Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada Gov't Censors Parliament Hearings On YouTube

Posted by timothy on from the state-vs.-everyone dept.

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."

2 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  2. Copyright by dmomo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.