The company hopes to exploit a Canadian broadcasting law that allows retransmission of local TV signals without permission, provided the broadcaster pays any applicable royalty or tariff. JumpTV has sought help from the Copyright Board of Canada to put in place a suitable payment system and is seeking its ruling on the legality of its plan to stream TV on-line. Traditional TV broadcasters argue that the retransmission rules do not apply to the internet.
Filtering software will identify users’ internet addresses to check that they are Canadians – which JumpTV believes will keep its service legal.
The issues of erecting national borders on the internet were raised in a case last year against Yahoo! The portal was ordered by a French court to block access by French nationals to certain internet auctions for Nazi memorabilia that breached French laws against the incitement of hatred. However, Yahoo! avoided the issue by banning such auctions from its service, so the necessary filtering technology was never put to the test.
Another Canadian company, iCraveTV had similar plans to JumpTV, but launched its service without permission and quickly went out of business under the financial burden of several copyright lawsuits raised against it.
If JumpTV succeeds with its plans, broadcasters warn that TV will be “Napster-ised” on the internet, with broadcasters losing effective control of their copyrighted material. Canada’s National Association of Broadcasters wrote a warning letter to this effect to the Canadian regulators, calling for JumpTV to be stopped before it gets off the ground, saying: “Internet transmissions of TV stations could cripple, if not destroy, the US and Canadian successful system of free, local, over-the-air television.” The argument runs that advertisers will pay much less for slots in programmes on a local station if these programmes are also available day and night on the internet without the same advertising.
There are two issues with JumpTV’s plans. First, the regulatory issue over retransmission of TV signals. Second, and potentially more significant, the use of filtering technology to raise national borders on the internet, which runs contrary to the popular image of the internet breaking down national borders.
In the Yahoo! case, court-appointed experts suggested that filters based on users’ internet protocol (IP) addresss, their use of certain keywords, and their self-identification of geographic location would likely be 90% effective. The French court apparently considered this level, with 10% “leakage,” sufficient. If other countries follow suit, filter solutions may become popular for blocking users from specific countries or outside targeted markets.