Canada Gov't Censors Parliament Hearings On YouTube 192
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 Against Government Transparency? No Way! (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 [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.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:5, Informative)
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 [cnet.com]
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [cnet.com]
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 [slashdot.org]. 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.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe the Canadians were upset about the "How to say eh, eh" video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79T_Honhewc [youtube.com]
--
Slow Poke [pair.com]
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:4, Informative)
If you're going to ask people to look at something you should tell them where it is. [wikileaks.eu]
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2, Offtopic)
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.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:3, Insightful)
Two party system. The amount of difference your vote makes?
You decide which excuse they use to expand government power.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
You mean corporate power, the government is the face of the wealthy - the private commercialist.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
The Beatles had a hand in it too?
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:5, Informative)
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 [radionetherlands.nl]
Obama administration invokes 'state secrets' claim to defend Bush's wiretapping program. [thinkprogress.org]
Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed [salon.com]
I certainly hope Obama follows through.
You have your answer.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
Yes, he does. It's called the pink slip.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Government Copyright (Score:2)
At least in that copyright-crazy USA, no official government work product can be copyrighted, as it's been produced with public funds.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
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?
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
Yes, welcome to the Berne Convention. Everything your create gets copyrighted automatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:5, Funny)
We were?
When the hell was that?
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon Canada. You used to be cool.
We were?
When the hell was that?
February.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
When Margaret Trudeau showed everyone her cooter?
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
Only by caparison.
Re:Lawyers Against Government Transparency? No Way (Score:2)
I for one have contempt for all parliamentarians!
Disturbing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
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:2)
it is intended to limit truly corrupt practices, like attempting to unfairly profit from somebody else's hard work.
So taking something from the public domain and publishing it, thus causing it to not fall into obscurity is corrupt? How do you figure?
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
So taking something from the public domain and publishing it, thus causing it to not fall into obscurity is corrupt? How do you figure?
Huh? Copyright doesn't stop you publishing "something from the public domain."
What would be corrupt is me reading the manuscript of a book you've written, making a copy, handing it back to you and telling you I'm not interested in paying you for it, and then publishing it and making money out of your work. That's the kind of corrupt behaviour copyright is intended to stop.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
Sigh, that's not what you said. What you said was "attempting to unfairly profit from somebody else's hard work" .. so you've given one example, a terrible one at that btw, how about you define your terms.. cause all you're coming across as is another slashtard who thinks copyright is a natural right.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
Actually, thats what I said, not the person you are responding to, and your bizarre counter-example doesn't make any sense (even in context).
I don't think it is corrupt for me to have the right to exercise some control over the works that I invest my resources in to create. This control doesn't even need to be to generate profits (look at the GPL, for instance, whose entire existence is based on the so-called "corrupt" concept of copyrights).
I do think it would be corrupt for somebody else to be able to take those works that I created and do whatever they want with them- even at my expense- with no recourse. But, oh, I forgot, information needs to be freeeeeeee, man!
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
What you said was "attempting to unfairly profit from somebody else's hard work" .. so you've given one example, a terrible one at that btw
Terrible in that it is not an example of attempting to unfairly profit from somebody else's hard work?" Terrible in that such behaviour would not be remedied by copyright legislation? Or terrible because it shows up so clearly your lack of understanding and insight -- and because you imagine that by simply labelling an example 'terrible' it will convince anyone other than yourself? It's really quite hilarious that you think you can call so pertinent an example "terrible" given it was in response to the complete non sequitur you delivered. Oh and btw, it was not I who wrote the sentence you quote.
I'm not coming across like that at all. You are jumping to conclusions based on ... what precisely? Where in any way say or imply that I regard copyright as a "natural right."
"Slashtard?" Talk about projection (in the Freudian sense)! What I am is a lawyer with a fair idea of the history of intellectual property in the English (and derrivative) common law tradition. It is even possible that I know more about it than you (as hard as that might be for you to accept).
The only place I believe in 'natural law,' or 'natural rights,' is in your fevered imagination. Allow me to state my view of copyright explicitly: Copyright is a temporary, state enforced, statutory monopoly which serves to correct a systemic failure of free markets, namely the "free rider effect." Any example of the free rider effect (such as the one I gave) will serve to illustrate the function of copyright legislation . How do you get "natural right" from that position?!
As I see that you have no response to the first substantive issue of my original response, namely that you are incorrect in implying that copyright restricts the use of works in the public domain. I take it that you have sense enough at least to conceed that point?
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
Luckily for me, as an individual I can also copyright my works. If you don't want to play ball with the copyright system, then don't use commercial material.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
I guess that officially they are working for the Queen, so she owns the copyright.
Still, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#Canada [wikipedia.org]
Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce enactments and consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada, and decisions and reasons for decisions of federally constituted courts and administrative tribunals, provided due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced and the reproduction is not represented as an official version.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
Possibly the real reason they don't like these videos is that they might show who is actually doing their job and who isn't. It probably isn't a bad idea to check over their "expenses" too...
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
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.
Unlike the copyright you are familiar with droits d'auteur are not transferable, they rest permanently with the creator.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
You brought up an idea that I think could conceivably already fall under present law: where such a concept exists, work for hire [wikipedia.org] might conceivably mark the copyright of anything produced by government officials as owned by the government and, indirectly, by all citizens.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
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.
If you had RTFA, you'd know that the Canadians are claiming Crown copyright [wikipedia.org]
which is due to their government having the Queen of England as its head of state.
AFAIK, all of the UK and most British Overseas Territories have Crown copyright.
Moral rights [wikipedia.org] (you munged the link btw) are an entirely separate issue.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Disturbing.... (Score:2)
every politician's dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Say anything you want, without anyone legally repeating what you said.
isn't this owned by the people? (Score:2)
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.
Re:isn't this owned by the people? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:isn't this owned by the people? (Score:2)
"...and a contempt of Parliament." (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Copyright (Score:2, Informative)
Does this mean it's the British Queen who owns all of it?
Actually, up here she's not the "British Queen" she's referred to as the "Queen of Canada." In a Parliamentary Democracy such as ours, the government does it's work on behalf of the people in the name of the monarch. So yes, she does own the copyright on what happens in her parliament. However, there are many statutes and customs which effectively prevent her from exercising her rights of ownership herself.
Re:Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
She's queen of quite a lot of places...
Re:Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
It could be that a 3rd Party company is video-taping the sessions.
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
I'm actually more disturbed by their selective application of copyright. In all the years since Parliament was first televised, I have never once seen a copyright attribution on the television news reports that make liberal (sorry) use of this very same footage. Other third party footage is always attributed and often licensed.
Full disclosure: I worked for a few years with a company that provided materials for the Parliament of Canada using, among other things, the Parliamentary Hansard, vote results, Committee minutes and reports and much more. We never paid them a penny in royalties for the information and research products that we marketed to the public based on these materials. In fact, they paid us to produce much of it.
If I recall correctly (it's been a decade since I worked there), there was no copyright notice on the materials, though they were clearly labeled as originating from the Parliament of Canada, and bore the Canadian Coat of Arms.
Re:Copyright (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
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:Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
And the courts have struck it down and the laws are all freely available now.
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
It's the Law... apparently (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's the Law... apparently (Score:2, Interesting)
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 consider somehow crazy Harper and his crew of monkey's are technically at the wheel. Hopefully we will have a vote called soontimes before the Conservatives screw us more then they have. God I hate the Conservatives, not disagree with, but truly hate. Got any..... chaaange?
Re:It's the Law... apparently (Score:3, Informative)
I think you mean CPAC [www.cpac.ca] not C Span.
Re:It's the Law... apparently (Score:2)
"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.
Comment removed (Score:2)
secret laws (Score:2)
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.
Re:secret laws (Score:3, Informative)
Re:secret laws (Score:2)
Parliamentary supremacy (Score:5, Informative)
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:Parliamentary supremacy (Score:3, Interesting)
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 :-)
Arent youtube servers in the US? (Score:2)
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 Canadian government ... (Score:2)
Re:The Canadian government ... (Score:2)
Neither do you because it is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.
The *ONLY* person who can fire the government is the reigning Monarch, who does so through the Governor-General of Canada
no (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
come on, now! if you truely are canadian, like myself, then you never watch that 24/7 channel and curse it's exsistance should you accidently find it on route to a more interesting channel.
I know... we all do it!
What keeps the canadian politions image safe(r) in canada is that they are soooooo boring no one pays attention to them, almost especially when they want us to...Unless its to heckle them like on a show like 'this hour has 24 minutes'
The canadian politicians NEED to make a fuss out of the youtube thing to get us to remember they are even there! =]
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)
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]
Re:oh, Canada (Score:2)
"We the people like to watch television"
Re:oh, Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
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:oh, Canada (Score:2)
Typically any country calling itself a "Democratic Republic" actually a dictatorship or oligarchy. I'm not aware of any examples of a country with such a name (or the equivalent in local language) which would be remotely democratic.
Re:oh, Canada (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:oh, Canada (Score:2)
Typically any country calling itself a "Democratic Republic" actually a dictatorship or oligarchy. I'm not aware of any examples of a country with such a name (or the equivalent in local language) which would be remotely democratic.
Here are some:
Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor)
Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
mod parent up as insightful, funny (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:Fair trade? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Fair trade? (Score:2)
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 ;-)
Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (Score:3, Insightful)
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 that.
HAH
(No, that does not warrant any more of a response)
Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (Score:2)
I apologize for failing to notice, in my haste, that the OP was in fact you. I suppose my post should be a bit more dripping in half-amused contempt, but sadly Slashdot does not allow any sort of editing of existing posts.
Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (Score:2)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
- Benjamin Franklin
Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (Score:2)
The Canadian Government surely only objects to the fact that YouTube stands to profit from videos of parliament sessions without asking permission. Had they asked it probably wouldn't have been a problem, considering the enhanced access it provides. But YouTube broke Canadian law and they reacted appropriately. Please put the gun down.
I also advise against using quotes that pre-date Canada's confederation to point out that a relatively insignificant Canadian law is out of date.
Re:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (Score:2)
"At a fundraiser in Philadelphia where he was flanked by PA governor Ed Rendell, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter, and Sen. Bob Casey, Barack Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans."
.
.
.
I think that it is quite a stretch to claim that this Obama comment is evidence that Obama is nothing new."
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Philly [politicususa.com]
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/bring+a+knife+to+a+gunfight.html [usingenglish.com]
Re:First (Second) Holocaust (Score:2)
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?
Re:Yes, it is copyright infringement... so what? (Score:2)
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?
What kind? Why, those who have something to hide ... and thus something to fear.
Re:Yes, it is copyright infringement... so what? (Score:2)
No it is held by the Crown, which at this point in time is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.
That is not the same as the government, as of course the government is *her* government.
Re:Out of the Box (Score:2, Funny)