Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada to regulate podcasts

podnews.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#71

Post by c-hendricks »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #16
cpncrunch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And im not sure how a requirement to register translates into censorship.

Well you see, if you register the government will know you, and your little operation, exists, and then they might target you. But if you didn't register, your "audience large enough that you can pull in 10 MCAN in ad deals" operation might fly under the radar!

One of the things you have to provide is the location at which you're incorporated.

If you're already incorporated, you've already told the government about yourself.

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#72

Post by c-hendricks »

NBJack wrote: post #18
cvwright wrote: post #11

We should expect more licensing of tech companies in the future. Both in terms of the kinds of services that will require licenses to operate, and in the number of jurisdictions that require them. If you want to run a hotel or a burger joint or a general contractor, you need a license. It will be difficult to push back against the idea that tech companies should be treated the same. Not saying that this will be a goo…

Suddenly, Google's deprecation of their podcast software makes a little more sense. Not much, but a little. That said, online streaming services are an odd one to target. I would expect the bigger fish to be website hosts, stores, etc. Or is that already regulated similarly?

> Suddenly, Google's deprecation of their podcast software makes a little more sense

> > *Various interveners, including* the global streaming services Apple Canada Inc. (Apple), Netflix Services Canada ULC (Netflix), Spotify, Roku, Inc. (Roku), TikTok Canada (TikTok) and *Google LLC (Google)*, as well as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and the Motion Picture Association of Canada (MPAC), agreed with the proposed registration requirements, and *considered them to be light.*

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#73

Post by cmrdporcupine »

jlos wrote: post #60
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #2

The legislation sounds probably terrible and awkward, but the chosen headline is maybe a bit inflammatory: "The CRTC requires all online services with more than CAD $10mn (USD $7.3mn) in revenue that operate in Canada and that offer podcasts, to register with the government before Nov 28." We're not exactly talking about little mom&pop hobby podcasts. If you're bringing in $10M in revenue, you're a major media operat…

Appreciate the even handed summary here > Canada is in a constant struggle to localize and protect local culture. And in the process there are often dubious monopolistic forces that inject themselves into that process. I'd argue monopolistic control is the goal. The latest CRTC regulations seems a fairly straight-forward cash grab to prop up legacy media companies that would otherwise fail for their lack of competiti…

Right, I mean, we have multiple problems, but I suspect in large part there's a Venn diagram of self-interested monopolistic stakeholders (because the monopoly-capitalism streak runs deep in the Canadian state) and "baby boomer" decision makers who still don't understand the Internet but have some notion of protecting "Canadian culture(s)"

"its not the average Canadian that benefits here" is maybe the point though -- these things became policy because, in the past, the average Canadian's interests were maybe taking precedence over those of (fairly large) minority interests in such a way that they were causing civil problems in Canada. By which I mean, if we don't take care of making sure that e.g. French & Indigenous culture has strong representation, we actually risk problems with the political cohesion of the country.

As we know, averages hide important details. In statistics, but also in cultural issues.

Many of the things we're talking about here look entirely different if you're looking out at them from e.g. Quebec or the North.

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#74

Post by jeegsy »

victorbstan wrote: post #5

Because the “free for all” market that gave rise to Alex Jones and FOX news, etc. really improved American society…

> Because the “free for all” market that gave rise to Alex Jones and FOX news, etc. really improved American society…

You either believe in the relevant principle or you don't. These sort of side-swipes at bedrock American principles are completely uncalled for

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#75

Post by cmrdporcupine »

AlexandrB wrote: post #51
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #2

The legislation sounds probably terrible and awkward, but the chosen headline is maybe a bit inflammatory: "The CRTC requires all online services with more than CAD $10mn (USD $7.3mn) in revenue that operate in Canada and that offer podcasts, to register with the government before Nov 28." We're not exactly talking about little mom&pop hobby podcasts. If you're bringing in $10M in revenue, you're a major media operat…

Yes. I think the most accurate way to look at this is as a trade barrier to protect a local industry. By mandating a certain percentage of Canadian content, the CRTC effectively subsidizes Canadian media.

It's that and more as I said elsewhere. I think there are legitimate minority cultural interests, and the need to preserve some nominal Canadian identities that are actually real concerns.

The problem in Canada is that there are ... cabals ... of interests that have spent the last 200 years using the somewhat-artifically (but in large part necessary) erected walls between us and the United States for their own very self-serving interests that actually harm their fellow Canadians. Telecoms pricing being the obvious example.

In any case, it infects both major political parties, goes across the whole spectrum, and is a feature of the Canadian state since at least before the American Revolution.

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#76

Post by jeegsy »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #22
goda90 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody was forcing anyone to drive cars fuel powered by leaded gas either, could it have been so bad? And if it was so bad, why were so many people using it? I wouldn't say this is a great analogy, because leaded gas was the only gas available, and alternatives to cars were disappearing in many cities. If you wanted to participate in the economy, you pretty much had to use gasoline.

I mean, you're not really correct. The first 10 years of my life every gas station had both "leaded" and "unleaded" options and it was regulations that forced car manufacturers to remove the the requirement for the former type of fuel. You could argue the market would have gone there anyways, but it's actually insane how much damage to human health and the environment was done in the interim until regulation forced t…

I suppose its important to know when manufacturers became aware of the danger in lead.

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#77

Post by cpncrunch »

johnp271 wrote: post #13
cpncrunch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And im not sure how a requirement to register translates into censorship.

The CRTC News Release explicitly states: "Today, the CRTC is advancing its regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content." I would ask, who decides what is 'meaningful'? This sounds like an open door to censorship to me. Was not the requirement to make 'meaningful' contributions to society the excuse u…

Yes, I saw that, and there is no mention of any censorship, or even any plan to regulate content, other than the sentence you mention which seems to be in the future. So there might perhaps be some "censorship" or regulation in the future, but not now.

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#78

Post by cpncrunch »

seanw444 wrote: post #52
cpncrunch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And im not sure how a requirement to register translates into censorship.

Did you think about that sentence before you wrote it?

Yes. Did you think about yours? Perhaps you could expand on your thoughts, and we can discuss who thought more before posting. See also my other comment in this thread.

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#79

Post by cpncrunch »

roughsquare wrote: post #34
johnp271 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CRTC News Release explicitly states: "Today, the CRTC is advancing its regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure online streaming services make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content." I would ask, who decides what is 'meaningful'? This sounds like an open door to censorship to me. Was not the requirement to make 'meaningful' contributions to society the excuse u…

They are referring to the CanCon rules https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon.htm The rules have been around for 40+ years in one form or another.

A lot of the links on that page don't work, but I infer that it only applies to radio and TV, and it's not going to apply to podcasts just yet (perhaps in the future). Still, not much concrete info.

Re: Canada to regulate podcasts

#80

Post by kshahkshah »

AlexandrB wrote: post #62
kshahkshah wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common sense?

This is meaningless because what "common sense" is changes person to person. The person yelling about how 5G will damage your brain would say that it's "common sense" that "radiation" is bad for you so 5G must be bad. You're basically saying that the way you avoid doing something dangerous recommend by others is by already knowing that it's dangerous. Well duh.

I don't think most people getting into something the first time would reasonably try a hard project and make it harder by adding electricity in the equation. I think your example is really just absurdity to be honest.

I also don't know what point you're making.

Since some people can't tell who the experts are and what a beginner is, we need to regulate youtubers?

Post reply on HN