Let us do new media again, CIFVF execs tell Parliamentary Heritage committee

On November 28, the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage met to review the mandate and priorities of the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund. Readers will remember that CIFVF used to provide funding for new media projects without broadcast licensee partners, making it unique in Canada. In the following excerpt taken from the official committee evidence, NDP MP Charlie Angus asks CIFVF executive director Robin Jackson and co-chair Jean-Louis Robichaud for their views on new media funding. ANGUS: digital made a major change in the price of projects and in the kind of people who are coming to the table…? JACKSON: …Because we don’t have the money to do new media right now, I would say we are turning away certain people. The whole question of addressing the multi-platform is quite new, as you know. If we are successful in being renewed, we wish to discuss that with Canadian Heritage. We would like to broaden our parameters and say that the platform, whether it’s cell phones or iPods or whatever, shouldn’t be an issue. As long as it’s educational, informational, we would like to be able to support that. ANGUS: It seems to me…that the problem we have in Canada is distribution....Yet we also have a phenomenal opportunity because...Canadians...are now used to going online. I know it’s probably not within the purview of your specific fund, but should there be a separate fund or organization mandated through the government to ensure that we’re looking at platform delivery, so that there is an avenue that projects can go to so that we could have, say, a Canadian online video-on-demand program? ROBICHAUD: I sit on the board as an end-user, not as a producer or distributor. I can assure you that what you are speaking about is in the minds of all people who are dealing with education in this country. It’s very difficult in the present situation to have access to thousands of documents that would benefit children or teenagers in schools, or young adults at university level, because they’re not online. If they were online, through a streaming process or whatever, it would be most beneficial. Everybody’s looking at that, but it’s not happening. ANGUS: Have you looked at ways of monetizing that? Has that been part of the discussion? For example, with peer to peer in music, there’s been a lot of talk about how to actually chart what’s being downloaded, what’s being traded, so we’re not saying that these are going to be online for free, but that there is remuneration to artists. Within the music community, the monetizing of product going through the peer-to-peer networks, they’ve looked at a number of models. It would seem to me, for documentary, we would have to find a way to make sure it’s available on demand. Would you think a fee for service, a monthly service, perhaps educational service fees for using whatever they want, would be appropriate? JACKSON: I would have to tell you that we haven’t really examined that. I think the whole issue is fairly new. The funding agencies are all trying to grapple with this. The producers are trying to grapple with the rights they will be able to hold onto, or not hold onto, and how the broadcasters will pay for it or not pay for it. This whole issue is up in the air right now. The CRTC has been looking at it. It’s a situation and an issue that I think we’re not sure about right now. To protect the producers, I would want to see some kind of remuneration. These rights cannot be simply given away for free. Producers have to make a living, and it’s a very difficult area to make a living in, as you know.

Let us do new media again, CIFVF execs tell Parliamentary Heritage committee

Broadcast | December 13, 2006

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us