Canada’s Supreme Court, in a ruling this morning, says that ISPs are not subject to the same rules that broadcasters are. Cultural groups argued that since ISPs distribute content, they should be considered a broadcaster according to The Globe and Mail.

“An ISP does not engage with these policy objectives when it is merely providing the mode of transmission,” the court ruled. “ISPs provide Internet access to end-users. When providing access to the Internet, which is the only function of ISPs placed in issue by the reference question, they take no part in the selection, origination, or packaging of content.”

If the court had ruled in favor of the cultural groups, it would subject ISPs to levies that broadcasters currently pay. The money that the broadcasters pay go back to content producers in the form of grants to encourage the creation of the original Canadian content.

The case was filed by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, Canadian Media Production Association and the Directors Guild of Canada and Writers Guild of Canada.

The groups said that they will continue to “press for solutions to ensure all those involved in broadcasting, including ISPs, have a regulatory responsibility to contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system.”

This Budweiser ad, running during the Super Bowl, gives all of those a run for their money.

“Flash Fans” takes a simple premise and turns it into two minutes that might induce some man tears across our neighbor to the north. It begins with this explanation:

We told two Port Credit, Ontario teams we were shooting a documentary about rec league hockey.

We lied.

Throw in some shocked ordinary Joes, some spirited hockey camera work, and a kerfuffle reference and you’ve got an incredibly solid Super Bowl commercial. Check it out below:

One YouTube commenter sings its praises:

Every person that has ever had a dream of being an athlete, dancer, musician, etc. has dreamed of having an experience like this. These ordinary people had the opportunity to live their childhood dream for 1 night, and I guarantee they’ll never forget it… Phenomenal ad, great job Budweiser!

Although giving average people the change to experience something special is a practice that most everyone in the world can get behind, the ad will only be airing in Canada. I don’t know about the rest of America, but even as an American who isn’t that huge of a hockey fan I wouldn’t be upset to see this ad during a commercial break.

Budweiser, I probably won’t be drinking your beer during the game, but I must say, as far as advertising goes, you’re doing it right.

In the experiment, the boys packed a foam cooler with a few gel handwarmers, a couple of cameras and a cell phone with built in GPS. Matt and Asad filled their weather balloon with 165 dollars worth of helium to nearly its bursting point; Ho explained his reasoning behind this to the Toronto Star:

“If you fill your balloon, say, halfway, it will reach a higher max altitude, but then obviously it’s got a lot more time in the air so it has a lot more time that it could be affected by wind, A perfect flight plan would be just up and down, on the same spot. The less we had to drive to retrieve Lego Man that was our goal, especially since we’re surrounded by so many lakes. There were so many problems that could go wrong.”

Once the balloon reached its bursting point, the parachute they fabricated would bring the experiment back to the surface of the Earth. A little over an hour and a half after launch, the boys used the GPS to track down the experiment to a wooded area near Rice Lake in Canada.

Folks love to comment when he checks in and he encourages people to comment; the more they reach out, the more he can connect.

If your local police authorities used social media to interact with you, would you socialize or do you thinks it’s a bad idea completely?

If you’ve followed the news of the metastatic Stop Online Piracy Act in the United States, you’re probably familiar with the above dystopian possibilities. But I’m not talking about SOPA or the United States.

Those descriptions were of Bill C-11, the Canadian equivalent to SOPA and PIPA in the U.S.

On the heels of SOPA’s (temporary) delay, the entertainment industry has stepped up their lobbying efforts in Canada to persuade the government to accede to their demands for highly punitive restrictions on copyrights.

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who has kept a trained eye on the SOPAs of the world, wrote about the demands from the music and movie industry that could be included in Bill C-11′s revision. These changes would include blocking of websites and, more frightening, extreme government responses that could result in the revocation of Internet access by users found to be “repeat infringers.” Geist noted that within the bill’s langage there is “no indication of due process or even proof of infringement.”

In other words, if the government, sitting like a puppet upon the fat cobby fingers of the entertainment industry, says you’re a repeat offender, then you’re a repeat offender. Say goodbye to your Internet. And if you don’t lose your Internet altogether, you will certainly see drastic if not crippling effects on a site like YouTube, the Fertile Crescent of viral videos, memes, parodies, remixed movie scenes, and so on.

Geist put together a revealing comparison between the claims of one media company, Viacom, and the “enabler” provisions that have been proposed in order to limit the reach of so-called pirate sites. The invective language Viacom uses in their claims to criminalize YouTube (“YouTube’s founders built an integrated media entertainment business, in the district court’s words, by ‘welcom[ing] copyright-infringing material’” and “Google’s financial advisors stated that 60 percent of YouTube’s views were ‘premium’ —i.e., copyrighted—and only 10 percent of the premium videos were licensed”) is grating and reflects the contempt that the entertainment industry has for sites like YouTube as well as a complete lack of understanding in disambiguating between “copyright infringement” and participation within the culture you live in. The purpose of uploading videos onto YouTube isn’t to circumvent the process of paying to view clips of shows or movies. The sharing of video content facilitates discussion (albeit horribly, if you’ve ever read some of the YouTube comment threads, but hey – that’s their democratic right to say stupid things) and discovery of other material that might not be otherwise accessible to users. What is to distinguish between someone uploading a segment of a movie onto YouTube that prompts discussions among other YouTube users and a library providing a free showing of a movie and then hosting a discussion of the movie afterwards? Nothing.

And if you think the effects of a site like YouTube going away are limited only to cultural ramifications, you may be sorely mistaken. According to Geist’s speculation, the result of Bill C-11′s passage could likely effect preventive measures that would be detrimental to the growth of the technology sector within Canada:

Reading the Viacom claims makes it clear that applying its arguments to a SOPA-version of the Bill C-11 enabler clause (which content groups want expanded to include operating or inducing infringement) could create a huge chill in the investment and technology community in Canada. Online video sites, cloud computing sites, and other online services may look at the Bill C-11 and fear that even a lawsuit could create massive costs, scare away investors, and stifle new innovation. Indeed, a recent study by Booz & Company found this to be a very real problem, with a large majority of the angel investors and venture capitalists saying they will not put their money in digital content intermediaries if governments pass tough new rules allowing websites to be sued or fined for infringing digital content posted by users. The U.S. has dropped SOPA, but now incredibly Canada may consider the very provisions that causes investors to become skittish.

And on a final note, entertainment industry: If you truly do insist on making sure that everybody pays for every single use of every single frame or note from your precious copyrighted material, even at the expense of annihilating the global culture, consider this: if you weren’t manufacturing music and movies that are reminiscent of the feeling one gets when flocks of giant mutated pigeons drop cargo bay-sized lumps of nuclear turds upon the exposed brains of your consumers, you might actually be able to persuade a few people to see your side in all of this. But you insist on this path and, because you’re dead-set on producing mind-rotting material that only promotes the death of creativity, you’ve decided to take it out on us. You should be applauding us, though, not sniping us because you think we’re stealing your material. We’re not. Through the use of sites like YouTube, we’re actually doing our best to make your incessant drivel more entertaining for us.

And you don’t have to pay us a dime for our services.

The CRTC has been seeking to redefine Internet Service Providers in Canada as “broadcasters”. They lost lower court battles to do so. Lost appeals court battles to do so. Now, they have their day in Canada’s Supreme Court.

What is this aboot?

If ISPs are defined as broadcasters, they will have to contribute to the creation of Canadaian programming, the way other broadcasters (television, radio) do. Some of their oversight comes in the form of regulation (rates, etc), which they do in the case of broadcasters. Some simply as monitoring the sector, such as ISPs. They want that to change, apparently so they can collect fees from the ISPs.

Back in July of 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada sided with the ISPs:

“Because ISPs’ sole involvement is to provide the mode of transmission, they have no control or input over the content made available to internet users by content producers and as a result, they are unable to take any steps to promote the policy described in the Broadcasting Act or its supporting provisions,” said the decision. “Only those who ‘transmit’ the ‘program’ can contribute to the policy objectives.”

Of course, CRTC is pursuing this to the highest levels, so today it goes before the big wigs. We’ll see where they come down.

CTV in Canada is reporting that a man was threatening to shoot police officers and that he had posted the threat on Facebook.

RCMP Const. Janice Schoepp says that a Facebook security officer contacted the FBI once they saw the threatening post. The FBI redirected the information to the mounties which led to the man’s arrest.

The posts were tracked to a house in St. Albert, which is just northwest of Edmonton. Schoeep says that the officers had to come up with a plan quickly.

What they learned is that the suspect was not at home, but had a wife and two children. The officers called the wife and had her leave the house. The two children were picked up at school.

After some negotiation, the man was taken into custody and charged with one count of uttering threats.

James Houtstra, a 32-year-old man, of St. Albert, has remained in custody and is scheduled to appear in court on January 30.

No details of the threats were released, but the Mounties confirmed that they contained threats to harm the police.

The most amazing part out of all of this is that not a day passed from when the posts were spotted and Houtstra being arrested. Schoepp believes that they received the information the same day the posts went up which allowed them to respond quickly to the threats.

This comes after the tragedy in 2005 where a gunman killed four Mounties in Mayerthorpe, Alberta.

“I think we take every threat where someone threatens to harm someone else seriously. Before Mayerthorpe and after, we’re always very careful about matters like this,” Schoepp said.

The lesson to be learned in all of this is to not make threats to police or other authority figures, especially on sites like Facebook where you can be tracked very easily.

This sort of scene had been – and would yet be – repeated with different players in the roles in almost every election. Sometimes the Democrats would head home, sometimes the Republicans. But, this time was different. You see, at the time Carter’s concession was announced, the polls were still open on the west coast of the U.S. In fact, they were not due to close until 11:01 P.M. EST.

Democratic Congressmen Al Ullman of Oregon and James Corman of California were outraged. Upon hearing of Carter’s defeat, voters standing in poll lines or on their way to vote threw up their hands and returned home without voting. Ullman and Corman lost their election bids to their Republican opponents. And Carter was blamed.

For reasons such as this, Canada has had a law in place since 1938 that prevents the early transmission of election results. The law was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007. The fine for violating the law was a maximum of $25,000 (Canadian, which is about $500 less in U.S. dollars, but still stings).

In 2000, Paul Bryan, a software designer, posted election results from one end of Canada on his blog while the polls were yet open in other areas. He fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost.

But many, including the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, think the whole law is ludicrous. Despite the warning example of Carter, the PM points out that:

“Those with telephones could get the information from their aunt Mabel living in Toronto. With Internet access, you could get the results internationally from ‘Yahoo.’ And those with satellite TV could get the results from American networks like CNN or ABC, and even from the government’s own CBC satellite news service!”

The current Conservative government in Canada has been determined to do away with the outdated law and says that the next elections will be free of its draconian shadow.

In Canada, the decision was seen as a “bowing to Twitter and Facebook”. Many see it as a practical implementation, getting rid of an unenforceable law – something designed in the 20th century that just doesn’t fit in the 21st.

But, others fear the same thing those Democrats suffered from Carter.

Using IP-scraping tools similar to those used by the movie and recording industry to file lawsuits against “pirates”, a Canadian firm has discovered that *someone* at Canada’s Parliament has downloaded ebooks, films, music, Windows cracks, Adobe Premiere, and many “torrented” materials.

So, who was it? No one seems to know. But, they can conclusively prove that it was someone at an IP address at Parliament. Who should they sue? No one knows that either.

So, what if they show up at your door? Or, your grandmother’s door?

“Hello. We’re with the Recording Industry Association of America. We have conclusive evidence that someone at this residence has downloaded illegal copies of the latest release by Lady Gaga. We hope you have an attorney, ma’am, because you’re in big trouble.”

“Well, I’m a widow. I live here alone…”

“Ma’am, you’ve been downloading music from Internet torrent sites, haven’t you? Admit it.”

“I have a record player…”

“You steal music on the Internet!”

“My grandson set up my Internet so I can get pictures of cats. I call him when I can’t see cats. He comes over.”

“So, your grandson downloads music illegally using your computer?”

“Well, why would he? He has his own computer.”

“Ma’am, we have some papers here for you. Our attorneys will be in touch.”

Meanwhile, next door to Grandma, a fifteen year-old girl clicks on the same unprotected wi-fi she has been using for weeks. Somebody lives close enough and doesn’t seem to mind at all.

The tactics used by the RIAA and MPAA to track down pirates are woefully inadequate to the legal task. Mostly, they are intimidation tactics, saber-rattling. The fact that many legislators don’t know the limitations of these methods, yet have the responsibility to vote on laws that govern what these organizations can do to their enemies, is worrisome.

Meanwhile, that janitor at Parliament needs to fire up Transmission on his MacBook and finish that download of “True Blood” season four he started last night. Someone may be knocking any day.

After arriving at the border, Martin Reisch realized that he had forgotten his passport at home. Living somewhere in Canada that isn’t exactly close to the border, he didn’t feel like driving all the way back to retrieve the passport and instead gave the problem the old Jack Burton “What the hell” solution and decided to try to cross the border anyways. Instead of offering up a passport, though, Reisch produced the scanned image of his passport he had on his iPad to the border patrol guard. You gotta give the guy credit for trying to pull a fast one on the U.S. border patrol especially since much has been argued in the post-9/11 era about the security of the U.S. borders.

Ah well. Better luck next time, Martin Reisch. Ballsy doesn’t get you across the border.

Er, oh. Wait?

“I figured I’d try, and in the worst case, I would have to go home,” he said Tuesday.

Reisch, 33, said he explained his situation to the customs agent, who seemed mildly annoyed when he handed him the iPad.

“He kind of gave me a stare, like neither impressed nor amused,” Reisch said of their exchange last Friday in southern Quebec.

The officer took the iPad into the border office for five minutes before coming back out to give Reisch the green light and wish him happy holidays.

“He was very nice about it,” he said of the officer.

“I think a good part of it had to do with the fact that it was the holidays and I seem like a nice-enough person.”

That’s what he told CTV, Canada’s largest news channel.

Are you kidding me? Wham bam thankyouma’am and Martin Reisch is enjoying the good old U.S. of A. thanks to his trusty iPad! What the hell does that even mean? We U.S. citizens have to pay $140 for fancy, techno-coding passports with computery parts in them so that people won’t make counterfeits of them and yet a scan on an iPad blows all that precaution away. And honestly, who keeps a scan of their passport on their iPad in the first place?

CTV didn’t receive any response from the U.S. Customers and Border Protection when they asked about the incident but they did cite the department’s policy for accepting other forms of identification other than a passport such as a Nexus pass or an enhanced driver’s license. Still, no mention of a scan of a passport on there. Would it still have worked, I wonder, if Reisch would’ve simply had a dot matrix print-out of his passport that he rendered on his iPad? Maybe I’ll just draw a chalky facsimile of my passport on a brick the next time I accidentally leave the real one at home. Should work, right?

As if that one slip-up wasn’t enough, Reisch decided to double-dip the U.S. border patrol and used the iPad scan of his passport again when he returned to Canada later that same day. You are the winner, Martin Reisch. Indeed.

Something tells me that Apple’s market shares in Mexico and Central America are about to explode.

So what do you think, did the Customs Department screw the pooch on this one or should a scan of a passport on an iPad be an acceptable substitute for a required country border-crossing identification?