Slashdot Mirror
Liberal Party of Canada Sues Satire Website
Geekboy writes "Arguing proprietary interests, the Liberal Party of Canada has set out to force the closing (article mirrored in case the site closes) of a satire web site that takes aim at the new unelected Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin. The site in question is paulmartintime.ca, which is a satire of paulmartintimes.ca, but this opens a whole can of worms in regards to copyright and fair use of web content, and it involves the controlling party of Canada. Clearly there are mixed messages when one site mimics another, but where does one draw the line when it involves political satire and accountability?"
Ask this guy.
Does anyone have a good link for information about this? I mean it really casts me in the "ugly americain" light, but i had no idea that other countries were under siege either.
"Once upon a time men were lions and machines were mice, but since it was so long ago, now its twice upon a time."
Reminds me of another recent happening. Coincidence ? Consider the following ...
New Prime Minister - Paul Martin - Is Steering Canada Cautiously to the Right
Angry Copps accuses Martin of shift to right
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
While I don't have a problem with this satire website, they are clearly cyber squatting. When you pick a domain that is one character off from the official site, and your site mimics design, then there is a problem.
It's a very underhanded approach to getting your message out, and is completely inappropriate, regardless of legality.
my verdict would be:
The plaintiff can now choose between either
1. dropping the charges and being allowed to keep the word "liberal" in his name.
2. changing his name so there's no "liberal" in there and keep up the charges.
In case 1, the charges are dropped and the defendant is free to keep the site up.
In case 2, since there won't be any liberal party to parody anymore, the defendants site now is entirely fictional and can be kept, too.
If only i was judge. And canadian, too.
Free as in mason.
It looks like everyone's in the wrong on this.
The webmaster of the real site shouldn't have gotten involved. He found the site, he should refer it to the lawyers. (he likely also found the site by misstyping his own URL)
The owners of the "satire" site should know better. they're useing a domain that is off by one easy typo, using a deceptively similar site design. It's not truely a satire site at all, but a site that's a collection of anti Paul Martin stories, and while such a site is fully legal, the manner of which they chose to display it, is probably not.
(by now, this is probably redundant though)
...From the article:
...the new unelected Canadian Prime Minister...
...opens a whole can of worms in regards to copyright and fair use of web content...
...then a bunch of inane questions after that.
Dave and I go over the site, and make a few changes to the design to make it less of an overt copy of Paul Martin's official site.
Then later when the C&D letter is quoted:
As you are no doubt aware, not only have you utilized LPC's art and graphics but, as well, you have, without alteration, made use of its style sheet.
and
Even your logo is an exact copy of that found at www.paulmartintimes.ca.
So, don't compare what is on the sites now. I'd like to see some screenshots before passing judgement. I just peeked at the stylesheet, and while its not comprehensive (the page is still laid out in tables) like any other code, whoever wrote it owns the copyright.
It sounds to me like these guys bit off a little more than they could chew and are now using the same sensationalism they use on their site, to rally others to their defense.
Sorry fellas, I'm not taking the bait. I'm not going to come to the aid of some listless hacks who were too lazy to do their own work for their own website. If anyone is the "SCO" in this case it is these guys. They are the ones who stole the material and claimed it as their own. Poor form, gentlemen.
I'm no liberal fanboy, but I have to take exception at some of the things the submitter said:
and
Firstly, we don't elect our Prime Ministers; ever. We elect our local Members of Parliment, who from their ranks elect a leader. So by the logic of the submitee, all of our Prime Ministers have been un-elected. Therefore the point is moot, and should not have been mentioned.
Second; there is no can of worms here. Either they stole copyrighted material or they didn't. Sure, we might need a judge to figure that out, but that's what they're for. Given that they are posting the C&D letter in public I'm guessing they are trying to make themselves heard. Yet, they make no effort to rebut the claims made in the letter. Though we don't know conclusively without screenshots or archives (Google Cache looks new, and Way Back Machine comes up empty.) it seems as though there was an infringement.
Lastly, for the same reason there isn't a can of worms, it really doesn't matter that the party is the plaintiff. This is a civil case, and really has shit all to do with who's in charge. I mean, it's not like they are the prosecution in a criminal case, nor is the goverment suing anyone. How do we draw the line between infringement and parody? The same way we always have; with that section of copyright law pertaining to fair use and parody
People should really get their facts straight before flying off the handle. It's like insurance against looking like an idiot.
Remember: umount it before you fsck it.
What the hell's wrong with complaining about this website? It's at a domain that's easy to end up at when you want the real site, it looks exactly like the actual site, with a tiny disclaimer in the top right and an odd banner ad. It's not making its point by making witty or sarcastic comments or observations of the actual website that they've blatantly copied. Basically, they stole the format for this site, and put in a bunch of content that opposes Paul Martin.
Just because you oppose something, doesn't mean everything you do is satire. On a quick skim of the page, the only thing that actually looks like it would be satire is the blog entries (which aren't particularly funny, but that doesn't really matter so much).
So, the liberal party is rightfully pissed off that someone stole the art and layout of a website. This layout is not being used in a satirical way and doesn't even contain satirical content. I can't see how anyone can deny the fact that they have a damned good point.
I read the account of what happened, and that "he just wants us not to use the Liberal party's intellectual property." Later, he frames it in terms of "proprietary interests." But the webmaster who contacted these guys says he just wants them to change the name of the site, presumably because it contains the NAME of one of their political figures. In other words, he's pressing a RIGHT OF PUBLICITY claim (an extenuated one, since it's not even the person, but his party, claiming the interest). Again, IANACL, but even in America (where we're pretty gung-ho about property interests versus free speech, late judicial trends notwithstanding--especially since the procedural posture of those cases makes the "trend" possibly less meaningful), RoP is a new and limited doctrine, and would probably easily be trumped by FS concerns, if not a straight 4-factor HarperV.Roe analysis. Again, IANACL!!! However, the people of Canada surely have an interest not only in providing incentives to produce works (ie interests in (C)), but interests in public discourse. see Cardtoons, Rogers.
In other words, unless CA's IP law is seriously f'd, these guys should be able to keep their domain name. To hold otherwise would be even worse than the PETA domain case ruling eariler this year (i think-it's late).
In the United States, this wouldn't even be a case; the president is a political figure and is open to ridicule.
I know we in the US tend to think of free speech in terms of porn or business interest, but free speech was intended to protect *Exactly this kind of speech*.
So if you find yourself saying "that's not fair" or "this should be against the law", you paint yourself into a corner where you don't really believe in free speech.
This website is a poster child for political free speech.
"Just because you oppose something, doesn't mean everything you do is satire."
If this paulmartintime.ca site isn't political satire and a tool for change or accountability, I don't know what is. The Liberals are only seeking to shut them down because they don't like what they are doing. If they were cheering Paul Martin on, would there be a lawsuit?
No.
So that in itself means the Liberals are only doing this because they dislike the message, not because of any real copyright infringement.
" What the hell's wrong with complaining about this website? "
You can complain about anything you'd like...the weather, my bunions, people who don't bathe...
but lets get down to brass tacks here. We can argue this is about "IP" (as if that means anything), or being "deceptive". But the truth is that this is deeply critical of a major political figure, and that's the beginning and the end of stuff.
Lets be real... people may come to this site by accident. And as soon as they get there, its very much an anti-liberal party satire. And because it skewers your political affiliations, you hem and haw, but the bottom line is you don't like that your guy is being made fun of.
If this was "www.georgebush.com" and was a lampoon of Bush's campaign site, you'd say "this is true, I'm glad somebody had the guts to do this, maybe not funny, but he right...". But its skewering your political view point, so all of the sudden its deceptive.
Your viewpoint is *very much* anti-free speech. At least have the guts to admit that free speech makes you uncomfortable.
From the real website
?I don?t believe that a young person who is caught with a very, very small quantity for personal use ? who is not trafficking ? should have a criminal record for the rest of their lives. I think there should be a fine.? ?Paul Martin, speaking to reporters about the decriminalization of marijuana, Montreal Town Hall - April 27, 2003
Disclaimer:
I am a right wing Republican. I'm in the US. I don't smoke mj anymore, I haven't been a "smoker" since I was a teenager but I think it's stupid for people to go to jail for having weed.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I looked at the site. This isn't the Onion. I can't believe it is satire at all. It's just pure propaganda.
Should propaganda be protected speech? I don't think so. When a site tries to sway people's opinion through lies and twisted facts, they should be sued.
-Brent
"Free speech" is often trotted out to defend things that don't particularly matter - like depictions of Jesus done in elephant poo. These cases are rightly decided largely as prophylactic; we need to defend the elephant poo speech or soon we'll lose our rights to important speech.
And what is that important speech, what is the speech that is in most need of defense from government? How about speech about that government.
If this site was a parody of a commercial or personal site, I'd say take it down. You need to follow the rules if you're going to say just some everyday thing. But since it's a parody of the site promoting the party in power, I think the call has to be to treat it extremely delicately.
The right to criticize the government needs the widest possible of berths. It's the treasure that "free speech" in general provides the wall around. It is the voice that needs the most protection.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
You see? The leader is why people vote for the party, so in a sense, Paul Martin is unelected because nobody thought about him on E Day.
Your argument would make sense if any of the following points where true:
* If Paul Martin was terribly unpopular (instead he is massively popular)
* If Mr. Martin had not been the overwhelmingly likely candidate to replace Jean Chretien (instead people were shocked he was not already the Liberal candidate the last election)
* If this was some sort of new precedent that the Liberals set (instead the Tories did the same exact thing when they were last in power)
So uh, he's a very popular politician who is most likely going to win the next election by a wide margin, and came to power under a system with precedent to the surprise of no one. Your problem is not that Paul Martin wasn't elected, your problem is that you don't like him -- these are very different things.
When the inevitable spring election arrives and Martin takes every province except Alberta, you will have to find a new way to whinge, I suggest you start working on it now so you work the kinks out before you need it.
501 Not Implemented
I've read through some of the comments made here and frankly I am little afraid for freedom of speech given the mamby-pamby attitudes represented here.
First, parody or satire requires some element of imitation and the website in question can't parody Paul Martin's website without copying or imitating in part the design, fonts or insignia of the original.
Second, our fair dealing doctrine, analagous to fair use in the U.S., allows for criticism and comment without infringement. I would argue that fair dealing protection extends to this website on those grounds, regardless of the displeasure of the Liberal Party.
As to the "cybersquatting" of the domain paulmartintime.ca, the issue of using domain names to direct web surfers to critial websites has a long past. What exactly is the concern here? No one is asking for money, no demands have been made by the owners of paulmartintime.ca to paulmartintimes.ca and the content of the website is protected speech. If some waylaid Liberal Party supporter happens to come across the critical website and is offended, too bad for him. That's the price of democracy.
as a (canadian) soon-to-be voter, I think there will be 5 sites to replace this one if it gets taken down.
Of course, as a canadian who hates Paul Martin because he's pro-nuclear proliferation, pro-american (nothing against the american people, just their messed up government), and pro-big business... I think I'll be doing up one of those 5.
Hey are you related to Paul Martin, mr. crmartin?
Nice tirade, Liberal sympathizer. You are like all the Libarals/Tories I've ever met.
To address your comments, I will just say that if Paul Martin wins, it will be because the people of Canada are stupid, which goes without saying after the Red Book, GST and Free Trade. Ask Paul about Iraq! Ask him about his corporate tax evasion! Ask him why we have to pay GST! Ask him why we have a Homeland Security Dept. now! Ask him why a top Canadian general is running things in Iraq when the majority of Canada says NO to the war!!
Ask and see what he says. I'm sure it will be very diplomatic and polished... not the kind of response you would expect from someone being truly candid.
I'm suprised to see how many of the posters so far do not support this guy. I think his site is a parody, and I think it should be protected as such. Though he may have taken graphics or a stylesheet from the original site, those infringements are an essential component of the parody and I think he should be protected. Whether or not he *is* protected is another matter entirely. I've been reading the Copyright Act, and although I can find exceptions for news reporting and criticism (of the original work), I can't find one for parody. Nevertheless, I think it should be protected.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
You are like all the Libarals/Tories I've ever met.
ass u me.
Ask and see what he says. I'm sure it will be very diplomatic and polished... not the kind of response you would expect from someone being truly candid.
Look, one of us is imagining things... I don't pretend that Paul Martin isn't a very polished diplomat who waffles on issues like GST, Iraq, and corporate taxes. Because uh, he is exactly that. It's not my fault that he's massively popular and is going to win every province except for Alberta (and might even come close there).
That is the fault of reality, and that is who you seem to have an argument with. Paul Martin is going to win, not because the people of Canada are stupid, but because the people of Canada give Mr. Martin the credit for the economic progress of the 90s, while they blame Mr. Cretien for all of the bad things the Liberals did during his tenure.
He has also been very clever in presenting himself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, something that many Canadians can identify with. I know people on the right and the left that expect him to be a good PM, this is why he is popular and why he will win. This is reality, like it or not.
Because of his reputation and the expectations of Canadians Mr. Martin will get into power with huge support across the country. And no, it's not fair because he has got all of the credit and none of the blame for the Liberal record. But that doesn't change the fact that Canadians have identified this with him. He will be judged by his record in his second election, when he can be judged by his own record instead of an imagined one.
And yes, I'm planning to vote for Mr. Martin, but my district will likely go to the NDP anyhow...
501 Not Implemented
Paul Martin was elected by the people of the LaSalle-Emard riding in Quebec, on November 27, 2000.
He is NOT unelected.
If your riding is going NDP, you should vote NDP! At least that way the Tories won't get it...
Martin is not very popular with Canada, but time will tell if he is elected or not. He is popular with George Bush, however.
Jack Layton has a chance to be the next Prime Minister if enough people vote with their heart, and not with political ads and fake promises (like the Red Book).
Ed Broadbent has it in him to make this a really tough race if enough old NDPers stop voting Liberal and start voting with their hearts.
We have to do something about this war on terror, too. It's eating away the resolutions of our United Nations. This kind of "kill 'em all" attitude is what destroyed Rome and it will do the same to North America if it isn't metered with reason and patience.
"She didn't authorize those adverts; as soon as she became aware of them, she ordered that they be pulled off the air."
I bet that a Liberal spy arranged for the Tory ads that made fun of Jean Chretien's face, for the sole intent to unveil them to the public and make the Tories look like assholes (which isn't that hard, anyway). Furthermore, the recent Ontario elections had, ironically, a similar situation! (duh) Dalton being a Kitten eater. My best guess is that this was done by Liberal spies to garner the same response as the 1993 ads, or at least it was blown up by Liberals to the extent it was.
Half the problem is that party in power controls the media in Canada, so whenever an election is on, it's usually quite biased.
This isn't satire - satire is funny. In the U.S. it's obvious free speech. I have no idea what Canadian law says, but I doubt this looks close enough to the original to be considered copyright infringement, which is what Martin is suing for.
It seems pretty obvious that this is not the PM's, or any politician's, site, and that it is meant as political commentary and not for purposes of deception. As long as that's clear, something's not over the line.
Java: the bastard demon spawn of C++ and Ada
If everyone voted for the smart guy, Howard Hampton, the province would be better off. Hampton won the debate, so he should have won the election.
Dalton, where's my pony?
yo. don't agree at ALL with the PMO's actions. this goes out today, various publications. seasonal yahoos, eh? pat PM-the-PM patr44@canada.com Only a few short days into power and Paul Marin.. ( aka PM-the-PM, old geezer that he is...) Has managed to put his foot in it. Open mouth, change feet. In this case, one of his assistants feats (the office web-master) got the PM's office slash-dotted ( they made the news onna Geek web-page) when they tried to force a change in a satirists's page. Change http://www.paulmartintimes.com To http://www.paulmartintime.com and you'll see what the fuss is about. Too close a copy was one of the complaints against the satire site. (Mostly factual info, actually) It's copyright violation. Shut the whole place down or the PM's office will hit you with lots of liberal lawyers. My response to that was short (words of one syllable, actually), blunt and fairly crude. Here's some history. ( 3 Simultaneous revolutions (1917. Mexico, Chine, Russia) did NOT persuade the USA to start the CIA in WW 2. Oh, about Paul. OK, then.) Paul Martin. Bag-boy. Like father, like son. A second generation finance minister, his dad having the same job for a while. Paul is, therefore, a bag-boy. Why, you ask? About the time of the St Lawrence scandal a certain shipping company ( Mr. Marin senor's?) got into trouble over 'payments' made to certain officials. Over an anchor, as I recall) Invisible overseas financing was invented ( Bahamas), a place the RCMP can't supneoa records from) right about that time. At work, Paul has had a slash+burn record since he started.... cutting wages, cutting benefits, etc. Given the junk fleets glutting the global shipping markets, it's a minor miracle the company has even survived. He did much the same as finance minister, with tax cuts for his friends thrown in. While taking full advantage of the freebies friends offered him, naturally. Normally, I accuse politicos of gangsterism. ( Like bridges in Toronto for the waterfront developers) This time, it's of being dangerously stupid. Like the local politicos (who let the power blackout rate in silicon valley north triple, then told us to stock candles, water and find a warm place to stay 'cause it's gonna take two years to fix. (while buying another cable company.)), he's cutting his own throat. This is the information age, ( a graphic one, mind. TV is still king.) and experiments in the timed release of propaganda, the suppression of articles ( the lessons of Otto Lang, who had Sask, cut out of the loop for if he didn't like the pulp news have been forgotten) just aren't gonna work anymore. Pot-heads might be pleased with a token ( ahem. Sorry about that one) relaxation of a victimless crime but without destroying the electronics revolution entirely, you won't cut off information these days. It's impossible. And a dangerously stupid move to even try. Turning back the tides would be easier. He's known to be a bit conservative... but this is ridiculous. And it only took him two weeks to start showing his true colors. A police state. Bah, humbug. Lets start passing around some information, people. Anyone got a few stories of his ships being used to smuggle drug-filled dead babies? Terrorist thieves? Lie, (cheat on his wife) stealing from the till, number of bag-men killed? (BM-the-PM had ten, I think, and didn't stop the Party Quebecois from getting financed.) If it's bad news he wants to stop, we can flood him with it. Pat donovan
packrat ; writer-informer. http://packrat.comicgenesis.com http://www.youtube.com/area163 https://www.smashwords.com/
*sigh...* Do we really need to go over the difference between copying and stealing again?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
liberal --> fiberal. It's true, catchy, and close enough. DISCLAIMER: I'm looking for a +1 funny, not a -1 troll. I love liberals. They are really nice guys.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.