[Infowarrior] - MSNBC restricts Internet redistribution of Dem debate

[Richard Forno]

MSNBC restricts Internet redistribution of debate; Joe Biden ignores them

By Nate Anderson | Published: April 30, 2007 - 05:30AM CT

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070430-msnbc-supplies-gas-matches-to-
bloggers-after-limiting-use-of-debate-footage.html

The Democratic presidential contenders gathered for their first debate last
week, a debate that MSNBC broadcast, webcast, and blogged. All well and
good. But then MSNBC's rules for reusing debate footage surfaced, and
journalism guru Jeff Jarvis nearly burst an artery in his anger over the
restrictions. Most egregious was MSNBC's claim that no footage could be
distributed on the Internet, but not far behind was the network's claim that
no one was allowed to use excerpts after May 26, 2007, and could not archive
them, either.

MSNBC seems to have come down with the sort of amnesia that removes all
memory of "fair use" for news reporting, criticism, and commentary, but it's
not a total disaster for citizens: the debate is archived and available in
its entirety on the network's website.

That's not enough for Jarvis, who wants to see all the candidate responses
chopped up and made available on YouTube or other outlets. He's not the only
one. Lawrence Lessig and 75 other signatories have sent a letter to the RNC
and DNC, asking both parties to require that all future debates be made
freely available using Creative Commons licenses. When you can convince
everyone from Michelle Malkin to Arianna Huffington to sign onto something,
true bipartisanship has officially been achieved.

MSNBC hasn't fared well in the whole debacle, coming under fire from just
about everyone (Media Matters even castigated the network for sexist
coverage of the debate), and it's not even clear that the restrictions
actually did anything for the network but give it a black eye. Clips from
the debate already populate YouTube, many of them apparently posted by Joe
Biden's own campaign. Although the spectacle of MSNBC tangling with Biden
over takedown notices would be entertaining, don't expect it to happen; no
one, not even soulless TV network executives, wants to be seen as a quasher
of democratic (in both senses) give-and-take.

MSNBC obviously paid for the debate production costs and wants a return on
its investment, but stirring up the blogosphere's wrath isn't the way to get
it. The episode, while not reflecting well on MSNBC, doesn't make the
candidates look so hot, either. Given that these sorts of events are crafted
after much careful back-and-forth by lawyers and campaign strategists, who
thought that agreeing to these restrictions was a good idea? Or did some
candidates truly believe that limiting Internet access to their words was a
safer course than making them easily available? The Internet has already
shown that it won't abide this sort of stage-managing.