[Random-bits] Linda McQuaig on who wants regulation of Internet

Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:19:25 -0500

This is Linda McQuaig's comment on the response to iCraveTV.

Jamie

Subject: Linda McQuaig on Net Regulation
   Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:09:09 -0500
  From: Pippa Lawson <pippa@web.net>

They crave de-regulation...don't they?                       

> Despite the widespread belief that it's virtually
> impossible to regulate the Internet, the iCraveTV
> drama shows us that if you're big enough and
> powerful enough, you can do just about anything

>  By: Linda McQuaig

>    Before we get to the short-lived drama of iCraveTV, let's
>  consider another recent Internet story - the America Online
>  takeover of Time Warner a few weeks ago.

>    There's been much said about how this takeover would
>  concentrate power within the vast information and entertainment
>  industry. But there's been little talk about doing anything to
>  regulate this crucial, multi-billion dollar industry.

>    If anything, there's been talk of further deregulation. In
>  Canada, our regulatory body, the CRTC, had already decided last
>  year not to regulate the Internet. So of course, there would be
>  nothing the CRTC would do to enforce Canadian content rules on
>  the programming that would now soon be coming through the
>  Internet as a result of this takeover.

>      In many ways, iCraveTV's action was right in sync with the
>      mood of the times, simply exploiting the endless new
>      possibilities of the Internet

>    Indeed, a CRTC official suggested that the takeover might make
>  it necessary for us to actually deregulate the related field of
>  television. His point was that since there's no way to enforce
>  Canadian-content rules on the Internet, why should Canadian TV
>  broadcasters be forced to submit to them either?

>    It all seemed like just one more example of how powerless
>  governments are these days, in the face of globalization and the
>  on-line revolution. No point it trying to fight it; the computer
>  has changed the world, and anyone trying to resist is simply a
>  Luddite.

>    Except, it turns out, if it's big business doing the
>  resisting. Take the case of iCraveTV. In many ways, iCraveTV's
>  action was right in sync with the mood of the times, simply
>  exploiting the endless new possibilities of the Internet.

>    But in doing so, it stepped on the toes of the powerful
>  companies in the U.S. entertainment business.

>      They (media giants) certainly don't buy that nonsense about
>      how it's impossible to regulate the Internet. When their
>      interests are at stake, they find a way to regulate the
>      Internet.

>    And when it comes to defending their own interests, these
>  giants don't fool around. They certainly don't buy that nonsense
>  about how it's impossible to regulate the Internet. When their
>  interests are at stake, they find a way to regulate the
>  Internet.

>    So, for instance, the big entertainment companies simply sent
>  a high-powered team of lawyers to court and brought a whammy of
>  legal actions that quickly drove iCraveTV off the air and
>  threatened it with multi-million dollar lawsuits. It was even
>  reported that William Craig, president of the upstart company,
>  would be arrested if he dared to enter the U.S.

>    It wasn't enough just to shut down Craig's pirate operation,
>  they wanted to beat him up enough to scare anyone else with a
>  similar idea.

>    One thing that becomes clear from all this is that, lo and
>  behold, it is possible to regulate the Internet after all - if
>  you're rich and powerful enough.

>    Indeed, powerful companies have shown similar clout in their
>  ability to impose regulations on what's known as intellectual
>  property.

>    It would be hard to imagine anything much more difficult to
>  regulate than intellectual property - that is, the copyright
>  ownership of ideas, inventions and artistic works. But these
>  ownership rights are terribly important to powerful corporate
>  interests, ranging from pharmaceutical giants to Hollywood film
>  companies. So these corporate interests have used their clout to
>  get the U.S. government to put in place and enforce a worldwide
>  system to protect their copyrights.

>    Such a show of government potency is strangely lacking however
>  when it comes to regulating things the financial elite doesn't
>  want regulated - like international capital flows.

>    When it comes to regulating international capital flows - a
>  move that could be enormously beneficial to the world economy -
>  governments suddenly go limp.

>    For instance, a proposed tax on international capital flows,
>  known as the Tobin tax, is simply dismissed as unfeasible. How
>  could governments possibly regulate capital flows in these days
>  of world-wide computer networks?

>    Well, you can bet they'd find a way - if powerful financial
>  interests wanted them to. Just ask iCraveTV.

>  Linda McQuaig is an economic journalist and author of many
>  books, including Why Shoot the Hippo and The Wealthy Banker's
>  Wife. She currently writes a biweekly column for the National
>  Post. This commentary used by permission of Linda McQuaig and
>  CBC radio.