Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Courts The Internet Your Rights Online News

Liberal Party of Canada Sues Satire Website 109

Posted by timothy from the buncha-northern-libruls dept.
Geekboy writes "Arguing proprietary interests, the Liberal Party of Canada has set out to force the closing (article mirrored in case the site closes) of a satire web site that takes aim at the new unelected Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin. The site in question is paulmartintime.ca, which is a satire of paulmartintimes.ca, but this opens a whole can of worms in regards to copyright and fair use of web content, and it involves the controlling party of Canada. Clearly there are mixed messages when one site mimics another, but where does one draw the line when it involves political satire and accountability?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Liberal Party of Canada Sues Satire Website More

Liberal Party of Canada Sues Satire Website

Comments Filter:
  • Does anyone have a good link for information about this? I mean it really casts me in the "ugly americain" light, but i had no idea that other countries were under siege either.

    • Re:unelected? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You can check the regional news sources. I would start at news.google.ca [google.ca] and the CBC [www.cbc.ca] (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) news websites. You can also watch some CBC news broadcasts on News World International. This is available on some digital cable and satellite systems (DirecTV 366).

      I always go to the regional news sources when i'm interested in what is going on. While AP/Reuters wire copy that appears at various sites are interesting, and RSS is making syndication of articles much more common, It's

      • Re:unelected? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I suspect this whole "unelected" thing is likely political spin created by the parody website.

        It's spin, but the parody site didn't create it. People in Canada vote for a political party. They voted for the Liberal party, and Cretien was their leader at the time. When he resigned, the public did not get another vote - the Liberal party voted for Martin as their new leader.

        That's how it's supposed to work, but not all Canadians like it or even know about it, which is why some people are calling him "unele

        • Re:unelected? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TC (WC) ( 459050 )
          That's how it's supposed to work, but not all Canadians like it or even know about it, which is why some people are calling him "unelected".

          Quite seriously, anyone who doesn't know about it is an idiot. I mean, these are things you learn repeatedly in several different grades in school, along with being basic facts that are pointed out all over the place. I, personally, have noticed a total of two people calling him unelected, including this posting. Both of these have been on the internet, and both ha
          • Two disclaimers before I get into this

            !. I am very conservitive
            2. I am not Canadian. (American actualy)

            Ok, it didn't sound at all from that post like he was saying the pres was unelected, He was explaining why the pres WAS elected, and how. It's not so teribly different than the Electoral College that elected Bush despite him losing the popular vote. Although it woud be more like if Bush decided he didn't want to play anymore before he got a chance to take office. Which since the electoral college is
            • I'm pretty sure I didn't mention the American president at all... I'm not completely sure what you're getting at, could you clairify?

              I wasn't disagreeing with the fellow's point, I was agreeing with the fact that our Prime Minister was chosen in the legal way and commenting on the people that disagree with that.
              • Was just using another example, the American president wasn't mentioned, however he's another example of how the election laws can lead to someone who the people don't nececarily want as the head of state/head of the government

          • Re:unelected? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by dev0n ( 313063 )
            I wish they'd hammer this into our heads HARDER in school, though. I agree with you that we Canadians should know all this, but the sad fact is that a lot don't. I think a stronger political component in Social Studies is in order.

            It's a sad state of affairs that quite a few Canadians know more about the American political system than their own. Myself included.

            • Several years ago there was a bit of a stir about this when Sheila Copps, a cabinet minister, revealed that her daughter (a Canadian like her, living in Canada) who was I think about 12, had said that when she grew up she wanted to be President. The US presence is so large in the news and popular culture, especially in the big cities close to the US border, that it isn't hard to see how a child could fail to make the distinction.

              Perhaps ironically, the exam that immigrants have to write to become Canad

          • I really don't understand how people could either not understand the way the government works at this basic level, or disagree with a Liberal leadership and want an election right now. If there were to be an election, the conservative parties are currently in the middle of working themselves out and wouldn't be able to put up a fight.

            Disclaimer: I used to be pro-Martin

            And the liberal party used internal political pressure to have noone run against M. Martin so as not to weaken itself before next electio

        • Re:unelected? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Morrisguy ( 731956 )
          People in Canada vote for a political party.

          Not exactly. What Canadian people vote for in general elections are their riding's Member of Parliament to place in the House of Commons.

          Now each MP candidate belongs to a political party (or run as an independent). Once all the MPs are elected, the party with the most seats in the house becomes the government, and it's leader becomes the Prime Minister.
        • "They voted for the Liberal party, and Cretien was their leader at the time."

          Yeah, that's sometimes what we called Chretien. ;-)

          Slashcode won't let me add the correct accent on his name. :-(

      • If the president of the US cannot fulfill his obligation, the Vice President takes over until the next election. What's so different about the Canadian system? I don't remember anyone calling LBJ the 'unelected' President when Kennedy was shot.
        • The difference is that LBJ was elected. When you vote for a presidential candidate, you vote for their running mate as well. It's clearly understood by everyone that the vice president takes over for the president when necessary.

          Admittedly I don't know jack about the Canadien system, so all I'll say is that while it may be possible to claim that the PM wasn't elected, no one can honestly claim that the VP wasn't elected without having the same complaint about the President he ran with.
    • The Prime Minister of Canada is not really an elected postion. It's an appointed postion.

      Each party's members get together and electe the head of the party. Recently, with Jean Chretien retireing, the Liberal party got together and voted in Paul Martin.

      The party with the most elected seats in house is the ruleing party, and the Queen's representative (the Governor General) appoints the parties leader Prime Minister.

      People vote for their regional representative, that's it, at least on a national level. Th
      • so he could loose in his rideing and still manage to be Prime Minister.

        Umm.. Is it just me, or doesn't he at least have to get elected somewhere? He can't just step off the street and become PM.. He needs to be vote in by the people in 1 riding somewhere, doesn't he?

        • Re:unelected? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Drakin ( 415182 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @04:05AM (#7793149)
          Nope. He's elected by the liberal party, as thier leader (which, in a way is where the whole "unelected" bit comes into play, he supposidly used unfair practices to gain control of the party and influence the vote see Here [paulmartintime.ca] on the PaulMartinTime.ca website for thier version of it)

          He's the elected leader of the party.

          Rundown on Canada's government process, for those interested [parl.gc.ca]

          (Some of my details may be wrong, been a while since I looked in depth to it)

        • Is it just me, or doesn't he at least have to get elected somewhere? He can't just step off the street and become PM.. He needs to be vote in by the people in 1 riding somewhere, doesn't he?

          Technically yes, but it's very rare for a PM to not be an elected MP (Member of Parliament).. typically what happens is that an elected party member will step down so that the PM can assume his/her riding (after a byelection - typically this is just a formality, because the party will choose a riding where the electora
      • so he could loose in his rideing and still manage to be Prime Minister

        To be the Prime Minister, you first need to be an elected Minister. You have to win your riding and have a seat.
      • More points:

        The PM (prime minister) is appointed by the Queen via the Governor General. As the Queen's representative, the Governor General is the Canadian Head of State. Legally the Governor General can refuse to appoint the PM selected by the ruleing party. The last time this happened things did not work out for the Governor General. As a result the Governor General is now basically a ceremonial role.

        The PM dose not have to hold a seat (ref King 1925). A PM who does not hold a seat cannot sit in the ho

        • Although it is rare for cabinet ministers, including the PM, not to hold a seat, it does happen from time to time. As the parent stated, it has been many years since a PM did not hold a seat, but in the fall of 2000, Edward John became Minister for Child Welfare in the NDP government of British Columbia. He ran in the next election, nine months later, but lost in the BC Liberal sweep. (The provincial and national parties, by the way, are not necessarily related. The BC Liberals are far to the right of the

    • Paul Martin was elected by the people of the LaSalle-Emard riding in Quebec, on November 27, 2000.

      He is NOT unelected.
    • It's not that much. Cretien, the prime minister of many terms(2? 3? 4? I can't remember at the moment) retired, and the Liberal Leadership convention was held. Paul Martin was voted in by a landslide by the liberal party. The leader of the party in power is named the Prime Minister.

      To be honest, I think a lot of people complaining don't understand how our system works. We don't vote for the prime minister. You're supposed to vote for the representative in your area, and in the end, the party with the most

  • Is it Just a Coincidence ? (Score:4, Informative)

    by leoaugust ( 665240 ) <leoaugust AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @02:38AM (#7792927) Journal

    force the closing of a satire web site that takes aim at the new unelected Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin.

    Reminds me of another recent happening. Coincidence ? Consider the following ...

    New Prime Minister - Paul Martin - Is Steering Canada Cautiously to the Right [nytimes.com]

    The trend in Ottawa is already more businesslike and conservative - friendlier to the United States and to the Canadian military. Now as Paul Martin assembles his government and prepares for national elections early next year, Mr. Martin is carefully leaning to the right.

    • He appointed David Pratt, a member of Parliament who urged the previous government to join the invasion of Iraq, as defense minister. (Canada did not join the invasion) Mr. Pratt is expected to be an articulate advocate for increasing the military budget.
    • He has created a public safety super-ministry to coordinate security policy and planning among several ministries and to consult more closely with the United States Department of Homeland Security.
    • "Our No. 1 priority is health care," Mr. Martin said this week. (Medicare anyone?)

    Angry Copps accuses Martin of shift to right [www.ctv.ca]

    Copps agreed with a recent New York Times editorial that said Canada's new leader had adopted a more conservative position

    "The great thing about being a Liberal used to be that you'd have wonderful arguments and then you'd come together as a team and everybody would pull together," said Copps. "If you had a different point of view, you were not persona non grata." But that tone has changed quickly under Martin's stewardship, she said. "At this point it doesn't seem that there is a lot of room on his team for voices of dissent."

    • No, not at all.

      Paul Martin has made noises about 'increasing democracy' for years now, but the actual fact of the matter is that he only cares about democracy when it is 'clamoring' for his place at the top table, courtesy of his nameless, faceless attack goons.

      Remember that this is the guy who was supposed to have put his assets (Canada Shipping Lines) in a blind trust, but didn't [www.ctv.ca]. This is the guy who out sourced / made redundant Canadian crews at CSL [indymedia.org] and then refused to talk about it. Corporate welfare?
    • The prime minister's neverreally elected by the people, see my previous post.

      However, one other thing... Health Care is delt with on a provincal level, not federal. The Federal government just tosses money at the provinces use for health care, what the provinces do with it, is up to them.

      For instance, Alberta has a system that's going towards the american system, while Manitoba's is quite differnt (yet, not really any closer to being perfect)

      • True, but as this post points out Re:unelected? [slashdot.org] when the people voted for the party representatives they knew who was going to be elected the Prime Minister by the representatives they were electing. So, the Prime Minister was "indirectly" elected.

        Once the representatives were in place, after their "indirectly elected" Prime Minister retired, the representatives chose Martin to their Prime Minister. But Martin was neither "directly" or "indirectly" expected to be the Prime Minister by the people when th

        • Re:Is it Just a Coincidence ? (Score:4, Informative)

          by TC (WC) ( 459050 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @04:26AM (#7793192) Journal
          It's neat how you started calling him indirectly elected to add a sense of legitimacy that you could then deny to Paul Martin. The best part was:

          So he is really "unelected."

          Of course, since, no matter how you word it, nobody is ever elected by the general population as Prime Minister, he is exactly as elected as every other Prime Minister in the past.

          I don't particularly like the Liberal Party, especially as a western Canadian, but playing with words to try to take legitimacy out of Paul Martin's appointment to Prime Minister is idiotic. He was appointed in exactly the same way as all the other Prime Ministers, and has the same mandate as was given to the party in the last election.

          I also find it idiotic that this example could be taken as muffling of this website owner's voice. Have you even read the article? The actual letter that was sent to him complains about the fact that the domain is obviously meant to draw visitors from mistyping, and the fact that the graphics and layout were stolen from their website. These things aren't being used in any way that seems protected to me, and can quite easily be viewed as attempting to mislead the reader. Either the website owner was too lazy to make his own goddamned layout, or he stole it to mislead people. Either way, he's in the wrong. He sure as hell isn't making any sort of political point using the site layout and graphics. He's placed opposing views inside the layout, but that isn't the same thing at all. He's free to say whatever the hell he wants. He isn't free to mislead his readers, or steal graphics and page layouts unless he's using it in some sort of satirical way.

          Going to the articles you cited, one of them claimed that the government would be more right wing because Martin is more authoritative, and then didn't actually provide any policy as examples of the shift to the right. The other article claimed there is a shift to the right, and then gave cited the fact that Martin is paying attention to the military, which is also mentioned to be in accordance with public opinion, and the fact that he's frozen spending on some projects and put the savings into health care. Yep, increased health care spending sure is a sign that the government's heading to the right. It then goes on to talk about how he's supporting the legalization of marijuana.
    • quote: "At this point it doesn't seem that there is a lot of room on his team for voices of dissent."

      squashing parody/satire sites would fit in well with that agenda...

  • While (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @03:01AM (#7792974) Homepage
    While I don't have a problem with this satire website, they are clearly cyber squatting. When you pick a domain that is one character off from the official site, and your site mimics design, then there is a problem.

    It's a very underhanded approach to getting your message out, and is completely inappropriate, regardless of legality.
    • Exactly, I dont mind satire, but thats pretty close to being the same url.

      Of course, us yanks have whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com], so we are use to it. ;)
    • inappropriate how? titles (which domain names are, since they carry both a fxnal and an expressive element) are often used by authors in an artistic way, keeping the reader in "suspense." This is necessary part of a free speech per art.

    • Re:While (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:08AM (#7793418) Homepage Journal
      While I don't have a problem with this satire website, they are clearly cyber squatting.

      Bullshit. Cybersquatting was when people would register domain names because someone would probably want it one day. Like when some asshole registered JuliaRoberts.com and tried to sell it to the real Julia Roberts at a huge profit.

      There is nothing wrong with picking a similar URL for the purposes to political satire. As long as you're not trying to mislead people into thinking that you're the satired party's official representative, there is no problem, morally, ethically, or legally(at least here in the US, and yes I know we're talking about Canada, but like it or not what is now the internet is largely of American origin).

      It's a very underhanded approach to getting your message out, and is completely inappropriate, regardless of legality.

      Why is it underhanded? Because people can't type?

      I have no doubt that many of the visitors to the site find it by accident, but so what? When experts-exchange originally registered www.ExpertSexChange.com (capitalization added for effect), I'm sure that many people misunderstood what they were all about. They changed it to keep people from laughing at them, not because of a moral or ethical dilemma.

      There is no problem with this.

      LK

    • they are clearly cyber squatting. When you pick a domain that is one character off from the official site, and your site mimics design, then there is a problem.

      Although IANAL and this will depend on Canadian law,
      common sense U.S. copyright law makes you dead wrong.

      Any protection afforded is for the consumer, not owner.
      Looking at both sites there is NO confusion - just satire.

  • If i was judge (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LittleBigLui ( 304739 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @03:08AM (#7792994) Homepage Journal
    my verdict would be:

    The plaintiff can now choose between either

    1. dropping the charges and being allowed to keep the word "liberal" in his name.

    2. changing his name so there's no "liberal" in there and keep up the charges.

    In case 1, the charges are dropped and the defendant is free to keep the site up.

    In case 2, since there won't be any liberal party to parody anymore, the defendants site now is entirely fictional and can be kept, too.

    If only i was judge. And canadian, too.
    • liberal --> fiberal. It's true, catchy, and close enough. DISCLAIMER: I'm looking for a +1 funny, not a -1 troll. I love liberals. They are really nice guys.

  • Satire or not... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Drakin ( 415182 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @03:48AM (#7793098)
    It looks like everyone's in the wrong on this.

    The webmaster of the real site shouldn't have gotten involved. He found the site, he should refer it to the lawyers. (he likely also found the site by misstyping his own URL)

    The owners of the "satire" site should know better. they're useing a domain that is off by one easy typo, using a deceptively similar site design. It's not truely a satire site at all, but a site that's a collection of anti Paul Martin stories, and while such a site is fully legal, the manner of which they chose to display it, is probably not.

    (by now, this is probably redundant though)

    • I think it is worth mentioning that some of the most popular Canadian television production is political satire, Canadians are quite familiar with the genre.

      For starters, This Hour Has 22 Minutes [22minutes.com], and Royal Canadian Air Farce [airfarce.com]. Both of these are shown on CBC [www.cbc.ca] TV, the CBC being the federal government sponsored media group (TV, AM/FM/SW radio) similar in design but smaller than the BBC [bbc.co.uk].

  • Before the Reactionism begins... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ejungle ( 398309 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @03:50AM (#7793106)
    ...From the article:

    Dave and I go over the site, and make a few changes to the design to make it less of an overt copy of Paul Martin's official site.

    Then later when the C&D letter is quoted:

    As you are no doubt aware, not only have you utilized LPC's art and graphics but, as well, you have, without alteration, made use of its style sheet.

    and

    Even your logo is an exact copy of that found at www.paulmartintimes.ca.

    So, don't compare what is on the sites now. I'd like to see some screenshots before passing judgement. I just peeked at the stylesheet, and while its not comprehensive (the page is still laid out in tables) like any other code, whoever wrote it owns the copyright.

    It sounds to me like these guys bit off a little more than they could chew and are now using the same sensationalism they use on their site, to rally others to their defense.

    Sorry fellas, I'm not taking the bait. I'm not going to come to the aid of some listless hacks who were too lazy to do their own work for their own website. If anyone is the "SCO" in this case it is these guys. They are the ones who stole the material and claimed it as their own. Poor form, gentlemen.

    I'm no liberal fanboy, but I have to take exception at some of the things the submitter said:

    ...the new unelected Canadian Prime Minister...

    and

    ...opens a whole can of worms in regards to copyright and fair use of web content...

    ...then a bunch of inane questions after that.

    Firstly, we don't elect our Prime Ministers; ever. We elect our local Members of Parliment, who from their ranks elect a leader. So by the logic of the submitee, all of our Prime Ministers have been un-elected. Therefore the point is moot, and should not have been mentioned.

    Second; there is no can of worms here. Either they stole copyrighted material or they didn't. Sure, we might need a judge to figure that out, but that's what they're for. Given that they are posting the C&D letter in public I'm guessing they are trying to make themselves heard. Yet, they make no effort to rebut the claims made in the letter. Though we don't know conclusively without screenshots or archives (Google Cache looks new, and Way Back Machine comes up empty.) it seems as though there was an infringement.

    Lastly, for the same reason there isn't a can of worms, it really doesn't matter that the party is the plaintiff. This is a civil case, and really has shit all to do with who's in charge. I mean, it's not like they are the prosecution in a criminal case, nor is the goverment suing anyone. How do we draw the line between infringement and parody? The same way we always have; with that section of copyright law pertaining to fair use and parody

    People should really get their facts straight before flying off the handle. It's like insurance against looking like an idiot.
    • I am not a Canadian lawyer.

      In America, the controlling case law does not require disclaimers or other indicia that tell the viewer that the parody/satire is not endorsed. Free speech concerns trump Lanham Act concerns, unless there's something like bad faith involved. See Rogers, Cardtoons.

      • Re:Before the Reactionism begins... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TC (WC) ( 459050 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @04:56AM (#7793266) Journal
        I don't believe any disclaimers are required in Canada. The fact that you went on the cite American case law is kind of funny, though, since it has no bearing on anything, either way. You probably did it more out of slashdot habit, than anything.

        Either way, the layout of the site isn't playing a part in satire, as far as I can tell. Even looking at the content, only a small portion of it is satirical in any way. None of this content appears to be made stronger, or even affected, by the site layout or graphics. This copying isn't particularly protected by any satire protection in the Copyright Act, as I understand it.
        • no, i did it because it's the law i know. see my disclaimer. it wasn't being used as authority, but as a reference for those who might look it up.

          satire protection isn't in the 1978 act, at least not explicitly. it sprouts from the first amendment, and could be read into S.107 (fair use) of USC Title 17 (the (c) act).

    • Re:Before the Reactionism begins... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dolo666 ( 195584 ) * on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @05:36AM (#7793355) Journal
      First off, I'll start by suggesting you think about the whole nature of this parody. They squatted this site as a political rouse, to hold into account a questionable leader, a leader who is very right wing, compared to other moderate center Liberal leaders from the days of yore.

      "Firstly, we don't elect our Prime Ministers; ever. We elect our local Members of Parliment, who from their ranks elect a leader. So by the logic of the submitee, all of our Prime Ministers have been un-elected. Therefore the point is moot, and should not have been mentioned."

      That being said, is true, but are you suggesting that when you vote for your riding's liberal, you are considering them and their qualities, and not the party leader? That's why Kim Campbell lost so bad after Brian Mulroney retired... because the Tories suffered from her lack of leadership.

      When 99.9% of the people in Canada vote, it's like this:
      1. Pick the Party
      2. Rethink #1

      You see? The leader is why people vote for the party, so in a sense, Paul Martin is unelected because nobody thought about him on E Day.

      The voters thought about the terrible ad the tories ran that made fun of Jean Chretien's droopy mouth.

      They took pity on Jean Chretien, or they were angry with the tories for doing the ad, so they voted him in.

      Oh yeah, and the Red Book had a huge effect too. Notice how nothing suggested in it was ever done?

      Someone who voted for Jean Chretien's Liberals could have sued them for faulty advertising, but those sort of cases don't ususally go anywhere (because judges have too much to gain from political alliances)

      *sigh*

      What democracy?
      • Congratulations. You've just discovered that Canada has a parlimentary system.
      • You see? The leader is why people vote for the party, so in a sense, Paul Martin is unelected because nobody thought about him on E Day.

        Your argument would make sense if any of the following points where true:

        * If Paul Martin was terribly unpopular (instead he is massively popular)
        * If Mr. Martin had not been the overwhelmingly likely candidate to replace Jean Chretien (instead people were shocked he was not already the Liberal candidate the last election)
        * If this was some sort of new precedent that the
        • Nice tirade, Liberal sympathizer. You are like all the Libarals/Tories I've ever met.

          To address your comments, I will just say that if Paul Martin wins, it will be because the people of Canada are stupid, which goes without saying after the Red Book, GST and Free Trade. Ask Paul about Iraq! Ask him about his corporate tax evasion! Ask him why we have to pay GST! Ask him why we have a Homeland Security Dept. now! Ask him why a top Canadian general is running things in Iraq when the majority of Canada says N
          • You are like all the Libarals/Tories I've ever met.

            ass u me.

            Ask and see what he says. I'm sure it will be very diplomatic and polished... not the kind of response you would expect from someone being truly candid.

            Look, one of us is imagining things... I don't pretend that Paul Martin isn't a very polished diplomat who waffles on issues like GST, Iraq, and corporate taxes. Because uh, he is exactly that. It's not my fault that he's massively popular and is going to win every province except for Albert

            • NDP (Score:2)

              by dolo666 ( 195584 ) *
              If your riding is going NDP, you should vote NDP! At least that way the Tories won't get it...

              Martin is not very popular with Canada, but time will tell if he is elected or not. He is popular with George Bush, however.

              Jack Layton has a chance to be the next Prime Minister if enough people vote with their heart, and not with political ads and fake promises (like the Red Book).

              Ed Broadbent has it in him to make this a really tough race if enough old NDPers stop voting Liberal and start voting with their he
              • If Van East goes to the Tories I'll eat my pants. If you know what Van East means you would make the same bet. We have the only legal heroin injection site in the entire continent, and have many of the poorest and most destitute people in the country living here. You think they'll vote for the Tories who have been boxed into the far right wing by Mr. Martin (again, this will only last until Martin is judged by his record and not expectations)

                Anyhow, I'm understand fully well that you don't like him, but
            • Alberta (and might even come close there)

              Highly unlikely. We aren't distracted by shiny objects like easteners. :) Appointing western liberals to cabinet is only good for the members, not for the West. Unless he gives us the 4 new parlament seats that Cretien forgot to ram through as a legacy for the west, Martin will be seen as "the same old LIEberal".

              And we are still pissed about the Gouge and Screw Tax.

              • Well, you could be right... I don't really know. In BC anyways I've seen harded Tories looking at how little difference there is between the fiscal aspects of Paul Martin and the Conservative party, and are wondering why they should fight our new PM. The vitriol directed at Cretien seems absent, at least for now...

                If Mr. Martin is as smart as I expect him to be, he will push through a couple of pro-West policies before calling the election to indicate he is serious about his pro-Western policies. But th
      • The leader is why people vote for the party, so in a sense, Paul Martin is unelected because nobody thought about him on E Day

        In that case, how do you explain the fact that the Liberals jumped about 5% in the polls in the middle of the last election campaign when Chretien said that he didn't plan on remaining Prime Minister for all of his next term?

        Most voters were very much aware that Paul Martin would be the next Prime Minister.
      • It's easy to blame Kim Campbell for the crushing loss in 1993, but that loss is far more due to those stupid TV adverts. She didn't authorize those adverts; as soon as she became aware of them, she ordered that they be pulled off the air.

        In fact, the people responsible for those adverts were from the Quebec wing of the party -- the last of the Quebecois nationalists whom Mulroney had convinced to join the party -- and, shortly after the election, they joined the Bloc Quebecois.
        • "She didn't authorize those adverts; as soon as she became aware of them, she ordered that they be pulled off the air."

          I bet that a Liberal spy arranged for the Tory ads that made fun of Jean Chretien's face, for the sole intent to unveil them to the public and make the Tories look like assholes (which isn't that hard, anyway). Furthermore, the recent Ontario elections had, ironically, a similar situation! (duh) Dalton being a Kitten eater. My best guess is that this was done by Liberal spies to garner th
          • Ironically, what the tories were saying, and the way the liberals were turning it into this sarcastic free-for-all, convinced me to vote conservative. They had the same sound in their words as I do when I'm trying to explain how to make something on a computer to work to someone without a clue.

            "No you idiot! You can't do that! Who the hell do you think pays for Ontario Hydros deficits? AND you have a USB keyboard and mouse! Why would you want to disable the USB input service in Windows? Don't touch either
            • If everyone voted for the smart guy, Howard Hampton, the province would be better off. Hampton won the debate, so he should have won the election.

              Dalton, where's my pony?

      • Oh yeah, and the Red Book had a huge effect too. Notice how nothing suggested in it was ever done?
        Personally, I like a government that moves very slowly. The liberals win a huge majority and yet do very little. Compare that to George Bush, who wins by a coin flip and then proceeds to alienate the world, invade Iraq, and push a radical Christian agenda. No, I'll take good old ineffective government any day.

        -a
    • I agree -- this is more about outright theft of the CSS and look and feel copyrighted material than freedom of speech or parody. Besides, one test of parody is whether the parody can be confused with the original. To tell you the truth, I didn't find the "parody" site to be at funny. It's more of a counter-point than parody. A political opinion is protected, but not when it is a copy of another (opposing) political opinion.
  • What the hell's wrong with complaining about this website? It's at a domain that's easy to end up at when you want the real site, it looks exactly like the actual site, with a tiny disclaimer in the top right and an odd banner ad. It's not making its point by making witty or sarcastic comments or observations of the actual website that they've blatantly copied. Basically, they stole the format for this site, and put in a bunch of content that opposes Paul Martin.

    Just because you oppose something, doesn'
    • "Just because you oppose something, doesn't mean everything you do is satire."

      If this paulmartintime.ca [paulmartintime.ca] site isn't political satire and a tool for change or accountability, I don't know what is. The Liberals are only seeking to shut them down because they don't like what they are doing. If they were cheering Paul Martin on, would there be a lawsuit?

      No.

      So that in itself means the Liberals are only doing this because they dislike the message, not because of any real copyright infringement.
      • >the Liberals are only doing this because they dislike the message, not
        >because of any real copyright infringement.

        Sure, the Liberals are wankers.

        But that doesn't excuse the "satire" guy for ripping off their artwork etc. Copyright law protects wankers just as much as it protects people you like and agree with.

        • Re:Uhhh... (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Bullshit. That artwork is usable in a parody or for satire. A copyright does not protect one from satire.

          Of course, it doesn't matter now; the site will be mirrored all over the world, so morality again trumps law.

          ~~~

          • What parody? What satire? I looked at the site, and aside from a few bitter anti-Paul Martin parts on the side which would hardly count as satire unless you decided to remove the satire part, it seems to be nothing more than a huge anti-Paul site unless linking to actual newspapers with actual stories and providing a brief synopsis of the content can be considered satire(is slashdot satire? Maybe, according to this guy). If this guy wants to have a paul bashing site, he can make it himself. Sadly, blatantly
            • Political speech, whether you think is "good" satire or not, needs to continue to be protect from the misuse of intellectual "property" to stifle free expression.
              • Bollocks. The site simply isn't satire, for one thing. Trust me, canadians practically invented modern political satire, and that ain't it.

                Allow me to demonstrate:

                Satire: "In a stunning press-release today, Paul Martin announced that the only way to mend US/Canada relations was to become a state. Canadian sovereingty advocates everywhere protested, saying 'stupid mongorians, stop trying to break down my shitty wall!', to which Paul Martin looked like he was going to cry."

                Not satire: Martin promises gove [cbc.ca]
                • OK, maybe the latter isn't satire--but it's still protected, because the writer is expressing an opinion about a public, political figure.
  • I am not a Canadian lawyer.

    I read the account of what happened, and that "he just wants us not to use the Liberal party's intellectual property." Later, he frames it in terms of "proprietary interests." But the webmaster who contacted these guys says he just wants them to change the name of the site, presumably because it contains the NAME of one of their political figures. In other words, he's pressing a RIGHT OF PUBLICITY claim (an extenuated one, since it's not even the person, but his party, claimi

    • I'd only look at the letter that was posted. The rest of it's hearsay from an obviously incredibly biased source, so it's probably at least distorted in some way.

      The letter's complaining that the title is similar to that of the actual website in question, not that the domain contain's Paul Martin's name. The letter is claiming that it is, in fact, the same title, with such a minor change that the change is not important. It's a question of a deceptive title that misrepresents the one site as being the o
      • That's just the point - artists should be able to dupe readers by their titles if there's no confusion as to source after opening the book/clicking the link. The 9th circuit doctrine of initial interest confusion would be easily trumped by satire/parody free speech concerns.
      • actually, their account of the events isn't hearsay. but their version of the letter would be hearsay. they would need to introduce an authenticated copy.
    • I'm sure Americans would think we have funny ideas about right of publicity here in Canada, especially during election time(like forcing them to take the site down until after the election, in some extreme cases: not this one, wrong jurisdiction). I happen to like some of those ideas.

      --
      Only in Canada can the LPC be considered Liberal
  • From the real website

    ?I don?t believe that a young person who is caught with a very, very small quantity for personal use ? who is not trafficking ? should have a criminal record for the rest of their lives. I think there should be a fine.? ?Paul Martin, speaking to reporters about the decriminalization of marijuana, Montreal Town Hall - April 27, 2003

    Disclaimer:
    I am a right wing Republican. I'm in the US. I don't smoke mj anymore, I haven't been a "smoker" since I was a teenager but I think it's stupi
  • In the words of the most brilliant man I have ever seen speak on the television, "I think there should be limits to, ah, to, umm, to freedom."

  • I looked at the site. This isn't the Onion. I can't believe it is satire at all. It's just pure propaganda.

    Should propaganda be protected speech? I don't think so. When a site tries to sway people's opinion through lies and twisted facts, they should be sued.

    -Brent
    • "Propaganda" is free speech you don't like. Check the actual facts of the site. They are correct. Because you don't like the facts or the way they are presented does not make them 'propaganda'

      • Check the actual facts of the site. They are correct.

        Exactly my point. They are using actual facts. It's not satire.

        Now, the reason they should be sued is because they are using facts to misrepresent the truth. They are lying with the facts. That damages the PM, so I think he has a right to sue.

        -Brent
        • The layout of the site is similar, the CSS sheets are different. Perhaps you couldn't call it satire, but as you say, it's the facts, just written in a very left of center Canadian Action Party kind of way.

          Just someone elses opinion. How can you "use the facts to misrepresent the truth"? Like WMD kind of truth, or "I did not have sex with that woman" kind of truth?

          Like Paul Martin did not fly the Canadian flag on his steamships? That's truth. Like the only reason companies register their ships in pla

          • "He is of course welcome to sue, but he'll have to explain these facts in court."
            I for one am sad to say it'll never happen. I'd LOVE to see him explain these tax evasions in court. That would be funny. And the judge would be like, "so do you have that new appointment for me?... oh case dismissed!"
      • Agreed. I think the satire aspect of the site is that they are making fun of the Paulmartintimes.ca website, by using it to mock the new PM and his message. I think it's really quite cunning of these guys to do it, and I applaud them. Let's face it, for anyone on the left to beat out the right wing guys, they have to have some serious creativity on their side because we all know they haven't got the money.
  • "Free speech" is often trotted out to defend things that don't particularly matter - like depictions of Jesus done in elephant poo. These cases are rightly decided largely as prophylactic; we need to defend the elephant poo speech or soon we'll lose our rights to important speech.

    And what is that important speech, what is the speech that is in most need of defense from government? How about speech about that government.

    If this site was a parody of a commercial or personal site, I'd say take it down. Yo
  • I've read through some of the comments made here and frankly I am little afraid for freedom of speech given the mamby-pamby attitudes represented here.

    First, parody or satire requires some element of imitation and the website in question can't parody Paul Martin's website without copying or imitating in part the design, fonts or insignia of the original.

    Second, our fair dealing doctrine, analagous to fair use in the U.S., allows for criticism and comment without infringement. I would argue that fair deali
  • as a (canadian) soon-to-be voter, I think there will be 5 sites to replace this one if it gets taken down.

    Of course, as a canadian who hates Paul Martin because he's pro-nuclear proliferation, pro-american (nothing against the american people, just their messed up government), and pro-big business... I think I'll be doing up one of those 5.

  • I'm suprised to see how many of the posters so far do not support this guy. I think his site is a parody, and I think it should be protected as such. Though he may have taken graphics or a stylesheet from the original site, those infringements are an essential component of the parody and I think he should be protected. Whether or not he *is* protected is another matter entirely. I've been reading the Copyright Act [justice.gc.ca], and although I can find exceptions for news reporting and criticism (of the original work
  • This isn't satire - satire is funny. In the U.S. it's obvious free speech. I have no idea what Canadian law says, but I doubt this looks close enough to the original to be considered copyright infringement, which is what Martin is suing for.

    It seems pretty obvious that this is not the PM's, or any politician's, site, and that it is meant as political commentary and not for purposes of deception. As long as that's clear, something's not over the line.

    • One distinction is I'm pretty sure Martin didn't go, sit on his mighty throne, and proclaim that his lawyers were to "get that damn paulmartintime.com site". In fact, I'm almost positive that if this hits the news it'll be the first he's heard of it.

      When you're the PM of Canada, suing the guy who is making a site against you just isn't high on the ol' agenda.
  • yo. don't agree at ALL with the PMO's actions. this goes out today, various publications. seasonal yahoos, eh? pat PM-the-PM patr44@canada.com Only a few short days into power and Paul Marin.. ( aka PM-the-PM, old geezer that he is...) Has managed to put his foot in it. Open mouth, change feet. In this case, one of his assistants feats (the office web-master) got the PM's office slash-dotted ( they made the news onna Geek web-page) when they tried to force a change in a satirists's page.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close