Why The Internet Archive Says It Can Show You Every TV News Program
from the and-why-the-tv-news-guys-may-disagree dept
Like many folks, I saw the news today about the always-wonderful Internet Archive offering up a treasure trove of TV news broadcasting and thought it was a great thing. They're basically making available every TV news recording they could get from 2009 forward, including all of the major TV networks, the news channels (CNN, Fox News, etc.), etc. They'll also have a bunch of local TV broadcasts as well, which is cool. All in all, it's launching with 350,000 clips. They'll even have recordings of The Daily Show as a part of the archive -- which seems fitting, since Internet Archive mastermind Brewster Kahle noted that with this collection, they can "let a thousand Jon Stewarts bloom" by letting them find interesting (or contradictory) news clips.You can go check out the TVNews Search & Borrow site right now. The search feature is pretty cool, combing through closed captions to find the relevant content. So it's neat to do a quick search on topics of interest and see what they turn up. Of course, there are still a few kinks to work out. Out of curiosity, I did a search on SOPA, and got back some relevant news stories (including the Jon Stewart story about blackout day. But... I also got a bunch of Spanish-language programs about soup. Even when I limited the language to English. I assume those things will get better over time. Each clip is split into 30 second increments, so it's not like you're automatically getting the full broadcast, though you can piece together the clips.
And it's not just a "historical" archive. They're going to continue to add to it, with new clips being available 24-hours after they air.
Of course, all of this made me wonder about the copyright issues involved. The NY Times had this somewhat cryptic statement:
The act of copying all this news material is protected under a federal copyright agreement signed in 1976. That was in reaction to a challenge to a news assembly project started by Vanderbilt University in 1968.I was curious about that, and a few people pointed me to 17 USC 108 (f)(3), which notes that:
nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reproduction by lending of a limited number of copies and excerpts by a library or archives of an audiovisual news program subject to [a few other clauses concerning archives]...This is based on the Vanderbilt Television News Archive, which the Internet Archive directly calls out in its own announcement as being the inspiration for this new project. Inspiration... and legal helper.
Here's a bit of historical perspective from Historians.org:
Indeed, in the early days of the archive, CBS had sued for copyright infringement, claiming that broadcasts could not be recorded without the permission of the networks. At the time of the lawsuit, Congress was in the process of revising the copyright law. Congress recognized the growing importance and influence of television media on American culture, thought, and politics, and felt that news broadcasts should have special protection under the copyright law, to allow the American people access to their own history. Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee introduced an amendment to the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act to give universities and archives the right to record news broadcasts off-air and to make a limited number of copies for research purposes. Following the enactment of the new law with this provision, CBS and Vanderbilt mutually withdrew from the lawsuit.But does that really make the Internet Archive legal? I'm not so sure the TV guys are going to see it that way. That same report at Historians.org notes that Vanderbilt is not allowed to share nearly all of its collection online -- and it also notes that "The advent of the Internet and the consequent possibility of making digital copies and lending them online have, however, raised new legal problems that need to be resolved." I would imagine that a key one among them is whether or not the Internet Archives' setup qualifies as "lending a limited number of copies."
One would hope that an informed court would recognize that this fits with the intent of Congress in creating this kind of exception, though I fear that the networks are likely to fight pretty hard on this one, even as it seems like this service could really benefit them as well as others, rather than really take away from anything they do.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: archives, broadcasts, copyright, exceptions, tv news
Companies: internet archive
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Anyone tell the take down bots that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congress recognized the growing importance and influence of television media on American culture, thought, and politics, and felt that news broadcasts should have special protection under the copyright law, to allow the American people access to their own history.
Congress felt that news should have special protection under copyright law. That is to say, the protection was to serve the American people, not to deny them something.
Normally, when we hear about copyright protecting something, it's in the context of the American people being denied access to it.
Refreshing perspective.
COMBB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This comment is full of win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reproduction by lending of a limited number..."
Diction.Nary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hot Topics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hot Topics
What happens if a news organization gets the story wrong? What about if they want to bury a story?
These are the problems of trying to hold control on a story. It also ensures that the people that want a different view can't get it
The only ones that can fight these stories that could possibly be directed are the big ones that are already large enough to absorb these ridiculous stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hot Topics
There may also be something in copyright for that already. There is a fair use claim about commentary. If you're pointing out incorrect or conflicting reports from the same place, it's most definitely commentary.
Now, since there's no punishment for suing even though there's a fair uses claim, it doesn't matter. A big news company can tie someone up in court until the smaller company runs out of money.
Yeah, copyright needs rewritten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hot Topics
That way no one could complain that news reports were being copied while it was still relevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hot Topics
It's called the Triple-M principle;
"MINE! MINE! MINE!"
Seriously, that's all you need to explain why companies care about copyright on material that isn't profitable for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hot Topics
Obviously this would need to be polished but it's a win-win strategy because if the copyright owners can maintain a community, a fan base around the work it will take long before they actually can't make any revenue out of it (Star Wars, any1?). And on the other hand the public isn't deprived from niche or old works that are long shelved accumulating dust and decaying in the studios/labels/etc.
And I'd love to see Hollywood keep their mystic accounting practices where movies barely break even if they actually reach that difficult milestone. I heard the Avengers barely made it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hot Topics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hot Topics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... with the Standard Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... with the Standard Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why should this matter? Copyright exists to benefit the public, not rights holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, most people would use the clips to show how news organizations get it wrong. But that's a benefit to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
allow me to repeat that: 'our' (sic) (in)justice system has ENSHRINED IN CASE LAW that 'news' organizations are under NO, ZERO obligation to report news that is 'truthful'...
(was a case where reporters were doing a story on BGH in milk, and faux news altered/pulled the coverage, and fired the reporters; they sued, and -as i recall- *technically* they 'won', but they were/are forever smeared by fux news...)
don't you get it yet ? ? ?
being held to standards of 'truth', 'laws', and -most particularly- punishment is ONLY for the 99%, the 1% skates...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez, I mean the only half-way decent (and given her lackadaisical interviewing style, it sadly is only half-way decent) news show is Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.
The only truly authentic "liberal" or "progressive" show (truth-containing content) are Bonnie Faulkner's Guns and Butter Show on KPFA out of Berkeley and tucradio.org out of Northern California.
I'm perplexed anyone would be interested in the mindless, zero-content drivel which they claim to be "news" . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why Fox and others can lie to you
Reagan and the Fairness Doctrine destroyed news by combining news with edutainment.
Further, we have to recognize that his media deregulation policies have screwed us over immensely. The FCC has been handicapped in regulating the internet and Net Neutrality and they don't have the manpower to really fight corporations as AT&T and Verizon are trying to assert "First Amendment" rights on control of networks similar to the robber barons of the 1880s.
Geez, I mean the only half-way decent (and given her lackadaisical interviewing style, it sadly is only half-way decent) news show is Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.
Thom Hartmann and the Big Picture
The Young Turks
Mother Jones
Huffington Post Live
I believe there are more liberal views online than just Amy Goodman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about we archive all of it and let people choose what they want to watch or listen to, if at all? Whether it's propaganda or not is another issue - it's a historical document. Do we make this content available to the world or keep it locked up for a hundred years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hedging 101
1) Archive has only the one copy, that it's lending to the limited number of people who go to the site (e.g., monthly uniques / global population [?])
2) Clips split into 30 sec. segments, for the upcoming Fair Use argument.
3) There's a lot of goodwill for the Archive folks already, so potential lawsuits may backfire.
4) Precedent of Congressional Intervention already in place.
5) Documenting history, and other laudable goals
Conclusion: Go for it and see what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forever minus Jack Valenti
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forever minus Jack Valenti
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forever minus Jack Valenti
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forever minus Jack Valenti
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this is where all electronic libraries and lending sites will fall down - they have no way to assure that the work was "returned". Instead, they are giving away an infinite number of copies, with no way to know if they are being returned or kept.
Legally, they are pretty much in the hole here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is easy, just say that they are limiting the number of copies to the exact number of requests made for copies. When they try and say that is unlimited, use their own argument put forth in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186.
"does indeed have the latitude to retroactively extend terms, so long as the individual extensions are also for "limited times,"
Each increase in the number of copies lent is limited to 1 copy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limited number of copies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited number of copies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet does not mean NOT limited
"Howard Baker of Tennessee introduced an amendment to the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act to give universities and archives the right to record news broadcasts off-air and to make a limited number of copies for research purposes. Following the enactment of the new law with this provision, CBS and Vanderbilt mutually withdrew from the lawsuit.
But does that really make the Internet Archive legal? I'm not so sure the TV guys are going to see it that way. "
Mike, you miss the forest for the trees. Just because the Internet is available to all does not equate to unlimited copies. Anyone in London can walk into any Library in London. There are over 15MILLION people here. Does that mean the libraries are making 15Million copies available? Of course not. Archive.org is making available ONLY those number of copies that have been actually accessed.
If they are smart they will execute a cut-off after awhile or at least show that they have initiated a limit which has not been reached.
Paul Keating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]