In a statement aired on CTV Newsnet that same day; Bill McKenzie, lawyer for Bell ExpressVu (the Canadian equivalent to Direct TV) himself, told CTV's Mike Duffy that this issue isn't related to freedom of expression.
Oh really, I said to myself. But I was still in denial so I watched some more.
He went on to compare the argument to going to a movie theatre without paying and then saying that to not be able to watch the movie, for free, is a violation of free speech.
Even as a Canadian viewer, I found those comments to be misleading. After all, the focus of government regulation in this industry has always been to protect Canadian content. That's why television networks, north of the border, have a minimum quota of Canadian programming that they must air by law. That's also why in Canada we get The Discovery Channel Canada instead The Discovery Channel; as well as TSN (The Sports Network) instead of ESPN.
But more importantly 'grey market' satellite viewers are not 'watching the movie for free.' For the benefit of those odon't who don't know how the so-called 'grey-market' works, here's brief recap. Companies like Can-Am, the defendant in this recent court case, supply its customers with a 'phony' American address, a dish and services, so that a Canadian customer can subscribe and pay for programming that originates from U.S. satellite broadcasters, such as Direct TV. In order words, even a 'grey market' viewer still has to pay for the programming after having only lied about the home address. But McKenzie was partially right. The court left it up to the providers to make a case, some other day, that the law violates freedom of communication, normally guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. All this court ruling states is that Canadian satellite providers are subject to Canadian law. Were we expecting them to be subject to Indonesian law?
This court case really seemed to about market exclusivity and even the United States, the land where freedom of speech is a way of life, has laws concerning market exclusivity. For an example, if I were living in Northern Verwouldn'tstill wouldn't be allowed to watch WABC-7 from New York because WVNY-22 in Burlington, Vermont is the exclusive distributor of ABC programming for the local market. The same type of legislation applies to TSN and ESPN because TSN has the exclusive Canadian rights to some of the programming originating from ESPN. This could come as a shock to many Canadians, but ESPN may not even want its 'grey market' viewers. ESPN's advertising revenue come from Americans, not Canadians, yet its parent company (Disney), does make money from TSN, which is not only partly owned by Disney but also carries some ESPN programming, with Canadian advertising.
Go To Page: 1 2
