Killing CanuckFlix


If you require further evidence that big business loves regulation—provided it's the other guy being regulated—I submit this story from Canada's Globe and Mail:

Canada's television industry is banding together to pressure the CRTC into regulating Netflix, as traditional broadcasters face a mounting challenge from the fast-growing online TV and movie service.

It's the strongest sign yet of the Canadian television industry's growing worries in the face of the threat posed by alternative broadcasters.

Such "over-the-top" services as Netflix are increasingly competing with traditional media businesses, and enjoy what some industry officials contend is an unfair advantage, especially in Canada….

Cable and satellite companies worry that the availability of cheap alternative TV services could lead customers to cut the cord on their subscriptions. That could erode the subscriber revenues and advertisement dollars the industry depends on.

Full story.

NEXT: Nodding to political reality, the Post Office snubs the Statue of Liberty, honors the Statue of Doubling Down When You're Deep in a Hole

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How does this work into the fact that I can watch everything the Trailer Park Boys have ever made on Netflix?

    1. (oh, add to the list X-Files, Stargate-Everything, Tripping The Rift, and every other piece of television produced in Canada that’s available on WatchInstantly.)

      1. The hilarious thing is, due to licensing issues, most of those shows aren’t available on Netflix Canada (at least Trailer Park Boys is).

        Netflix Canada has maybe 25% of the content that the US version has.

        1. Isn’t it great when licensing issues prevent the gainful distribution of your product? As long as it foils those dastardly pirates, yarrr?

          1. Netflix Canada has maybe 25% of the content that the US version has.

            Isn’t it great when licensing issues prevent the gainful distribution of your product?

            Gainful? How much does Netflix Canada cost? I am guessing that rather than costing the corporation money, the Canadian government is simply screwing those who subscribe to Netflix. If they really do only provide 25% of the content because of “licensing” it should only cost $2. I am guessing that Canadians get 75% less for the same price thanks to their government.

            1. But the canadians don’t even get a chance to pay for the opporunity to watch it on their computer.

              “gainful” in the sense that you’d be making some royalties because your product is actually being watched by people who were previously restricted to seeing you on CTV’s airwave reruns.

        2. It’s wierd that there even is a separate Netflix Canada, at least as far as the instant viewing is concerned. I find it odd that somehow, just by travelling across the border, I could no longer access the same stuff on Netflix that I could get here.

          1. It’s wierd that there even is a separate Netflix Canada, etc etc

            Welcome to the wonderful world of International Intellectual Property Law.

          2. Don’t worry. That could never happen to the intertoobz.

          3. Don’t forget, Canada didn’t get Netflix until October 2010, like six months ago. Before that we had no access at all.

            1. Also there are many other internet services unavailable to Canadians. Hulu, Pandora, Amazon music, just to name a few, are all unavailable here. We’re lucky we’re able to get youtube.

          4. Travel across the border with your smartphone, and try to stream Pandora. You get a nice little message saying this stream of bits isn’t available in Canada.

            1. And never forget that it is to protect you.

      2. What, no love for Todd & the Book of Pure Evil?

  2. I defy anyone to link to anything–that’s ever been produced for American television–that’s any more entertaining than this:

    I am not a Canadian, but I watch that?

    And I thank God for Canada.

    1. I’ve seen too many people who really are that dishonest, zonked and stupid to find that funny. One of them was nominally my boss. That was a hoot until he didn’t make it in for payday — his and ours.

      1. I’m sorry your boss was that way.

        But you know what they say: If you can’t laugh at yourself and your own situation–try laughing at other people!

        And if it makes you feel any better? Every season starts with them getting out of jail, and every season ends with them getting arrested and thrown back in jail.

        1. That was my favorite bit of continuity.

          I think the biggest draw for me is that it’s Reno911 from the perps perspective. Which is more fun.

    2. One word: Archer. I could post clips, but most of them require some sort of context to maximize the funny.

      1. You’re like a… name dropper… nomad.

        Dammit! I had a thing for this!

      2. Oh, you know, Lana, just living the dream.

        1. You guys ever seen the actress that does Lana’s voice?

          I mean, holy shit.

          1. Smoking. She did Talk Soup for a while. She was also in the Kanye “Slow Jamz” video.

            By the way…

            Danger zone!

          2. Wow. Did they base the character on the actress?

      3. As I was flipping through the Sunday ads, I saw that the first season of Archer was on sale for ten bucks this week at Target.

    3. I defy anyone to link to anything–that’s ever been produced for American television–that’s any more entertaining than this

      Uh, any random 10 minutes from seasons 1-4 of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia?

      Or this?

    4. It’s funny, but I think some of the stuff from Curb your Enthusiasm is funnier.

  3. The part of the “broken window helps the glassman” theory you never hear about: When United Glass Workers pressures the government to regulate reinforced glass and glass-strengthening technology.

    1. They’re called “glaziers”.

  4. If CTV doesn’t have Kids in the Hall on demand then it deserves to die.

    1. OH, i left that off my list above. That was the 1st series where I noticed their new “all seasons in one unit” organization. No more “back to browsing” to pull up the next season, woo!

      1. Same here. I approve of the change.

        1. $10bucks a month, AND they keep making it better….IT’S LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!ONEONEONE

  5. That first link to “further evidence” is a “must-read” but a “shouldn’t have to read”. This is something anybody with an ounce of common sense should realize. It drives me nuts, like with the “net neutrality” crap, that people turn to the government to save us from those same corporations that run the government.

    The whole purpose of the CRTC, like the FCC, was to regulate a scarce public good, the public airwaves, in the name of the public interest. Given that the internet doesn’t use the airwaves at all you might think that the CRTC should have no more interest in this than if CTV were to begin publishing transcripts of its programs in the Toronto Globe and Mail. But if you think any government agency would even think of curtailing its powers just because its raison d’etre ceases to etre, then perhaps you also think that Big Government and Big Business are enemies.

    1. if CTV were to begin publishing transcripts of its programs in the Toronto Globe and Mail.

      Whoa, slow down there buddy. Certainly theres some sort of regulatory entity that has sway over their newspapers too, right, guy?

  6. Did I hear a request for Over the Top?

    1. No excuse is ever needed for some Over the Top or Cobra goodness.

  7. Come to think of it, since “over-the-air” broadcasters no longer operate primarily over the air, why *do* we still have the FCC?

    1. To arbitrate the allocation of bandwidth for cellphone, WiFi, and Radio providers.

      To address your real point: DISCONNECT THE FCC FROM TELEVISION NOW.

      End Transmission.


        (bandwidth allocation, that’s it. only function. nothing else. NOTHING. NOZEENG!)

        1. (Standard Libertarian Disclaimer applicable where valid. “If there HAS to be an FCC…” etc)

        2. ME, bitches.

          1. What, General Welfare called in sick today? That’s a two star demotion.

            1. C’mon, who wants to do a cartoon with these characters where we portray the demise of our nation?

              1. Say, that’s not a bad idea…

                  1. It’s already been done.

                    -1 internets for the trick, -5 internets because…huh?

    2. I’m clinging to my rooftop antenna and free TV with commercials.

      1. Darwin strikes again. Watchout for the blackice up there. (Dammit, why’d you tell him that, *facepalm*)

        1. In a lightning storm….

    3. Come to think of it, since “over-the-air” broadcasters no longer operate primarily over the air, why *do* we still have the FCC?

      Because the FCC is one of the few government agencies with the ability to censor, duh.

    4. Because they still do operate over the air.

  8. They are totally taking the wrong angle on this. What they need to do is involk the Canadian content laws by pointing out how 95% of everyone on Netflix is not produced in Canada.

    1. Excuse me. Having RTFA, I now realize that is exactly what they are doing.

      Apparantly, there is not enough “Canadian cultural programming” on Netflix.

      Yes, I remember the cultural programming from social studies class. It consisted of lots of stupid comparisons between the US and Canada, in which Canada was always portrayed as superior.

      1. With the number of Canadians who went to Hollywood to make it big, you’d think that would be enough Canadian content right there.

      2. I remember an interview with some SCTV guys explaining the “Canadian content” thing and how SCTV was barred from Canada because of it. Barred, that is, until they developed some Canadian content: The Mackenzie Brothers.

        1. SCTV did a whole spoof on that. They had these faux commercials about the glory of Canada. They always involved a woodchuck. Like most things on SCTV, they were quite funny.

      3. Without CanCon, Celine Dion, Justine Bieber and Loverboy never would have been able to act within their proper sphere.

        1. I remember that a Bryan Adams album wasn’t considered “Canadian Content” because one of the producers was from another country.

    2. 95% of everyone on Netflix is not produced in Canada

      This actually tickles my curiosity. As I’ve been pointing out, almost everything I watch on Netflix is produced by canadians (with canadian actors), the BBC, or Comedy Central (still waiting for CN/AS to sign a deal, i hate the adultswim website.)

      I wonder if Netflix tracks those statistics on it’s inventory? It’d be a pretty monumental investigative task for us to undertake.

    1. The only hit he’s had in years. *boom boom*

  9. 95% of everyone on Netflix is not produced in Canada

    Does this mean that 5% of everyone on Netflix *is* produced in Canada? Is that like where our pancreases and bile ducts come from? I’m not sure what my pancreas is or what it does, but next time I my bodily humours start acting up, I’m blaming Canada!

    1. I have a serious typo problem. It’s really hurtful to make fun of it, you insensitive jerk.

      1. No, no, no. You’re supposed to say “Oh yeah?! Well screw you guys, I’m going home”. (And you gotta use the Cartman voice.)

  10. The CRTC is the evil twin of the FCC. It has far more regulatory power and is far more nannyish, with a Canadian nationalist streak pandering to preferred corporate interests: CBC, CTV, Rogers, Bell and Shaw.

    Think of it as the FCC controlled by Michael Moore, Ralph Nader and Jack Valenti.

    The only respect in which the CRTC is better than the FCC is that they don’t care about f-bombs and sex.

    1. The only respect in which the CRTC is better than the FCC is that they don’t care about f-bombs and sex.

      So, their political equivalent of American Idol?

    2. they don’t care about f-bombs and sex.

      Neither do I.

    3. The CRTC is the evil twin of the FCC. It has far more regulatory power and is far more nannyish, with a Canadian nationalist streak pandering to preferred corporate interests: CBC, CTV, Rogers, Bell and Shaw.

      What about Stompin’ Tom Connors?

  11. On the subject of subsidized “cultural” programming…I’m tempted to do some work with the Chesapeake crabbers, do a bit of filming, and end up producing my own Cultural Programming without any subsidies, and the main cost being my time…which, as evidenced here, ain’t worth much.

    But yeah, we need more than a few camcorders, a PC, and an internet connection to preserve culture…

  12. We can only afford to suck when government provides us a safe environment to suck in. Otherwise we would be at the mercy of consumer demand Godless capitalism of which no Canadian should suffer it’s unforgiving wrath.

    1. and yet Donald S Cherry still gets airtime.

      1. Donald S Cherry


          1. I loved when he was on ESPN that year and said Wings fans were disappointed (despite winning the Cup!) because they didn’t play rock-’em, sock-’em hockey. Zetterberg was a Swede, owned the playoffs, and he ripped him the whole time.

            Okay, Don. Try again.

        1. Biggest idiot in sports. This is a man who as a coach once gave away a seventh game because his team couldn’t properly execute a line change and got called for too many men on the ice. God I hate that guy.

          1. Too many men on the ice is almost always the fault of the player.

            Cherry has been doing a lounge act for years and it has paid him very well. But he really was a pretty decent coach at various levels. He wouldn’t be a good coach NOW, but nobody who was a winning coach in the 70’s would be a good coach now.

            1. I will be willing to grant you that perhaps his schtick is just that and a way to stay on TV. Maybe he doesn’t believe all of the stupid shit he says. His whole “tough hockey and only Candians can play it” bullshit wears thin. He is constantly ragging on Ovie and everyone knows that if Ovie played for a Canadian team rather than the Caps, Cherry would love him.

            2. So he was a good coach in the 1970s, yet he hates the one star today (Ovetchkin) who is actually tough enough and enough of a goon to have played back then. That in a nutshell is why I hate Cherry.

              1. part of his act is being a right-wing populist and making fun of the loony-left.

                1. I didn’t say he was all bad.

    2. I don’t deal with psychos, I put ’em away

  13. Also, the CRTC made every radio station play Edmund Fitzgerald’s “Wreck of the Gordon Lightfoot” 5 times a day.

    1. Not to mention “Snowbird” by Anne Murray. Or even worse, “Seasons in the Sun”.

    2. Hey. You leave Gordon alone. He deserved a better fate than to be thrown in with the rest of the 70s soft rock rabble.

    3. ::tears up::

      That’s a great song!

  14. How come no one is reviewing the movie?
    I saw it tonight and I was happy that Sidney Prescott survived again

    1. Did your mom teach you what to do when you had nothing nice to say?

    2. you shut your whore mouth when men are talking


    Wow does Portman have a nice ass. And the body double is gorgous, especially when you think she has an Irish accent to go with it.

    1. Portman is amazing, I became aware of this from the short she did at the beginning of Darjeeling Limited.

      I just saw Hall Pass the other day and will say that Nicky Whelan is likely the hottest substance in the galaxy.

      1. I don’t know why she just doesn’t admit she didn’t do a lot of the dancing in The Black Swan. Ballet is a lifetime art. You don’t just pick it up in a year of tutoring. It would be like someone being in a movie playing a violinist and saying “I practiced really hard for a year and that was me playing Paginini’s Caprices in the movie”. Ah no.

        1. “I had my editor count. There are 139 dance shots in the film. 111 are Natalie untouched. 28 are her dance double Sarah Lane,” Aronofsky told Entertainment Weekly. “If you do the math that’s 80% Natalie Portman. There are two complicated longer dance sequences that we used face replacement. Even so, if we were judging by time, over 90% would be Natalie.”

          Echoed Millepied: “It was so believable, it was fantastic, that beautiful movement quality,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “There are articles now talking about her dance double that are making it sound like [Lane] did a lot of the work, but really, she just did the footwork, and the fouettes, and one diagonal in the studio. Honestly, 85% of that movie is Natalie.”

          Portman’s costar, Mila Kunis, also came to the actress’ defense. “She did do every ounce of every one of her dances,” Kunis, 27, told EW. “[Lane] wasn’t used for everything. It was more like a safety net. If Nat wasn’t able to do something, you’d have a safety net. The same thing that I had — I had a double as a safety net. We all did. No one ever denied it.”


          breaking news: sometimes stunt or body doubles are used in movies

    2. Thank you for sharing your fetishes with us again.

      1. So you don’t like looking at beautiful young women’s bodies? I didn’t know that about you Tulpa. NTTAWWT

        1. How would you know? I keep my degrading attitude toward women to myself.

          1. So admiring Portman’s ass is degrading? Do you also post on feministing Tulpa?

            1. While I think Tulpa is way off-base to say that admiring the human body is degrading, I find John’s constant reference to hot women similar to the guy in 8th grade who’s secretly gay and trying to prove to everyone that he really DOES think chicks are hot! And man, does he really want to fuck ’em!

            2. I don’t support describing one’s bowel movements in blog comments, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s degrading to have them.


    The Dems are trying to run former LTG Sanchez for Senate in Texas. Sanchez was the one who was in charge of Iraq during Abu Garhib. You remember that scandal that was in all the papers that every Democrat in 2004 said was the result of orders from higher up? And now they are running the higher up that was most directly responsible for Senate. WTF?

    1. Well, you see, her last name is Sanchez.

      This is seriously our strategy to win elections in Texas.

      1. LTG Sanchez is a he. And he was the ground commander in Iraq who put all the pressure on the intel people to bring in interrogation techniques from Bahgram to Iraq, although this had nothing to do with the gang of sadists on night shift at Abu Garib. But to hear Dems tell it in 04 it did.

        You are thinking of the MP one star who was in charge of the place. It is a wonder they are not running her for the House somewhere.

        1. I thought that LTG meant lesbian transgendered, I can’t keep these things straight anymore

    2. Hey, just like the GOP has to run moderates like Scott Brown in the Northeast Dems have to be realistic in an ultra conservative place like Texas and run a torturer.

      1. It is as if MNG that the Dems said all that stuff about torture to score cheap political points. The fact that they will run Sanchez just shows that they dind’t mean anything they said about Abu Garhib.

        Also Sanchez was an idiot promoted well beyond his rank because he was one of Shinseki’s pets and is probably more responsible than anyone for fucking up the occupation. So I guess the Democrats didn’t mean anything they said about that either.

        Seriously MNG, are you that big of a hack? Did you not believe any of that shit either? Were you just scoring partisan points to? If the answer to those questions is “no”, then how can you excuse running Sanchez? The Dems runnning Sanchez is just revealing people like you to be either mindless hacks or rubes. Which are you?

        1. I was kind of just making a joke about how hard core law and order Texas is.

          If I were in Texas I would hold the guys torture stance against him for sure. But I don’t, and they try to run people in states that might not be in line with the ‘national’ values.

          Does the GOP nomination and the embrace by conservatives at the time of pro-choice Scott Brown in Ma mean the GOP doesn’t mean any of that ‘shit’ they push about abortion?

          1. But it is not like there was any debate in the Democratic party over iraq or abu garib. There are and have been pro choice republicans. The Dems running Sanchez is akin to the Republicans running Tim Geihtner for Senate in a few years. If they were to do that, it would show beyond doubt their objections to the deficit and TARP was just scoring political points rather than sincerely held positions.

            1. I thought TARP went down with a GOP Prez and Congress?

              1. Unsurprisingly, you thought wrong.

          2. They’re trying to pick up liberal democrat voters with Sanchez….the repubs will still vote for the R candidate.

            1. and Sanchez will bringinvite WarPig Obama to stump for him….

            2. There aren’t any moderates in Texas?

              Actually, I think that might be right.

      2. Hey, just like the GOP has to run moderates like Scott Brown in the Northeast Dems have to be realistic in an ultra conservative place like Texas and run a torturer.

        Those aren’t even comparable. If the GOP had run a hardcore Maoist in MA, then you’d have a point.

        1. I thought pro-choicers like Scott Brown were promoting a holocaust of baby-killing, am I wrong in that Tulpa?

          1. I mean, holocaust of baby-murder > torture of detainees, right?

            And yet conservatives who daily shout about this holocaust enthusiastically supported Brown.

            Must have been political points to be scored!


    This has to be read to be believed. And no, I don’t think even a high paying wall street job would be worth having to lick a jello shot off of that skank’s stomach.

    1. “She had hands as big as Andre the Giant’s, and she had an Adam’s apple as big as her balls.”

      1. Part of it is kind of a reflection of what pathetic pussies men on Wall Street apparently are. I like the guy who felt so immasculated he couldn’t have sex for months. If you let some crazy bitch boss cause you do not want to have sex, I would say you were emasculated long before you met her.


    History shows that litigation and the civil justice system have served as the most consistent and powerful forces in heightening safety standards, revealing previously concealed defects and regulatory weaknesses and deterring manufacturers from cutting corners on safety for the goal of greater profits.

    For years, the auto industry has worked to undermine regulations and limit its liability by pushing for complete immunity from lawsuits when their vehicles comply with minimum federal safety standards. This would, in short, be devastating for consumers.…..story.html

    1. See workman’s compensation for another example of this. Workman’s comp is a nightmare if you are actually hurt on the job because of your employer’s negligence. It is however a dream if you are deadbeat looking to work the system or a lawyer. Most of the really crazy products liability cases are the result of courts trying to do justice in cases where the victim is bared from actually collecting against the guilty party, his employer.

    2. History shows that technology and insurance companies and their ratings (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) are considerably more “consistent” than litigation. Litigation can be powerful, but consistent? Hardly.

    3. The history of auto safety standards is and interesting one. Up untill the 1940s it was the industry itself that led in adopting new technologies that made driving safer and easier. They had no problem persuading customers to pay the extra price for each enhancement, it was obvious to people that safety glass and self-starters and so on were improvements that would make their lives better. And it took absolutely no legislation to force carmakers to adopt these improvements.

      Consumers have been much less willing to bear the costs of many of the safety features adopted since the 1950s. There is a sizable contingent who believe that seat belts are not just useless but even harmful. And while I personally would not buy a car without three point belts (I think I might even be willing to go for four) I am less than convinced that the marginal safety improvement afforded by airbags is worth the added cost.

      Its also worth remembering that research into all of these safety features was started by the auto companies with absolutely no government initiative. They mostly started to slack off and carry it through because consumers sent a clear message that they weren’t willing to pay for the stuff.

      The legislation rquiring automakers to install these safety features is not required because they are unwilling to do it. It’s required because customers aren’t willing to ask for it.

  19. Listening to every No. 1 song. Ever.

    From “Blue Moon” to “Roses Are Red” to “Deep Purple” to “Paint It Black” to “Green Tambourine” to “Black and Yellow,” 1,001 songs, as of last week, have topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart in the United States since its inception in 1958. And I’ve listened to them all.

    So, what did I learn from listening to this entire catalogue in chronological order?…..story.html

    1. I got in serious trouble at the Super Bowl party this year for not knowing about “Black & Yellow”. What can I say, I’m a geezer before my time.

  20. “Cable and satellite companies worryknow that the availability of cheap alternative TV services could lead customers to cut the cord on their subscriptions. ”

    Fixed that for you. In the last 7 years, I’ve only had cable service 1 year, and that was only because it came bundled.

    1. How would you feel if you were a poor government sanctioned monopoly and people were canceling your services left and right? Put yourself in the cable company’s shoes for a second. Don’t you believe in the golden rule?

      1. If I put myself in the cable company’s shoes for a second, then I’d want myself to die in a fire for a second.

  21. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense dude.

  22. I figure the Canadian government will eventually allow Netflix whatever they want so long as every member rents or streams at least 25% Canadian content.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.