Posted on 04/09/2023 10:49:57 AM PDT by Twotone
In 2007 Justin Bieber’s mom, Pattie Mallette, posted a video of her son, then 12, covering R&B star Ne-Yo’s “So Sick” at a kids’ singing competition in a little town near Toronto.
“I told him, ‘Okay, you’ve never sung in front of anybody before, and you’ve never had singing lessons,’” Mallette told me. ‘Let’s adjust our expectations.’ ” Bieber finished third. “One of the judges actually left because she was upset that he didn’t come first,” Mallette said.
Encouraged by his strong performance, Mallette started posting more videos on YouTube—mostly so Bieber’s grandmother could see him—and soon he had a fan base, and that blew up, and, well, here we are 70 million albums, $485 million, and two Grammys later.
“It all happened organically,” Mallette said.
Canada’s Online Streaming Act, or Bill C-11—which is now being debated in Parliament and would make online streaming services prioritize Canadian content the same way Canada’s television and radio stations are regulated—would curtail that kind of organic growth, sharply limiting the rise of future Biebers.
“I believe in God,” Mallette said, “and I think that if it’s His will for him to be known worldwide, then He would have found a way to make that happen. But I don’t know that YouTube would have been the vehicle that would have been used.”
Canada’s Liberals insist the point of Bill C-11 is simply to update the 1991 Broadcasting Act, which regulates broadcasting of telecommunications in the country. The goal of the bill, according to a Ministry of Canadian Heritage statement, is to bring “online broadcasters under similar rules and regulations as our traditional broadcasters.”
In other words, streaming services and social media, like traditional television and radio stations, would have to ensure that at least 35 percent of the content they publish is Canadian content...
(Excerpt) Read more at thefp.com ...
Bad news for Canadians is good news for VPN vendors.
I’m stuned that the Bieber sold so many records ;-)
Would a really ‘free’ internet be better than what we have now? You know like the old Bell System. Everybody had access even the poor. It was one monopoly that worked, according to George Will, neocon.
Except, of course, that is not correct. Interstate rates were very high, effectively regulating the poor form communicating easily across state lines.
I recall interstate rates of a dollar a minute, and that was when a dollar was worth seven times what it is worth now.
So, when you think of this, consider paying $7 a minute for you cell phone conversations with persons in other states.
Yes, rates were very high. Also, you were charged extra for having more that one phone in your house, even on the same line.
The reason for the original law was so that Canadian content wouldn’t be overwhelmed by US and Brit programming in media that at the time had limited bandwidth. The Internet has no such limitation. Besides, Trudeau doesn’t regard Canada as being a distinct culture anyway. Therefore, it is about control.
Getting caught using a VPN will carry a hefty jail time.
Going for full commie. I love it.
All approved websites will be prefixed with CNW instead of WWW for Canada Narrow Web.
Oh ya.
I’m sure they’ll pick someone good to censor us for the betterment of our society.
Hahahahahahahahah!
What countries are VPNs still legal in?
So in Canada, for every 10 minutes of Breitbart news videos you watch (made in the US) will you have to watch 3.5 minutes of The Naked News (made in Canada)?
Using them in the service of illegal purposes has always been against the law.
Has Canada taken the top quality cigar producer spot yet?
If not, it won’t be long.
Up here in the great white north, we are aware of this legislation but as stated, if the purpose is to maintain a minimum 35% Canadian content, that is not going to be a problem for Canadian conservative web sites, where the content is a good deal more than 35% Canadian now. I see problems with enforcement of any such legislation on the internet for two reasons. One is that Canadian content is hard to define or validate, if I post on an internet site that global weather is going berserk, then would 35% of that article have to reference Canada, and how does my article count towards establishing a percentage? Obviously it is too nebulous to monitor. The other problem is that a Canadian internet site is only a Canadian internet site if the content provider lives in Canada and the domain ends .ca, otherwise it is not a Canadian internet site even if it is aimed at a Canadian user base.
So I don’t see this really amounting to actual censorship, just a nuisance law that can be easily ignored. The 35% content rule for non-internet broadcasters is also not a very high hurdle, imagine you have a TV station in Canada, when would your programming fail to reach 35% Canadian content on a normal news day? It is usually going to be closer to 50-50. A news story has to be fairly major to crack the default pattern of mostly local and national news, as in any country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.