My bet is that Harper will be taking things out of context for his attack ads.
Damn him. I said I would send a donation to Liberal Party for each attack ad - I will probably be broke by the election
Fraudulent Conservative Election!
- Thread starter MPAsquared
- Start date
Damn him. I said I would send a donation to Liberal Party for each attack ad - I will probably be broke by the election
So what?The bigger difference is that they now don't need permission or clearance to use any clip.
When it comes to the printed word, political parties don't need permission to use other people's quotes (eg., in a news release that quotes positive or negative reactions to a provincial budget). Similarly, they don't need to get the newspapers' permission when columnists or news stories are quoted in ads.
Why should video or audio clips be any different?
In the House of Commons, Liberal Ralph Goodale called it "expropriation without compensation."
He understands what is at the heart of the matter. The media who are complaining don't care about how the clips may be used. The issue for them is money -- they want to be paid for the clips.
Sounds like a suppression of knowledge.....freedom to me.So what?
When it comes to the printed word, political parties don't need permission to use other people's quotes (eg., in a news release that quotes positive or negative reactions to a provincial budget). Similarly, they don't need to get the newspapers' permission when columnists or news stories are quoted in ads.
Why should video or audio clips be any different?
The media who are complaining don't care about how the clips may be used. The issue for them is money -- they want to be paid for the use of the clips.
Just saw the latest Olivia Chow commercial, using two Tory quotes out of context and with a misleading tag line(acttually they were paid for by some unions).Sounds like a suppression of knowledge.....freedom to me.
Guess those NDP types will take the high road eh?
She should be called on that, then.Just saw the latest Olivia Chow commercial, using two Tory quotes out of context and with a misleading tag line(acttually they were paid for by some unions).
Guess those NDP types will take the high road eh?
Lets try to elevate the discourse from our politicians, not help them get away with dishonest tactics.
If you think back to the Ontario election, the ads were all against the PCs, so who did people vote in.
Basically people said to the government I don't care if you steal from me and I'll give you a mandate to suppress uncovering the truth.
Basically people said to the government I don't care if you steal from me and I'll give you a mandate to suppress uncovering the truth.
Actually my point being with the two posts is that its already happening. It would appear Canada's unions have taken a page from US tea party/Koch brothers style politics to create their own super PACS.She should be called on that, then.
Lets try to elevate the discourse from our politicians, not help them get away with dishonest tactics.
So either we suppress private ads or open the playing field. Which is more undemocratic is the question.
That's your take on it, mine is that people understood that all parties supported the gas plant cancellation and that trying to make it into a scandal was dishonest. The NDP lost because they pushed for an election despite a liberal budget that supported everything they said they were for, the tories lost because they put all their energy into framing it about the gas plant issue that they supported.If you think back to the Ontario election, the ads were all against the PCs, so who did people vote in.
Basically people said to the government I don't care if you steal from me and I'll give you a mandate to suppress uncovering the truth.
It does happen and has happened before, remember the Chretien ads making fun of his facial paralysis? That one backfired and killed an election.
But I can't see how it helps us elect leaders who will run the country as we want it to be run to allow them to lie and cheat in their ads.
We need a stronger elections canada and more control over false election ads just as we need the media to call on politicians more openly when they lie.
This new bill works to allow parties to lie in advertising as they like.
Do you even know why the reform party was founded?
Do you know why Mulroney got into office
Do you know why the con's lost the election
Did you ever wonder if the allegations of bribes were founded.
Do you know why martin lost.
There is a common thread throughout it all and it isn't biased politically.
Point: did they tell them that it was going to cost a billion dollars and that is what you know of. What about orange, wow... I am not surprised they got in again.
Your take, may be slanted.
Do you know why Mulroney got into office
Do you know why the con's lost the election
Did you ever wonder if the allegations of bribes were founded.
Do you know why martin lost.
There is a common thread throughout it all and it isn't biased politically.
Point: did they tell them that it was going to cost a billion dollars and that is what you know of. What about orange, wow... I am not surprised they got in again.
Your take, may be slanted.
Nonsense. The bill allows the parties to use clips from news broadcasts without having to ask permission or pay for them.This new bill works to allow parties to lie in advertising as they like.
It does nothing to affect the veracity of the content.
Does this not apply to the Guelph Ontario riding where a Conservative party worker tried to misdirect voters as to the address of the polling station and is that not the same riding where the Liberal Party got together with the Returning Officer (or someone within Elections Canada) to set up a secret polling station at the University of Guelph where only known Liberal supporters where told they could vote; the polling station to be kept secret from the other political parties and non-liberal voters? JUST ASKING
Although I may have disagreed with groogy in the past, I would maintain that he has a valid point. They may misquote or take things out of context before presenting to the public. And, we all know that the public is very cunning and can discern such tactics........NOT.Nonsense. The bill allows the parties to use clips from news broadcasts without having to ask permission or pay for them.
It does nothing to affect the veracity of the content.
In addition, copyright is copyright. An author has the right to compensation for his or her work, especially if it is the result if the work that they do to earn a living, regardless of any political issues. The government has absolutely no right to seize property that is not associated with any criminal or otherwise illegal activity. Anything else, and we would be living in a totalitarian regime.
Dude, it works both ways with political things. Neither party had the right to do what they did, and both should have been punished for what they did.Does this not apply to the Guelph Ontario riding where a Conservative party worker tried to misdirect voters as to the address of the polling station and is that not the same riding where the Liberal Party got together with the Returning Officer (or someone within Elections Canada) to set up a secret polling station at the University of Guelph where only known Liberal supporters where told they could vote; the polling station to be kept secret from the other political parties and non-liberal voters? JUST ASKING
What the fuck are you talking about in this thread that relates to federal politics?Do you even know why the reform party was founded?
Do you know why Mulroney got into office
Do you know why the con's lost the election
Did you ever wonder if the allegations of bribes were founded.
Do you know why martin lost.
There is a common thread throughout it all and it isn't biased politically.
Point: did they tell them that it was going to cost a billion dollars and that is what you know of. What about orange, wow... I am not surprised they got in again.
Your take, may be slanted.
It is time to get back on your meds, and out of your parents' basement.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would suggest that is an incorrect interpretation of copyright law in Canada.In addition, copyright is copyright. An author has the right to compensation for his or her work, especially if it is the result if the work that they do to earn a living, regardless of any political issues. The government has absolutely no right to seize property that is not associated with any criminal or otherwise illegal activity. Anything else, and we would be living in a totalitarian regime.
You cannot take someone else's work and republish it or reproduce it at length without seeking permission and, if required, providing compensation.
However, copyright law does allow for what is known as "fair dealing," which has been upheld in the Supreme Court. It allows for circumstances where some content can be republished or reproduced without permission -- for example, quoting from a newspaper article (rather than reproducing the entire article) or using attributed quotes from a book as part of a book review.
Running a clip from something that appeared on a news broadcast also falls under fair dealing.
The copyright claims by the big media corporations appear to be baseless. There is no claim to intellectual property, since the clips being sought -- clips of Justin Trudeau saying stupid things -- are (hopefully) not clips of thoughts that were created by the media outlets.
With all due respect, you may be correct. However, I do not trust the Reform thugs. For that matter, I do not trust most, if not all, political parties. The question arises, with the Reform Party (I hesitate to call them conservatives, as they definitely do not reflect that old party's heritage) track record on election fairness and transparency, would you trust them to change the Copyright Act at this stage?However, copyright law does allow for what is known as "fair dealing," which has been upheld in the Supreme Court. It allows for circumstances where some content can be republished or reproduced without permission -- for example, quoting from a newspaper article (rather than reproducing the entire article) or using attributed quotes from a book as part of a book review.
Running a clip from something that appeared on a news broadcast also falls under fair dealing.
The copyright claims by the big media corporations appear to be baseless. There is no claim to intellectual property, since the clips being sought -- clips of Justin Trudeau saying stupid things -- are (hopefully) not clips of thoughts that were created by the media outlets.
As for fair dealing, that pertains, I believe, to research, not for monetary or political gain. As you, I am not a lawyer. However, in the case of using copyright material in a politically motivated attack ad, I do not believe that the fair dealings provision would stand up in court.
And, ask yourself, if it IS, indeed, a fair dealing instance, why bother attempting to change the Copyright Act?
As for me, fuck the Reform Party and everything that it has morphed into.
The major broadcasters formed a consortium and have been challenging the current copyright legislation (including the fair dealings provisions) after the Conservatives used a clip of Justin Trudeau (from an interview with Peter Mansbridge) in one of their ads.And, ask yourself, if it IS, indeed, a fair dealing instance, why bother attempting to change the Copyright Act?
The consortium sent a letter to the political parties in April saying the parties must seek permission from the networks to use such clips, and threatening collective action against any party that produces such ads without paying royalties to the big corporations.
http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2014/10/copyright-campaigns-and-lots-of-c-words.html
http://arielkatz.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/242543668-CBC-Political-Ads-ATIP-8.pdf
Given that reality, I would suggest the news organizations have not been entirely transparent in their reporting of the proposed legislation. They knew full well what is prompting the discussions about greater legislative clarity but chose not to report that part.
That may very well be the reason. However, I would liken the scenario to one where authors write books and monographs to publish. If they use any graphs, photos or other representations of data, they must seek permission to use them in their own works. Attack ads are for public consumption, as are the items that I mentioned. Therefore, at the very least, I believe that any political party, including the one presently in power, must seek permission from the copyright owner, whether or not money changes hands. The CBC might be a special case,as it is a Crown Corporation. The Government of Canada owns it. However, it is still good policy to ask, in any event.The major broadcasters formed a consortium and have been challenging the current copyright legislation (including the fair dealings provisions) after the Conservatives used a clip of Justin Trudeau (from an interview with Peter Mansbridge) in one of their ads.
The consortium sent a letter to the political parties in April saying the parties must seek permission from the networks to use such clips, and threatening collective action against any party that produces such ads without paying royalties to the big corporations.
http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2014/10/copyright-campaigns-and-lots-of-c-words.html
http://arielkatz.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/242543668-CBC-Political-Ads-ATIP-8.pdf
Given that reality, I would suggest the news organizations have not been entirely transparent in their reporting of the proposed legislation. They knew full well what is prompting the discussions about greater legislative clarity but chose not to report that part.
I am wary of a government that changes the laws to suit its purposes, either potentially or in actual fact. I wonder how they would feel if anther party was in power and that party would be proposing the changes they want to make.
If the purpose of the proposed changes in law are for clarity, so be it. However, I somehow doubt it. Someone, please point out to me where I am wrong in doubting the Reformers' intentions or please show me how the changes would lead to greater clarity.
The blog is biased and incorrect.The major broadcasters formed a consortium and have been challenging the current copyright legislation (including the fair dealings provisions) after the Conservatives used a clip of Justin Trudeau (from an interview with Peter Mansbridge) in one of their ads.
The consortium sent a letter to the political parties in April saying the parties must seek permission from the networks to use such clips, and threatening collective action against any party that produces such ads without paying royalties to the big corporations.
http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2014/10/copyright-campaigns-and-lots-of-c-words.html
http://arielkatz.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/242543668-CBC-Political-Ads-ATIP-8.pdf
Given that reality, I would suggest the news organizations have not been entirely transparent in their reporting of the proposed legislation. They knew full well what is prompting the discussions about greater legislative clarity but chose not to report that part.
Even the letter by the consortium says its about journalistic integrity, not money.
As far as I know, no money has ever been paid to stations for use of news clips in political ads, that argument is a ruse.
If you can find evidence otherwise, legit evidence, please provide it.
Meanwhile, the only party that has used clips previously without permission in the last election was the conservatives.
http://o.canada.com/news/conservatives-copyright-act-news-content-attack-ads-526341
This sums it up well.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ads-the-government-and-media-both-look-awful/More offensively, whatever practical benefit this measure would confer — if any — would only confer it to politicians: “The exception [from copyright] will provide greater certainty for political actors who wish to use ‘news’ content … without being bound by rights holder authorization,” the Cabinet documents explain. If fair dealing rules need strengthening, why should only parties and candidates benefit? Why on Earth would we want to privilege political advertising, the most consistently loathsome corner of Canadian public debate, over other forms of speech?
That's from the post, which has a digital lock on it.
The papers are all struggling, loosening copyright and muddying the editorial independence would be bad.
No, because up until now, the parties have not sought such permission. Since they weren't seeking permission, there was no need to pay anything.As far as I know, no money has ever been paid to stations for use of news clips in political ads, that argument is a ruse.
However, in cases where permission is needed (eg., in order to acquire the right to receive a digital copy of an entire news story), payments are most certainly made. Ask any media monitoring service in the city.
By the way, I don't disagree with the quote you cited from Chris Selley's column. If the rules around fair dealing need to be clarified, they should be clarified for all players, not just politicians. I'm actually sympathetic to Michael Geist's point that the rules should more closely resemble the fair use provisions in the U.S.
The CBC might have some issues with clips being used in ads by political parties that don't share the CBC's political biases. But there are five big media players that signed the letter.
For the other four, the issue is really about money. Actually, for the CBC -- which has had its budget cut under the Conservatives -- the issue is really about money, too.
