Canadian MPs don't want Parliament videos in the hands of citizens
The notion that videos of committee hearings constitute proprietary content that when used without permission raise the potential for allegations of contempt of Parliament will undoubtedly come as news to many Canadians. Using these excerpts in YouTube videos, webcasts, or podcasts has emerged as an important and powerful tool for business and consumer groups to educate the public on policy issues and legislative proposals.MPs miss chance to embrace YouTube generation (Thanks, Michael!)Yet, House of Commons lawyers maintain that many of these activities violate the law and have sent notice and takedown demands to YouTube seeking the removal of videos that include House of Commons and committee proceedings. These include clips that involve satire and parody, since they are seen to "distort" the video itself.
SCPHA hearings held earlier this year revealed that Canada's elected officials safeguard Parliamentary video with highly restrictive licencing requirements that are typically limited to use in schools or for private study, research, criticism or review. Relying on Crown copyright, the policy states that any other use - including any commercial use - requires the express prior written approval of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
the latest
latest episodes
.
I believe this also falls under the conventions on International Boredom/ Conventions Des Ennuis.
Youtube also restricts sausage-making content.
.
What do they have against George Clinton? Are they afraid of the Muthaship?
I'm surprised there's no Canadian version of C-SPAN.
@Ted8305
There is a channel that shows Question Period and other footage from Parliament. It's called 'CPAC' (Cable Public Affairs Channel). I could get it when I had cable, but now that I'm using rabbit ears, I can't.
It's becoming increasingly clear in Canada, the UK, and the US that government is positioning itself as the enemy of the public.
While, given good old "crown copyright", they may well be on a good footing legally, this seems like one of those "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" situations.
It would be rational, and fair, to assume the worst of any "representative" who doesn't want you to know exactly what sort of representing he has been doing.
I'm of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm a firm believer in open government. On the other the effect of cameras in question period has been to make the process absurdly political.
So!the CHAPS at SCPHA are concerned that their buffoonery and banalities would be fodder for parody or satire,amounting to "Contempt of Parliament" eh? so Truth is the daughter of Time!
As ridiculous as it is that committee proceedings, if I understand correctly, are effectively secret, realistically I doubt it would make much difference. If committees were public, then the real debate and negotiation would take place elsewhere, behind closed doors, and committees would just become formality and grandstanding.
I believe this is true for the British parliament as well; the video is available online (e.g. via the excellent theyworkforyou.org) but the govt keep their copyright on it.
The argument is effectively the same as why phone tap evidence has to be listened to in full, rather than just brief excerpts. As we all know, it's far too easy to take someone's words out of context to distort their meaning, or even show them with some context and have people misinterpret what's going on (e.g. that American lawmaker recently accused of asking Chinese Americans to change their names).
So the MPs are worried that the dozens or hundreds of hours of their recorded speeches will have a few fragments that'll be picked up for use as ammunition by the media or opposing parties. The use of these clips would be extremely hard to police, as any misleading clip would be labelled "satire" and virtually impossible to fight on factual grounds.
The system described in the last paragraph - that the videos should be available for study, review, criticism but not re-used commercially sounds like a good compromise. The public can still see the tapes, and the politicians don't have to worry as much about seeing their words twisted by being pulled out of context or through reality-TV style editing.
Oh I see, so it's still public record, but it just can't be legally "remixed" and distorted. As applicable to acts of government, I'm actually thinking that's not terrible. Kind of a misleading headline.
Oh, my. You know, I think that if the MPs are really committed to this preposterous policy of secrecy while they REPRESENT THE CITIZENS (dumbasses!), they ought to show it by abandoning their suits in favor of ninja outfits. To the untrained eye, the houses of Parliament will appear completely empty - save for a few odd shadows lingering in the corner of the eye - and yet somehow, Parliament business gets done! And occasionally, a shrill, hollow cry of "KIIAAAAIIII!!!" echoes through the halls.
Yes, this is proprietary content. And I am the proprietor, along with every other tax-paying citizen.
We paid for the show, we designed and built the set, we hired the actors and told them their lines (although too few are smart enough to remember them), and we even bought the cameras and videotape.
And we'll use the resulting material for whatever (non-criminal) purpose we like.
I too thought it was, well, *that* "Parliament" when I read the headline.
I don't know which would be worse to withhold, to tell you the truth. I do know which would be harder to control. . . .
@#13TheUnusualSuspect:
I don't think that's the best argument. It does indeed belong to the public, but that's not legally, ethically, or logically the same thing as belonging to anyone and everyone, individually. The street is public land, but you can't just build a house in the middle of it, because it doesn't belong to you, personally.
(I'm not making an argument for or against, BTW, just saying I don't think that particular argument is valid.)
#5M: I would suggest it is the opposite: that the government is positioning the people as its enemy. Not that that's any better...
Moriarty@#15 wrote: "The street is public land, but you can't just build a house in the middle of it, because it doesn't belong to you, personally."
Yeah, that's why I wrote "we" everywhere instead of "I".
We could indeed build a house in the middle of the street if we agreed to.
To see all Canadian member of parliament videos check out http://politwitter.ca/page/videos