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?"
I always go to the regional news sources when i'm interested in what is going on. While AP/Reuters wire copy that appears at various sites are interesting, and RSS is making syndication of articles much more common, It's always important to "go to the source" as much as possible.
I suspect this whole "unelected" thing is likely political spin created by the parody website. It sounds like he was elected at something similar to a caucus in November (gleaned from skimming this). While this may not represent the "Direct" democracy that exists in the US, that's not the system that is in use in Canada. Not everywhere is using a Presidental system similar to the US, it sounds like Afghanistan is going to end up with a Parliamentary System. Nothing wrong with the other systems as much as they are not liked by the Americans.
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.
I suspect this whole "unelected" thing is likely political spin created by the parody website.
It's spin, but the parody site didn't create it. People in Canada vote for a political party. They voted for the Liberal party, and Cretien was their leader at the time. When he resigned, the public did not get another vote - the Liberal party voted for Martin as their new leader.
That's how it's supposed to work, but not all Canadians like it or even know about it, which is why some people are calling him "unelected".
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.
That's how it's supposed to work, but not all Canadians like it or even know about it, which is why some people are calling him "unelected".
Quite seriously, anyone who doesn't know about it is an idiot. I mean, these are things you learn repeatedly in several different grades in school, along with being basic facts that are pointed out all over the place. I, personally, have noticed a total of two people calling him unelected, including this posting. Both of these have been on the internet, and both have been from people that oppose the Liberal Party.
I'm not particularly happy with the Liberals myself, but calling him unelected is stupid. He was elected in his riding and was selected by parliament (read: his party) just like every Prime Minister. I mean, it doesn't even make sense to complain if you don't want the liberals in power, since there's absolutely nobody in a position to oppose them if they were to call an election.
I really don't understand how people could either not understand the way the government works at this basic level, or disagree with a Liberal leadership and want an election right now. If there were to be an election, the conservative parties are currently in the middle of working themselves out and wouldn't be able to put up a fight.
The only reason I can actually come up with for people to call him unelected is that they just like to complain about how they're being oppressed.
He's the elected leader of the party.
Rundown on Canada's government process, for those interested
(Some of my details may be wrong, been a while since I looked in depth to it)
I wish they'd hammer this into our heads HARDER in school, though. I agree with you that we Canadians should know all this, but the sad fact is that a lot don't. I think a stronger political component in Social Studies is in order.
It's a sad state of affairs that quite a few Canadians know more about the American political system than their own. Myself included.
People in Canada vote for a political party.
Not exactly. What Canadian people vote for in general elections are their riding's Member of Parliament to place in the House of Commons.
Now each MP candidate belongs to a political party (or run as an independent). Once all the MPs are elected, the party with the most seats in the house becomes the government, and it's leader becomes the Prime Minister.