Richard Warman Unveils a New Censorship Weapon - Copyright

[Mark Fournier]

The copyright control was documented. Without the documentation I would have been very suspicious too.

[J.B. Stone]

I don't know WHO Little Dickie Warbaby has giving him PR advice on THIS one, but if he meant to exercise "damage control".....he's just ignited a flame of curiosity INSTEAD of squelching free speech.

[Peter O'Donnell]

It dazzles me, the undiluted demonic power of this man's imagination -- taking possession of that which one contends cannot be one's own.

That is double plus un not weird.

Maybe in my case, he will sign on as collateral for a bank loan so that I can own the BCHRT. Then he can sue me for that and own it himself.

[Post Tenebras Lux]

So what's he going to do about the article posted on American web sites?

His actions have only drawn attention to this matter and now more than ever people will be reading what Kay wrote.

[JurisNaturalist]

How can a newspaper justify such a decision?
What happened to freedom of the press?
What about the public's "right to know?"
How can Jonathan Kay, a columnist/ editor, a lawyer, and a * Visiting Fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies be forced to give away his own words? Words, I might add, that could be a valuable asset in the defence of our democracy.

Ironically enough I found the following quote on a University of Ottawa Law website. Notice the last sentence and how it is an exact description of what is currently taking place in Canada.

http://www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-la ... ssion.html

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. Freedom of expression promotes certain societal values, as noted by Professor Emerson in 1963: "Maintenance of a system of free expression is necessary (1) as assuring individual self-fulfillment, (2) as a means of attaining the truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by the members of the society in social, including political, decision-making, and (4) as maintaining the balance between stability and change in society." Our constitutional commitment to free speech is predicated on the belief that a free society cannot function with coercive legal censorship in the hands of persons supporting one ideology who are motivated to use the power of the censor to suppress opposing viewpoints.

*http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/JonathanKay.html

[Peter O'Donnell]

Sometimes a guilty conscience demands punishment.

I have observed almost ad nauseam on this forum and in many other places, my lifelong disgust and amazement at the almost Borg-like "otherness" of Canadian liberals and especially Liberals, in first taking our national identity and reshaping it as their own, then having absolutely no visible pangs of conscience about it.

I think both Hitler and Stalin must have had occsaional nightmares about the hells on earth that they created, but Canadian Liberals sleep peacefully every night in the complete knowledge of self-assurance, that all they have done, and all they will do, is exactly as it should be.

With this one possible exception, a guy who is obviously brilliant in his own way (Trotsky was three times the genius that Lenin ever was) who must, like say Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff, at least be intellectually capable of recombining all the paradigms in their minds until they come to see that they have walked down history's oft-repeating road of illusions to self-worship.

And I think that's what all these mountains of documents say -- you guys and gals out there who are not in the FD-8, or other targets, but who might be mentioned in these documents -- you should visualize this -- my spare room has a table piled high with these documents, and they are nothing really but a vast cry for help -- help me, the whole country hates me, look, I can name them one by one, and the list is staggering.

When you set up the paradigms the way RW did, you get this awful loop --

I found some Nazis.

I prosecuted some Nazis.

Some people criticized me.

I prosecuted them.

They must be Nazis.

More people criticized me, even big forums, blogs, journals, newspapers. They are all surely Nazis.

And who hates Nazis the most?

R-i-i-i-i-ght.

Who came closest to putting the case into words?

R-i-i-i-i-ght.

So how to fight on? Keep talking like a preacher man. The faith is the one true faith. The campaign must continue. Don't stop for a rest, you might hear the whispers -- they are right, mein herr, you are a professional victim and serial complainant and an abuser of the legal system.

And that's the tip of the iceberg, because it reveals the whole hidden, uncelebrated reality of anti-Soviet purely spiritual appeal to the nobility of the common man, the Lech Walesa vs the hyperstate paradigm, and you're smart enough to realize that pushing down the Berlin Wall didn't end that paradigm, and now it's here.

Now it's here. So you scream the primal scream of shock and demand to own what you cannot deny.

Free Dominion, meet your new administrator.

The Borg will eat everything on our planet until it is our planet.

[Mark Fournier]

So what's he going to do about the article posted on American web sites?

His actions have only drawn attention to this matter and now more than ever people will be reading what Kay wrote.

There is nothing he can do about the article being posted on a lot of websites on the internet. It looks like he can force us to take down our reproduction of it as it appeared at the National Post but the real damage is being done by the precedent this sets. Of course this only makes more people aware of the Kay article but that's how the internet works. No one is going to have any luck trying to create an Orwellian internet memory hole, that's not how the internet works.

Richard Warman managed to sue his way into getting books pulled from British Columbia libraries but his scope is very limited when trying to get information removed from the internet.

[styky]

So what's he going to do about the article posted on American web sites?

His actions have only drawn attention to this matter and now more than ever people will be reading what Kay wrote.

There is nothing he can do about the article being posted on a lot of websites on the internet. It looks like he can force us to take down our reproduction of it as it appeared at the National Post but the real damage is being done by the precedent this sets. Of course this only makes more people aware of the Kay article but that's how the internet works. No one is going to have any luck trying to create an Orwellian internet memory hole, that's not how the internet works.

Richard Warman managed to sue his way into getting books pulled from British Columbia libraries but his scope is very limited when trying to get information removed from the internet.

There are no such thing as coincidences. Today between naps and gag fests I took in a garage sale. I picked up a first edition 1949 copy of George Orwell's 1984 in it's original slipcover for $1. Now what are the chances.

[BlawBlaw]

Make a personal copy and then get some fair comment advice before starting a new thread that quotes the article within the bounds of the law.

[civic.duty]

Supreme Court revives "Fair Comment" Defence

<a href=http://www.cjfe.org/specials/2009/faircomment.pdf>Read the Court's ruling here</a>

[cinyc]

There is nothing he can do about the article being posted on a lot of websites on the internet. It looks like he can force us to take down our reproduction of it as it appeared at the National Post but the real damage is being done by the precedent this sets. Of course this only makes more people aware of the Kay article but that's how the internet works. No one is going to have any luck trying to create an Orwellian internet memory hole, that's not how the internet works.

Richard Warman managed to sue his way into getting books pulled from British Columbia libraries but his scope is very limited when trying to get information removed from the internet.

Actually, Warman DIDN'T successfully sue his way into getting books pulled from B.C. libraries. He may have had a temporary victory getting books temporarily pulled by threatening libraries with libel notices. But B.C. ultimately ended up passing what's hopefully the first of many "Warman's law", requiring an injunction or actual proof of libel before libraries need to pull books from the shelves.

Again, Richard Warman and his lawyers need to Google "Streissand effect" if they think this new tactic is going to do any good in the long run. I had forgotten about the Kay article until now.

[BlawBlaw]

Supreme Court revives "Fair Comment" Defence

<a href=http://www.cjfe.org/specials/2009/faircomment.pdf>Read the Court's ruling here</a>

My post above should have said "fair use" (a copyright defence) rather than "fair comment" (a defamation defence).

[civic.duty]

Fair use in Canada
The Copyright Act establishes fair dealing in Canada, which allows specific exceptions to copyright protection. The open-ended concept of fair use is not observed in Canadian law. In 1985, the Sub-Committee on the Revision of Copyright rejected replacing fair dealing with an open-ended system, and in 1986 the Canadian government agreed that “the present fair dealing provisions should not be replaced by the substantially wider ‘fair use’ concept.”

CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 is the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that establishes the bounds of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law. The Law Society of Upper Canada was sued for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers. The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing.

Canadian fair dealing is for five purposes: research, private study, review, criticism or news reporting.

Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright.

"Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned (a) the source; and (b) if given in the source, the name of the author, in the case of a work, performer, in the case of a performer’s performance, maker, in the case of a sound recording, or broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

"Fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned (a) the source; and (b) if given in the source, the name of the author, in the case of a work, performer, in the case of a performer’s performance, maker, in the case of a sound recording, or broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal."

<a href=http://www.robic.ca/publications/Pdf/032E-LC.pdf>FAIR DEALING EXPLAINED</a>

[BlawBlaw]

The other alternative is to cite and paraphrase JK's article. In theory, paraphrasing doesn' violate copyright because only the expression and not the underlying ideas or information are protected. Of course, when dealing with a litigious snit, one should get specific legal advice to have themselves covered when it goes to court.

[Mark Fournier]

We think we have found a solution to the problem. Stay tuned to the Jonathan Kay thread tomorrow afternoon.