Former Harper advisor had deal with escort for First Nations water contracts

[mod 135640]

no, we would not give permission to anyone to reproduce the imges off the site. maybe some law exists for media to do this if they give credit. we will not know until the lawyer and the owner of the company meet next week.

[Guest f***2f***]

Wow what a lazy journalist. All that stuff was revealed by APTN. There was no new material in that article. Time for them to get off their butts me thinks.

[Two Thirty 1422]

Just wanted to add my voice in favour of keeping this thread open. Nothing would be served by jumping to conclusions; and since even this site is being implicated by mere association, I believe it is that much more important that things be communicated as openly as possible. After all, one of the issues is transparency and accountability. And if people here in this community can't do it, no one will!

[Guest f***2f***]

Why would we close the thread down? This is in the news and it effects our community. As long as our rules are being respected this is not a matter to be censored.

[MightyPen 67414]

I saw this case referenced last night in a Liberal TV attack ad vs. the Conservatives... which is pretty weak political ammunition even for a political ad. They even had the woman's picture in the ad (sexy sells!). Really disappointing.

[Phaedrus 209521]

The Toronto STAR contacted escorts-canada asking to use the images for the story and permission for using these images was denied by EC. No one from APTN contacted escorts-canada.com asking if these images could be used.

Agreed, this is piss-poor journalism, and I hope they get hauled over the coals for it.

 

<thread_hijack>

However, it should probably be said.... anything posted on the Internet *immediately* becomes available to anyone who wants to redistribute it - and lawsuits after the fact can't turn the clock back if this happens. And in the case of photos, most photo-sharing websites where you can post pics for free probably have something in the Ts&Cs (remember that bit where you clicked 'I agree' without actually reading it?) which gives them non-exculsive rights to do what they like with your pictures. I should probably point out here that that I've never read EC's Ts&Cs (or CERB's for that matter :) ), so I can't comment on them specifically - I'm very much talking about generalities here.

 

Summary: if you put it on the Internet, you've lost control of it. Information wants to be free (to quote Julian Assange, in a different context). That said, I now return you to the topic under discussion.

</thread_hijack>

 

#include <hijack/apologies.h>

(and if you got that, you're officially a nerd :) )

[E.D. man 691]

yes i made a mistake of asking the thread to be closed i just thought that michelle or leanne was a good member of cerb and thought she should be protected even though I have never met her.

[mod 135640]

That is not true, if someone publishes or redistributes any intellectual copyrighted material it is a punishable offense. Under Copyright Statutes & Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) the copyright owner is entitled to an injunction against the offending website or publication for each proven infringement. I am not sure if the media has some sort of loop hole or not but I guess that is what we need to find out.

 

If another website copy's your stuff or your website they most certainly can be sued. Unfortunately most websites that would do this the owners are poor and you can't get water from a stone. Suing someone that has nothing to loose means you have nothing to gain - the only thing that you gain is the satisfaction of the offending website being removed and a lighter wallet. ... and a headache!

[Guest Ou**or**n]

It should be noted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a US piece of legislation and would have little effect here in Canada.

 

Canada has its own copyright laws. Use of images by the media usually falls under 'fair dealing' in Canadian law.

 

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 42

 

Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news

(1) A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if:

 

(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made; or

 

(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film.

 

(2) The playing of a musical work in the course of reporting news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film is not a fair dealing with the work for the purposes of this section if the playing of the work does not form part of the news being reported.

 

I imagine a magazine such as Maclean's has lawyers which review their work prior to publication.

[mod 135640]

I beleive in 2010 Canada made it's own DMCA (Not sure if it just applies to music or not and that I assume is what the lawyer can tell us - if I had time I would go researching but I don't right now). If this 1968 law is still current then it would appear that news reporting does have a loophole. I don't know enough about this to be sure either way. I think in fair usage a credit (Like Maclean's did where they put "escorts-canada.com" under the photo) would be fair usage. APTN did not bother to do this. Instead they credited the site that STOLE the images from EC and the copyright notice is CLEARLY on the image. More then anything the site that stole all the images from EC is the real bad guy here and APTN by not taking the time to contact EC should be partially at fault.

[Phaedrus 209521]

That is not true, if someone publishes or redistributes any intellectual copyrighted material it is a punishable offense. Under Copyright Statutes & Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) the copyright owner is entitled to an injunction against the offending website or publication for each proven infringement. I am not sure if the media has some sort of loop hole or not but I guess that is what we need to find out.

Agreed, it's illegal (and despite the DMCA being US law, I'm sure there's some sort of Canadian Intellectual Property laws that could do the same job). My point is simply that if your stuff is thieved, you're highly unlikely to get compensation remotely appropriate to the harm done - especially after you take into account what you'd have to pay lawyers to get it. It's a cost-benefit issue, when it comes down to it.

 

If another website copies your stuff or your website they most certainly can be sued. Unfortunately most websites that would do this the owners are poor and you can't get water from a stone. Suing someone that has nothing to loose means you have nothing to gain - the only thing that you gain is the satisfaction of the offending website being removed and a lighter wallet. ... and a headache!

Absolutely. IMHO all you can really do is watermark your pics when you post them...

 

Edit: I see OutForFun has already updated us on the relevant Canadian law. Thanks! Although I'd be interested to know whether what's happened here counts as "fair use".

[Guest Ou**or**n]

I beleive in 2010 Canada made it's own DMCA

 

Canada's USA-style copyright reform bill C-32 died when the current parliament was dissolved after the liberals brought down the government.

 

Going after APTN may get you an apology and proper credit. I agree they were sloppy to only credit the site they found it on and not EC.

 

Going after the scumbags that are operating these other sites would be successful as they are clearly violating copyright. However as other have mentioned if they have no money the only thing that would be gained would be shutting them down and they'll probably spring right back up under slightly different names a day later.

[d*mm*y 887]

I beleive in 2010 Canada made it's own DMCA (Not sure if it just applies to music or not and that I assume is what the lawyer can tell us - if I had time I would go researching but I don't right now). If this 1968 law is still current then it would appear that news reporting does have a loophole. I don't know enough about this to be sure either way. I think in fair usage a credit (Like Maclean's did where they put "escorts-canada.com" under the photo) would be fair usage. APTN did not bother to do this. Instead they credited the site that STOLE the images from EC and the copyright notice is CLEARLY on the image. More then anything the site that stole all the images from EC is the real bad guy here and APTN by not taking the time to contact EC should be partially at fault.

 

The 2 site are clearly named almost the same. Would it not be reasonable for a judge to believe that APTN felt that the credit and the trade mark were one in the same? The law is based on what average reasonable people can make logic of not industry experts or users.

[Guest s******ecan****]

I am not sure if the media has some sort of loop hole or not but I guess that is what we need to find out.

 

!

 

 

I think the media has some leeway when it can demonstrate it is "acting in the public interest". I'm not sure of the standards required to meet this definition....probably a pretty grey area.

[Phaedrus 209521]

I think the media has some leeway when it can demonstrate it is "acting in the public interest". I'm not sure of the standards required to meet this definition....probably a pretty grey area.

Yep. Of course, the public interest is frequently not the same as what the public is interested in :)

[Guest s******ecan****]

Bruce Carson now linked to another former escort.

 

I removed the link at the suggestion of another member because apparently it had personal information regarding the lady's address. This was not present in the print edition of the newspaper where I first saw the story.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

Are we really at the point where something published by mainstream media such as The Globe and Mail cannot even be linked to here?

 

I think we are becoming way too PC at the expense of a level of discussion that is taking place in the regular media.

[April Dawn 12207]

I think its more a sense of decentcy then anything. If my personal address was put in a article I would be upset and scared. Its not safe for an escort, there are sick people out there. Thank you for not putting that article on here. It shows that you have more compassion then the people who wrote, edited and printed the story.

Posted via Mobile Device

[d*mm*y 887]

I think it is a reminder that we need to be careful about our discretion, many many things are public knowledge we need to go into things with our eyes wide open. A plan B in place as well as the ability to face the consequences. When you are playing in the big leagues with lots at stake the down side is greater. This article is public knowledge, the globe has over 1,000,000 readers, is there anyone here on cerb that is interested in the article and has NOT read it?? Its foolish to stick our heads in the sand and ignore it, it is even more foolish for us not to learn from it.

[Newton 714]

Where did Carson get his money as he was in debt constantly?

 

The more info came out, the worse he looked.

[capitalman 3861]

It's true, the news is out there. I went elsewhere to find a link. The fact it's censored here doesn't mean we're not going to find it. All great Empires censor their media to the masses, do they not?

[Miss Scarlett 25073]

I can not believe some of the comments I am hearing on this thread. Even if the person in question was playing in the "big leagues" as some of you have stated, I still would expect that this is a board of RESPECT! If that was my personal information in the paper I would be mortified!

 

And Yes the article is "public knowledge", but we do have to have respect for one another, and if someone really wants to read the article, I am sure they will be resourceful enough to find it.

 

Also this site does have rules, and one of those rules is:

 

4) Do not discuss personal information of anyone's

- this includes someones real name

- address

- private phone number

- etc...

 

So please remember that even if this is in the news, how would you feel if this was your life being exposed?

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

As far as I'm concerned, there was no censorship. Mod didn't bring his hammer down. Scott made a decision out of respect for the lady in question to not post the article.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I think we are becoming way too PC at the expense of a level of discussion that is taking place in the regular media.

 

The regular media is wrong. It doesn't mean we have to follow the wrong. No one has the right to publish any SP's or hobbyist's personal info here or any other review board. If media did it, they will be likely subject to legal action if something terrible happens to anyone as a result. I agree they are too many sick people out there. Btw, well done Scott. You took correct course of action as soon as you were informed regarding lady's address, you removed the link. My hats off to you.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

I'm having a hard time following the reasoning behind some of the comments. The original article which started this thread disclosed the public and working name of a member of this board. That seemed to be ok in that nobody mentioned that this posting broke any rules.

 

This new public news story discussed a second escort also contained a reference to her address which seemed to inflame causes of concern for her safety. I'm sorry but I don't see how a link to an article in a thread that may be read < 3000 times presents a security issue to the lady compared to the article itself which is likely to have a viewership of hundreds of thousands.

 

However other articles do cover the basic facts without giving the address and one is here - Globe and Mail

 

We should not bury our heads in the sand or ignore what is happening. There are several important issues in these articles that concern us firstly as Canadians and secondly as people involved in this business.

 

As Canadians these articles reveal a man with considerable friends and power who was in a long-term relationship with an escort during his time as an advisor to our Prime Minister. There is little question that this was a grave security risk as he would of been susceptible to blackmail or other influences. This is deeply concerning. This own board clams up on discussions of a member, imagine the lengths a man in Mr. Carson's position might go to avoid similar publicity? This issue is raised in the linked article.

 

The second issue that we all should care about is the media attention given to the whole escort connection. This clearly shows the risks we all take in our involvement in industry - as both clients and providers. This should be prompting us to discuss the levels of discretion that we should all by applying. For us gents it is the importance of remaining anonymous. For ladies it is the dual-edged dangers of needing to know some information about the gents to ensure their safety but also about getting caught up as collateral damage if one of their clients gets caught 'in the news'.

 

Should a lady allow herself any financial relationship with a client? This creates a paper trail that brings them into the spotlight if a client hits the news. Both Michele and Barbara had contracts or other financial documents tying them to Bruce Carson - was this wise? I think there are important things to be seen in this issue.