Big streamers argue at CRTC hearing they shouldn't have Canadian content obligations (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 2 months ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A group representing major foreign streaming companies told a hearing held by Canada's broadcasting regulator on Friday that those companies shouldn't be expected to fulfil the same responsibilities as traditional broadcasters when it comes to Canadian content.

The Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents large streamers like Netflix, Paramount, Disney and Amazon, said the regulator should be flexible in modernizing its definition of Canadian content.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is holding a two-week public hearing on a new definition of Canadian content that began Wednesday. The proceeding is part of its work to implement the Online Streaming Act — and it is bringing tensions between traditional players and large foreign streamers out in the open.

all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 54 points 2 months ago

God I hate them. « We’re the future » they said, they’re only more privatized bullshit and bubble you cannot escape.

They’re just worst than cable TV

[-] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 35 points 2 months ago

As a Canadian in 2025, I have cancelled almost all of my US web services including streaming services. Apple still has there hands in my pocket for some 50G icloud stuff, I have been trying to offload all of my stuff but it takes time.

I have turned to a pirates life for some things other things I just use my pihole to block ads I would love it if I could setup a system on my LAN that I could have ad free streaming music on. I also wish youtube had a Canadian or a not US competitor that came close to the same things.

We all need to stand behind the CRTC and cancel the US streaming services.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

Arr Stack and CBC Gem.

[-] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Yes I have gotten in to the Arr apps, and I pay for CBC Gem.

[-] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 months ago

They must be expected to face the same requirements.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 months ago

If you expect to be allowed to take money from the Canadian economy, you have to contribute some value back into the Canadian economy.

Over the entire history of this country, there have been too many foreign companies swoop in, undercut the local industry, take over the market, and suck out all the profits and leave nothing but waste behind.

[-] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

I’m torn. With broadcasting there’s an argument that the bandwidth is publicly owned so there should be some oversight in the content that’s transmitted. Mandating Canadian content here seems okay, kind of like how we control .ca domains and have some say in who gets to use them. For streaming though it seems to be private infrastructure, it’s been built using public funds, but the people running the infrastructure aren’t really making decisions about the content it caries. They just lease it out to anybody with minimal oversight. It’d be kind of like mandating that some% of phone calls need to be Canadian content.

Then again, we do control the .ca domains so we might argue that foreign companies using them should make some effort to carry or promote Canadian content. Get too restrictive though and companies just shut down the .ca domain and make us use the .com version which we can’t really control.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 5 points 2 months ago

Canada's broadcasting regulator

Netflix is not a broadcaster. It's not even like a broadcaster. Broadcasting means you are casting things ... broadly. Throwing seeds into the field without caring about where each individual one lands. Transmitting a signal that anyone can tune in to if they're in range.

The streaming services are sending individual streams of bits to specific users over IP. Nobody is in danger of receiving them unless they've subscribed to the service. They won't cause any radio interference. They do not use up valuable public spectrum. Stop pretending they're broadcasters. Broadcasters are well on their way to being obsolete and that's both acceptable and inevitable.

Go ahead and make them do Canadian Content somehow if you must, but I worry that persisting with this fundamental misconception about how streaming services work doesn't seem likely to lead towards good regulation in the long run.

[-] SincerityIsCool@lemmy.ca 28 points 2 months ago

This isn't a technical issue, it's a sociocultural one. Streaming services fill the same role so some of the same policies still make sense.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

Absolutely. It matters enormously what kind of content is available and for example what is shown on the all-important carousel on the Netflix home screen. These services clearly have enormous power to get people to watch different kinds of content according to corporate priorities. I end up watching through no intentional effort a lot more Canadian content when I open CBC Gem compared to Netflix.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago

It's not just minor (or major, such as the limits of electromagnetic spectrum) technical differences. The streaming services — unlike cable TV — are not serving the main function that traditional television broadcasts did. There is no "channel 4" to tune in to any more. Not in this household anyway, they cut off the broadcast signals that used to reach here many years ago. Some of the big streaming services do live streams, in which case they're getting a little closer to traditional broadcaster territory in terms of their function, but for the most part it's video on demand which is clearly different.

Some more different than others of course. The average youtube video probably gets about zero views. Even videos pretty near the top of the popularity charts might usually have at most one person watching at any given time. How is that anything like broadcasting?

I think they ought to be treated more like social media companies. Twitter does video, is it a broadcaster? Whatever it is, it poses problems for us that are more like those of the streaming services.

[-] Penny7@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

That comparison is apples to oranges. (They're both fruit, but they're different types of fruit.)

Both socials and streaming show videos, but they're different types of platforms.

With social media that has videos, the users create the content, not the platform. Aside from so called Community Guidelines, they don't control what's created or by who. And as long as there are Canadians on the platform creating content then Canadian content is being created anyway.

Whereas with streaming, the platform controls what content is on them since they either license it from other companies or they create it themselves. They spend money on all of the content on their platform, so they should be able to budget out some money for Canadian content just like they do for American-based content or any other culture/country's content out there.

They can't be compared simply on the basis of 'they both show videos'.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 0 points 2 months ago

I'm just saying the divide between the two isn't so clear, and things are still evolving. Things aren't so clear for the CRTC either:

the Commission will continue to consult on the role and importance of online undertakings that broadcast user-generated content, along with the underlying question of how to define terms such as “social media service.”

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Another small mind thinker.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 0 points 2 months ago

If you meant to communicate something by that, I think you need more practice at this telecommunications thing.

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Lol

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I think trying to label on demand streaming as a public broadcaster is dumb.

You can't control what people prefer to watch.

Broadcasters had limitations cuz you can only broadcast 1 thing at a time on a channel

You couldn't play more than 1 TV show on the same channel, obviously.

But Netflix can serve 1000 different TV shows to 1000 different households simultaneously.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The effect is similar in both cases. Even if there's choice for everyone to watch what they want but most of the content is US-based, Canadian content doesn't get enough views, doesn't make enough revenue and isn't made anymore. Freedom of choice can mask a lot of undesirable effects. We want to keep Canadian content alive.

[-] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Small mind thinking.

[-] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 2 points 2 months ago

It's definitely possible to control what people prefer to watch. For example by spending on ads, or by providing more production budget to the things you want people to prefer.

[-] nik282000@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

CanCon for streaming is bullshit. Does every message board have to have a percentage of Canadian posts? Does Twitch have to have a percentage of Canadian Gamers? The Canadian-ized versions of streaming sites are always a step down, removing shows in favour of Bell media shovelware.