lovehate: Recent Comments on Canadian Copyright Reform (Part 3)

Upon posting last night's exchange from the Government of Canada website on lovehatethings.com, I received an irate comment from another citizen claiming that by reposting the exchange, I was violating copyright. I offer up the following for your consideration. (Note: the original thread for this entire online discussion can be found at copyright.econsultation.ca)

Their contention:

(Taken down by request of the original commenter. Click the link up above to follow the conversation on the original site that is deathly slow. The basic idea included that I could not repost information submitted on a Government of Canada website set up to offer public submissions on copyright reform in Canada.)

My reply:

I directly quoted words from a Government of Canada website, without edit, for the purpose of sharing the content of a taxpayer fully-subsidized platform. I direct linked back to the thread. I looked for any copyright indicators on the site, and, where I expected to find none (as it is a government site) I found none. If the government wishes to issue me a takedown notice, I'll be expecting an email or letter from Tony Clement. I am not the first, or I'm sure last to quote from this site. I did not break the privacy policy requirements of the site by divulging anyone's personal information. In fact it would be almost impossible to divulge privacy because few people use their real name when posting accusations, innuendo, facts or research.

If she had posted it on a private website, I certainly would have excerpted at best with a linkback for context. Do you know the copyright regulations of this forum? You don't cite them. If someone writes an opinion letter to editor of newspaper, I may need the newspaper's permission to quote a passage from that letter depending on their copyright claim, but I don't need to go back and ask the original author. A government forum is about as public as one can get. The content herein has been quoted on blogs and newspapers across the country. It is a matter of PUBLIC record.

On my blog, which I make no revenue from, and contains no advertising except unpaid links to other blogs, I explore pop culture and express opinions on things current and historic. These deliberations could prove to be historic to Canadians.

The only context I give for the passage, under the title "Recent Comments on Canadian Copyright Reform (Part 2)" is the following:

"As a follow-up to my recent post on a response, my reply to a comment made on a statement I made on the copyright.econsultation.ca website about a week ago, I present the next response from someone else who misread my original post and my subsequent reply. All comments are presented unedited.

Her reply after reading my original post, the first commenter, and my reply back (all of which can be read by clicking the above link)"

How is this considered "blowing my own horn?"

My blog is set up to auto-publish to Twitter upon each new post. I did note that someone Retweeted my original auto-tweet and added the #copycon hashtag - which was not included in my original. [Gee, maybe I should sue them!]

How is promoting a dialectic between opposing sides in an argument over a matter of public debate anything but helpful to the debate? For all I know, more people may have agreed with her than with me. By being a citizen and taxpayer of Canada, she has now had a whopping 171 more people read her unedited ideas than previously.

Committee hansards are a matter of public record and available to all Canadians. I don't see how the contributions to this website are any different. If provided with a takedown notice, I will gladly comply. I'm quite willing to follow the rules that exist. You, unfortunately, want me to follow rules that don't exist or, at the very least, are not clearly spelled out.

That you would deny other citizens of Canada the right to read open debate in a public forum is shameful.

If you'll excuse me, I have a new post for my blog, and if you'd like to prove your theory, have the site owners here order me to take your, or my own, comments down. I'll be the first to congratulate you.