[DrCaleb]

A perfect example there of fake news. What do you see if you let the video roll a couple seconds longer?



Truth sucks, eh?

[Tricks]

[PluggyRug]

Who the hell hired that wildly out of tune band.

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

A perfect example there of fake news. What do you see if you let the video roll a couple seconds longer?



Truth sucks, eh?

Apparently only for Trudeau.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cana ... SKBN1W422D

And for the record I have no idea what the last couple of minutes of the video showed which is pretty much the point. Partisanship usually leads to doing thing that change peoples perceptions much like what suing one party for partisanship ads while letting another do the exact same thing.

So, you can bitch all you want about it being the CBC's right to use their 'intellectual' property anyway they want but what you continue to ignore is the fact that as taxpayers we are owners of the CBC which means that their "intellectual property" is actually our "intellectual" property and as such is being used to show partisanship for one specific party over another which is beyond wrong.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

And for the record I have no idea what the last couple of minutes of the video showed which is pretty much the point.

As part of your argument, perhaps you should. You seem to do that quite often, post things that actually go against your own argument, because of this.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Partisanship usually leads to doing thing that change peoples perceptions much like what suing one party for partisanship ads while letting another do the exact same thing.

But lying is presenting something as representative of what it is not. What the original clip showed was Trudeau using sarcasm to demean himself, if you include the last few seconds of the clip. If you leave out the last few seconds, it changes the meaning and feeds a conspiracy that the Liberals are buying favorable press.

One is good for democracy,. the other isn't. All over a few seconds of video.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So, you can bitch all you want about it being the CBC's right to use their 'intellectual' property anyway they want but what you continue to ignore is the fact that as taxpayers we are owners of the CBC which means that their "intellectual property" is actually our "intellectual" property and as such is being used to show partisanship for one specific party over another which is beyond wrong.

I'm not bitching about anything. I am simply putting forth the legal argument that Copyright Infringement entails. That the CBC is publicly owned and funded makes no difference that it hold copyright over it's published works. Using those as 'fair use' is one thing, editing them to mean something not in the original work is something else.

What the CPC and Liberals did are two different things. The CPC edited CBC videos to make the CBC look like it was biased. The Liberals used CBC video as is, but used it for partisan purposes.

$1:

The CBC argues that these uses constitute copyright infringement and do not qualify as fair dealing. Its claim is based on an odd collection of unconvincing arguments, including the notion that clips from the debate might lead someone to think that the CBC is biased, contrary to its obligations under the Broadcasting Act. The lawsuit notes that this is not the first time the CBC has claimed copyright infringement with Conservative ads, citing a 2015 claim.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2019/10/cbc- ... n-twitter/

Just because both incidents involved video clips from the CBC does not mean the laws broken were the same.