http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/12/tech-copyright.html
This article is about the copyright Bill C-61 presented by Minister Jim Prentice which clearly states what can and cannot be done with digital media, generally they are attempting to make peer to peer sharing of media files illegal. I read that the future of internet can be implemented in positive ways, like the peer to peer file sharing was created with the intent to bring down the music industry. Another positive use was the invention of Skype, which uses similar P2P technology, and this technology is used with the intent to bring down the telecommunications systems. Apple's Iphone has even created programs to detect and destroy the use of skype on their iPhone.
More specifically, the ones that would loose more money i feel are media outlets, and Television networks. However even these networks are starting to take advantage of the internet by directly broadcasting their shows on their websites.
If anything P2P sharing shares the wealth for the artists. Like 'how the media is biased' radio stations are biased as well. generally radio stations play big label music not because the music is good but because the labels that produce these artists are paying to have their music broadcasted. In fact, the issue at hand was fought 80 years ago when the radio first came out. Artists felt that it was taking away from sales then, and now it is a positive form of exposure. You now consciously pick the music you want to listen, instead of having it mindlessly thrown at you.
Generally, the use of MySpace has brought new up and coming artists into the spotlight, which have created new band labels. These revenues are taken away from the big labels, such as Sony music, Warner Bros. studios, Universal studios, and virgin Music.
In fact the artist themselves dont actually lose money. Take iTunes for instance. people are actually paying for each iTunes song, and the artist gain their revenue. The revenue that would go towards the music studios are now going to apple. This is just a new form of business and they've taken advantage of that. Also artists stir the pot, because they actually don't like studio labels like, Prince, or more recently how radio head allowed fans to decide how much to pay for their album, and allowed them to download them for free. This slaps studios in the face Big time.
The bill, I feel is a negative aspect and the artists don't necessarily loose out. They are just sharing opportunity.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Smoking is Cool
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/smoking/smokingbans.html
This is mainly a rebuttal towards the blog posted by SSV, they are a worthy opponent. Canada is considered to be among those countries at the forefront of anti-smoking legislation, but the rest of the world is beginning to catch up.
As a non-smoker i have a large opinion on this topic, well if you now me i have a large opinion on everything. A study found that discriminating against smokers is the only form of acceptable form of discrimination. But in the end it still is discrimination. Taxing smokers for their lung cancer affects on the health care system is ridiculous. What about the Obese, they place great strain on our health care system and they don't pay anything for doing so. If anything smokers are already taxed, the only time i buy cigarettes is when i go over the boarder. The Canadian government taxes cigarettes largely, this money is most likely going back into the health care system, so if anything we should thank smokers currently for paying towards operating our health care system, but paying for research into cures for cancer and aids, and other diseases irrelevant towards smoking.
Also the argument of second hand smoke is unfair and ridiculous. Honestly smoking contributes approximately 5% to poor air quality. The rest of the 95% come from things like energy production, industry, and transportation. Our addiction to oil and production of nitrous oxides, Sulfurous oxides, are worst than our addiction to smoking. Take Europe for example; they have the largest amount of smokers in the world, smoking there is a large part of their culture, and it is greatly accepted. And yet they have higher life expectancy than we do. This is due to perhaps a better health care, but one things for sure is their air quality is much cleaner due to reduction of pollutants from transportation. Cars were made to transport people not cars.
In the end i feel that smoking is your choice, and like any choice you pay for the consequences. Yes it disturbs people, but that guy revving his supped up Honda civic in front of McGuinness Front Row is doing more external harm than any cigarette. These are known as externalities. In the good old days, Hollywood portrayed smoking as sexy and amazing, and i love this form of market placement, thats why i wanted to buy the tumbler after batman begin came out. Personally i think smoking is cool, i just don't smoke because I'm too cheap to buy smokes.
This is mainly a rebuttal towards the blog posted by SSV, they are a worthy opponent. Canada is considered to be among those countries at the forefront of anti-smoking legislation, but the rest of the world is beginning to catch up.
As a non-smoker i have a large opinion on this topic, well if you now me i have a large opinion on everything. A study found that discriminating against smokers is the only form of acceptable form of discrimination. But in the end it still is discrimination. Taxing smokers for their lung cancer affects on the health care system is ridiculous. What about the Obese, they place great strain on our health care system and they don't pay anything for doing so. If anything smokers are already taxed, the only time i buy cigarettes is when i go over the boarder. The Canadian government taxes cigarettes largely, this money is most likely going back into the health care system, so if anything we should thank smokers currently for paying towards operating our health care system, but paying for research into cures for cancer and aids, and other diseases irrelevant towards smoking.
Also the argument of second hand smoke is unfair and ridiculous. Honestly smoking contributes approximately 5% to poor air quality. The rest of the 95% come from things like energy production, industry, and transportation. Our addiction to oil and production of nitrous oxides, Sulfurous oxides, are worst than our addiction to smoking. Take Europe for example; they have the largest amount of smokers in the world, smoking there is a large part of their culture, and it is greatly accepted. And yet they have higher life expectancy than we do. This is due to perhaps a better health care, but one things for sure is their air quality is much cleaner due to reduction of pollutants from transportation. Cars were made to transport people not cars.
In the end i feel that smoking is your choice, and like any choice you pay for the consequences. Yes it disturbs people, but that guy revving his supped up Honda civic in front of McGuinness Front Row is doing more external harm than any cigarette. These are known as externalities. In the good old days, Hollywood portrayed smoking as sexy and amazing, and i love this form of market placement, thats why i wanted to buy the tumbler after batman begin came out. Personally i think smoking is cool, i just don't smoke because I'm too cheap to buy smokes.
Privatizing the LCBO is a Great Thing
Premier Harris says a re-elected Tory government might reconsider the idea of selling the province's liquor stores. The Conservatives promised to look at privatizing the LCBO in the last election. But they dropped the idea after Harris said the government would not get enough "bang for its buck." - cbc.ca, may 27 2008.
The concept of privatizing the LCBO is dear to my heart. Especially since i am from an area where alcohol is privatized, (Alberta) . There are so many different aspects i like and dislike about the LCBO, however there mostly dislikes! the only thing i like about the LCBO is the 'Around the World'. Thats where they have the international section in the LCBO and you can pick an choose an 8 pack made up of various beers of the world, mostly Europe. Another great aspect is the cleanness, and their large selection in wine, but i don't drink wine because wine is for people who are either old or snutty folk.
Aside from that I HATE the LCBO. Taking a page from my home town, alcohol privatization was decided by premier Klein, and in his most simple defense, it was largely due to the freedom of competition. He was a free thatcher ism, and a Reaganometallic supporter. Turns out Klein came out openly admitting that he was an ALCOHOLIC.
There are many reasons i love the idea of privatizing Alcohol. First of in a economic perspective, this now becomes another medium for people create small businesses. And for these people to become self sustaining, and provide motivation to excel, rather than having those high school graduates work at the communist regime the LCBO with no motivation to move ahead in their work.
Another reason is the open times. The LCBO closes at 11, that is so ridiculous. That doesn't give you enough time to get drunk at a bar, and decide to go to a liquor store afterwards for more. It pretty much means game is over when the tap runs dry. That i ssooooo ridiculous and makes life unworthy. In alberta, depending on the community; meaning the lower income areas, liquore stores are open till 2 am. That is capitalism right there. That owner is willing to stay up later to make more, and he is aiming those customers that want more at a lower cost, and people always want more.
Reason number 2, Since capitalism is in play, there would be more abundance of liquor stores. Back home, there are liquor stores at every plaza available. Here i have to take a 15 min bus ride in order to get to the nearest LCBO. And given that I'm a student, the freedom of a vehicle is not available. Liquor would be more easily accessible, and distance would not be a factor.
The last reason i HATE the LCBO is pricing, all the LCBO's have the same over priced liquor. Again capitalism would bring in best support for both the consumer and supplier. Competition amongst liquore stores would force them to lower prices, which would be great for us consumers, more specifically us poor university students.
Ever since i came here i never liked the LCBO and am still not a fan. Privatization all the way!!!
The concept of privatizing the LCBO is dear to my heart. Especially since i am from an area where alcohol is privatized, (Alberta) . There are so many different aspects i like and dislike about the LCBO, however there mostly dislikes! the only thing i like about the LCBO is the 'Around the World'. Thats where they have the international section in the LCBO and you can pick an choose an 8 pack made up of various beers of the world, mostly Europe. Another great aspect is the cleanness, and their large selection in wine, but i don't drink wine because wine is for people who are either old or snutty folk.
Aside from that I HATE the LCBO. Taking a page from my home town, alcohol privatization was decided by premier Klein, and in his most simple defense, it was largely due to the freedom of competition. He was a free thatcher ism, and a Reaganometallic supporter. Turns out Klein came out openly admitting that he was an ALCOHOLIC.
There are many reasons i love the idea of privatizing Alcohol. First of in a economic perspective, this now becomes another medium for people create small businesses. And for these people to become self sustaining, and provide motivation to excel, rather than having those high school graduates work at the communist regime the LCBO with no motivation to move ahead in their work.
Another reason is the open times. The LCBO closes at 11, that is so ridiculous. That doesn't give you enough time to get drunk at a bar, and decide to go to a liquor store afterwards for more. It pretty much means game is over when the tap runs dry. That i ssooooo ridiculous and makes life unworthy. In alberta, depending on the community; meaning the lower income areas, liquore stores are open till 2 am. That is capitalism right there. That owner is willing to stay up later to make more, and he is aiming those customers that want more at a lower cost, and people always want more.
Reason number 2, Since capitalism is in play, there would be more abundance of liquor stores. Back home, there are liquor stores at every plaza available. Here i have to take a 15 min bus ride in order to get to the nearest LCBO. And given that I'm a student, the freedom of a vehicle is not available. Liquor would be more easily accessible, and distance would not be a factor.
The last reason i HATE the LCBO is pricing, all the LCBO's have the same over priced liquor. Again capitalism would bring in best support for both the consumer and supplier. Competition amongst liquore stores would force them to lower prices, which would be great for us consumers, more specifically us poor university students.
Ever since i came here i never liked the LCBO and am still not a fan. Privatization all the way!!!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The New Hockey Night in Canada
Ohh, what a shame, so it will no longer be, I Truly am disappointed in the lost of our nations national theme. That song is probably more well known than our own national anthem. If anything that song crosses national lines and unites Canadians. Just asking who can sing our national anthem, if anything who can sing out nations anthem in French. The lack in words in the Hockey Night in Canada theme brings anglophones and francophones together. Surrounding our nations only athletic pride, Hockey. I mean what else are we athletically suppose to be proud about, Down hill ski. This is the one sport we are capable of holding over the Europeans. Colbert even made a huge skit about it on the show, where he played the theme, and ate hot dogs and shot a gun and talked about killing beavers. It was offensive to Canadians, but still funny.
And now there changing there throwing out a competition to change make a new song.The winnings are pretty substantial, $100 000, which is pretty good considering you only win 50 000 for winning in fear factor. But the evidence shows. The new theme will take a long time to adjust to. I mean looking at all the current entries. The most rating that anyone of them have received is no more than 2 out of 5 stars. People just cant let go, I cant let go, it will never be the same.
And now there changing there throwing out a competition to change make a new song.The winnings are pretty substantial, $100 000, which is pretty good considering you only win 50 000 for winning in fear factor. But the evidence shows. The new theme will take a long time to adjust to. I mean looking at all the current entries. The most rating that anyone of them have received is no more than 2 out of 5 stars. People just cant let go, I cant let go, it will never be the same.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Carbon Tax is a good thing Not because I'm a Hippie.
With the whole debate about Dion's carbon tax, and Harper's rejection of his ideas, Carbon tax is a huge current issue in Canada.
I think a carbon tax does not necessarily mean a bad thing. Just like our income taxes, most of us receive money for doing our taxes in April. The carbon tax would give everyone an alloted amount of carbon credits, and if we surpass that carbon limit we would pay the tax, depending on how many 'credits' we go over. However if we maintain and stay below the carbon credits, we would receive tax money for the many 'carbon credits' we don't use. And ideally whatever money is left over, it would be re-invested into green technology.
Yes we heat are homes, and yes we drive cars, but we would only be taxed if we were to do these things excessively. If anything, just like our normal income tax, the rich and business owners would be at the disadvantage, because they are the one's who buy big houses, and large hummers. I see it as a feasible way to be a social equalizer, and improve our social habits. It also encourages green technology, which is now a new form of industry, allotting opportunity for a new set of individuals in the amazing machine known as Capitalism..
I think the rising gas prices gives more of an incentive to buy hybrid vehicles, because as it stands, to buy a hybrid vehicle cost more than the lifetime use of a regular gas powered-vehicle. Also the price of hybrids are going drop as technology improves within the near future. A carbon tax would not only encourage Hybrid cars not only by their carbon producing nature, but money taken from the carbon tax would be re-invested back into improving the hybrid, that would reduce the cost of these vehicles.
The huge gas prices have already reflected in new green technology, for example Honda has now rolled out it's first fuel cell vehicle ready for mass production/retail. However i am against fuel cells and greatly support electric cars, which is why I'm waiting for 2010 when GM re-introduces their electric car, EV2.
We are a nation too Dependant on oil/non-renewable resources. There are always alternatives to oil consumption. Take the bus instead of driving, or even learn to ride a bike, or perhaps even a motorcycle.
Buy a smaller house, heat your house via green energy, wear more cloths, even green proof your home. There are always solutions. Consumerism is an ugly monster, we don't necessarily need that new car, or need that bigger house. Company's even know that products are designed to fail, such that you'll go out and buy a new product. I am content with how i live, and my minimalistic living costs and hope to keep this lifestyle when I'm making a salary.
The only confusion with the consumer carbon tax is the ability to keep track of everyone's carbon production.
This argument would be a great debate topic.
I think a carbon tax does not necessarily mean a bad thing. Just like our income taxes, most of us receive money for doing our taxes in April. The carbon tax would give everyone an alloted amount of carbon credits, and if we surpass that carbon limit we would pay the tax, depending on how many 'credits' we go over. However if we maintain and stay below the carbon credits, we would receive tax money for the many 'carbon credits' we don't use. And ideally whatever money is left over, it would be re-invested into green technology.
Yes we heat are homes, and yes we drive cars, but we would only be taxed if we were to do these things excessively. If anything, just like our normal income tax, the rich and business owners would be at the disadvantage, because they are the one's who buy big houses, and large hummers. I see it as a feasible way to be a social equalizer, and improve our social habits. It also encourages green technology, which is now a new form of industry, allotting opportunity for a new set of individuals in the amazing machine known as Capitalism..
I think the rising gas prices gives more of an incentive to buy hybrid vehicles, because as it stands, to buy a hybrid vehicle cost more than the lifetime use of a regular gas powered-vehicle. Also the price of hybrids are going drop as technology improves within the near future. A carbon tax would not only encourage Hybrid cars not only by their carbon producing nature, but money taken from the carbon tax would be re-invested back into improving the hybrid, that would reduce the cost of these vehicles.
The huge gas prices have already reflected in new green technology, for example Honda has now rolled out it's first fuel cell vehicle ready for mass production/retail. However i am against fuel cells and greatly support electric cars, which is why I'm waiting for 2010 when GM re-introduces their electric car, EV2.
We are a nation too Dependant on oil/non-renewable resources. There are always alternatives to oil consumption. Take the bus instead of driving, or even learn to ride a bike, or perhaps even a motorcycle.
Buy a smaller house, heat your house via green energy, wear more cloths, even green proof your home. There are always solutions. Consumerism is an ugly monster, we don't necessarily need that new car, or need that bigger house. Company's even know that products are designed to fail, such that you'll go out and buy a new product. I am content with how i live, and my minimalistic living costs and hope to keep this lifestyle when I'm making a salary.
The only confusion with the consumer carbon tax is the ability to keep track of everyone's carbon production.
This argument would be a great debate topic.
Hockey is Fascism
Originally this was an article i wrote for my high school newspaper, and where we come from hockey is a big deal. Basically I feel that the underlying theme is related to Poli-sci through the attacking of hockey, Canada's sport, and the acknowledgment of the blind patriotism. The support for an ideal, status, and/or symbol without proper background information. I understand the comparison is a far one, and extreme but that's what makes blogging fun.
To better understand, I wrote this article during the Flames run the playoffs in 06', the year after the flames made that Stanley cup playoff run. At the time i felt i needed to push back against this assembly of blind patriotism and band-wagon-jumping, and therefore i came up with this.
I think it's finally safe to state how i feel since the Flames have lost, so therefore i have decide to do this. Now some of you ask how is hockey fascism? And I'm pretty sure i have offended the majority of you as i say this, but it's not a blog if nobody's feelings are stepped on.
Fascism holds many features that it seems only obvious that the religion of hockey mirrors it; features of fascism include scapegoating, use of force, ultra-nationalism, controlled public participation, permanent conflict, and indoctrination of the media. And the religion of hockey contains all these facets.
The use of force only seems obvious; hockey fans cheer harder when i fight breaks out. Violence and force seems to be a logical solution, and beating up the opponent is good for the state, correction; i mean good for the team.
Ultra-nationalism is displayed alongside militarization, Flames fans believe that the flames are the best team in the NHL. If that is so then why are they ranked 3rd in the west, and why did they lose to the Ducks 0-3? I can't believe how many people have told me that the flames would make the finals, which means this year they would take the Cup, when they can't even get past first round. People join a fascist society, correction; I mean cheer for a team, in order to feel like a part of something important; that is why everyone is dressed in military uniforms, or in our case, red flames jerseys; (red sea, and red mile). People want to feel apart of something like they belong. That if they cheer a little louder then maybe that would be the cause of the win, when the truth is that it's the payers that win the game, not the fans.
Hitler used the Jewish people as scapegoats for all of Germany's problems. The technique of scapegoating allowed by Hitler to be undeniable and flawless. Flames fans use the same approach; they place blame on external factors that in truth do not affect the outcome of the game. "Oh, we lost because the ice was sluggish," or, "Oh the refs had it in for us." These are all forms of scapegoating, to place blame on others. These are all just excuses and by placing blame on others rather then yourself, you are only denying yourself the truth, because when it comes down to it the flames lost because of their own fault.
An essential feature of fascism, controlled participation, is greatly evident in a hockey society. You can cheer as much as you like for the teams, but when it comes down to it only one or an elite few actually makes decisions, the coach and the general manager. Honestly, you don't decide who plays and who is benched, who is traded and who is given a contract extension. Heck the elite few, the board of directors , could choose to move the team to Manitoba, or even back to Atlanta if they wanted to, and you, the public would have no say in this.
In conclusion there is no real point to this article, except that blind patriotism is basically imperialistic, and in some cases lead to genocide. So to those who may still have some patriotic energy left in them, don't be a traitor and cheer for Edmonton, they are our mortal enemies, and don't cheer for Ottawa either, since they are the east, (and you know how much the west hates the east- Trudeau and his NEP!) Instead focus you energy on Steve Nash and the Suns. You can't go wrong with a Canadian who has won 2 MVP's consecutively and is still in the playoffs. At least with this patriotism you are nationalistic.
To better understand, I wrote this article during the Flames run the playoffs in 06', the year after the flames made that Stanley cup playoff run. At the time i felt i needed to push back against this assembly of blind patriotism and band-wagon-jumping, and therefore i came up with this.
I think it's finally safe to state how i feel since the Flames have lost, so therefore i have decide to do this. Now some of you ask how is hockey fascism? And I'm pretty sure i have offended the majority of you as i say this, but it's not a blog if nobody's feelings are stepped on.
Fascism holds many features that it seems only obvious that the religion of hockey mirrors it; features of fascism include scapegoating, use of force, ultra-nationalism, controlled public participation, permanent conflict, and indoctrination of the media. And the religion of hockey contains all these facets.
The use of force only seems obvious; hockey fans cheer harder when i fight breaks out. Violence and force seems to be a logical solution, and beating up the opponent is good for the state, correction; i mean good for the team.
Ultra-nationalism is displayed alongside militarization, Flames fans believe that the flames are the best team in the NHL. If that is so then why are they ranked 3rd in the west, and why did they lose to the Ducks 0-3? I can't believe how many people have told me that the flames would make the finals, which means this year they would take the Cup, when they can't even get past first round. People join a fascist society, correction; I mean cheer for a team, in order to feel like a part of something important; that is why everyone is dressed in military uniforms, or in our case, red flames jerseys; (red sea, and red mile). People want to feel apart of something like they belong. That if they cheer a little louder then maybe that would be the cause of the win, when the truth is that it's the payers that win the game, not the fans.
Hitler used the Jewish people as scapegoats for all of Germany's problems. The technique of scapegoating allowed by Hitler to be undeniable and flawless. Flames fans use the same approach; they place blame on external factors that in truth do not affect the outcome of the game. "Oh, we lost because the ice was sluggish," or, "Oh the refs had it in for us." These are all forms of scapegoating, to place blame on others. These are all just excuses and by placing blame on others rather then yourself, you are only denying yourself the truth, because when it comes down to it the flames lost because of their own fault.
An essential feature of fascism, controlled participation, is greatly evident in a hockey society. You can cheer as much as you like for the teams, but when it comes down to it only one or an elite few actually makes decisions, the coach and the general manager. Honestly, you don't decide who plays and who is benched, who is traded and who is given a contract extension. Heck the elite few, the board of directors , could choose to move the team to Manitoba, or even back to Atlanta if they wanted to, and you, the public would have no say in this.
In conclusion there is no real point to this article, except that blind patriotism is basically imperialistic, and in some cases lead to genocide. So to those who may still have some patriotic energy left in them, don't be a traitor and cheer for Edmonton, they are our mortal enemies, and don't cheer for Ottawa either, since they are the east, (and you know how much the west hates the east- Trudeau and his NEP!) Instead focus you energy on Steve Nash and the Suns. You can't go wrong with a Canadian who has won 2 MVP's consecutively and is still in the playoffs. At least with this patriotism you are nationalistic.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
My beef with Canadian Content Regulations
While experiencing a lazy Sunday, i come across Show Case. One of my favorite Canadian produced channels. On this day i was whatching Men with Brooms, a Canadian produced Canadian directed, Canadian acted movie, co-staring Leslie Nielsen. Even the content was Canadian, it was about curling. This movie is pretty much one of the few Canadian regulated movies that i actually like.
Yes Canada is capable in providing entertaining films, but this regulation, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC) basically requiring films shown in Canada to be created by Canadians, is a ridiculous law. This approval is required in order to win certain prestigious awards like Juno's. Just because a particular movie isn't fully created by Canadians, doesn't mean it lacks Canadian patriotism. Such films including My Big fat Greek Wedding, and ironically Juno. My Big fat Greek Wedding was written by a woman from Winnipeg, but the fact that it was produced by Americans made the movie obsolete, even though the content was Canadian related, i mean come on a movie about about Greek immigrant family. Juno on the other hand not only starred a Canadian, and was directed by a Canadian, again was not deemed Canadian worthy even though the academy awards absolutely praised the movie. Canadian born Brian Adams was also rejected in the same fashion, because some of his songs were co-written by an American, the CRTC, and the JUNO awards rejected him. I stand by these artists, for some regulatory people to tell you that your work isn't Canadian, that your not Canadian, just because you associate with anyone aside from Canadians you become less Canadian.
Instead i am a fan of capitalism, and this law permits Canadian broadcasting from reaching their economic potential. For example, in recent years, the CBC bought the rights and broad casted Raptors games and Jays games in order to get high ratings and satisfy the CRTC. I mean i expect more out of the CBC, we don't need another sports channel, The Raptors aren't even owned by Canadians, and has more Euro's on that team than Canadians.
Private broadcasting companies should be aloud to broad cast whatever they want, and maybe then less people would turn to cable.
P.S. Canada was well represented in the MTV movie awards, through Mike Myers and Seth Roegan, and that Canadian patriotism can be promoted with or without the CRTC.
Yes Canada is capable in providing entertaining films, but this regulation, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC) basically requiring films shown in Canada to be created by Canadians, is a ridiculous law. This approval is required in order to win certain prestigious awards like Juno's. Just because a particular movie isn't fully created by Canadians, doesn't mean it lacks Canadian patriotism. Such films including My Big fat Greek Wedding, and ironically Juno. My Big fat Greek Wedding was written by a woman from Winnipeg, but the fact that it was produced by Americans made the movie obsolete, even though the content was Canadian related, i mean come on a movie about about Greek immigrant family. Juno on the other hand not only starred a Canadian, and was directed by a Canadian, again was not deemed Canadian worthy even though the academy awards absolutely praised the movie. Canadian born Brian Adams was also rejected in the same fashion, because some of his songs were co-written by an American, the CRTC, and the JUNO awards rejected him. I stand by these artists, for some regulatory people to tell you that your work isn't Canadian, that your not Canadian, just because you associate with anyone aside from Canadians you become less Canadian.
Instead i am a fan of capitalism, and this law permits Canadian broadcasting from reaching their economic potential. For example, in recent years, the CBC bought the rights and broad casted Raptors games and Jays games in order to get high ratings and satisfy the CRTC. I mean i expect more out of the CBC, we don't need another sports channel, The Raptors aren't even owned by Canadians, and has more Euro's on that team than Canadians.
Private broadcasting companies should be aloud to broad cast whatever they want, and maybe then less people would turn to cable.
P.S. Canada was well represented in the MTV movie awards, through Mike Myers and Seth Roegan, and that Canadian patriotism can be promoted with or without the CRTC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)