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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Canada similarly has these things, including a 24/7 channel (both French and English versions) that covers Parliament when in session; indeed they go well beyond that and cover major Parliamentary committees. See cpac.ca
That's not the issue; the issue, as the article notes, is that crown copyright pertains to committee meetings. (Unlike in the US where this video is generally public domain). The linked article notes that MPs generally seem to be concerned that people will use their utterances against them for satire, for attack ads, or to promulgate a particular policy viewpoint. They are seeking to be as aggressive as possible in using copyright to takedown material they disagree with.
Too bad for the MPs, in my view. Unfortunately, the way the rules (and law) are at the moment, they've got a lot of tools to back up their perspective.
But again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a parliamentary channel (Canada's manages to broadcast even outside of just Tuesdays) or giving space for the media to setup to cover parliament.
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"
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......
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
C'mon Canada. You used to be cool.
We were?
When the hell was that?
February.
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.
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).
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.