Slashdot Mirror
Canada Gov't Censors Parliament Hearings On YouTube
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government has admitted
sending cease and desist letters to YouTube demanding that it remove
videos of Parliamentary hearings. Lawyers for the House of
Commons argue that using videos of elected representatives without
permission constitutes copyright infringement and a contempt of
Parliament."
Lawyers for the House of Commons argue that using videos of elected representatives without permission constitutes copyright infringement and a contempt of Parliament.
You know, you have to hand it to lawyers ... just when I think they are enforcing copyright on everything possible, they go and surprise the hell out of me.
Finally, news where I can actually stand up proudly and say take a page from the United States on this one, Canada:
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.
My work here is dung.
These are publicly elected officials> Doesn't that mean that everything they say, write, and do is owned by the public who elected them, who they work for? Where in the canadian law books is any of this?
wake up and hold your nose
repeat after us, "We the people"
while "distorting" a video for parody, satire or political comment purposes may still fall outside the licence and lead to demands for its removal
This is very disturbing, parody, satire, and political statements should be expressly legal under any sane copyright system. Especially for non-commercial use.
What is with "developed" countries and the corruption of copyright? The US, Canada, EU, and most other nations have bought into the corporations, and that just is sad.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Say anything you want, without anyone legally repeating what you said.
Having this at the end of all of the videos.
Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.
I can assure you that Obama is not following that. Just look at the copyright treaty that is classified do to "national security" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Obama is just a tool of the monied classes, give me a break. I can't believe americans are so self deluded to believe obama is going to change anything. Elections are mostly fake, which one of these stooges of the oligarchy will you elect, since both they own both.
you have to view this as the government trying to remove people's access to views opposing it's own, since parilemtn time is primarily where the opposing parties get to make their rebuttals to the government.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Why is it that so many people are using this Benjamin Franklin quote and at the same time so few people understand its meaning?
BTW, health care in Canada is not "free". We pay for it the same way Americans pay for their private insurance. The real difference is to whom we pay and to whom all profits go.
Heh. That's almost too easy a slow pitch; I couldn't have phrased it better myself. And I'm not even Canadian (though I have tons of Canadian relatives -- pretty much everyone on my mother's side of the family.) ..bruce..
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
Love always,
You're younger yet somehow cooler brother.
America.
If a Government holds a copyright, and claims infringement of that copyright against the People, could it then be said that the Government's assets do not belong to the People? Can it then be said that the Government is not of the People?
I know this case is different, seeing as YouTube may be outside of the Country. But it does highlight the absurdity of Government being able to hold copyright. Absurd absurd absurd.
Publicly elected representatives doing public work and dissemination of public proceedings is illegal eh!. Canada - you can do better than China.
Well there you go. It seems that by default the Canadian people don't own any videos of their elected officials performing their official duties.
Wow. Your kidding. No Shit.
Most of what governments are passing these days would piss people off.
Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.
I can assure you that Obama is not following that. Just look at the copyright treaty that is classified do to "national security" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html
Yes, there are still a lot of things we're still waiting for. However (and I submitted this story so I may be biased), the congress and senate have their own YouTube channels. While this is by no means complete and some of these videos sound more like extended campaigns than real decision making, it's a start. YouTube has been around a long time and it's appalling to me that governments haven't been using it as a tool of transparency ... instead others blatantly censor it. To me, if this is a sign of things to come, I have some faith that we are moving in the correct direction.
My work here is dung.
It certainly looks right to me! Our democracies are only a show so why shouldn't we pay to see it?
Before you post again you must apologize to at Obama and repeat 3 times "I hate Buss, I hate Bush, I hate Bush."
C'mon Canada. You used to be cool.
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
- Ed Howdershelt
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
- Thomas Jefferson
The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.
- Ayn Rand
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to saintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
- George Washington
If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.
- Frank Herbert
In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Exactly, in Canada, the profits go to a select few who are friends with various politicians.
Whereas in the US, the profits go to a select few who are friends with various politicians.
It's a very subtle difference.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
If you're going to ask people to look at something you should tell them where it is.
No, he's following it to the letter. Note the phrase "consistent with law and policy" that he used. "consistent with law" is pretty reasonable, in general, but when you add "and policy", you're saying "we'll be open when we think it favours us, and not otherwise".
Which is pretty much how he's been behaving. If it will make him look good to be open on a subject, he's open. If it won't make him look good....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The subtle difference being one model is based on greed and finding the cheapest treatment possible, or better yet denying treatment. Whereas the other is a non profit entity with care as the priority.
Yes we have are problems (mostly to due abuse from foreigners). But babies aren't dying here due to bankruptic costs associated with giving birth under a for profit model.
Finally, news where I can actually stand up proudly and say take a page from the United States on this one, Canada [whitehouse.gov]:
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
That's Obama talking, right?
Obama blocks release of torture photos
Obama administration invokes 'state secrets' claim to defend Bush's wiretapping program.
Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed
I certainly hope Obama follows through.
You have your answer.
I came here for a good argument
We were?
When the hell was that?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
You can moderate the parent comment troll all you like, but we have to admit he's a bit right.
Obama certainly is better than Bush. But that isn't that hard now, it it? ^^
The most interesting fact here is, that the very banks that got those tons of money, were the ones that nearly entirely payed his whole campaign. And I think we all already agreed some months ago, that Biden is a tool of the content industry. ^^
The thing that really hit me positively with Obama, (And here is the point that you should have read too, if you modded me troll too by now. ^^) was that what he said was almost *exactly* what I would have planned, if I would be the president. Something I thought to be unthinkable.
The thing that really hit me negatively, was how so many people he appointed, were busted for this crime and that crime. And how he chose to appoint the next guy, and that guy *also* got busted for some shit.
I really wonder if this happened, because Obama, in the attempt to keep his promises, ignored the lobbies and appointed who he really thought was the best one, and those lobbies then went to find something to get that guy killed... or if Obama did actually deliberately choose bad people? (Or both? Or none of both?)
I think I will only judge him, *after* his actions. And I will not judge him relative to Bush, but relative to my values.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Two party system. The amount of difference your vote makes?
You decide which excuse they use to expand government power.
At least in that copyright-crazy USA, no official government work product can be copyrighted, as it's been produced with public funds.
It's Crown Copyright -- i.e. copyright is held by the government.
But what kind of politicians would support stopping the public from viewing public hearings being held on behalf of the public and at public expense?
"Commercial uses still require prior approval, while "distorting" a video for parody, satire or political comment purposes may still fall outside the licence and lead to demands for its removal."
Excerpts used for purposes of parody, satire, or political comment are "fair dealing". These should be *less* restricted by copyright.
And if the public might get misled by people using choice snippets out of context, well, guess what the best cure is? HAVING THE WHOLE CONTEXT PUBLICLY AND FREELY AVAILABLE!!
Idiots.
Canadian Goverbment Offical:
"Citizens of Canada and Foreign personages within Canada, who, by whatever means, read, in whatever capacity, and retain a memory of written Government Edicts, are in violation of copyright and deemed 'Eneny of the State', and be rendered unto the State for execution for commitance of High Crimes against the State."
You bring up a good point. People act like Obama is the opposite of Bush. But so far they seem to mainly cater to the wealthy and powerful.
There's something seriously wrong with Canada if their Parliament considers their proceedings to be proprietary. The Canadian voters have paid for them, and if Parliament is trying to hide their proceedings then there's some secret they're trying to hide.
Sometimes, when the US has completely disgusted me, I merely have to look north for some tomfoolery that makes me remember again why I never moved up there.
Like the Who once said "New boss.... same as the old boss...." Who ever thought Townshend, Daltrey, and Entwhistle could be so right on the money...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Maybe the Canadians were upset about the "How to say eh, eh" video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79T_Honhewc
--
Slow Poke
Only by caparison.
I am all for a reinvented Holocaust that, rather than killing jews, we round up thugs and put them out of our misery.
Khan Noonien Singh ... is that you?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Most of the comments that have been made so far are obviously by Americans: not that that's a bad thing, but it's obvious that there is a fundamental lack of understanding by the posters. It's okay, we had a constitutional crisis recently and a majority of Canadians showed quite clearly that they don't understand parliamentary democracy, either.
Canada is a bicameral Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, and continues to be one of 15 Commonwealth Realms (and is also a member of the Commonwealth of Nations - the difference between a Realm and a member of the Commonwealth is detailed below). As a Commonwealth Realm, a monarch of the House of Windsor sits as Canada's Sovereign as the Queen of Canada - we are, in effect, personal union with the other 14 realms (The United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, etc), and due to our history, we share roughly the same governmental structure as the other Commonwealth Realms: Westminster parliamentary democracy.
In our system, the state is the Sovereign and the Sovereign is the state, in effect; it is through the exercise of sovereignty that all of the wonderful freedoms we enjoy are guaranteed. The constitutional view is very Hobbesian, in this regard: rights are understood to be conventional, and contingent upon the Monarch to exercise sovereignty effectively to prevent those rights from being infringed upon. In common parlance, the Sovereign is understood as being the "Crown."
It is through the Crown that all matters of law and order are conducted - for example, in Canada, we have "Crown prosecutors" rather than District Attorneys, and when prosecutions take place, it is the Queen-in-right of Canada that is making the charge. The Crown is, to use American terminology, the Executive. However, due to various constitutional conventions and historical developments, we have a merged legislative and executive branch.
Parliament is made up of three parts: the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Sovereign. The Queen is represented in Canada by the Governor-General as viceroy, and exercises all powers (so-called "reserve powers") ascribed to the office by the Constitution Act 1867, that is to say, basically all functions of government. But it is only on the advice of the Prime Minister that those actions are ever undertaken. Once again, due to various constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Commons, who is best able to retain the confidence of the House. The Prime Minister is then appointed to the Privy Council (similar to the notion of the President appointing all of the people at the White House), who then recommends to the G-G who else to induct. All of these inductees become Privy Councillors, and go on to form Cabinet, the executive body of the country which does most of the governing and forms what is called in constitutional parlance a "Ministry."
Why is this important? Quite simply, because of two traditions: the first, which has been detailed here, is that of responsible government. The Governor-General has vast powers, but only ever exercises them based upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who is himself bound to the will of the House of Commons. The second is the notion of Parliamentary supremacy - this is the constitutional doctrine which was solidified after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that established that the Sovereign cannot act against the will of Parliament or undertake action with its sanction, and also established Parliament as the chief and supreme body of governance.
The Speaker of the House of Commons is an officer of Parliament and also a Member. He is the one who controls and directs all debate, and it is the Speaker that establishes and rules on the standing orders. Relating to the televising of Parliament, the Speaker reigns supreme: it is only through authorization of the Speaker that cameras were ever allowed into the chamber, and it is on his authority that they continue to do so.
Second, all copyright owned by the Government of Canada is actually owned by the Cr
In other news. Canadians should decide to withhold their taxes on the grounds that portions of the money might be used out of context or on less than successful spending. Canadians require that any record of their tax payments or non payments be controlled by American copyright regulations. The taxpayers themselves will decide if such information is to be recorded by anyone.
C'mon Canada. You used to be cool.
We were?
When the hell was that?
February.
When Margaret Trudeau showed everyone her cooter?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
You mean corporate power, the government is the face of the wealthy - the private commercialist.
Even if there is a canadian crown copyright no US judge would enforce such such a copyright if the use was exempted under US law(such as satire or political criticism.)
The phrase "we the people" is one of the most fundamental shifts in the state of our affairs ever in human history. It encodes one of the most important principles of government in the US system: that it is only by the consent of the governed that those who rule derive their power. not from guns or armies or simply the power to take over, not from royal lineage or nepotism, not from divine intervention or the support of the church, or any of the other reasons that some groups rule over other groups. The underlying principle (was) that differentiates the US Republic is that it is *the people* which give the governments the right and permission to rule. I find the point of the post above poignant: I think is to make clear that in open society like the US, legislative bodies only exist because the people allow it, and beyond that, they have no more power or right. A point seemingly lost on a parliament trying to hide it's behavior as "terrifically damaging." but caving under pressure. That's backwards.
What is ironic is that the US has mostly lost this understanding. Asking Canada to follow the US in what, in principle, that country was founded on but no longer follows in practice makes it rather sadly funny.
Politics and Youtube. Lets first acknowledge that the number one Government having things removed from youtube that do not benefit their lies is indeed the government of the United State of America, INC.
Americans coming out here and criticizing us need look no further then the citizens of your very own country who are harassed and imprisoned for statements made in a society that has a legislative freedom of speech.
I think people need to look atthe TRUTH movement to see how quickly the American government will swoop in and censor statements that are otherwise lawful. If somebody states:
Buildings don't fall at the speed of gravity unless via demolition. CENSORED.
Jet fuel, cannot physically reach the temperature needed to melt steel. CENSORED.
Stating that, the supposed hijackers, have turned out to be still alive. CENSORED.
Firefighters speaking out against the clear cover up, if not for the truth but for the brothers and sisters they lost when 'somebody' decided to demo 3 buildings in uniform fashion at the speed of gravity. CENSORED.
Physicists explaining the fundamental flaws associated with the 911 report, that rebukes any further investigation despite the trace samples of thermite (A trademarked compound used specifically in demolition) found on samples of debris but also in the air. CENSORED.
Last time I checked cbc.ca/fifth had a nice doc piece on the BS of the final verdict, and it's available to anybody with the internet, no commercials or nothing.
Eh.
The thing that really hit me negatively, was how so many people he appointed, were busted for this crime and that crime. And how he chose to appoint the next guy, and that guy *also* got busted for some shit. I really wonder if this happened, because Obama, in the attempt to keep his promises, ignored the lobbies and appointed who he really thought was the best one, and those lobbies then went to find something to get that guy killed... or if Obama did actually deliberately choose bad people? (Or both? Or none of both?)
or (just my theory) it was politics as usual and he repaid (or is repaying) the favors he owes from the campaign (I find it hard to believe that one could go from Jr. Senator to POTUS in one campaign season without owing quite a few people favors). I would not be surprised to find that some of his cabinet picks were due in part to that (Tom Daschle for example), but I hope that he looked for qualified people first and then looked to see who he owed the most favors
I think I will only judge him, *after* his actions. And I will not judge him relative to Bush, but relative to my values.
As it should be.
Aaron Z
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
We were?
When the hell was that?
Before global warming.
Biggest non news of the year. WHO THE HELL CARES?
The Canadian government clearly doesn't understand who their actual employers are. It's time to fire a few of them until they come to respect that once more.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I agree with Obama's current decisions to protect the information from release. We have no doubt that the information exists however what it will serve is to dishearten good people who work in those agencies.
If anything, Presedent Bush is accountable for his hard decisions and not the people in those agencies. The people in those agencies should not feel Betrayed by the next president when their previous President is accountable.
The good thing good is that that Obama is not condoning torture.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but does Obama really have any direct control over what the lawyers at the Dept. of Justice say and do? Also, I can see the justification for not releasing the torture photos. Publicizing them could lead to more violence. The principal issue is just to make sure that the torture isn't repeated in the future.
The Beatles had a hand in it too?
Contempt of parliment will be when YouTube replies "You got to be f**king kidding. What kind of idiot thought up that jem?"
You sure? i had the impression it was 1st of April...
In the UK, the proceedings from the house of parliament are broadcast live on the BBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Parliament
Yes, he does. It's called the pink slip.
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
How the heck do they claim copyright when they have not gone through the legal process of filing for copyright? Are they trying to claim that one can claim copyright in advance of an utterance?
The thing that struck me was the phrase "contempt for parliament". I thought all people had at least a little contempt for parliament. (Then again, I am an Aussie, perhaps things are different in other (so called) "democracies";-(
I for one have contempt for all parliamentarians!
It's a very subtle difference.
It becomes much more clear that "the profits go to a select few who are friends with various politicians." isn't aligned across the two if you use a fixed-width font ;-)
Your argument is bullshit, as it can be used to prtoect almost any release of information. For instance, I could argue that images of nazi camps should have never been released, as it dishearten the family of the guards.
Obama said he would release the images. He didn't. He either lied or flipped. No excuses.
Yes, welcome to the Berne Convention. Everything your create gets copyrighted automatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention
The biggest single problem with Berne isn't the fact that copyright is automatic... it's the fact that it's automatic AND for near-eternity. The rationale for "automatic" is to protect it between the time that would otherwise elapse between creation and filing. The problem is that copyright is now effectively eternal in duration, which means everything not explicitly made public domain at some point is a likely future orphan work.
IMHO, everything should be automatically copyrighted for something like 18-30 months at creation. Beyond that, you should have to explicitly register it for an initial 25-year term, then re-register it during every 10th year for prices that double with each renewal. At some point, even "Steamboat Willie" would cost more to renew than it's worth to Disney. For everything else, if you found something worth publishing somewhere, you'd merely have to get a copy notarized and date-stamped, sit on it for the statutory initial automatic period, then do a documented diligent copyright search. If the search came up clean, it would give you an automatic defense against infringement and two options:
* cease publication & distribution immediately, and walk away owning nothing to anybody
* pay retroactive royalties at a statutory rate that would mostly be based on a percentage of revenue, and receive an automatic 1, 3, or 5 year compulsory license for the same terms (the 1-year license would have a low statutory rate, the 3 and 5 would be higher. The 1-year would enable you to clear inventory you already paid to produce; the 5-year would let you do business as usual without paying most of the money to the lawyers who'd otherwise be representing both sides.
Coupled with this would be a copyright office that maintained an online searchable archive somewhat like that of the patent office, to make it as easy as possible to do a good-faith diligent search for copyright status. In the case of things like books, it would work the way services used by college professors to detect plagiarism... you'd enter text excerpts, run a search, and see a list of likely matches with additional excerpts so you could determine whether further research was needed, or whether you just had to get the search results timestamped & digitally notarized to file away in case you needed them later.
Patents have been abused, but at least THEY eventually expire during the lifetimes of people who'll use or improve it. Enable people to pre-emptively challenge patents in court to get a public declaration that their use is non-infringing (so bullshit patents would quickly be blasted away), and the worst problems will fix themselves. Copyright law, on the other hand, is a complete clusterfuck disaster in its current state... and every "reform" since the 1970s has only made it worse (copyrighting BUILDINGS?!? Blueprints, ok... but even things like spatial layouts and conceptual floorplans? I could halfway rationalize patenting a staggeringly innovative new home layout, but granting a nearly-eternal monopoly on it is outrageous. If the same logic had been consistently applied since the 1900s, it would be infringing to build a single-family home with attached garage, 2-story foyer, and great room.
Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.
He's not even following through on the simple stuff. One of his campaign promises was to display bills that have passed Congress on the whitehouse.gov website for 5 days before he signs them. This was to allow for public comment before the bills formally became laws.
While it was something of a silly promise given the unlikeliness of public commentary stopping a bill at the last second, it would also be relatively trivial for him to implement. Even so, he hasn't. Instead, he's made lame excuses about technical problems. The excuses are particularly dishonest considering that the bills are going up on the website anyway, he just isn't waiting the 5 days before signing them.
It's still cool. It's only May.
That must have been 1918.
I think it's Parliment who has comtempt for the Citizens of Canada.
This is not unlike alternative media channels getting suspended from YouTube for their political commentary (like TheAlexJonesChannel which had thousands of videos uploaded and millions of views that was recently suspended)...it is no big surprise that the government of Canada would want to keep their doings under wraps, as an informed public is dangerous to them and something they would actively avoid when possible. Newspapers in both Canada and the US are controlled in what they publish and so must YouTube be from the governments point of view since it now reaches so many people. Disappointed with Canadian law here, and Canadians themselves, but not surprised.
A few things i'm sure the Canadian government would prefer not be on YouTube:
A Voice for Canadians - Richard Syrett
Dr. Andrew Moulden discusses the North American Union
Crime of the Canadian Banking System
Book: The Truth About Canada
The Nation's Deathbed
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
Its September to June. Corrected for you.
p.s. it snowed today in Calgary.
I do have contempt for any government body that tries to hide its deliberations from the public.
Well, if you believe the GP's assertion -- which I am inclined to do -- that all the candidates from either part are going to be tools for the wealthy parasites on society (a class they belong to, aka: investors), then Bush WAS better in one way. At least he was pretty honest about it.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
due (seriously?)
> Lawyers for the House of Commons argue that using videos of elected representatives
> without permission constitutes...a contempt of Parliament.
And getting permission from the government to monitor public government activity constitutes a contempt of Freedom.
Fix it at the next elections, Canadians. The US did.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...constitutes copyright infringement and a contempt of Parliament.
Our parliament is contemptible.
Question period is disgusting and shameful.
Watching it on TV makes me sick.
Dear MPs, Grow the fuck up!
The election is over, this is the part where you are supposed to do your fucking job.
what, me bitter?
This got insightful?