Repukes slam Pelosi's Blog, claims it violates C-SPAN copyright/trademark (via KOS)

[jefferson_dem]

This is too funny! LOL! :rofl: :spray:

Time to end C-SPAN's monopoly
by kos
Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:29:24 PM PST

Pelosi began a blog, The Gavel, which features a great deal of YouTube clips of chamber proceedings.

Crazy Republicans, hating the fact that more people can use these clips to get a look at what's happening in Congress, are crying foul. This press release was blasted to the media a short while ago:

***********

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Brad Dayspring [phone]

February 15, 2007

Speaker Pelosi's New Blog Violates C-SPAN Copyright/Trademark of House Proceedings
Will the Speaker bring the gavel down on "the Gavel Blog?"

As you may have heard, Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a new blog entitled "The Gavel." Though we applaud the Speaker's effort to adapt to new technology, the blog violated copyright and trademark law on the very first day.

Not once, not twice, but 16 times?

As of noon today, the Speaker had posted at least 16 videos that are copyrighted
C-SPAN material from the House floor. The RSC spoke with C-SPAN today, who confirmed that these videos violate C-SPAN copyright/trademark of the House proceedings.

Using C-Span for partisan purposes?

In addition to using pirated material, Speaker Pelosi also has used the pirated C-SPAN footage for partisan purposes. The collection of C-SPAN footage used in her "first official blog" is an example and the other pirated C-SPAN trademarked material shows Democrat after Democrat offering their views of the non-binding Democrat resolution on the reinforcement and realignment of American troops in Iraq.

So, what does Speaker Pelosi believe the role of C-SPAN is?

"One of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first decisions was to deny a request by C-SPAN to be permitted to cover the House floor proceedings with its own cameras. Last month, Pelosi sent a letter to C-SPAN Chairman and CEO Brian Lamb saying she believed "the dignity and decorum" of the House "are best preserved by maintaining the current system of televised proceedings."

(CQ Weekly, January 15, 2007, Page 169)

Is the dignity and decorum of the House preserved by pirating copyrighted C-SPAN material for political purposes?

If not, will the Speaker bring the gavel down on "the Gavel Blog?"

###


FOR MORE, LINK TO --> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/15/144955/943

ALSO, BE SURE TO CHECK OUT Madame Speaker's BLOG, if you haven't yet. Definitely...one to bookmark --> http://speaker.gov/blog/

[Kagemusha]

1. If the Republicans have a point, it's time for everyone to grow up about this

Let's enter the digital age for real and not have stupid barriers preventing political discourse about wholly legitimate issues being discussed in The People's House. If something needs to be changed, let's change it, darn it.

[originalpckelly]

2. Well, this doesn't surprise me at all, pigs usually do squeal.

:eyes:

Doesn't the Speaker control C-SPAN's access to the floor proceedings? You'd think that anyone in Congress would be able to use their footage without being pestered about it.

[Old and In the Way]

10. It's ridiculous that this is even an issue.

If C-SPAN won't allow fair use, then Congress needs to reassert their control of the feed. C-SPAN can use the footage, as all Americans can....they just shouldn't own our content.

Too bad Republicans don't like the light being shined on their words. I have no problems with Republicans doing the same. If they distort or edit...they should be taken to task on that.

[Monkeyman]

3. Wait Wait it ok for J Dennis Hastert to have a blog But not Nancy hmm

[originalpckelly]

7. Her blog was bigger.

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Were They Infringing On The Copyright Or Weren't They? Is It Confirmed They Are Fair Use?

I'm hoping they are allowed for use though, cause I think it's a great idea and a great way to communicate to the public.

[originalpckelly]

6. If they get snippy, the Speaker determines C-SPAN's access to the House floor.

:P

[KharmaTrain]

11. C-SPAN Doesn't Own The "Broadcast Rights"

The C-SPAN is fed the House procedings from House-TV operation that, one assumes, is run by Congress, which works for and is funded by the American taxpayer.

Depending on the length of the clip, Fair Use would apply to much of what is posted.

Also, how about the many repugincans who have linked their speeches on their webpages? Or does that just get in the way of a base-less publicity stunt?

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Hold it! C-SPAN aired clips that John Boehner had posted somewhere

on his site or a repuke site and it was the Democrats saying, "This is the first step" (over and over and over) while debating on the House floor! If I recall, the WJ host didn't mention that Boehner has pirated C-SPAN copyrighted material. I wish I knew which site Boehner posted the clips. The freepers need to see them. I think I saw that this morning on WJ.

[MADem]

8. Here's what I don't get. There are NO copyrights on government publications

We, the people, pay for them. They're OURS. WE can quote them, publish them, do what we want with them, because we footed the bill for them.

We pay the light bill, the heat bill, the maintenance bill, and the salaries of those elected bastards, and the House staff, on the House floor, so why can't we have the images and words? They--the elected officials--are there because we, the people, SUFFER them to be there.

And as for the CSPAN component, they call it a GIFT to the American people from the cable industry. Some fucking GIFT, if we can't use it as we see fit.

It's our workers, that we elected and we PAY, who are up there spouting off, supposedly on our behalf, and the images and sound recordings were made with OUR electricity. They need to render unto us the things that are OURS, damnit!

And if CSPAN can't get behind free and fair use, well, then the Congress needs to fund the enterprise themselves, using taxpayer money. How dare they suggest that we can't see what happens in the People's House any time we want? We can read the goddamn Congressional record...so what's the diff???????

[MGKrebs]

9. If there's a copyright problem, it's with YouTube, not Pelosi.

It's not like YouTube is some underground pirate site. It's owned by The Google fer chrissakes.

[Old and In the Way]

12. The PR statement has been retracted.

Reason: Gross Stupidity


Earlier today, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) released a document about the Speaker’s use of copyrighted/trademarked C-SPAN material on a Congressional website. The document was based upon a conversation that RSC staff had with Barry Katz, the Manager of C-SPAN Video Assets (and the employee identified as being directly responsible for answering questions to Congress about the use of C-SPAN material).

Bruce Collins, the Corporate Vice President and General Counsel of C-SPAN, called post release and said that the information provided by the C-SPAN employee to the RSC was incorrect.

Given this contradictory information, the RSC wanted to be the first set the record straight and withdraw the information included in the release.

http://www.chriskinnan.com/?p=34

Thanks for being the 1st (?) to set the record straight, Republican Study Committee (is there a better oxymoron?). Too bad such an assinine charge was contemplated in the 1st place.

I agree with Kos on the larger issue-

"Either force chamber proceedings taped by C-SPAN to be public domain, or kick them out of the chamber and install government-owned cameras to cover the proceedings. By being public domain, C-SPAN could still air them on their channels without holding an undemocratic stranglehold on the information."