As good as its programming can be I've heard the BBC referred to as the "Big Bully on Campus." I'm not sure the "method" in the cartoon gets around Google's subscription DRM player encryption and all that. I only know that when I've gone looking for public domain footage on google -- say of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima -- I can only get at the material if I use the steps I've outlined to access the physical file and then transcode it to something I can use. Those steps may be mundane to some. But it took me awhile to discover a way to access that material. My motivation in making the cartoon was not to bring down Google's stock price, but to share the information with my fellow videobloggers in case anyone has been frothing at the mouth to get that archival footage.
I'm pretty sure that the US public domain material, newsreels and such produced by the US government, are considered worldwide public domain so they are yours too even though you're a Brit. It's not really clear to a lot of folks if Google's library project is good or bad. On the plus side it could increase access to content a lot. On the negative side, libraries have traditionally been non- profit organizations whose mission is to increase the public good of access to information. Critics argue that Google is a private enterprise whose mission is profit maximization and that can put it at odds with the public weal. Further they point out that google has been fairly secretive about what it's doing and it's using an opt-out strategy. Opt out is ethically problematic. People on this list should be familiar with opt-out's drawbacks: think MyHeavy.com and others. There are more subtle but real problems surrounding issues of search ranking and fairness. In truth, I made the cartoon and publicized it here because as content creators the disposition, use and misuse of information concerns this community. I also thought some of my colleagues might like to get at that public domain video as I have wanted to in the past. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and support Rupert. More videos of your daughter doing obsessive things, please. Cheers --- In [email protected], Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <joeyprofit@> > 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 <david@> 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] >
