could choose their own brand of tuners to digital where the tuner brand is imposed.  They are not offering services based on sound market analysis as they claim that if anyone doesn't want to purchase their products and services the only reason could be they are "pirates".  This scapegoat is blocking them from offering services that their potential customer base actually wants, and the more "copyright" talk that blames audiences that happens the less likely the market can ever mature.

Shomi

As far as content is concerned, Shomi is similar to CraveTV in that it is older scripted TV programming that was broadcast much earlier.  I scanned the catalog and didn't see anything I could recognize as current seasons.  CraveTV and Space TV are both owned by Bell, and I wouldn't be surprised if exclusive licensing by Bell blocked the Shomi Partnership from licensing a larger catalog of Sci-Fi and Fantasy scripted TV. That said, there would still be shows I would watch if Shomi were going to be around longer.

Technology

Shomi's technology is far more advanced than CraveTV.  Unlike CraveTV where the website can't cast to a Chromecast using a recent Chrome browser, Shomi had no problems streaming directly from the website.  I have also downloaded the Shomi for phone to my Nexus 4 and Shomi for tablet to my ASUS Flip chromebook, and it works well on both devices watching on-screen and casting to my TV.

HDMI CEC is supported by the Shomi Chromecast application.  This may seem like a minor feature, but it is very important.  It allows for pausing and resuming of programming using the TV's remote control.  This avoids having to get the device that initiated the show opened - screen blanked so I need to log in, and a good chance you have to battle the app to get the pause to work.  By then the phone call/etc is over and you need to fight the interface to rewind.

Shomi always seems to remember which episode of a series I was on, and unlike CraveTV doesn't require that I search for the series to choose a different episode. The "Shomi later" bookmarking and "Recently watched" listings work well and allow you to easily see which episodes you have seen and (re)watch whichever episode you want next.

Both the browse (by category) and collections (themed, not sure who the creators are) are a great way to discover other content on the site.

While Shomi isn't as advanced as Netflix and Google (YouTube and Google Play), the interface and technology is considerably more advanced than what Bell offers with CraveTV or other subsidiaries( CTV.ca, space.ca sites and CTV GO, SPACE GO apps).   In an ideal world it would be CraveTV/etc shutting down and all that content made available on the Shomi platform, but that isn't what is happening.  Maybe Bell will purchase the platform to upgrade their services, if they have any interest in improving them.

Mr. Robot

The show I decided to watch on Shomi was the first season of Mr. Robot.  Very interesting political drama with quite a bit of technology embedded in the story. This is not your annoying abuse of technology where it is as magical as Harry Potter, but where real-world technology is being used.  You have advanced computer users using what they actually would -- Kali Linux on laptops, OpenWrt in routers -- and you see real code in real programming languages (and real apps and shell commands) popping up on screens.

You have these people using these advanced skills for political aims. How you would classify them (Hacker vs cracker, hero or villain, freedom fighter or terrorist) is really up to the viewer and having the viewer thinking about this appears to be an important part of the narrative.

I'd be posting spoilers if I said any more, and I want to recommend the show without spoiling any of the quite large number of sometimes quite twisted twists.

After watching the first season I was immediately drawn to the second season. It was aired on Showcase back in July, and is no longer available from that website. In some ways I was glad as the Showcase website is the worst streaming site I've used in decades.

I looked up in watchincanada.ca and it only suggested the second season was on iTunes.  In context, that was amusing -- many politically active advanced computer users, such as myself, consider Apple to be a political opponent and not a vendor we would ever consider using.  To put a show that would appeal to us only on a service that many of us find offensive didn't make sense.

Google Play Movies and TV

I decided to look Mr Robot up on Google Play (with Google sitting above the line of what I find politically tolerable) and found Mr Robot Season 2 for $16.99.

While Google Play Movies and TV streams like Netflix does, it is organized and priced more like DVDs with purchase and rental.  There isn't a fixed monthly price, but different pricing for different content.

As an example, Mr. Robot season 1 and 2 are $1.99 per episode, or $16.99 for the entire season (10 episodes for season 1, 12 episodes for season 2).    Game of Thrones episodes are $3.49 per episode, or $33.99 per 10 episode season which is comparable to the DVD pricing ($42.99 on Amazon.ca at the moment, but that price will likely be lower by the time it ships November 15).

Game of Thrones and Bell Media

Wait a minute? What?

Yes, I did just list Game of Thrones, which really surprised me when I saw it. I didn't even think to look for it on Google Play because everything I read and heard from fellow GoT fans suggested that Bell was blocking GoT from access to non-cable subscribers in Canada -- meaning I had to wait as with previous seasons for GoT to eventually be released on DVD in order to not infringe.  Last year the DVD was finally release in March with the next season starting broadcast at the end of April.  It was almost a full year with other fans blurting out spoilers in my presence, making the series less enjoyable for me as time went on.

I saw no mention of Google Play in a series of CBC articles in April,  May and June where Bell was claiming it was easy to pay and yet Bell representatives only spoke of cable-tied options. When you look at the Game of Thrones page on the HBO Canada (Bell) site there is no mention of non-cable alternatives for paying for the series. Not even a mention of DVDs of older seasons.  The HBO Canada site mentions TMN GO which offers GoT for streaming, but their FAQ clearly states "At this time, TMN GO is only offered as part of a subscription to The Movie Network through a participating Television Service Provider. It is not available directly through us."

When did this show become available on Google Play for Canadians? Canadians are often blocked from content available to US customers from services like Netflix and Google Play -- and there is no equivalent to Hulu or Amazon Prime Video, so I quite legitimately assumed all talk about US alternatives including HBO GO didn't apply to Canadians.  Has it been available for a few seasons, just hidden from fans, or only made available this year?  Was it only made available some time this summer because of media attention made to the fact that HBO Canada (Bell) has been refusing to allow fans to pay?

Similar to shows which offer new episodes weekly during the broadcast period the GoT Google Play page says "Purchase Season 6 and it will be available for playback and added to your library as soon as it's available for release".  Did I really have a legal option to watch starting at the end of April which Bell deliberately hid from me?  Why no mention in the interviews that CBC did of Bell representatives, potentially informing fans of the option back in May when it was first being released?

Like most of my interactions with the "Canadian" broadcasters I feel frustrated at how disrespectful I'm treated as a fan.

To confirm that Google Play wasn't talking about the timing of the DVD release next month and that it was already available, I purchased the season and immediately confirmed episode 10 is playable (just the start of opening sequence -- spoilers!).  I then logged into Amazon.ca and canceled my pre-order of the DVD box set.

These are market problems that must be discussed as Bell likely sees Google Play as competition for cable, putting them in a conflict of interest situation which makes them unsuited to own "HBO Canada".  The lack of mention of non-cable alternatives by HBO Canada (Bell) is something that the competition bureau, CRTC and HBO should be watching closely.  The HBO Canada site should be focused on the widest possible distribution in Canada of HBO content, not be a way for Bell to try to push people to legacy BDU services - that's tied selling, not a legitimate business practice, and is a practice that shouldn't be tolerated in Canada.

If our Copyright Act was modern the lack of even mentioning legal alternatives would clarify that Bell is at the root of infringement in Canada (not fans), and Bell (or the copyright holder who inappropriately gave them an exclusive license in Canada) shouldn't be allowed to complain about infringement which Bell is inducing.

Bell isn't the victim, but perpetrators of contributory copyright infringement.

Saying "sit down, shut up, and get a cable package" is a matter of control and conformity, not compensation, and copyright law shouldn't be able to be abused by companies which demonstrate they are uninterested in compensation.

If Bell was the slightest bit interested in protecting HBO's copyright in Canada they would be featuring all methods of paying clearly on the HBO Canada website.  In my mind one way to tell when copyright law is modern is if it forced copyright holder like HBO to go after contributory infringers like Bell first before they would be allowed to go after private citizens.

Technology

The Google Play Movies and TV's technology has features even beyond Netflix. Like Netflix its Chromecast app supports HDMI CEC, and as the same company that created the Chromecast devices will always support each new feature with advancing revisions of the device and software.  While Google Play has its own app, purchased content is also visible through the YouTube app so that convenience (or distraction depending on your preferences) is available.

Missing from Netflix, Google Play has an offline mode where you can pre-cache episodes and watch offline - such as when flying or other travel when Internet connectivity is unreliable or not fast enough for streaming.

There is a really cool feature I hadn't seen before when watching GoT episodes. While casting to the larger TV screen, circles were popping up on the tablet with the names of the actors (and characters) as well as the names of songs that are part of the soundtrack as they were part of the scene. This is a great use of the 2'nd screen beyond showing how far I am in the video. I couldn't find what this was with quick searching, so if anyone already knows I would appreciate links/etc. This is an amazing feature for shows like GoT that have many different story lines and many different characters moving forward in parallel. Now all I'd love to see is a map of Westeros in the background showing where people are :-)

Unfortunately you can't watch Google Play purchased content on all YouTube compatible devices. My Samsung Smart TV indicated "Video not playable on this device" when I tried to watch Mr. Robot episodes. Searching pointed me to the following answer on Google Video distribution settings which suggests that the copyright holder deliberately decided to disallow the content to work on this type of device.  This means the full remote control functionality (rewind, etc) is not available like it would be for regular YouTube or Netflix content using the Smart TV apps.

Market issues

When viewing the Mr. Robot content on the YouTube app I noticed it shows "NBCUniversalShowsCanada" as the user.  This got me thinking about who the supplier is for this content.  I looked up DC's Legends of Tomorrow and on a side-bar it indicates "More from CTV" and shows Arrow.  The Flash doesn't indicate who the distributor is, and Supergirl indicates Showcase.

This opens an obvious question: what will motivate broadcasters to fix their streaming sites when they can point to the expensive access via Google Play as if it were an alternative? I was considering paying for Supergirl season 2 to get away from the horrible Showcase website, but now that I know that it is Showcase that would get part of my money I dropped that idea.  I feel like I'm being pick-pocketed, not treated as a potential valued customer.

I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea that any part of my GoT payment is going to a contributory infringer (Bell) rather than only to HBO.

When I dropped cable I did so with the understanding that I would be redirecting as a minimum the money I was spending on cable to streaming services and DVDs.  I've been very happy with Netflix for new and older programming, have recently learned to hold my nose (try to forget it's Bell) and tolerate CraveTV and would have tolerated Shomi for older shows.  If CTV GO allowed me to log in via my CraveTV subscription it would make both services more valuable.

Google Play as a technology works great, and I would use it often if the broadcasters and/or copyright holders were more reasonable on pricing.  For about the same amount of money I am left with a trade-off between waiting for a late DVD release or purchasing through Google Play.  Google Play works on fewer devices, and because files are encrypted it is unknown when my paid library will cease to be "legally" accessible. As with other similar proprietary encrypted file formats, content available through Google Play cannot be trusted to be playable as long as a DVD will.

One option copyright holders should consider is appropriately priced bundles (Play now, receive DVD at release time) so that the ephemeral nature of encrypted Google Play content wouldn't deter purchases.  I have seen the reverse with recent "DVD + Digital HD" purchases where the "Digital HD" can be redeemed through Google Play.

The inclusion of Google Play among other options is much improved over purchases where you could only redeem through iTunes, which is useless to me. The DVD boxes and retailers don't indicate what service the "Digital HD" version is tied to, so I need to presume it doesn't exist and thus that possibility never adds value when I'm determining whether to purchase.  It is sad just how poor the studios are at marketing their own products, and how ignorant they are of how much the distribution medium matters.

Gap between “Public” and “Stakeholder” #DigiCanCon views needs repair

One of the odd contributions to the #DigiCanCon discussion was from ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists).  A tweet of their press release was re-tweeted by the Writers Guild of Canada (screenwriters), which is how I noticed it.

A reply to @mgeist: Canadians are more united than you think. https://t.co/Hlnlyfc0KA #DigiCanCon #cdntv #cdnfilm https://t.co/8xAwnjisF3

— ACTRA National (@ACTRAnat) September 15, 2016

In their press release ACTRA proves Michael Geist's point.  Michael Geist was writing about how audiences (potential fans) were concerned with discovery and access to content, while "stakeholders" were focused on money.  In their reply ACTRA not only ignores what audiences were saying, but falsely claims that we were also talking about money.

I am a television fan.  I'm not just a television viewer, but a fan of the shows I like.  I don't watch sports or reality television, and focus on scripted programming.  I go to ComicCon as well as Ottawa Pop Expo, primarily to watch panels given by actors and screenwriters.  I am not only a fan of the programming they create but also of the creators, who I follow from show to show.  I currently watch the Arrowverse because of panels given at previous ComicCon from actors I became fans of from other shows.  In this case it was my love of Doctor Who since childhood, and listening to John Barrowman in fall 2014 speaking about Arrow and this spring Arthur Darvill speaking about Legends of Tomorrow.

I'm not going to generate one now, but any list of members of ACTRA and the Writers Guild of Canada that I am a fan of would be quite large (I held up my DVD of Sanctuary season 2 when I spoke in front of the C-32 committee). While I'm not exclusive to Canadian programming, some of the shows I have been the biggest fan of were filmed in Canada (many in Vancouver Film Studios).

Fans like me that should be seen as an important stakeholder for the members of these unions.

When I go to ComicCon I spend more than the entrance fee.  In a weekend I easily spend more money than a 4 year subscription to Netflix, which includes getting autographs from actors and writers. I badly want to fund the creators I am a fan of so that they can continue to create the shows I love. From many people I've spoken to on this issue, I know I am not alone in this.

The reality is that money isn't the issue for fans.  There are many barriers put against my ability to watch many of the shows I want to watch, leave alone being allowed to pay.  My posting from earlier today is only one of many I've written over decades trying to alert fellow creators to this problem. I am only a fan when it comes to "television", but I am an author of other software and non-software works and thus think about these issues as a fellow creator.

This is the divide that Michael Geist was hinting at, and that ACTRA (and by retweeting, the Writers Guild) have thus far refused to acknowledge.  Until they acknowledge and become part of the solution, they will remain part of the problem.  While it may not be about money for the fans who are being deterred or outright blocked from accessing and paying for this content, it becomes about money for the screenwriters and actors whose decisions are harming their own pocketbooks.

Was it inevitable that Shomi is shutting down?

Shomi has announced they are shutting down as of November 30.  I just signed up for the trial period in order to do a technology review, but I was never interested in the programming.   I assumed that being offered by another BDU it would be just like Bell's CraveTV which never even attempted to be competitive with Netflix.

A Canadian Press story offers the all too familiar perspective from the industry, which is the claim that Bell and Rogers were trying to play catch-up with Netflix.  The reality is that while Netflix is intended to be a replacement of broadcast, CraveTV is only an add-on to broadcast and doesn't offer a comparable service.

I continue to look forward to real competition for Netflix, but don't expect to see it from a broadcaster or a BDU.

Three Solitudes: Scripted video (TV) producers, BDU/Telecom, and fans. #DigiCanCon

Reading The Netflix Backlash: Why Hollywood Fears a Content Monopoly feels so disconnected from my experience as a fan of the works of scripted video (television) productions.  There are things I agree with, but the solutions being proposed are disconnected and in my mind counterproductive.

I too fear a distribution monopoly, and I think it is a problem that Netflix is largely alone in their market.  As much as the legacy BDU and telecom industry can claim that CraveTV or Shomi are "Canadian" competitors,  they are not in the same market.

Netflix originals offers me programming that is available to me at the time of public release, is made available in all markets (doesn't block Canada for Netflix originals), and is available on all the devices I own that I'd ever want to watch television on.  It even passes the "wife test", meaning it is a technology which someone who doesn't love to spend time playing with technology all the time would be willing to use.  My wife uses Netflix quite often.

CraveTV offers programming greatly delayed from public release (months or years later, after plots have been spoiled by other fans -- often around or even later than DVD releases), is often the reason content is blocked or removed from Netflix, and CraveTV barely works on a tiny subset of the devices I own.  It isn't a technology my wife would ever use, even if I could explain the contortions you have to go through to get video up on our television using CraveTV.

At one time I thought that HBO would be offering competition, but that never happened.  While a streaming service exists in the USA, it doesn't in Canada -- and this isn't surprising given HBO Canada is owned by Bell which has demonstrated it isn't interested in offering a Netflix competitor.

I would love if there were competition for Netflix, but it is highly improbable that this can be offered by companies which are part of the BDU (Cable/Satellite) or telecommunications sectors.  There are extremists representing those sectors who think of the creative works we are fans of as no different than "Happy Meal Toys", and have no concept of the impact on the personal identity of fans that some of this programming has.

I don't want Netflix to open up an exclusive window for exhibitors, whether for theatrical releases for movies or exclusivity for legacy broadcasting.  I am tired of being treated as a second class citizen by the broadcast industry which thinks that this exclusivity somehow benefits them financially, and then whines when people go to unauthorized alternatives when the content isn't available to them (infringing or out of geographic region sources).  Fans are willing to pay (badly want to support future creation in many cases), if only the intermediaries weren't treating them hostile and making us feel violated like we are paying kidnappers whenever money goes to these intermediaries.

We are at a time when the government is asking our opinion on things such as Digital CanCon, but those discussions also seem divorced from my experience.  An article in the Globe and Mail suggested that, "Canadian content is losing ground as services such as Netflix and Apple Music are expanding".   If that is true, then we need to recognize that so-called "Canadian" intermediaries such as Bell and Rogers are the problem.

There are Canadian produced shows I have been recommended that I have not watched.  An example is Orphan Black.  It is available on Netflix in other countries, but not in Canada.  In the USA it is available on Amazon Prime's streaming service, but in Canada Amazon Prime is only only the expedited two-day delivery service for physical products.  I could get all 4 seasons on DVD, but given all the other great programming I'm already paying for why would I?

Oh, and only the first 3 seasons are available on CraveTV, but I'm not interested -- it is a horrible streaming service technologically that I'm only willing to put up with for content I'm already a fan of. This is a series produced in association with Bell Media, which further amplifies the paying-kidnappers type violation feelings as Bell is the reason the content is so hard to access.

Making content easier to access should be a top priority for Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly and the Department of Canadian Heritage. It isn't only about selling Canadian content to an international stage, but actually selling it to Canadians as well. This doesn't mean forcing Canadians into an outdated delivery mechanism (broadcast television) and its delivery time frames (IE: broadcaster tied streaming services where episodes disappear days later).  This is content available to all Canadians starting from the time of public release to be viewed at a time of their choosing and on the devices of their choosing.

This means offering Canadian content on Netflix-style services -- and until there is actual competition, that should include ensuring that Canadian content is available on Netflix Canada.   It should go without saying that the government should be legally protecting the use of VPNs to bypass inappropriate region restrictions, not legally prohibiting them.

Ascension

I just watched Ascension on Netflix.

Spoilers, Sweety..   It is really hard to discuss this show without giving something away.  Please consider watching the miniseries before reading, and come back..   It's only 6 episodes long...

The show reminded me of many Joss Whedon series like Firefly and Dollhouse which really aren't made for broadcast television.  They are smart, and have longer stories that evolve where you really don't have a clue what the show is about until many episodes in.   And like those shows, there is a superheroine that really surprises the audience.

The 6 episodes are in 3 2-part chapter pairs, with some pretty amazing reveals at the end of each chapter.

Chapter 1 ends with the revelation that the ship never took off, and that this is an experiment being held on earth.  What is the experiment?  Is it really about learning about the human impact of multi-generational space flight?

Chapter 2 ends with the X-men style superheroine girl reading someone's mind, after clearly exhibiting many other traits that suggest that she has evolved well beyond what we are currently aware of.

Chapter 3 ends with someone having really "gone into space" -- but not through a spaceship, but possibly by teleportation initiated by accident by the superheroine.  And it seems the man who's father was behind this multi-generational project predicted that this power could evolve.

Chapter 4?  Will we ever see one?  There are some very interesting possibilities of where they could take this type of story.  More government conspiracy type stuff that this was really about evolving a biological weapon?  Or a more positive spin of a new era of human space exploration without the environmental impact?  Or maybe for once an X-men style evolution of humanity where the normals encourage rather than hunt down the genetically advanced -- with the results of the experiment used to further enhance all of humanity (ya, I know -- highly unlikely storyline).

And who was that honey-pot agent really working for who said the child must be born?  That didn't seem like a throw-away line, but the beginning of a new thread in the story.  We are supposed to believe she works for the same agencies, but I'm not sure.

I suspect there will be others like me that really loved the show, but that it won't have "mainstream" appeal. This is where more niche programming can come in, and where broadcast alternatives like Netflix really shine.

Oh, and this is Canadian -- produced in Montreal -- did I forget to mention that?  Yes, Canada comes out with some pretty great programming, but only a few survive.  Out of Vancouver in the SF category we saw great things from BSG, the whole Stargate franchise, and Sanctuary.  We have a crew in hibernation with Stargate Universe that could be woken up, and Sanctuary could be resumed at any time -- two shows I would love to see new episodes from.

Unfortunately I suspect Ascension will be left like Defying Gravity (Vancouver) -- great potential that never makes it past first season.  On the chopping block when it really started to get you hooked....

Evidence suggests broadcasters like the BBC don't want our money

Some copyright holders and their lobbyists claim the reason people infringe Copyright is because they don't want to pay, and that copyright infringement is the largest single problem reducing their revenue potential. Evidence I've seen in my decades involved in the copyright revision process suggested neither are true, and that barriers put up by the copyright holders are the largest incentive to infringe and the largest barrier to revenue potential.

The BBC is an example of a broadcaster I would like to pay money and subscribe to (not only for Doctor Who), but that continues to put up barriers to me doing so. I am not a subscriber to a BDU, which is one of the common tied sales used by broadcasters. What potential customers like myself want for television and movie content is a subscription service like Netflix which isn't tied to any specific BDU or Internet provider, and which works on enough devices that it works on devices which we own. It's not just millennials that value Netflix more that broadcast or cable.

The BBC already have the technology in place, but thus far refuse to make the service available for their own "business" reasons. Within the UK the BBC iPlayer offers a streaming service that works on nearly as many devices as Netflix does (I didn't see my Boxee Box), but this service is not made available outside the UK.

There is a separate iPlayer for BBC Worldwide, but it is tied to Apple controlled devices. I have sent feedback at least once a year for a few years about this problem, and this year someone in the "BBC iPlayer (Global) Team" sent the following nonsense:

The BBC iPlayer UK and the BBC iPlayer Global are two separate entities. The UK iPlayer is available on Android and via the UK BBC iPlayer website, The global iPlayer is only available on Apple devices at this time as they are able to enforce licensing rights on a region by region basis while other providers have been unable/unwilling to enforce such actions.

In other words, Apple lied to them about the capabilities of their encrypted media platform suggesting that the restriction the BBC was requesting is possible or even reasonable. This dishonesty, as well as their total disrespect for the property rights of technology owners, are a few of the reasons why I will never be a customer of Apple. Content delivery which is tied to the use of Apple devices is effectively unavailable to me.

There are now rumors that the BBC may be removing content from Netflix. While this wasn't their latest seasons of shows, I have enjoyed viewing old seasons of shows which I didn't access in some other way closer to the air date. Given the nonsense response from the iPlayer Global team I bet out-of-touch broadcasters like the BBC are behind the recent useless attempts at geoblocking by Netflix. While this business problem created by copyright holders like the BBC can't be solved by technology, Neftlix is forced to do a bit of theater to distract copyright holders into thinking they are doing everything they can. I get the impression that Netflix as a company is more honest than Apple, and won't outright lie to copyright holders about the capabilities of encrypted media systems.


The reality is that in whatever regions the BBC refuses to make their content available in a way that returns revenue to the BBC are regions where the viewing of BBC content won't return revenues to the BBC. It is entirely unreasonable for the BBC to be putting up barrier to receiving money, and then whining when they don't receive that rejected money.

These types of barriers are typical. Copyright holders put up one barrier after another for people to access their content through mechanisms authorized by them, driving people to access that content using easier unauthorized mechanisms. While the solution to eradicating these unauthorized mechanisms has always been to reduce the barriers to the authorized mechanisms, copyright holders continue to try to pass the buck elsewhere for their self-inflicted problems.

---
Jan 16, 2015 update:

There are further reports about Netflix US removing Doctor Who and other BBC Programmes.

And later in the same day there were reports that Netflix Renews Deal for ‘Doctor Who,’ ‘Luther,’ More BBC Series

---

Feb 24, 2023 update:

An automated bot at Google flagged this article as violating their SPAM policy. This is a reminder of the problem with trying to use AI as an editor.

This is a policy governments should be looking very closely at, removing any third party intermediary liability to ensure it is authors and not intermediaries that are responsible for content.

Doctor Who is moving to Disney+ in 2023.