Canadian Gov't Issues Takedown To Newspaper For Posting Section Auditor General Report

from the wow dept

Thu, Nov 5th 2009 12:36pm — Mike Masnick

We've discussed in the past how silly it is for countries to have "crown copyright" (basically granting the government copyright over government documents). Luckily, the US has no such thing, but it makes no sense elsewhere. The government doesn't need copyright incentives to create works. The only purpose crown copyright can serve is for the sake of censorship. Canada has a perfect example of that, as the Auditor General issued a takedown to both The Globe and Mail and Scribd, for posting one section of the Auditor General's report on immigration. The Auditor General claims that to post parts of her report, newspapers (and others) need to ask permission on a case-by-case basis, due to the copyright. Of course, The Globe and Mail is a newspaper, and posted it as part of its reporting -- which should be clear fair use/fair dealing (even if there was copyright over this material -- which there shouldn't be). And yet, we keep being told that Canada's copyright laws are too lenient?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, copyright, crown copyright, fair dealing, reporting

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcus Carab (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 12:44pm

Wow... it really is Crown Copyright:

"© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2003. All rights reserved."

Charles and Camilla are here right now, sparking plenty of debate (and plenty more apathy) about the role of the royal family in modern Canada. Apart from the copyright issues, this is sure to ruffle a few anti-Royalist feathers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 12:45pm

Question for a Canadian
In whatever is the Canadian equivalent to the American clause in the constitution regarding copyright, is there anything similar to the "Promote the Progress" qualification?

Otherwise the Canadian govt. might be in the clear here (by law, not ethics, of course).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 12:50pm

Re: Question for a Canadian
Copyright is supposed to be an incentive to create. Promoting the progress of science and the useful arts is a patent thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2009 @ 12:53pm

Of course their laws are too lenient. A takedown? We all know that the reporters should simply be thrown in jail (after being accused) for raporism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vic, 5 Nov 2009 @ 12:55pm

Amazing! A public government document is not for public use actually... is not public after all?..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous1, 5 Nov 2009 @ 12:58pm

Hey Canada, I'm by NO means (literally) suggesting a bloody revolt, but ever hear of something called independence?

If the Soviet Union can fall with relative ease, by God, your nation should have it's soveriegnty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:03pm

Re:
"If the Soviet Union can fall with relative ease, by God, your nation should have it's soveriegnty."

Yeah! In fact, the United States military will help! And when we're done, we'll just leave....we swear....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re:
We'll just leave 2 dozen military bases and a government crafted in the image of what most ignorant folks here at home THINK our gov at home is... plus an ass-load of our local culture... for like the next 50 years. It's a good deal, I swear. : P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous1, 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:23pm

@DH: Dude you really do need to get back on the coffee. I know we politically,(from your own statements), and this site doesn't have to be a love fest, but please.
I had your back this morning on another post. You don't owe me, but where in that post did I suggest American military involvement? I simply stated, that Canada can always try a non-violent independence movement, through legislation, protest, etc..if they don't like crown rule. I'm glad you saw my post as an excuse to go after the policies of the US, but it was completely misplaced. NOW you sound like you're ranting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous1, 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:26pm

EDIT: Should say "I know we disagree politically".
BTW, I also realize that the more practical, effective solution, is to protest laws like these, and challenge them when incorrectly applied (as I AGREE is the case here, duh).
I was trying to make a broader point about how the Crown is still in control of Canada, AND that one of the ways to lose this control was non-violent resistance, in the form of an independence movement. Get over yourself...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:30pm

Re:
Eh, I went for a funny.

Clearly a swing and a miss....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart, 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re:
I found it very funny. I think it might of actually been a "Whoosh!" on Anonymous1's part.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bubba Gump (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Just wow.
I suppose you think we should be isolationist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shawn (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:48pm

Re: Re:
Well since we do import more of our Oil from Canada then anywhere else perhaps a few extra bases are in order to ya know protect our interest!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bubba Gump (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:50pm

Re:
Oh please, without the Crown Canadians would still be trapping fur and cutting timber as their main sources of income (it's possible those still are despite the Crown, I'm not sure).

There, that should get a fire started.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
Okay, not to keep what I only said as a joke going, but I hope you guys know you're talking about American TROOPS when you say things like this. Troops should not be used to back up our economic interests in sovereign nations.

I have far too much respect for them. I mean, Iraq is one thing, but Canada? Why would you banish them to such a hell...

:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
steve, 5 Nov 2009 @ 2:32pm

Here is the follow up, and as we see, the Globe overreacted. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/why-cant-you-read-it-here/article1352225/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2009 @ 2:35pm

OK, Canada wont be invaded by the US, and is capable of engaging in more than the fur trade.

Can we get back to discussing the actual story now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 2:43pm

Re:
"Can we get back to discussing the actual story now?"

Yes, absolutely. I just looked over the link Steve provided above. Apparently the AG claimed the takedown was issued because:

"On the Scribd website, it appears, or it makes it appear, that anyone using the document or accessing the document has an ability to adapt the content and use it in different ways"

I'd be curious as to what this is supposed to mean. Does she think, for instance, that one can alter the document to make her office appear to say something worse than it did? Or is the "use it in different ways" bit including public commentary on how apparently fucked up the Canadian Immigration office is (Hey! Glad to see it's not just us!)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails, 5 Nov 2009 @ 2:53pm

Re: Re:
Actually, timber exports are one of our biggest industries (right after the BC pot crop).

Remember when you guys imposed a softwood levy how nuts our politicians went? You don't remember? It was never reported down south?

Well, we remember...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
electric, 5 Nov 2009 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: Question for a Canadian
hah, who fed you that... the mpaa? riaa?

What copyright is supposed to do, what it does and how it is used so aren't the same things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2009 @ 3:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
While they are up there we can teach them the difference between Bacon and Ham ... they seem to be confused
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Johnny Canada, 5 Nov 2009 @ 4:11pm

We know the difference between bacon and ham. Bacon is strips of pork.

It is just the 'mericans that call round bacon 'Canadian Bacon'. (there is no such thing as Canadian Bacon in Canada)

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen regnant of sixteen independent states known informally as the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She holds each crown separately and equally in a shared monarchy, and carries out duties for each state of which she is sovereign, as well as acting as Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann, and Paramount Chief of Fiji. In theory her powers are vast; however, in practice, and in accordance with convention, she rarely intervenes in political matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Nov 2009 @ 9:56pm

Re:
Here is the follow up, and as we see, the Globe overreacted.

Steve, how did the G&M overreact? It still appears they had every right to post the content. The only one I see overreacting is the Auditor General, who seems to think that Scribd means people can modify the document, when that's simply not true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Victor, 6 Nov 2009 @ 1:29am

Re:
It's cool most of us here are fine with being part of a commonwealth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Janene, 21 Mar 2010 @ 11:06pm

Re:
Canada is always getting the short end of the stick from those blasted American's...Canadian Bacon..psshhh
Janene Dalton
[ link to this | view in thread ]