Comments on: C-SPAN’s Resistance to Internet Streaming http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/09/c-spans-resistance-to-internet-streaming/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:24:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Info/Law » C-SPAN on iTunes http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/09/c-spans-resistance-to-internet-streaming/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Info/Law » C-SPAN on iTunes Tue, 23 May 2006 21:15:14 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/09/c-spans-resistance-to-internet-stream#comment-54 [...] That’s the same routine that, as I wrote previously, C-SPAN demanded be taken down from YouTube and IFILM, consistent with its general policy against permissions for internet streaming. Apparently, though, the revenue goes to Audible.com, which distributes C-SPAN content. Snippets from the Times: C-Span says it owns anything it films with its own cameras — that is, everything that appears on its three channels except for what is said on the floor of the House and Senate, where government cameras are used. [...] [...] That’s the same routine that, as I wrote previously, C-SPAN demanded be taken down from YouTube and IFILM, consistent with its general policy against permissions for internet streaming. Apparently, though, the revenue goes to Audible.com, which distributes C-SPAN content. Snippets from the Times: C-Span says it owns anything it films with its own cameras — that is, everything that appears on its three channels except for what is said on the floor of the House and Senate, where government cameras are used. [...]

]]> By: Michael Dale http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/09/c-spans-resistance-to-internet-streaming/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Michael Dale Thu, 11 May 2006 22:51:39 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/09/c-spans-resistance-to-internet-stream#comment-15 We are de-trade marking C-SPAN’s footage of public domain material, putting it back into the public domain. We leverage the university Intellectual Property resources to confront c-span on their appropriation of public domain material, and have so far been successful in de-appropriating this public domain footage. We have been distributing it in its entirety in both streamable and broadcast quality in a all open source patent free video streaming solution. Additionally the archive system we use to distribute the footage is all open sources and encourages participatory mediations or scripts on the meta data that we harvest through close captions and onscreen text. For example one overlay pulls in campaign contribution data for the given speaker and displays it along side the video clips. http://metavid.ucsc.edu We are de-trade marking C-SPAN’s footage of public domain material, putting it back into the public domain.

We leverage the university Intellectual Property resources to confront c-span on their appropriation of public domain material, and have so far been successful in de-appropriating this public domain footage.

We have been distributing it in its entirety in both streamable and broadcast quality in a all open source patent free video streaming solution. Additionally the archive system we use to distribute the footage is all open sources and encourages participatory mediations or scripts on the meta data that we harvest through close captions and onscreen text. For example one overlay pulls in campaign contribution data for the given speaker and displays it along side the video clips.

http://metavid.ucsc.edu

]]> By: Bruce Regal http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/09/c-spans-resistance-to-internet-streaming/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Bruce Regal Thu, 11 May 2006 17:03:11 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/05/09/c-spans-resistance-to-internet-stream#comment-12 As you note, C-Span is an enterprise established and supported by the cable television industry, presumably ultimately because it offers a value-added feature for cable TV subscribers. It is thus unsurprising that C-Span would be reluctant to allow unrestricted retransmission over non-cable company facilities, even if there were no concerns about re-use of C-Span produced material in partisan contexts that would be inconsistent with C-Span's (legitimately important) non-partisan image. As you note, C-Span is an enterprise established and supported by the cable television industry, presumably ultimately because it offers a value-added feature for cable TV subscribers. It is thus unsurprising that C-Span would be reluctant to allow unrestricted retransmission over non-cable company facilities, even if there were no concerns about re-use of C-Span produced material in partisan contexts that would be inconsistent with C-Span’s (legitimately important) non-partisan image.

]]>