Church 'N Statement

C-SPAN Truthy about Google Agreement

Quick question, Google: Why do you care where surfers get content from? It states clearly in your mission statement that you wish to make the "world's information...universally accessible." That sounds like one possible path to not being evil.

So it makes sense that you would enter into a non-exclusive contract with C-SPAN to retain footage of Stephen Colbert's White House Correspondents Dinner presentation. On the surface it appears that you successfully negotiated to keep "accessible" on the web a notable documentation of public discontent with the White House and The Press. How could you have known that while you signed your agreement for non-exclusivity C-SPAN was shooting down proposals with other outlets to show the very same footage, "perplexing" youtube representatives?

This new realm of online content sharing is very confusing, even though it is a revolution you helped to pioneer. This environment lends privilege to content over specific media outlets through search engines that connect users with their desired content regardless of what URL they type into their browser.

The sole distinction that results from this climate you constructed is whether content is paid for, or free. There is no distinction made among the web's free content, primarily because of the search mechanism you pioneered.

Then why make an agreement with C-SPAN for the Colbert footage?

I understand, they have a predisposition not to give permission for use of any of their popular copyrighted materials. This shows an undeniable lack of comprehension of the new free-content landscape, on C-SPAN's side. But it does not excuse you from catering to this ineptness.

A recent C-SPAN release reveals a meager attempt at misleading the public and clouding over their inability to recognize the value of viral web dissemination. In their own words, C-SPAN "entered into a non-exclusive arrangement with Google Video in order to increase the Colbert event's free availability."

This doublespeak would make envious the very government they claim to present unfiltered.

How does denying usage on other web outlets "increase...free availability?" Balderdash!

It would be understandable if C-SPAN were a for-profit entity and they were reducing access to their content in lieu of DVD sales of the event. But same release claims: "DVD's are produced essentially at cost." If C-SPAN's goal is to make their content available to the widest audience, then viral dissemination on the web should be their holy grail, not a thorn in the side.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that DVD's are generally produced at cost, and that a bestseller "Colbert's Roast of George W." would give the channel's numbers some welcomed padding at the end of the year. Viral promotion of said title would still prove to be to be negligible at the very worst. It's like arguing that C-SPAN's own "Book TV" features do authors a disservice by promoting titles to book buyers less the author's permission.

It's like saying that an obscure book that is already available at a public or college library is unjustly harmed by being rendered searchable on the web.

You see what you're facilitating, Google?

posted by Stand-up Chris @ 1:26 PM