The New York Times reports (registration required) that a Canadian news-parody show akin to Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show has been forbidden to use video clips of political debates.

[D]uring the current Canadian federal election campaign, Canada’s television satirists have faced an issue that has never troubled “The Daily Show.” An agreement between Canada’s main television networks and its largest political parties blocks the shows from using film clips from the televised leaders’ debates (although the film is still available to conventional news and current affairs shows).

“It speaks for the parties’ great respect for the power of satirical shows that they would demand this,” said Roger Abbott, an Air Farce performer and writer.

Let’s get this straight. It’s OK for Canadian citizens to see a clip of the prime minister debating — if the person commenting on the clip is serious. But it’s not OK if the person commenting on it is making a joke?

This is a terrible precedent. (And yes, I think it’s a precedent even though I live in the United States.) It’s terrible because it chops off yet another piece of our historic right to fair use. Let’s review: Fair use means taking a small snippet of something (like 15 seconds of an hour-long debate) and using it in another context. A TV show doing something like that is obviously not trying to recreate the whole debate. They’re not competing with the producers of the debate, and they’re not making money by copying somebody else’s product. They’re making their own original work. That’s been legal for a long time, and it should stay legal.

Unfortunately, it sounds like the consortium of TV broadcasters that produce the Canadian debates made a Faustian bargain and gave up a big chunk of that long-established right to fair use.

[...]CBC spokesman, Jason MacDonald, who also speaks for the consortium, said that the rule dates back several years; the networks, he explained, agreed to the politicians’ demand in exchange for a promise that campaigns would not use debate clips in their ads.

Translation: TV stations agreed not to let comedians make fun of politicians, and in return the politicians promised not to…um…hold each other accountable for what they said in a public debate. Wait — how is that a fair trade? (Yes, I understand that politicians often use misleading clips in their ads. Even so, is that a reason to forbid their use?)

What’s most disappointing in this news story is the TV stations’ lack of backbone. Politicians running for office need TV a lot more than TV needs them. Instead of acting like professionals, the Canadian consortium seems to have rolled over and given up fair-use rights that have been established (at least in the U.S.) for a very long time.

Apparently the comedians came up with a makeshift solution:

Mr. Abbott said that Air Farce considered declaring itself a news program, but in the end its cast used one of its specialties - impersonation - to create mock versions of the debates.

Clever, but I wish they’d fought harder to use the clips. Every piece of ground we give up in the fight for fair and reasonable copyright policy is a piece we’ll have to re-take someday in the future.

The Texas Attorney General has jumped right out front on the Sony-BMG rootkit scandal (background) and filed a lawsuit. He’s using the new Texas anti-spyware law to sue Sony for its use of hidden malware in music CDs sold in the state. Why is this important? Let us count the ways:

1) Lawsuits are opportunistic. In the best possible sense, this AG saw a smouldering public issue and leapt for the fire extinguisher. Sure, it’s a good chance for him to play hero, but it’s a genuine fire. Kudos to his office for responding on behalf of citizens.

2) Lawsuits get attention. Some get attention from the press. (This one certainly has.) All of them get attention from the entity being sued. Sony is legally responsible for looking at its bottom line. I doubt the $100,000-per-violation penalty that Texas is asking for will ever materialize. Still, fighting lawsuits is expensive. Losing lawsuits is even more expensive.

3) Lawsuits (by attorneys general) reflect the public mood. Face it, this suit would likely never have been filed if it were an obscure digital-rights issue that affected only a handful of geeks. Instead, it’s the result of a public outcry, widespread enough to merit action by major retailers such as Amazon.com and coverage by big-city newspapers such as the New York Times. That’s a good affirmation for those of us who believe that ordinary people care about their technological rights.

4) Lawsuits can focus the power of the (bully) pulpit. What’s striking about this picture? Check out the wallpaper: Fighting Spyware. Thanks, Texas. You just re-branded Sony’s “anti-piracy” effort with a label that every computer user in America loves to hate.

Not every problem can be fixed through the legal system. But sometimes, the power of the law can reshape the playing field. This is one of those times. Want to join in? Here’s the Texas AG’s FAQ, which includes a link to their online complaint form (Texas residents only).

The word pirate gets tossed around a lot in discussion of free culture issues, often by corporations. Recently, the tables turned when a corporation decided to model a new kind of piracy for the world to see. Instead of taking property, or even intangible “intellectual property,” this pirate is taking rights. And it’s doing it under the flag of a EULA, or End User License Agreement.

Let’s recap: First, it was revealed by a private citizen that some of Sony’s music CDs were secretly installing malware on users’ computers. Then, instead of responding with a full apology, explanation, and redress of customer grievances, Sony initially behaved as though it faced a minor p.r. problem, and grudgingly released an uninstall, which some users found hard to access.

Soon it was revealed that although Sony had not mentioned the malware in its EULA, a great deal else was included. The EULA went frighteningly far beyond what users expect, even in this age of digital-rights management.

You might say Sony was sailing its pirate ship into new waters and staking claim. Except those “waters” aren’t new — they’re long-established parts of your territory. The Electronic Frontier Foundation quickly provided a plain-English summary of some of the rights that pirate-Sony tried to assert over you, the paying customer. A few highlights:

1. If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That’s because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.

3. If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music. The EULA specifically forbids “export” outside the country where you reside.

5. Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to “enforce their rights” against you, at any time, without notice. And Sony-BMG disclaims any liability if this “self help” crashes your computer, exposes you to security risks, or any other harm.

6. The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00. That’s right, no matter what happens, you can’t even get back what you paid for the CD.

7. If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer. Seriously.

This goes far beyond fair compensation or fair anything. Sony is acting like a little kid who is asked what he wants for his birthday and says “Everything!”

Users rebelled. No, Sony, you can’t pirate away our rights to music that we bought and paid for. You can’t have “Everything!” We’re your customers. Remember? Without us, you wouldn’t exist. And Sony pulled back — somewhat. Millions of CDs are being recalled, and the company has apologized.

But has Sony relinquished its piratical tactics for good? Or have they merely taken down the skull-and-crossbones flag and decided to lie low for a few months? The spotlight is on Sony now, but the real test is whether they go back to piracy when nobody’s looking. Bookmark May 2006, and let’s check back then to see if this pirate is still reformed.