the real argument should be whether or not the internet ought to be regulated by the CTRC, rather than some purely academic argument over the definition of "broadcast". Parliament should modernize the law to make it non-ambiguous rather than let the whole country sit in suspense while lawyers argue about what the law ought to mean. Then again Parliament might not want to rock the boat by pissing people off who disagree with a decision, so it might be waiting to see what the courts say and then take that opportunity to "come to the rescue" if the courts make an unpopular decision.

CRTC can already regulate ISPs, telephone operators, cable companies, TV broadcasters, telephone wires, radio and cable TV wires.

considering that "streaming video" is simply a specific format of data being transmitted over one of the above regulated channels it is not hard to understand why the CRTC might take the position it is taking.

google : Motor Industry Software Reliability Association

...

so you would agree to such terms, and then screw over your contract partner after the fact by refusing to comply with the terms you just agreed to and have no problem with?

Sounds just like a Libertarian to me.

That is EXACTLY what most of the dark matter is suspected to be and that is what makes it tricky.

you can work now and die in a few years of exhaustion, or else not work and die in 3 weeks from starvation. What did you say about human beings? I couldn't hear you over the sounds of all the other people lining up to beg for your job.

'good faith' is a legal term that is understood by courts. It is no more vague than "causing a public nuisance".

good faith: building and selling your own standards compliant electric cars for profit.
good faith: trying to build or design an improved version of the electric car based on tesla's technology.
good faith: making a standards compliant legal cell phone with a longer battery life.

not good faith : using the patents to operate a mobile meth lab.
not good faith: building substandard cars that have a 50% chance of bursting into flames and immolating the driver.
not good faith: building electric vehicles to smuggle weapons of mass distruction.
not good faith: building illegal bombs for criminals (as opposed to building legal bombs for a national government that is part of NATO).
not good faith: building fake tesla cars in order to dupe the public into buying your vehicle when they think they are buying a brand name Tesla vehicle.

Or they can train to learn how to take your job. Maybe design robots that never need to be repaired during their practical lifespan.

Of course they would have to be willing to work for less pay than you since there are hundreds of them competing for 1 job. Using new virtual reality human resources algorithms, its not unreasonable to filter through all 500 candidates to find the 5 perfect replacements for you.

so logically then the healthy portion of the population should be directed towards playing more violent games and watching more violent movies repeatedly in order to strengthen their revulsion to psychopathic behavior.

So what you are saying is that it is Our Way of Life that is evil?

"The future could be shaped by individual parts, and this new semiconductor tech is one piece of that puzzle.""

Apart for the fact that this new semiconductor tech isn't an individual part, then sure.

or if you prefer not to breath somebody else's air pollution regardless of how efficient or inefficient it makes the market.

American's did. Which is why prohibition required a constitutional amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

you mean in square feet?

sorry. the term 'hate' was hyperbole. 'Indifferent to civilization' would have been a better term.

Imagine someone wanted to pay you to do those things you say you do in your "non working hours". In that case you would be "working" for reasons other than money. And it would not feel like work. It would simply feel like free money.

not everyone works merely for money. Some people do what they love and it happens to generate revenue as a side benefit. I just figure there has to be at least some activity you enjoy doing that is worth something to somebody. In which case you would be able to work for reasons other than mere money.

Don't forget money to pay for your funeral!

Money is not the only reason one works. I happen to have unpaid jobs that are "work" in every sense except that I lose money on them. In all cases I do what I do for the satisfaction and prestige I get from being good at it, improve my skills (to get even better), solve interesting challenges and to improve the lives of others. It just so happens that 1 of my life long hobbies pays the bills so that I don't have to have a job "just for the money" so I can spend practically all of my working time for pleasure. And in many cases I enjoy the paying hobby far more than the unpaying ones.

If my primary hobby wasn't worth money, I would have to do something else, but I enjoy doing any number of things very much that people get paid to do. Most of my hobbies that I do for free are things that other people do professionally. I got sucked into 1 of them primarily because people seemed to need it more and I had a better knack for it.

I you think money is the only reason to work then I encourage you to ask yourself why you don't seem to enjoy doing anything worthwhile. Perhaps you hate civilization?