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."
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.
every politician's dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Say anything you want, without anyone legally repeating what you said.
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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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:Some Quotes to Reflect Upon (Score:1, Insightful)
I completely agree with you, but felt I had to correct a misperception.
Knife crime is not a huge problem in the UK. Nor was gun crime when the bastards banned guns. The hysteria over <tool> crime is, and always has been, manufactured by the media/government.
But yes - if they DO ban knives (not likely, unless someone stabs up a school), we'll beat each other with sticks. Or use the knives everyone still has. Or manufacture our own. Boys will be boys.
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: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: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.
Re:Copyright (Score:1, Insightful)