Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

[Michael Hardner]

jacee - sure, but if both sides are doing it then it is political dialogue which is essential to democracy.

[jacee]

jacee - sure, but if both sides are doing it then it is political dialogue which is essential to democracy.

They can 'free speech dialogue' all they want ... but using someone else's intellectual property for partisan personal gain? Unh-uh.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-harperites-and-the-joy-of-negative-advertising/article21030488/?service=mobile

The Harper government is examining the option of changing Canadas Copyright Act so that politicians can use news content in political advertising without asking for permission. Media dont like to see their footage and other copyrighted content in partisan ads, especially the negative type, since viewers might be left with the impression that a media outlet is complicit with a political party. Earlier this year, a group of broadcasters told the government they would no longer air political ads that use their content without their explicit consent.

I say the broadcasters are within their rights in refusing to air such ads.

Edited October 25, 2014 by jacee

[cybercoma]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you jacee. The public words of our politicians should be fair use for everyone. These are our democratically elected representatives that should be accountable for the things they say and do. I disagree with the Tories' law because it doesn't go far enough in ensure open political dialogue.

[Michael Hardner]

They can free speech dialogue all they want ... but using someone else's intellectual property for partisan personal gain? Unh-uh.

...

I say the broadcasgers are within their rights in refusing to air such ads.

The 'personal gain' angle is tangential, I think. All political action is ostensibly for personal gain but it's still essential for democracy. Broadcasters are given the privilege of using Canadian airwaves, and enriching themselves, because of the ancillary benefits to Canada, including being the vehicle for dissemination and discussion of important information.

We impose other restrictions on their freedom (such as not being able to broadcast what they want, and requiring them to carry political content as objectively as possible, etc.) so I don't see this as being any kind of hardship. They want more money, is what I see in their angle.

I do see a point in Cybercoma's argument that 'free use' should be extended to all citizens though. Not surprising that politicians of all stripes take care of their interests first.

[jacee]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you jacee. The public words of our politicians should be fair use for everyone. These are our democratically elected representatives that should be accountable for the things they say and do. I disagree with the Tories' law because it doesn't go far enough in ensure open political dialogue.

Maybe I'm missing something ...

Is this about political use of broadcast material only of politician's public broadcasted speech?

Or ... about political use of other broadcast material?

Edited October 25, 2014 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe I'm missing something ...

Is this about political use of broadcast material only of politician's public broadcasted speech?

Or ... about political use of other broadcast material?

Actually, that's a good question. I thought for some reason it was news coverage of politicians' actual words.

I think 'fair use', as a concept though, means use of any speech, in small quantities.

[cybercoma]

The proposal that I've posted a couple times here already states that it has to be news content from a published news source (i.e., newspapers, news broadcasts, news commentary program, or news periodical) and the content would have to, "feature the political actor in their capacity as a politician or relate to a political issue." I can see some confusion around that second part. What qualifies as a "political issue"? Pretty much anything, I would imagine.

I am opposed to one facet of this. Namely that politicians would be free to use "news commentary" in their ads. Commentary is not reporting and it's not the words of political actors. If I wrote a commentary on Stephen Harper and the NDP wanted to use it, then I would expect to be fairly compensated for my arguments and work in exchange for them to use it for their political gain. I don't believe "news commentary" should be free. I do believe that news reporting related to political actors and anything that "features the political actor in their capacity as a politician" should be fair game. Commentary is inherently different. It's the intellectual property of the author who crafted the arguments and is presenting them for consideration. This IMO is not fair use.

[jacee]

The proposal that I've posted a couple times here already states that it has to be news content from a published news source (i.e., newspapers, news broadcasts, news commentary program, or news periodical) and the content would have to, "feature the political actor in their capacity as a politician or relate to a political issue." I can see some confusion around that second part. What qualifies as a "political issue"? Pretty much anything, I would imagine.

I am opposed to one facet of this. Namely that politicians would be free to use "news commentary" in their ads. Commentary is not reporting and it's not the words of political actors. If I wrote a commentary on Stephen Harper and the NDP wanted to use it, then I would expect to be fairly compensated for my arguments and work in exchange for them to use it for their political gain. I don't believe "news commentary" should be free. I do believe that news reporting related to political actors and anything that "features the political actor in their capacity as a politician" should be fair game. Commentary is inherently different. It's the intellectual property of the author who crafted the arguments and is presenting them for consideration. This IMO is not fair use.

Isn't "reporting" also intellectual property?

I guess anything a politician says publicly, via media or otherwise, is fodder for opponents' use.

Not comfortable about reporters or commentators.

[Bryan]

I say the broadcasters are within their rights in refusing to air such ads.

The supreme court has already ruled that they aren't within their rights. The media consortium's own lawyers warned them that what they want to do isn't legal.

[jacee]

The supreme court has already ruled that they aren't within their rights. The media consortium's own lawyers warned them that what they want to do isn't legal.

Maybe you can clarify what we're wrestling with here: Does that ruling apply only to political use of politicians' speech (via media), or politicians'use of all broadcast material (incl reporting, commentary) ?

.

[Bryan]

This sets the precedent that it's ok to have one set of rules for politicians and parties and another set of rules for the public.

No it doesn't. Not in any way. It makes sure that it is crystal clear that there is NOT two different rules, and that political parties have the SAME fair dealings rights as everyone else.

If I wrote a commentary on Stephen Harper and the NDP wanted to use it, then I would expect to be fairly compensated for my arguments and work in exchange for them to use it for their political gain. I don't believe "news commentary" should be free. I do believe that news reporting related to political actors and anything that "features the political actor in their capacity as a politician" should be fair game. Commentary is inherently different. It's the intellectual property of the author who crafted the arguments and is presenting them for consideration. This IMO is not fair use.

You've got that confused too. ANYONE can quote from your commentary, even if you vehemently object to it. They can't republish the whole thing, but quotes, clips, and excerpts are absolutely allowed.

Maybe you can clarify what we're wrestling with here: Does that ruling apply only to political use of politicians' speech (via media), or politicians'use of all broadcast material (incl reporting, commentary) ?
.

All of the above.

[On Guard for Thee]

When the writs are dropped, they have to air the ads already. This isn't new.

No that's not new, but the amendment does give political parties a separate and unfair advantage, and could force news outlets to re-broadcast their own material even after it's been couched in such a way as to alter the original meaning of the piece. That ain't "fair dealing" in my book. I imagine we will get to pay to see how it is seen in the SCC's book, again.

[jacee]

Yes I would think so.

It's not clear to me that "fair dealing" ... the right to use excerpts of people's intellectual property ... would reasonably include for personal, professional, political or commercial gain.

A work in progress I guess ...

.

[cybercoma]

No it doesn't. Not in any way. It makes sure that it is crystal clear that there is NOT two different rules, and that political parties have the SAME fair dealings rights as everyone else.

It is an exception. How many times does it need to be said? The Tories themselves are calling it an exception. Do I need to define the word for you?

[jacee]

You've got that confused too. ANYONE can quote from your commentary, even if you vehemently object to it. They can't republish the whole thing, but quotes, clips, and excerpts are absolutely allowed.

All of the above.

For what uses?

"Educational" I believe, maybe public information.

Certainly not for commercial gain.

Professional or personal gain?

Political gain?

.

[Bryan]

For what uses?

"Educational" I believe, maybe public information.

Certainly not for commercial gain.

Professional or personal gain?

Political gain?

.

Yes, yes, and yes. Those are all fair dealings, all fully within the law. Gain or motivation is not a restriction.

[jacee]

Yes, yes, and yes. Those are all fair dealings, all fully within the law. Gain or motivation is not a restriction.

Link?

Because I'm seeing clear distinctions for 'gain':

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_Canadian_copyright_law

To qualify under the fair dealing exception, the dealing must be for a purpose enumerated in sections 29, 29.1 or 29.2 of the Copyright Act of Canada (research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism or review and news reporting), and the dealing must be fair.

.

Edited October 26, 2014 by jacee

[Bryan]

It is an exception. How many times does it need to be said? The Tories themselves are calling it an exception. Do I need to define the word for you?

You already have all of the fair dealings rights that the proposed legislation would have made any kind of "exception" for.

Copyright is not the part that is different between the general public and political parties. What's different is when a writ is dropped, the parties are expected to automatically get air time.

[cybercoma]

You already have all of the fair dealings rights that the proposed legislation would have made any kind of "exception" for.

Why are you putting exception in quotation marks? You don't believe that it's an exception? The Conservatives themselves are calling it an exception. Why can't you accept that?