Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

Boing Boing: Why was Colbert press corps video removed from YouTube?

search

Decius
Picture of Decius
Decius's Pics
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

Decius's topics
Arts
  Literature
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Literature
  Movies
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films
  Music
   Electronic Music
Business
  Finance & Accounting
  Tech Industry
  Telecom Industry
  Management
  Markets & Investing
Games
Health and Wellness
Home and Garden
  Parenting
Miscellaneous
  Humor
  MemeStreams
Current Events
  War on Terrorism
Recreation
  Cars and Trucks
  Travel
Local Information
  United States
   SF Bay Area
    SF Bay Area News
Science
  Biology
  History
  Math
  Nano Tech
  Physics
Society
  Economics
  Politics and Law
   Civil Liberties
    Internet Civil Liberties
    Surveillance
   Intellectual Property
  Media
   Blogging
Sports
Technology
  Computer Security
  Macintosh
  Spam
  High Tech Developments

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
Boing Boing: Why was Colbert press corps video removed from YouTube?
Topic: Politics and Law 9:12 pm EDT, May  4, 2006

YouTube has taken down the videos [of Colbert's performance], citing copyright infringement.

This could be an important moment. A large segment of the Internet viewing public wants access to Colbert's video. Its owned by CSPAN. CSPAN videos are not in the public domain. This is something that most people don't understand and aren't prepared to hear. Now a large number of people are hearing it, and it will be interesting to see how they react.

The bottom line is that this stuff is organized this way because it affords control. If this content was in the public domain it would be recontextualized all over the place. The government is afraid of sampling. This is why the Supreme Court doesn't allow recordings of cases to get out. They don't want to be sound bitten by the press, which is notoriously bad at dumbing down Supreme Court decisions to the point where the explanations have no relationship to what actually happened.

For example, look up news stories about the Hamdi decision, which the Administration clearly won. Bush got the right to detain enemy combatents indefinately without trial, as long as some internal process exists for determining whether the right people are being held, at a standard of "guilty until proven innocent." The press coverage called it a rebuke for the Administration and gushes about a fine day for individual rights. It would be positively orwellian if it was the product of malice rather then simple failure to grasp what was going on.

Now, thats the objective press. Put this same content in the hands of someone with an agenda to push and you get, well, the right wing's ridiculous exaggeration of Kelo V. New London.

Both sides to this debate have legitimate perspectives. The people feel like they ought to own the recordings of the proceedings of their government. The government doesn't want to be beat down for every verbal misstep they make on the floor. Over time I think you're going to see the people push on this more and more, and eventually the government will be forced to acquiesce or evolve in some way that makes their process more suited to an age of free information.

Boing Boing: Why was Colbert press corps video removed from YouTube?



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0