Much ado about nothing.  Why would Spotify ever curate Quebecois rap to a person that likes 70's music?
They wouldn't do that now, and there is no reason that they would with Bill C-11.  Enough of the pointless handwringing!  You will decide what you will or will not listen to. Making Canadian music more available or discoverable is not forced Cancon. If a 12 year old wants to listen to Taylor Swift's latest song 200 times in a row, that doesn't change. 
 

As much as I dislike this bill, I don't think anyone can force you to listen to something you don't want to hear. It will be put in front of you, even if you don't want it on your menu. But like a serving at a meal, if you hate the food you can always eat something else.

The point of the article, to me, is that the music industry isn't complaining exactly about having to make Cancon easier to find, it's what happens (and I strongly suspect it will) if most people simply ignore the title and listen to what they really wanted to hear in the first place. As I understand it, the way the algorithms work is that if enough people do that, the rejected song or artist will get pushed down the list and could eventually wind up buried on page 75, in a place that no one will ever see it because it's just too far away from the first few pages, which is all most people look at.

And the argument is that in the end, that will hurt - not help - Canadian artists. 

paterson1 wrote:

A a big part of a curated playlist is to expose the listener to different or new music in a similar genre that they may enjoy.  Why would Canadian music that fits the listeners preference not be included?

"As much as I dislike this bill, I don't think anyone can force you to listen to something you don't want to hear."  Exactly RA, and this is why I always say offering or making a song available is not the same as it being "forced."
 
If the curated playlists with cancon is forced, as the title of this thread says, then so is some of the other music on the playlist.

You and I will always disagree on this and there appears there will never be a resolution. You think that making a song "available" is fine and you disagree with the word "forced." But it's a matter of semantics to me. Would you prefer "required," "mandatory," "legislated?" However you say it, a government law is making it necessary to list something you might not otherwise see or even want to see. 

If I'm listening to a playlist on say, "American Bluegrass" or "British Invasion," what makes anyone think I'm looking for something Canadian there? It makes no sense, but under these rules, it will appear there in any case.

By the way, my reply was not even aimed at your post, but at Mace, who complained about being "forced" to listen to something. No one can force you to listen or read anything. It's totally your choice. What you won't have a choice in is seeing perhaps a suggestion for music that is more what you're looking for without an intrusion from a government edict that may or may not match your preferences. 

If you re-read the Globe article that started all this, it was the record companies - not me - that were raising the red flag about what this law could mean both to them and the artists they put out. It's almost too ironic - potentially making something less visible in the end by making it more visible in the beginning. If you have an argument, it's with those who issued the warning. They were simply asking the enforcers to tread lightly, instead of bringing the hammer down on Spotify users.

My bet is the people in charge won't listen, since - despite months of hearings and warnings from interested parties - they haven't listened all this time. 

In the end, this regulation won't affect me. I have my VPN turned on permanently to the U.S., just to avoid these things. It's not that I prefer that, but it is one way to opt out of an edict I don't believe the government should be involved in. I've long maintained it's about freedom of choice - and I'm taking mine back. I promise it won't affect you in any way. I hope you enjoy the intrusion. 

And one more thing - despite what you may think, I'm not against Canadian artists. In fact, I hope they all succeed and get the exposure many of them surely deserve. I own LPs  and CDs from the old days by many Canadian artists and the first 45 I ever bought was "Unless You Care" back in 1964, by Terry Black, a Canuck from Vancouver. So I'm not against Canadian artists or buying their music.

I just don't want the powers-that-be to have this power-that-shouldn't be. If it's truly good and worthwhile, believe me I'll hear about it or find out about it from a source I trust and not some random ill-thought out algorthim or overreaching government body which likely knows nothing about music but only cares about quotas. 

C-11 will likely have no effect at all.

I can't see anything other than an offering of some "All Canadian" playlists that vaguely match each user's tastes to be promptly ignored.

The idea that regulators can try to muck with the supply in apps they barely understand in order to somehow create demand is farcical.

If we want these companies to contribute to the entertainment industry, we already have system in place for that: tax & fund.

 

RadioActive wrote:

Porn sites want exemption from C-11 regulation on grounds they don’t express Canadian cultural identity

100% guaranteed the government didn't even consider the most profitable streaming segment on the internet when drafting the bill.