MultiChoice foreign ownership cause for Caxton complaint

[Jan]

DStv war between Naspers and Caxton

Caxton wants an inquiry on Naspers's (and MultiChoice's) foreign ownership.

 

[AndyHiggins]

"We are deeply skeptical of Caxton in this inquiry," said Caxton's lawyers
.

Caxton really should get lawyers with more confidence in their clients

 

[Vrotappel]

"A foreigner may not indirectly or directly exercise control over a commercial broadcasting licensee or have a financial interest or an interest either in voting shares or paid up capital in a commercial broadcasting licensee, exceeding 20% . Not more than 20% of the directors of a commercial broadcasting licensee may be foreigners."

How do one create jobs in an economy with regarded legislation like this?

 

[who.is.michael]

...if you are going to make stupid laws, you have to stupidly enforce them, even if your regulatory organisation is less than capable - time to get rid of BEE, it is not in the interest of South African's.

 

[homeless]

I am not a fan of either party, but assuming what Caxton says is correct, Naspers has the responsibility to ensure compliance.

 

[Jan]

Caxton really should get lawyers with more confidence in their clients

Fixed.

 

[bleh69]

How about Caxton requests of the Reserve Bank (A private Entity) to disclose ITS shareholding. Oh. sorry. People that print money instead of news are exempt...

 

[drukkie]

Take them to the cleaners!

 

[Johand]

How do one create jobs in an economy with regarded legislation like this?

I think the situation is more complex than this. The number one reason you want to restrict ownership of major broadcasters is to prevent undue outside influence. Now your first reaction would be "Does it matter?". But I suppose in your mind you have a Western foreign owner - which does not need to be the case. What would your reaction be if the Chinese government controls pay TV in South Africa. Or if Muammar al-Gaddafi bought all the major news papers in South Africa? Would you be happy if governments in the Middle East buys NASPERS and slowly changes programming to suit their ideologies?

The media has a very important role to play in any democracy. That is why you need laws to prevent economic forces subverting it. That is why people need to oppose the "Protection of Information Act".

 

[GingerBeer]

How do one create jobs in an economy with regarded legislation like this?

The media is a powerful influence.
They don't want foreign people trying
to sway votes in elections & so on.

Quite sensible actually.

 

[Johand]

How do one create jobs in an economy with regarded legislation like this?

Maybe to expand on that ... the US has similar regulations:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/773932.html

 

[nakedpeanut]

As long as I can watch my supersport I'm happy.

 

[Tick]

What would your reaction be if the Chinese government controls pay TV in South Africa. Or if Muammar al-Gaddafi bought all the major news papers in South Africa? Would you be happy if governments in the Middle East buys NASPERS and slowly changes programming to suit their ideologies?

I would only be worried if government was blocking a free market in the first place. If Gaddafi bought all our papers and changed them to his ideologies, a hundred more new independently owned ones would spring up overnight to serve the actual news interests of SAns ... YAWN, how scary, not. Heck, most SAns have regular access to myriad online news media sources these days. I can pop online and read and watch all manner of international news and news channels. There isn't a problem here.

The media has a very important role to play in any democracy. That is why you need laws to prevent economic forces subverting it.

Lol.. right. Governments will always tell you about some fake scary villain and why they need more power to hold back fake-scary-villain, looks like you bought it hook line and sinker.

 

[Tick]

Maybe to expand on that ... the US has similar regulations:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/773932.html

Again with the false anologies ... the rationale for analogue television broadcasts is that it used to be a highly limited public broadcast medium, hence potentially fully monopolisable by foreigners. This is no longer really the case, and most CERTAINLY is not the case for newspapers.

 

[Murmaider]

Caxton is like that annoying, jealous kid who always runs to the teacher and tells on the other kids because no one wants to play with them or be their friends...

 

[tommy57]

Its just to fill up the BEE pockets again.

 

[redheadfan]

...if you are going to make stupid laws, you have to stupidly enforce them, even if your regulatory organisation is less than capable - time to get rid of BEE, it is not in the interest of South African's.

lmao!

Exactly what I was going to say!

 

[Vrotappel]

I think the situation is more complex than this. The number one reason you want to restrict ownership of major broadcasters is to prevent undue outside influence. Now your first reaction would be "Does it matter?". But I suppose in your mind you have a Western foreign owner - which does not need to be the case. What would your reaction be if the Chinese government controls pay TV in South Africa. Or if Muammar al-Gaddafi bought all the major news papers in South Africa? Would you be happy if governments in the Middle East buys NASPERS and slowly changes programming to suit their ideologies?

The media has a very important role to play in any democracy. That is why you need laws to prevent economic forces subverting it. That is why people need to oppose the "Protection of Information Act".

The propaganda channel is already controlled by the national broadcaster. Media is in it to make money. They are not going to make money if they push political ideologies onto those that are not interested.

This country needs investment to grow.

We need to grow by 7% a year in order to start reducing unemployment. We will not get this right with retarded legislation.

 

[Key]

Take them down.... Rules were ignored to gain investor funding..... And someone noticed... oops