Kein Führer
Titel Blais demanded private customer information by Monday afternoon at 5pm
Eastern. It is now Friday morning as I write this and Netflix has yet
to give up information it considers confidential. The CRTC believes that it regulates the Internet. Prime
Minister Stephen Harper made it clear there would be no taxing the
Internet. So where does this leave the CRTC? Nowhere.
This past week has
revealed the CRTC to be stark naked. If they are wearing an Emperor's
clothes, then it's obvious that the clothes are a bribe from Big
Telecom. So the CRTC is still naked. Kein Führer
Titel Blais thought he could
extend the Broadcasting Act to the Internet. Now it's time to take
up the offense while they are
on the defensive. Instead of trying to prevent their Internet
takeover, let's push back against the Broadcasting Act itself. Let's
push back against the CRTC as a relevant institution. Unfortunately
it's an uphill battle to return the
broadcast television and
radio spectrum to
a free market, but we can save the Internet from bureaucracy.
It
is crucial that we do so.
CRTC
apologists may justify Internet intervention to protect Canadian
culture. But Netflix produces Canadian-content (Can-Con). They just
released a new season of Trailer Park Boys.
Compare the Boys to
the statist crap coming out of the CBC. The “public broadcaster”
once produced Kenny vs. Spenny,
but trashed it after one
season. Fortunately a private broadcaster (or
as private as a
broadcaster can be) picked it
up and the show took off. Kenny vs. Spenny
only got better as time went
on. The idea that Can-Con
needs to be mandated is first and foremost silly. Culture knows no
borders. The creators of
Kenny vs Spenny have
collaborated with American writers. Treasonous? No,
promotion
of a “national culture” is eerily fascist. Promotion through
taxation and regulation is even more insulting.
Can-Con
is automatic when creative content is created by Canadians. Yes, it's
that simple. Take Dave Foley:
Canadian actor in the States. He's currently doing stand-up. I'd
consider that Canadian content. So
why isn't he doing it up here? Other than his preference to live in a
warmer climate, the Ontario bureaucracy surrounding child-custody and
spousal support laws have
made him a criminal. He owes his ex-wife an insane amount of money.
No reasonable person could afford the monthly payments, and how those
payments were calculated is even more insane. You
can listen to his story here.
Bureaucracy made Dave Foley -- a great Canadian comedian and content
creator -- a criminal in his own country.
Bureaucracy
has inner contradictions; it has no way of calculating
profit and loss. Bureaucratic planners don't know if they're using
resources in the most cost-effective way since customers don't
patronize their organizations
voluntarily. Bureaucracies
get funded from above, through taxation. This destroys the mechanism
that creates entrepreneurs and produces wealth. There is no
wealth-creation
in the bureaucratic system. There is only regulation and
wealth-destruction. The CRTC
is the antithesis of a free society. They decide where freedom
of speech will be, how much of it will be permitted – and
technically – what freedom of speech actually means. The CRTC
umbrellas over the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, a regulatory
body that once attempted to ban a Dire Straits song.
What
if the CRTC takes Netflix to court? The CRTC could convince the
attorney general to charge Netflix with violating the Broadcasting
Act. Then
it becomes a battle over regulation of the Internet. And we make this
go viral. I don't care what the suits in Ottawa say or what the
Canadian Lawyers Association may come up with – the Broadcasting
Act does not extend to the Internet. If Netflix is a broadcaster,
then so is Youtube. So if PFT. Am
I a broadcaster because of
the YouTube videos
I made with my friends in high school? Someone, somewhere is going to
have to arbitrarily
decide that Netflix is a broadcaster, but the average YouTuber is
not.
Best
to keep the Broadcasting Act out of the Internet. Even if the lawyers
say it's okay, it's not. They probably don't understand economics.
But
they are also
bureaucratic in interpreting the law since
it's not really a law. It's considered “Freeman-on-the-land”
doctrine to talk of common laws vs regulatory statutes. And that kind
of talk, with that label, gets you branded
a domestic terrorist by the
police. But the truth of the
matter is Canada is a constitutional monarchy, founded on the
classical liberal ideas of liberty, freedom of expression and
a common-law court system. We
are still under common law jurisdiction – it's just that our
understanding of law, Western legal systems, and the tyrannical
tendencies of bureaucracy have
been warped
over the last 100 years.
Blame
the public schools.
Whatever
the reason, the Canadian political identity of “peace, order and
good government” comes under fire with administrative regulations
that are enforced by the police. That is where societies cross the
line: police are supposed to protect and serve citizens, not the
regulatory requirements of bureaucracy. It's clear that police
like to protect and serve
the status quo. This will be
even clearer if they enforce the CRTC's regulation of the Internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment