Remember that the NARA material was paid for by US taxpayers, and so the argument would have been made that it wrong to freely distribute it globally without adequate return or protection. BALLS.
This is where people who understand and care need to make their voices heard. The people making the decisions in places like the NARA just DON'T UNDERSTAND what's at stake, and what the opportunities are. And I think you're right to be angry at Google, David - they are pushing a form of DRM for their own commercial gain when they *should* be advising NARA to set the content free. "Don't do evil" - hmm. Google could easily make money from it in other, less empire- building ways. I am in no doubt that the committees in the NARA that chose this route did not have a good understanding of the future of media distribution and the potential importance of their decision. They will be stuck in an old-media mentality, listening to their advisers: Google. We are about to face a similar problem in the UK. The BBC are putting their massive archive online, and they are obsessed with DRM. In the UK, everyone with a TV pays a $200+ license fee (tax) each year to fund the BBC. It has no commercials or sponsors. It's OURS. The BBC website is beautiful, but the BBC is a massive bureaucratic, old-media beast and its management are locked in an outmoded mindset, and are choosing their technology based on this. They have rejected Quicktime and Flash as formats because they have been told that they don't have adequate DRM or quality - I suspect that they have been sold a line by Microsoft. They have been ramping up their rights clauses in their contracts with independent producers, being very hardline about negotiation on this, and are terrified of being accused of 'giving away' content paid for by taxpayers without getting adequate return. This was a massive opportunity for them and for all of us, and it looks like they're going to blow it. And they are very poorly advised. And all of us have to sit back and watch. Are there pressure groups or organisations with strong voices who believe in protecting public domain media and encouraging free internet distribution for this kind of stuff? Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org On 24 Jan 2007, at 02:02, David wrote: You are correct on one point: I should be (and I am) irritated at NARA for its inaction in making these materials widely available. That content is ours: yours, mine and everyone's. That's part of my motivation for making the video and disseminating the methods you can use to gain access to your cultural heritage. It's naive to think that Google gets no benefit from digitizing and serving these materials. If they were doing it as a public service then they would make the material available in an open source, freely available, editable format. They've gone to extra expense to fence it off. The reason they're keeping it in a proprietary format is because they see profit in doing so, both presently and in the future. At present they benefit from increased traffic, so your assertion that "they are losing money" is not proven. And, besides, they're not making the material available, they're making it viewable. Unless you use the methods outlined in my cartoon or some form of screenscraping, those materials aren't available to you for your use, they're only viewable by you, through the Google player or on the Google website. And I remind you that the content we're discussing is public domain. It belongs to everyone. I think it's justifiable to get angry at a giant corporation for appropriating a public asset, especially since the corporation in question, Google, has gone to great lengths to advertise itself as a humane, benevolent, progressive company, a guardian of our digital rights and well being. --- In [email protected], "Joey Profit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not to play devils advocate (but I'm going to) your anger at google > seems unjustified. I'm not sure what hoops you have to jump through > to gain access to a file or video in the NARA but I'm willing to bet > there is a cost associated with retrieving said information. Even if > it's as simple as paying a guy or gal to pull the tape off a rack. > Should the archive itself pay those fees? Maybe. They probably make > you jump through hoops as a deterrent. I'm willing to bet that google > pays a fee to obtain copies of those films. Or has hired lawyers and > others to jump through the hoops. That being said who are you to > dictate how google retransmits that data. Google isn't making any > money off of putting that video up on Google Video. In fact, if > anything they are losing money just by making it available in the > first place. Bandwidth costs etc. So who should you be upset with? > probably the NARA for not putting the content on line and free for > people to download. > > On 23/01/07, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey all. My recent cartoon called "Screw Google" may help someone who > > is trying to find a method to download and edit Google, Youtube and > > other videos. It's available on blip at: http://blip.tv/file/134228 or > > on my blogger site: hassleheadnews.blogspot.com. The idea behind the > > video is this: Google has been digitizing NARA (National Archives and > > Records Administration) videos into a proprietary format. These > > materials are public domain and instead of making them broadly > > available, Google is presenting them in a way that allows us to look > > but not touch. To get these same materials from NARA you have to jump > > through fiery hoops. If you don't have a screenscraper, you can use > > the methods presented in the video I referenced above to get footage > > of, say, the Marines raising the American flag on Iwo Jima or any other > > of a hundred thousand Public Domain videos. It's axiomatic that Public > > Domain material can never be copyrighted by inclusion in another > > format, so when you convert these videos, the underlying data is yours > > to use. Hope this contribution is fun and helpful. > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
