A Comedian's Riff on Bush Prompts an E-Spat (Colbert - C-SPAN v YouTube)

[NashVegas]

On Wednesday, C-Span, the nonprofit network that first showed Mr. Colbert's speech, wrote letters to the video sites YouTube.com and ifilm.com, demanding that the clips of the speech be taken off their Web sites. The action was a first for C-Span, whose prime-time schedule tends to feature events like Congressional hearings on auto fuel-economy standards.

....

But as became clear later in the week, this was a business decision, not a political one. Not only is the entire event available to be streamed at C-Span's Web site, c-span.org, but the network is selling DVD's of the event for $24.95, including speeches and a comedy routine by President Bush with a President Bush imitator.

And C-Span gave permission to Google Videos to carry the Colbert speech beginning Friday. The arrangement, which came with the stipulation that Google Videos provide the entire event and a clip of Mr. Bush's entire routine as well, is a one-time deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/technology/08colbert.html

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Isn't C-Span's video copyright-free?

It's a government entity, isn't it???:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

3. These are public events after all....

[onenote]

26. "public events"?

Anything but. Invitation only, private event. The fact it was televised no more makes it public than televising the Super Bowl makes it public...
onenote

[xultar]

5. They are planning on selling DVDs of that WHCD. I suppose if the

best part is all over the web who will buy.

It is always about $$$$$.

[progressoid]

12. It's not a gov't entity. It's a cable TV operation.

C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company, created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. Our mission is to provide public access to the political process. C-SPAN receives no government funding; operations are funded by fees paid by cable and satellite affiliates who carry C-SPAN programming.

[robbedvoter]

2. Non-political - but requires them to carry Il Dunce too

How ver equal timey of them! If only they'd been like this in our favor as well! Shees!
Although it's satisfying to see them bending over backwards to push their lamo...Times - they are a-changing!

[JPZenger]

4. CSPAN is owned by cable companies

I believe CSPAN is owned by a consortium of cable companies. It is not a public agency, but was given permission to tape congressional sessions. I imagine CSPAN is probably starved for funds and is looking at a rare chance to bring in some spare cash.

[acmejack]

6. That's the deal exactly.

They're selling it & want that money! I didn't mind buying it (but I only did it because I was having a hassle capturing it).

[xxqqqzme]

58. my DVD came in the mail yesterday.

[oldtime dfl_er]

8. I thought it was one of those deals where

in order to use the "public" airwaves, the cable channels have to do public service broadcasting of some kind. It doesn't seem right to me that they should then take something that was broadcast on that public service channel and make money off it.


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1412071

[wtmusic]

10. It is a private non-profit organization

and it receives no funding from any government source, has no contract with the government, and doesn't sell sponsorships or advertising.

Nonetheless, the organization owns the intellectual property to all of their taped footage. And although they've done a pretty good job of providing balanced coverage, the opportunity certainly exists for introducing bias.

[zanne]

51. I thought C-Span was owned by the American Enterprise Institute...

They're featured on C-Span almost every day.

[Up2Late]

11. I'm fairly sure Cable Television has a different set of rules from...

...Broadcast Television.

For one, Cable signals are NOT broadcast. A broadcast is, as it's name implies, sent out far and wide, and anyone with a receiver can view it, cable television is an electrical signal that you have to hook up to and pay to get (usually).

Which brings us to #2, Cable does not use "public airwaves," it sent out and is contained within a system of wires and switches, which are (usually) privately owned by the cable companies.

[MADem]

13. It's a pity that people with a rabbit ears can't get CSPAN

In many locations, it doesn't even come with basic cable. You have to get the expanded package to get your "gift from the cable company."

[daleo]

32. But cable is (or was, at any rate) a regulated monopoly

So, there is a public interest involved.

[crispini]

53. Yes, and "Fair Use" is dead anyway.

Too bad.

[IndyOp]

24. PBS sells stuff to raise $ and the only time I mind that is when

the sell stuff related to kids' shows. I don't like marketing Big Bird...

[SemperEadem]

48. it wasn't broadcast; it was cablecast

therefore, it's not free to reuse their video without written permission. That little copyright insignia at the end of their programming says they're copyritten... and the copyright holder should be paid for use of their material.

[SoCalDem]

27. They should just follow their Washington Journal model

People who support *²...get the puppet show only
People who support Colbert........get the funny part (his bit)
People who support others......... get the c-span awards part

Wonder which would generate more funds for c-span

[tanyev]

7. But will they sell DVD without Bush's "comedy" routine on it?

I'd be willing to pay a little more.

[MADem]

14. They want twenty five bucks for it...that's just greed

Wait a few months, they'll show it again at three in the morning. Hell, ten bucks is more like it. It's not like they're trying to recoup an inordinate amount of actor fees. Colbert's honorarium was twenty grand, and the dues and tickets covered that and the dinner.

[lonestarnot]

9. and all the merchandise has been sold at the Nation!

[longship]

15. Nothing wrong with this

C-SPAN does an invaluable service to the nation by reporting important government events in a completely neutral sense--in fact without any commentary at all. If C-SPAN can recoup some of their expenses by selling video DVDs, more power to them. As long as they continue to make the videos available for free viewing on their Web site, what's the problem?

[WHAT]

16. I agree, I bought a copy...

mostly because I want to start a "history" box for grandchildren. I want to collect a chest of things like this that might be interesting twenty or thirty years down the road to children born today. Also, I like the idea of the Colbert routine given in context...it makes more sense historically.

I don't have cspan. If I could afford it, I would donate cspan tapes to the library so that people could get some "news" in context who otherwise don't have it available to them. Just having the Colbert routine alone seems reflective of cm editing.

[Joyce]

34. Exactly -- but they remove certain videos from the archives!

I wanted to view again online the fantastic panel discussion on "the Case for Impeachment" -- info. below:

Presidential Impeachment Proposals

New York, New York (United States)
ID: 191420 - 03/02/2006 - 2:03 - $60.00

When I scrolled back to March 2, 2006 I found hundreds of other programs dating back to December 2005 (practically ALL of them, I believe). However, the one program that I wanted to watch had been removed. "SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!" It was very damaging to the Bush Administration. Now if anyone wants to view it, it's necessary to pay $60.00 to get a copy. Outrageous! But, in some ways, it's priceless. I wanted to get a copy while it was available, but didn't get it done. RATS!

and now -- another video that's damaging to Bush -- the Colbert skit -- we must pay for. I have to think that it's about the content. Otherwise, why aren't they charging for all of the previous programs? If you scroll backwards through "Recent Programs," you'll see that there are still hundreds of others that you can view for free online.
:think: :grr: :cry: :banghead: :rant:

[gkhouston]

50. you can view the Colbert skit for free online

I've just watched it again. They've even extracted it from the program so you have the option of watching his speech without having to see the rest of the program first, if you like.

[Mr_Scarecrow]

17. Funny

has a well-known liberal bias.

[stanwyck]

19. you mean

you don't find Dennis Miller, Colin Quinn, or Drew Carey "funny"?
Me either.

[stanwyck]

18. I'm still curious

about the networks not showing any of the Colbert portion of the evening. The "two-Bushes" schtick was all over the airwaves. But no Colbert. Barely a mention.
My son, a Marine, hadn't even heard of the Colbert segment. He had seen and heard about the "hilarious" two-Bushes routine. He watched the Colbert speech this weekend at CSPAN's site. And he laughed and laughed. (surprising, since Colbert "wasn't funny.")
We showed Colbert to guests Saturday night...they hadn't even heard of the speech. And neither had my daughter, a firebrand liberal activist. That was disappointing.
Colbert tapped into something. The anger, I guess. And he showed Bush's vulnerability. It's surprising the reaction of people who see the speech. Here he is, a comic from cable TV, who is building this cult following from an after dinner speech. He definitely struck a chord.
Meanwhile, the networks continue to bury the lead.

[al bupp]

20. It was a "The Emperor has No Clothes Moment"

That's for sure.

[Tuttle]

56. Colbert showed * a mirror

and he showed the press correspondents how to hold that mirror, as well

btw, the link to Google
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

you won't see the bobbleheads, unless you click the link for them

Tut-tut

[progressoid]

21. He also portrayed the media accurately.

THAT'S why they are burying it. Too embarrassing and accurate.

[progressivebydesign]

22. Gee.. Google HAD to include Bush's lame routine???

And the Colbert-only clips were sued against?? Gosh.. I don't think CSPAN has an agenda, do you??

[grasswire]

23. you can still see it at abc news

with the extra bonus that during Colbert's "audition tape" the ABC camera stays focused on Bush's face the whole time.

http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/050306/_a/how-funny-was-he/20060503104009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[JoFerret]

30. Coke jaw on overtime

.

[SoCalDem]

25. Hey c-span.. We don't WANT the puppet show part of the video

get over it

[tomreedtoon]

28. Will they buy more than 1 microphone and 1 camera?

I did buy the video, partially to help out this impoverished, pathetic, boring network that gets less and less financial support from the government each day. (Yes, boring, but in the case of such coverage as the Colbert video, absolutely vital to sustain.)

You do understand that "Saturday Night Live" was telling the truth when they said, "C-SPAN covered the event by sending our camera. The only one we have. And our only microphone." As opposed to the hundreds of cameras that the whore media aim at whatever the White House tells them to aim it at.

[Voltaire99]

33. Still the only network...

...where you can see footage of antiwar marches, find Lewis Lapham being interviewed, or listen to Daniel Ellsberg field calls.

That's somewhat short of "pathetic, boring" and rather closer to vital, necessary.

[greiner3]

29. Screw 'em;

I've got my copy and they'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers if they want to try to get it from me.

:rofl:

[Bush_MUST_Go]

31. Why doesn't Colbert tape a repeat performance?

He can sell them & split the profits with the Democratic party. That would be a real public service.

[Rainscents]

35. C-SPAN Asks Sites to Pull Colbert

Associated Press 19:14 PM May, 08, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Political comedy often is intended to stir controversy, but this doesn't usually involve broadcasting rights and the public affairs network C-SPAN.

The cable network asked two internet video providers, YouTube and Ifilm, to pull clips of Stephen Colbert's April 29 performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner from their websites.

More...

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70849-0.html?tw=wn_politics_1

[Viva_La_Revolution]

36. ABC has it up

But I do wonder why CSPAN is making such a fuss about this, when we have been posting their programing for years. :shrug:

[Rainscents]

37. Hi Viva!

Only thing I can think of it, they have it on DVD now and they want to make money off it. :shrug:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

39. Hi! You may be right...

It is at the top of every download list. :)

[sandnsea]

42. They always make a fuss

Anybody who posts too much C-Span ends up with a cease and desist. I know one company that posts full congressional speeches on congressional web sites, I don't know what kind of licensing they may have. I'm not sure who all posts C-Span, but it seems like it's all very short clips in order to be considered fair use.

[salvorhardin]

38. It would have been nice to post the most important sentence in the article

On May 5, two days after YouTube received C-SPAN's letter, the Colbert video was publicly available through an agreement with Google Video.

Link to Colbert video at Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879&q=colbert

[Rainscents]

40. So, it looks like there were back door deal... sneaky basters!!!

[salvorhardin]

41. I guess I don't see what the big deal is

CSPAN is a private entity. They own the copyright and are free to enforce it as well as sell rights to the performance. It's not like CSPAN is making it unavailable.

[sandnsea]

43. The performance doesn't bother me

What bothers me is that they're the only entity with the right to tape Congress. They harrass people about those clips too and I don't think that's right. Nobody should own exclusive rights to broadcast Congress.

[Ghost Dog]

44. .

[high density]

49. Yeah but who pays for the camera operators and the equipment?

I assume this is all of C-SPAN's stuff.

[sandnsea]

52. You and me

Through our cable and satellite payments.

[crikkett]

55. Hmm... Google can better track you, and

I can imagine that it would be more difficult for Hayden, et. al. to not-subpoena YouTube's access data.
:tinfoilhat:

[Catherine Vincent]

45. I don't see what the problem is.

I've purchased videos from cspan in the past.

[johnlal]

46. You can't blame C-Span

It was a shock for C-Span to find anything entertaining on its network. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the elevator music that is played while Congressmen mill about the chamber shaking hands and discussing ways to further screw us. But it must have taken C-Span completely off-guard to have an actual biting, satirical, comedy act on. I wouldn't let anybody glom off that bit. You never know when the next one will be coming.

[trudyco]

47. So can they track you if you buy it, but you could be anonymous

on the other sites?

Just curious in a paranoid sort of way. Can't even buy books with cash these days without being tracked.

This soccer mom doesn't know how itubes et al works. Sigh. Becoming a dinosaur (well at least not a DINO).

[Placebo]

54. Have they requested that Bush's skit be pulled?

If not, this is bullshit.

[AmericanErrorist]

57. What website

(not named Google Video) is running the Bush skit?

[shrike]

59. So why are we expected to be civil when they never are?

Was it "civil" to call Clinton a rapist? (And a traitor, and a seller of secrets to the Chinese, etc.)

Was it civil to call Hillary a lesbian or the adulterous lover of Foster/Hubbell? (They never did make up their minds, did they?)

Was it "nice" of Robert Bork to remark, at a dinner, that in the good old days "We'd have hung (Clinton)"?

Was it nice of all these lackeys to seethe with venom and host endless shriekfests on cable?

One set of rules for them, another set for us.

Anybody remember what Cohen's take on all of the Clinton venom