Face it Parnel, it is your facile argument that is smoke and mirrors. CNN is on basic cable because it entered the marketplace first, FOX came along 15 years later. But the basis of your lane argument is you want to deny property rights in the Canadian market to Americans!

Funny last time I looked Canada was a sovereign country and a member of the GATT. This means we respect international trade rules and the property rights of those who offer their items for sale within our marketplace. But what you are suggesting is that we remove those property rights from all foreign producers of intellectual property and deny them the right to sell or license their property for sale in Canada.

Instead you would turn over those property rights to the Canadian market to American companies, who then would use their market power to extract those rights for far less than a free Canadian market would provide to the owner and seller of those rights.

In concrete terms, it costs about $2 million to make a one-hour TV show. US networks generally pay no more than 75% of that cost. The producer must make up the difference by licensing the program to foreign TV networks, or borrow from the bank. With up to three networks in Canada bidding for this program, the producer will see far more return from the Canadian market than if his US network just added another 5% for the Canadian market rights.

So why, Parnel and Simon and others, are you arguing for the expropriation of these vital property rights and thus denying a foreign entrepreneur from making a legitimate return on his investment from the Canadian market? How can you call yourself capitalists, conservatives and free marketers yet insist this be done so you can watch Ricky Gervais’ new sitcom a few months earlier?

As for TIME magazine, it was never restricted from selling in Canada, as are any other publications from anywhere else in the world. Take a look at any major newsstand in any city in Canada -- the Hub in Edmonton for example -- and you will find more choice from more countries than a similar newsstand -- if you can even find one -- in a similar sized US city, or just about any other city in the world.

The issue with TIME was that in order for Canadian advertisers to claim their ad expenses in TIME as legitimate costs of business, the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker insisted that there be Canadian editorial content in TIME. It could not just dump the American edition into the Canadian market with Canadian ads, the same way it creates dozens of regional editions across the US with split ad runs but identical editorial material. So TIME complied -- as it does in Australia, the UK, France and dozens of other countries -- and created a few pages of Canadian editorial material.

Why do you consider intellectual content property to be different from the normal marketplace function that applies to any other product? Why does Dell sell computers via Dell Canada and not directly from the US? Why did Amazon set up a Canadian operation rather than just operate from the US? Because these companies recognize the sovereignty of the Canadian marketplace.

Back when Dief the thief made up those rules(btw I think it was PET or Pearson actually) Time had a Time Canada Inc set up but the advertisers were not allowed to deduct their ad expenses from their taxes. Discrimination pure and simple. As for the rest of your hogwash...I'm through with discussing illogical approaches that are based on nationalism rather than sound business practices.

It ain't personal it's the FT AC Forum (LOL).......so nice to be back after my holiday away :p !

And finally...

Only Americans can own television and radio licenses in the US. Rupert Murdoch had to become an American to pursue his plans with FOX. Given the population dominance of the US within the English speaking North American landscape [15x that of Canada], any American broadcast network will be significantly larger than any similar entity anywhere in the world.

By not maintaining territorial sovereignty to markets, as argued by Parnel and Simon and others, it simply means that Canadian businesspeople will never own or operate television or radio stations or networks in our own country because the American networks would overwhelm both the economics and the content of anthing we could provide. We would have no way of entering the US market unless we became American companies, changed nationality and set up south of the border.

And in the end, we would never see any Canadian news or stories about ourselves because none of this would be of interest to 85% of the market that would thus exist. Our history would be mistold with all the distortions Hollywood is famous for when it comes to how the US single-handedly won WWII, not to mention the War of 1812. There would be no viable local stations unless they were affiliated to US networks who would supply 90% of the programming.

This would be worse than the Branch Plant economy and culture we have been accused of tolerating, but a thorough colonization of our marketplace and information sources.

But none of this seems to matter...does it?

You're through because you haven't a leg to stand on as you bluster through a situation where you've backed yourself into a corner. You have agreed that private property rights should not exist in Canada for American content producers, and ignored decades of trade and international telecommunications law. Not to mention the very notion of national sovereignty. You might as well move across the lake to Syracuse and live if the land of the free, where you can watch FOX news on basic cable or satellite and revel in the bully tactics that so suit your bombast. Your arguments are based solely on American nationalism and manifest destiny. Sound business practices are based on orderly markets and respect for property rights. Something you clearly do not believe in.

SH, I need to get myself some of that coffee you use !

Shareholder, I think you were doing better when you stuck to arguing that the American copyright holders had sold exclusive rights to Canadian broadcasters.

=aw

[QUOTE=Shareholder]
No corners here to back into.........as you know I'm a free wheeling capitalist and protectionism of any kind is against my agnostic thinking. Maybe if Canda were not so nationalistic and we could tread into US waters we might own some of the US business. Remember Jack kent Cooke.

BS I said they should be able to sell their wares freely...the fact you would never make a movie is not a consequence I worry about. I have said they should not have to sell their wares through Canadian(intermediaries) bag men who increase our costs.


What, now you think FOX and CNN are going to rob me of my sovereignty. Screw off; I think independently not like a socialist.

I don't need anyone to tell me where to live; especially from a soclalist. Oakville is just fine right now for me and my so called "bully pulpit" because I don't believe in being a whimpy puppy dog. You can't stand the heat about being on the take here with subsidized documentaries feeding your bank account.

My arguments are based on my ability to be a free and logical thinker and not sullied by dirty money.



That's about as dumb a statement that has come from you and there have been some doozies. :rolleyes:
Orderly markets are generally free markets where people work for profit to make money and pay taxes...something you with your hand out would not understand.

Why does the US have a higher standard of living than we do?
I would not want it for myself but their economic success is measurably better than ours.

It doesn't. Link.

That was Parnel who raised the "nationalist" banner on my behalf, it wasn't my quote you used. I am not arguing that one at all, save for the implications not having a viable economic base for indigenous production which would be that the only Canadian cultural products would be in French, since the only indigenous market will be among the Quebecois as the Americans would not be interested in serving this population and leave it to the "locals".

To me, Parnel and others are being Communists in the truest fashion of the word as it is they who are arguing in favour of expropriating personal property rights. I am upholding the free and fair interplay of markets as guarenteed under world trade laws and intellectual property provisions. This is no different than protecting patents to maximize their economic exploitation and return to the owners.

Parnel, you keep missing the point that the networks you think Canadians should buy these programs through do not own the rights to sell them in Canada. And if they were to buy these rights, the producers would actually lose out because they currently get more by selling directly to Canadian wholesalers, or networks. It works the same way with every retail/wholesale transaction. You cannot sell something to someone you don't own. And you cannot force someone to sell you those rights if they get a better offer from someone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by parnel
...Why does the US have a higher standard of living than we do?
...


By what measures? As pointed out, the quality of life measures used by the UN certainly don't show this. Maybe income, but that's about it. There are proportionately more poor and under educated in the United States than in Canada. We all know the sorry state of health care in the US. Sure it's great if you can get affordable insurance. And most pay whatever the income differential is per month to cover the cost of these policies.

Again, I invite you to pack up and move across the lake because you so detest everything that makes Canada so much move liveable for the vast majority of people. Sure, for the rich, the US is paradise. Low taxes, a fool's pricing for gas, massive denial of public infrastructure shortcomings -- just look to see how ignoring the need to buttress the levees around NOL have resulted in today's disaster. [And this was a natural disaster that had been ranked ahead of any west coast earth quakes, and for overall disaster, right behind an attack on NYC. But Buch still cut funds to the Army Corps of Engineers.] Schools are closing because states cannot balance their budgets. American students score lower than any others from supposed "developed" countries. For the majority, life below the border leaves a lot to be desired.


But of course when it comes to anything, including excess, the US will rank at the top of the list. More money is spent on pet food in the US than anywhere else in the world, combined. More money is spent on hair grooming in the US than the next ten countries. The US federal deficit this year is equal to that of all the other G8 countries combined, multiplied by 10.

This morning it was KICKING HORSE "fresh roasted with 100% pure Canadian Rocky Mountain air" from BC, according to the label, and 100% certified organic. And of course, it is their KICK ... blend. You much check out when you're back on these shores. If I am ever your way, I shall bring along a pound or two [$13.99 at most retailers].

Care to point to the place on the BBC Canada site that says they are planning to run it? Even if they do, the key is "it WILL". Not "it does". Here's a big part of the reason people have US dishes. Not having to wait for the Canadian market to catch up. Like I said, eventually you can watch pretty much anything. But at a moment in time, the TV selection in Canada is generally empty unless the US networks have something on. Millions of paying DirecTV and Echostar customers in Canada can't be wrong.

That shows you are way out of date on the reality of the situation with the club. Way back when they demanded black outs. More recently, no Canadian channel would carry them other than for a few games at most unless the Expos paid THEM or sold the advertising themselves. A far cry from Duke and Dave in the 1980s.

So again, on a dish, I could see both of those when they were first shown. Not days/weeks/months later or in the latter case, never.

Should rabbit ears be outlawed also?

Simon

No, in my case I would be fine with ExpressVu and Starchoice having the exact same channel lineup and programming as DISH and DirecTV plus the Canadian channels people want, not the ridiculous knockoffs and rerun channels that we have. If the channel is labelled "HBO Canada", and owned in Canada, so be it. But give us the freedom to watch the same stuff, at the same time (and don't cut off the "scenes from next week" at the end of each show for another Robson Arms commercial, either).

Just figure out a way to make it so.

Again, what are they going to do once the US channels follow the BBC's lead and allow you to download shows for a fee? Block www.nbc.com ?

Did I ever label myself a conservative? I don't recall having done so.

I just want my TV, and I want it now. And I don't see why rights or no rights, things can't be lined up such that we have the same TV experience as our southern neighbours. The technology is there. The number of people with said dishes states that the audience is too.

Simon