[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Actually Red Hat Mamma is correct. Other parties do already use clips the same way the Conservatives do. If you watch the video I offered you'll see Ezra shows examples.

Wish that I could. Ezra's site, along with all Sun Media sites, require that I run scripts to view content. I respect their right to do so, and maintain my right not to run those scripts. So I can't see what's on the site.

I'm going by what I've heard and read on other sites, like CTV, CBC and Global. What the Conservatives want to do with the clips is take them out of the hands of the copyright holders, only for political purposes. That can't be a good thing. We've already had tastes of what the spin doctors can do.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Myself, I don't like the idea of a media consortium setting itself up as some sort of public arbitrator of cultural integrity. I didn't vote for them.

It's called 'Capitalism'. Why should the media produce content so that it can be taken away from them? Isn't bill C-8 supposed to take away many of our already 'fair dealing' rights with regard to content?

If we don't like their content, we are free to not consume it.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

On the other hand I'm kind of with Doc and Michael Geist that it would be a bad idea to allow only political parties the protection of a new law. I think where me and Michael leave Doc though is we wouldn't mind seeing everybody get the protection of this new clarification - not just politicians.

I agree with the former, but on the latter, no. I don't think that if someone produces content, be they a media outlet or a poor starving story writer, that the government can take that content away from them and they lose all control of it if some Politician desires to use it. The Politicians work for us, they don't get to steal someone's livelihood just because they make the rules.

I think the content creator can say 'you have used my painting/poem/cat Youtube video for a purpose I do not agree with; cease and desist'.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's the thing on that though. Corporate copyright holders would love the sort of control over clips this new CBC organized media consortium is trying power in for themselves. If the corporates thought they could win in a Canadian court why haven't they tried yet?

Because it would apply to their content as well. "Copy Right" is the root of the word, the right to copy works of another for a limited scope of creative uses. If they can loot anyone's content, then anyone can loot theirs.

Disney has made huge bank on raiding the public domain for stories and content, they'd be really pissed if they had to give it all back.

[N_Fiddledog]

Fair Dealing in Canada

[N_Fiddledog]

Fair Use in America

[Start at 6:20]

[redhatmamma]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Fair Dealing in Canada

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5z_KzWWgj...

According to Brian Lilley it is the same issue and as per that email, they know it.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/09/ne ... itical-ads

In November 1988, the Liberal Party of Canada went to court to force CBC and CTV to carry their attack ads against Brian Mulroney and his Progressive Conservatives. The ads used footage of Opposition leader John Turner taking on Mulroney over the issue of free trade during the televised leaders debates.

The networks claimed they owned the video footage in question and said the Liberal party’s use of it infringed on their copyright. The networks lost and were forced to run the ads; they were also turned down on appeal by the Supreme Court.

“It’s a victory for Canadians, for broadcasters and for the political parties. And I mean broadcasters, because they should be relieved to be out of the position of having to censor advertisements of political parties,” Allan Lutfy, chief counsel for the Liberals, is quoted as saying in the Nov. 16, 1988 The Gazette in Montreal.

Today the networks are trying to stop the use of their footage in attack ads once again and the Liberals are their handmaids. They claim this is about journalistic independence but really it’s about censorship and stifling free speech.

[Zipperfish]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

According to Brian Lilley it is the same issue and as per that email, they know it.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/09/ne ... itical-ads

In November 1988, the Liberal Party of Canada went to court to force CBC and CTV to carry their attack ads against Brian Mulroney and his Progressive Conservatives. The ads used footage of Opposition leader John Turner taking on Mulroney over the issue of free trade during the televised leaders debates.

The networks claimed they owned the video footage in question and said the Liberal party’s use of it infringed on their copyright. The networks lost and were forced to run the ads; they were also turned down on appeal by the Supreme Court.

“It’s a victory for Canadians, for broadcasters and for the political parties. And I mean broadcasters, because they should be relieved to be out of the position of having to censor advertisements of political parties,” Allan Lutfy, chief counsel for the Liberals, is quoted as saying in the Nov. 16, 1988 The Gazette in Montreal.

Today the networks are trying to stop the use of their footage in attack ads once again and the Liberals are their handmaids. They claim this is about journalistic independence but really it’s about censorship and stifling free speech.

If that's the case, why do the Conservatives feel they need a law. If legal precedence has been set, passing a law would be an inefficient waste of resousces.

[N_Fiddledog]

A number of possibilities were explained to you, but the one I think is most likely is although the media consortium cannot legally force the Conservatives not to use the clip of the Shiny Pony looking ridiculous, the Conservatives have a lengthy legal battle to force the media gang to air the Shiny Pony as idiot ads on their networks.

Does that mean it's illegal to use the Shiny Pony is a moron clip? No.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

A number of possibilities were explained to you, but the one I think is most likely is although the media consortium cannot legally force the Conservatives not to use the clip of the Shiny Pony looking ridiculous, the Conservatives have a lengthy legal battle to force the media gang to air the Shiny Pony as idiot ads on their networks.

Does that mean it's illegal to use the Shiny Pony clip? No.

It's not really going to help them, I don't think. Public opinion is already askance on attack ads, and now they are passing a law allowing more attack ads. Can't see it flying.

[redhatmamma]

I don't see how it will help the CPC more than any other party as it applies to all parties. I also believe it would apply to registered third parties. I wonder myself why they need to amend the law if it the S.C. decision allready allows it. IMO it would simply be clarifying it therefore saving money and a legal battle.

I don't know why all people shouldn't have the same usage but we are allowed to post a link and a couple of paragraphs or show a video with the link. This would allow political parties to do the same but without links.

NDP Charlie Angus tried a private members bill proposing the same usage to all people, not sure what happened to it, but this guy explains why it's not a good thing
http://www.barrysookman.com/2010/03/18/ ... lie-angus/

Just came across this commentary this morning which speaks to these issues
http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2014 ... words.html

[DrCaleb]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I don't see how it will help the CPC more than any other party as it applies to all parties. I also believe it would apply to registered third parties.

As I said earlier, Harper hasn't given an unscripted interview since becoming Prime Minister, and he's been very clear to all of Government to do the same. Trudeau gives unscripted interviews, and is really good at putting his foot in his mouth. Many people I've heard think that this strategy will lead to a new style of attack ads, for which the other parties have no ammunition against the Conservatives.

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I wonder myself why they need to amend the law if it the S.C. decision allready allows it. IMO it would simply be clarifying it therefore saving money and a legal battle.

I wondered too, that's why when I read the Supreme Court decision, the CBC and CTV networks that were trying to block the Liberals attack ads in 1988, the decision seemed to be in regards to the Elections Act, not the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act still allows Media the right to disallow use of their copyrighted material. They aren't trying to not run the advertising (like the Sun network would have you believe), they are trying to maintain their own copyright on things they produce.

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I don't know why all people shouldn't have the same usage but we are allowed to post a link and a couple of paragraphs or show a video with the link. This would allow political parties to do the same but without links.

We can post links, and give brief quotes from material. We can't change that material though. Let me give you an example of what people fear the CPC will do:

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

All people shouldn't have the same usage, but we would allow political parties.

You wrote all those words, didn't you? I just changed the context a bit. You own the copyright to that, so you can enforce that under "Fair Dealing" and block me from posting that in every major newspaper. Unless this legislation is passed, and they I can claim it as 'Political Advertising' and get those words published for free nationwide!

What people suspect the CPC will do is take video from media sources and re-arrange it or use sound bites out of context to create attack ads. What the media want is the ability to say they can't use their copyrighted material to do it.

The Sun would have you believe that it means that the Media is effectively censoring the Conservatives. What it really means is that the Media wants to remain neutral, and have no part in political advertising.

[DrCaleb]

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/broa ... direction/

[redhatmamma]

I disagree that the media wants to remain neutral, however I will agree that it is likely more about money than helping Trudeau, although I believe the latter is part of it.

Attack ads are allready taken out of context and twisted, the Liberal attack ad from 2006 saying something like: Harper says you won't recognize Canada when he's through with it -- Something which continues to be put forward as truth in some groups and is actually inaccurately said to be from a 1997 Harper speech to a U.S. audience.

How did they get away with that big whopper and why didn't the CPC sue them I wonder. I think showing a clip if there is one of the actual quote would be more desirable.

Having said that, it's likely that there is no clip available as it was at a 2004 CPC convention, but surely the CPC could've countered it legally.

[DrCaleb]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I disagree that the media wants to remain neutral, however I will agree that it is likely more about money than helping Trudeau, although I believe the latter is part of it.

Sooo, silly question time: If the media (Global, CTV, CBC and Rogers) have told the political parties that they will not allow attack style ads to feature copyrighted content, how are they not trying to remain neutral?

[redhatmamma]

Have they told all of the parties that? This (apart from the original Liberal complaint) was started up again a when the media refused to run the Conservative ad re: Justin Trudeau, it was after that, discussions started on amending legislation.

No doubt they have to be seen or perceived to be neutral, but they picked on the CPC to do it, stopping an anti Trudeau ad.

[DrCaleb]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

Have they told all of the parties that? This (apart from the original Liberal complaint) was started up again a when the media refused to run the Conservative ad re: Justin Trudeau, it was after that, discussions started on amending legislation.

No doubt they have to be seen or perceived to be neutral, but they picked on the CPC to do it, stopping an anti Trudeau ad.

$1:

Most of Canada's major broadcasters are cracking down on political parties using their material in advertising.

In a letter sent to federal and provincial political parties today, representatives from CBC, Radio Canada, CTV, Rogers, and Shaw — which owns Global Television — said they would no longer air political advertisements that include material taken from their airwaves without their express authorization.

"As news organizations, the use of our content in political advertisements without our express consent may compromise our journalistic independence and call into question our journalistic ethics, standards and objectivity," the broadcasters wrote.

The Conservatives used footage of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau taking his shirt off at a charity fundraiser in TV ads last year. The Liberals complained about use of copyrighted materials in the ads. (Conservative Party of Canada advertisement)

Broadcasters have for years complained to political parties about this practice, but to no avail. Instead of taking the political parties to court for copyright infringement, the TV companies have mutually agreed not to air material that offends their standards.

Quebecor, the company that owns Sun News Network and TVA, is the only major broadcaster not to sign the letter. Quebecor did not respond to CBC News' questions about whether it was invited to sign the letter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/politic ... -1.2636138

This was back in May. They aren't stopping ads bashing Trudeau, they are stopping all ads featuring their content. That's the right that this legislation seems to be targeting.

[redhatmamma]

I see it a bit differently. The idea that a gov’t funded organization (CBC) can secretly join with other media in order to censor the government, for what appears to be for the benefit of another political party is wrong. If the conservatives hadn't run this ad they likely wouldn't have formed their little consortium.

What is to say, and what assurances do we have from the media that this written permission they are demanding will not be given to their favourite politician, or that they will not use this permission to censor ads they don't like.

The proposed legislation, which is still a rumour, is targeting the right, allready given, to use content. They don't need the permission.
http://arielkatz.org/archives/3437