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."

Comments

Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way!

[eldavojohn]

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.

Copyright

[dmomo]

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.

It's the Law... apparently

[EdIII]

Relying on crown copyright, the policy states that any other use - including any commercial use - requires the express prior written approval of the Speaker of the House of Commons. This stands in sharp contrast to the United States, where the default presumption is that such videos are in the public domain and can be freely used without permission. House of Commons lawyers portrayed that approach as representing an extreme position.

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.

To their credit, most of the MPs on the Committee recognized that changes to the policies in the YouTube era are needed. However, MPs from the three opposition parties expressed some reluctance to mirror the U.S. approach, fearing that some videos taken out of context could be "terrifically damaging."

Wow. Your kidding. No Shit.

Most of what governments are passing these days would piss people off.

Re:oh, Canada

[shutdown -p now]

Just a random anecdote, Canada's constitution starts with (paraphrasing) "We, the provinces ...".

Then, also, there is Canada's "Peace, order, and good government" (as opposed to "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness).

In truth, though, they are all just words on paper. Keep in mind that North Korea is also styled "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" in its Constitution.

What matters is how it works in practice. And I find it hard to say whether Canada or U.S. are more "free" (either one is more free in some areas, less free in others, so it depends on your definition and priorities).