This Video Belongs To You And Me

To piggyback on Buzzbrockway’s post at Peach Pundit about YouTube warriors, consider the case of Congressional floor (speech) video…. who owns that material, and why has only C-SPAN had ownership and rights to that material… up until now?

Others are at least getting into the biz of selling back to us something that really should belong to us in the first place, least I feel that any and all video generated from the floor of OUR Congress should belong to us — and it should be free to access for any and all YouTube Nation tribal members to use as they see fit.

As the mighty media blogger, Jeff Jarvis says, and I fully agree:

Just as with the presidential debates, that democratic discussion should belong to the people and to truly give it to us, Congress should be doing everything CQ (Congressional Quarterly) is doing — for free.

Jarvis’ post in full is here. Times like this, we need to remind ourselves that we are now The Media.

And if we are, then why are more "traditional" journalists not acting as if they are now The New Media, rather than just waiting around for their bosses to tell 'em how to behave? (Jim Long is just about the lone exception to this sorry state of affairs, bless his new media heart!)

Matt Waite, a reporter for the St. Pete Times, tells it like it is. Preach on Brother Waite, preach on:

I can hear people I know gnashing their teeth already. Why should I do something that costs me time and maybe even money to benefit my employer when I don’t get paid for it? Here’s my response, and it’s two-fold: If you don’t, you run the risk of being first up for layoffs (so you’ll REALLY be uncompensated) and the more skills you have, the better off you are for whatever newspapers evolve into.

Or even if they go away completely. Let’s play fantasyland for a second: newspapers collapse, and all that content goes away. Someone is going to step into that void. Let’s pretend it’s Google and Yahoo and MSN. Do you think for a second they aren’t going to want new media skills? That they’ll be impressed with your paper clippings and your stubborn insistence that you can only write a story for a printed publication?

Come on. Wake up.

Wade Through This

I wrote my U.S. Representative, John Lewis (D), a letter (ok... I took the time at least to send an original email) asking that he support net neutrality regulation and/or net neutrality legislation. Or maybe he could write-up some good kind himself. Heck, at the very least, just please not be led into temptation by hometown lobbyists from massive Atlanta-based telcos. I can't really make heads or tails out of this politico-speak response. Can anyone please offer me your interpretation? Thank you.

Dear Ms. Daughters (Hey, they pasted in the correct name!):

Thank you very much for taking the time to write me with your concerns about the future of information flow on the Internet. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

As you may know, some Internet service providers (ISP's) have made public comments about plans to develop a tiered system that would give a larger bandwidth to preferred websites. There have also been reports that some ISP's have restricted access to certain websites to prevent their customers from accessing and using these websites. To pre-empt these plans, a coalition of software and high-technology firms such as Amazon,com, Yahoo, Disney, and Microsoft, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging it to "assure that consumers and other Internet users continue to enjoy the unfettered ability to reach lawful content and services." This issue will become a key factor as the debate over the rewriting of the
telecommunications law proceeds.

A major Internet service provider in Georgia recently informed my staff of its plans as it increases its bandwidth. They told my staff that they "will not block or interfere with customers' access to lawful content or applications over the Internet" and have "no intention of unilaterally imposing fees on any Internet company."

(Tricky part is bolded by me, SG.) It does have plans to offer tiered service that will provide additional bandwidth to guarantee some services to customers and offer greater speeds to paying Internet companies. The provider says that a tiered service will reduce costs to consumers by offering greater service variations. (NOTE FROM SG: I assume the "major Internet service provider" mentioned is BellSouth?)

As Congress continues its debate over how to write the new telecommunications law, I will work to ensure that the Internet remains free of predatory efforts to restrict access to the tools that consumers have come to expect. The FCC has declared that Americans are entitled to: access Internet content of their choice, run online applications and services of their choice, connect their choice of devices, and have fair competition among network, application, service and content providers. While these principles will guide FCC policymaking, they do not carry any enforcement power. I believe that the new law should reflect and encourage these principles. (This is a good thing, right? Then again, we are talking about giving mo' power to the FCC - always a scary thought. This is where things get really tricky.)

Thank you again for sharing your views with me about this important issue. I hope that you will continue to contact me with issues that are important to you. Also, please visit my web site at http://www.house.gov/johnlewis for more information on legislation that interests you.

Sincerely,
John Lewis
Member of Congress