Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Canada Gov't Censors Parliament Hearings On YouTube

Posted by timothy on Sun May 17, 2009 05:41 PM
from the state-vs.-everyone dept.
Censorship Government The Media News
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Canada Govt Censors Parliament Hearings on YouTube by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Canada Gov't Censors Parliament Hearings On YouTube 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • 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 [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.

    Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.

  • Disturbing.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday May 17 2009, @05:49PM (#27989491)

    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.

    • What is with "developed" countries and the corruption of copyright?

      Umm.. copyright = corruption.

      "Hey, can you make me a law where I'm the only one who can do [commercially interesting activity]?"

      Corruption.

      • No, copyright is not corruption. Like anything else, it is susceptible to corruption, but the concept itself is not corrupt. Instead, it is intended to limit truly corrupt practices, like attempting to unfairly profit from somebody else's hard work.

    • Re:Disturbing.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday May 17 2009, @06:20PM (#27989653)

      This is very disturbing, parody, satire, and political statements should be expressly legal under any sane copyright system. Especially for non-commercial use.

      He's probably referring to droits d'auteur [wikipedia.org] which is a continental thing (vs common law) - we don't really have it in the US, Canada does have it to some degree due to their legal system's french influence. One part of such "author's rights" is the right to not have the creation used in a way contradictory to the creator's wishes such as to misrepresent what the creator intended to present. It's pretty ambiguous and the concept of fair use may not even apply, depending on the circumstances.

      That's not to say that I disagree with your point, just to explain where the rationalization is coming from since we don't really have the same concept in US copyright law.

      • The problem I have is that I don't think a person that's supposed to be working on the behalf of their constituents should be able to claim copyrights on what they did while working in that capacity.

        As far as I'm concerned, if they want to own the copyright on something, such as a book or video work, they should do that something on their own time and their own resources.

    • Those exceptions are specifically legal in Canada.

      These lawyers don't have a legal leg to stand on and will end up being heavily drubbed by a judge.

  • every politician's dream (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2009, @05:50PM (#27989497)

    Say anything you want, without anyone legally repeating what you said.

  • i was under the impression in most countries with sane leadership and laws, government work was owned by the people. so unless they are calling on some inane interpretation of the law claiming because it's hosted outside of canadian servers it's copyright infringement since canada owns it, i can't see how removing access to parilment debates will lead to anything but protests in the streets.

    you have to view this as the government trying to remove people's access to views opposing it's own, since parilemtn

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by amliebsch (724858)
      In many countries, works of government are indeed owned "by the people." Of course, by "the people," we really mean "the government," since obviously the government represents the people. Net result: like everything else, the government wields the copyright to its own benefit while claiming it is doing so in the best interests of "the people." The best thing to do is what the U.S. thankfully does: works of government are not copyrighted by anyone. They are automatically placed in the public domain.

  • 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..

  • Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dmomo (256005) on Sunday May 17 2009, @06:00PM (#27989571) Homepage

    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.

    • Actually, they seem to think the Crown owns the copyright. Does this mean it's the British Queen who owns all of it? If it is, then may be it could be a new source of income for her.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Raemond (710835)
        Nope. It means the Canadian Crown owns it. Which is the corporation sole (look it up) that represents the Executive of Canada. If anything it means the Canadian government 'owns' it, but only on behalf of the nation.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by amliebsch (724858)
        What do you mean, "welcome to the club?" This is one thing the U.S. does right: works of government are not copyrightable by anyone, not even the government.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Tweenk (1274968)

          Works of the Federal government; State governments can still hold copyrights, and have assered copyright over the text of laws, preventing them from being disseminated on the Internet in PDF form (WTF!!!)

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by GigsVT (208848)

            And the courts have struck it down and the laws are all freely available now.

  • It's the Law... apparently (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Sunday May 17 2009, @06:03PM (#27989587)

    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DirtyCanuck (1529753)

      I think the problem is not with the videos themselves but who is gaining traffic from the viewing of such videos. Considering C Span is one of the few channels available to all Canadians I would suspect that this should fall under such commons. However it would be the same as say CBC programs that are freely available at CBC.ca being redistributed on Youtube.

      However until the Canadian government decides to offer such videos through a service or their own I would disagree with these motions.

      We must also cons

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I think you mean CPAC [www.cpac.ca] not C Span.

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

      That should read: "What most private sector corporations are doing these days would piss people off" after all they are the ones funding these bullshit laws through their lobbying efforts and buying off politicians.

  • Parliamentary supremacy (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2009, @08:38PM (#27990487)

    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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jabuzz (182671)

      I would add it has worked longer than the United States of America has been a nation. I would also point out that the French are onto their fifth republic in 217 years, so clearly that is working out well for them.

      These young whipper snappers :-)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Smoke2Joints (915787)
      it is in New Zealand. our parliamentary chambers have designated areas for the press to setup shop and record the goings on. we even have a tv channel called Parliament TV, screens every tuesday when there is a session in progress. not very exciting, i admit, but its a damn good thing it is there. the canadians could learn a thing or two.

      • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Holmwood (899130) on Sunday May 17 2009, @06:34PM (#27989725)

        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 [slashdot.org]

        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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dryeo (100693)

      Officially we are ruled by a Queen and only elect officials to give her advice. Practically they are our elected officials. Still officially the crown owns all government copyright though generally it is freely copy able as long as the source is acknowledged, the copy is accurate and it is for non-commercial use. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#Canada [wikipedia.org]

    • "We the people like to watch television"

    • Re:oh, Canada (Score:4, Interesting)

      by debrain (29228) on Sunday May 17 2009, @07:41PM (#27990123) Journal

      repeat after us, "We the people"

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

      • Re:oh, Canada (Score:4, Interesting)

        by fyoder (857358) on Sunday May 17 2009, @10:26PM (#27991195) Homepage Journal

        Actually, skipping the preliminary, the BNA [wikisource.org] act begins " It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly."

        It's not the most the most inspired reading. The Yanks do have us beat when it comes to founding documents. Actually, they've got pretty much everyone beat, just for including the concept of the 'pursuit of happiness' being important. Since when did a government ever care about its people's happiness? At most they would prefer that most of the people be more or less content so that they don't revolt, but that's about it. Of course, the US as envisioned by its founding fathers, and the US today are arguably quite different.

      • Re:oh, Canada (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shutdown -p now (807394) <int19h@NoSPAm.gmail.com> on Monday May 18 2009, @12:11AM (#27991705)

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

        Then, also, there is Canada's "Peace, order, and good government" [wikipedia.org] (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).

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Vintermann (400722)

            Sao Tomé and Principe, is that a tyranny? How about East Timor? Ethiopia is hardly a beacon of freedom and democracy, but they at least have multi-party elections.

            If you look to the past, you have DR Armenia, DR Georgia, DR Azerbaijan, and DR Taiwan, all of which were apparently reasonably democratic, and destroyed by Russia (first three) and Japan respectively.

    • mod parent up as insightful, funny (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2009, @09:43PM (#27990921)

      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.

      • Re:Fair trade? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by binarylarry (1338699) on Sunday May 17 2009, @06:21PM (#27989673)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DirtyCanuck (1529753)

          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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Virak (897071)

      So our government isn't perfect because we don't have nearly enough guns? Thanks for the helpful advice, we'll get on fixing that right away.

      How's that working for keeping yours in check down there, by the way?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Virak (897071)

          I'm not defending this and made not even the slightest indication that I am. On the contrary, I think it's pretty goddamn horrible. However, the OP quite clearly thinks the problem (or at least part of it) is that we need guns! More guns! Guns for everyone! And that's just blatantly retarded, especially coming from an American ("do things like us and you can have a nice government free of corruption like us!").

          He also seems to think we're going to be going after the Jews shortly, but I've chosen to overlook

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dexmachina (1341273)
      They're not trying to hide their proceedings. As other people have noted, there's a Canadian cable channel called CPAC devoted to airing parliamentary proceedings. The point isn't that they don't want the videos to be seen, from what I gather it's more about having them taken out of context, etc. Not that I agree with it, I still think it's stupid. But that doesn't mean it's OK to misrepresent the issue.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.