Romney-Mickelson video pulled from YouTube

click here to download

On August 2, 2007, Gov. Romney did a radio interview at the WHO Radio studio in Des Moines. I videotaped the 20 minute visit and made it available to the station for its web site.

A few hours later, Romney spokesman Tim Albrecht (Iowa communications director for the campaign) called me and insisted that the video be taken down immediately. His reasoning? At a point during a commercial break on the radio, the host uttered, "While we're off the air". Albrecht suggested what followed should have been treated as off-the-record and therefore the camcorder shouldn't have been recording or that portion shouldn't have been used.

Hardly off the record

The control room had men standing three abreast, plus the producer sitting at a console, who could all hear the off-air exchange. In the studio with the governor was at least two people with the campaign, plus the host and myself, again, listening to the conversation. No reasonable person could expect the governor's comments to be private in those circumstances.

Nevertheless, station management ordered the video pulled while it considered the matter. But before that meeting ever happened, I suspect Romney campaign staffers downloaded it and posted it on their own YouTube area (under the profile of "GovMittRomney"). I didn't give it to them and I controlled the only copies.

Not long after today's phone conversation with Ms. Biber, the campaign faxed a counter-claim to YouTube, who in turn forwarded it to me. In it, they claimed , "...the material was removed or disabled [from YouTube] as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material..." That statement substantially contrasts the conversation I had with Ms. Biber. I assured her the video was mine, that I shot it using my personal camcorder, using my tape.

How did the Romney campaign get the video?

What Biber didn't say may be telling. She didn't claim that the campaign owned the video and had the right to use it for their purposes, nor that they know who the rightful owner is, nor did she claim they sought and received permission to use it for their purposes.

So if the poster knows he doesn't own the video, why would he have the need to challenge ownership? He'd never have used it. How did the campaign come by the video in the first place? Why would they state for the record that my claim is based on a mistake when there are a number of first-hand witnesses to the facts involving the video? It seems reasonable that if the case were to be challenged in court, the campaign would lose. And what would forcing a court fight against a private citizen do to governor's bid for presidency? Wouldn't it make the governor look like a bully? The public might wonder why the governor would steal people's property?

But would they even have to win in court? The simple act of submitting a counter-claim may have a chilling affect on the original claim, so perhaps it's a safe bet that a private citizen from Iowa wouldn't have the resources to fight it in a federal court in Massachusetts. Biber did mention this as a probability.

In my opinion, forcing that kind of an action under these circumstances is a misuse of the courts. The campaign knows it doesn't own the video, so it's morally inept to challenge the original claim.

Chris Bernheisel - photos

Click to Play

Chris Bernheisel of Fremont, Nebraska entering the Ultimate Carrie Underwood Fan / American Idol contest. This version includes photos he submitted with his entry. Courtesy of kiss1075.com (Kiss 107 FM), Des Moines, Iowa.

Viacom v. YouTube

A win for YouTube changes the political climate in Google's favor, meaning new legislation would probably follow public favor, which the lawsuit would promote for the sharing of public domain content.

Furthermore, in simple terms, once aired, content is (or damn well ought to be) public domain. So it follows that YouTube's sharing model falls under fair use of such content.

The Radio Commission (today's FCC) established two things that matter here. First, that the public owns the airwaves; and 2, that the phone company couldn't possibly be able to monitor (and be accountable for) the content that flowed through its privately owned copper (although it uses public rights of way). This is what I believe is the underpinning of Safe Harbor; that you can't hold a media company accountable for everything its pass through its network. Safe Harbor may only be possible because it permits copyright owners to object to content if it owns it, and subsequently get it removed by the site owner. Lawmakers may have felt this would be a rarity, but it turned out to be the norm.

Ultimately, I think this will change the face of copyright law. Or at least we can hope so. Media companies have some catching up to do. Technology is allowing great advances in society and is hampered by current copyright law. Embrace technology. It's a good thing. Figure out, as Google has, to make money by working with the onward flow of technology. Greed and inflexibility are the only things stopping us.

Technology cuts down on Web registrations - USATODAY.com

So I'm a suit, I guess, and I write form letters. That's what people expect when they write to me and complain that we're doing something different. They might try to find a friendly ear (like one of our radio personalities) to touch first, but plenty of the nasty-grams make it past my desk, so I have to either ignore them or try to compose coherent answers. This one deals with the username/password issue lots of sites are requiring.

Is everybody as jaded as this?

[Dear Radio Personality],
I didn't want to receive a form letter from some [company] suit concerning the registration process required to listen to the online broadcast on [radio station], so I chose you to receive this message. Lucky you! I don't have to register to listen to [station] on my radio in my car or my home, so why do I have to do so [to] listen to it online? The service may still be financially free but it is no longer nuisance free. Don't we have enough nuisances in our daily lives already?

So I write:

Thanks for writing to tell us how you feel. I promise that I'm not wearing a suit and this isn't a form letter, so I hope it's OK that I reply to your note.

As a fellow listener, I understand your perspective about nuisances. Interesting how perspectives change on the other side of the glass.

While you say streaming online is free, somebody's paying for the hardware & software, staffing, creative licensing and bandwidth we all use when we listen online -- which is quite different than on-air listening; the more who listen, the higher the cost. To earn its keep, our streaming operations have to demonstrate to advertisers how many people listen and from where. So the sign-in process essentially helps us pay the costs. The alternative is doing what many other broadcasters are doing, which is charging listeners a subscription fee.

We're fortunate because the vast majority of our loyal listeners are pleased to spend the four extra seconds it takes to sign in and be counted because they like our programming and they value this new
convenience. I hope to count you as one of those listeners!

Thanks again for writing to us.

Now, perhaps something like the following story can help all of us!

Technology cuts down on Web registrations - USATODAY.com

Lost

Hello again!

I'd fallen off the face of the blog-o-sphere (do they still call it that?) until now this moment. Seems like, after the initial blogging blitz, things died off. Now, even your brother-in-law is blogging (and could barely use his laptop at Christmas).

I've been ambiguously refering to myself as the web guy for over a decade now, since the little stint at the copier place (which amounts to driving around town, flirting with the girls at offices). And now, for the second time, I'm leading the web initiative at a Clear Channel Radio plant in the midwest. Fun toys!

Web 2007: Who knew they'd start sticking pictures with voices?

I guess what comes around... I'd like to talk more about video on the web. Just a few years ago, I felt so strongly against plugging up the tubes with broadband content, especially video. But the quality of compressed media -- and the bandwidth that carries it -- is now only limited by where in the $50 to $100 range you want your connection to be.

Next time, let's chat about making you famous!

Regards,

Danny

Corporations go off a-podcasting - baltimoresun.com

Bridge Ratings, a California company that conducts radio-audience research, estimated last month that 4.8 million people have downloaded at least one podcast this year compared with 820,000 last year. About a fifth listen regularly.

Though many are using computers to do it, the rapidly growing portable market also expands the potential podcast reach. About 35 million households have portable music devices such as the iPod, according to JupiterResearch, which analyzes Internet and new-technology trends. That's double the number last year, and it will double again by 2010, the company predicts.">Corporations go off a-podcasting - baltimoresun.com: "Bridge Ratings, a California company that conducts radio-audience research, estimated last month that 4.8 million people have downloaded at least one podcast this year compared with 820,000 last year. About a fifth listen regularly.

Though many are using computers to do it, the rapidly growing portable market also expands the potential podcast reach. About 35 million households have portable music devices such as the iPod, according to JupiterResearch, which analyzes Internet and new-technology trends. That's double the number last year, and it will double again by 2010, the company predicts.

WiFi Takes Center Stage in Crime

In tonight's top story: Could you be arrested for having wireless networking in your home? Our crime beat team will cover this important development.

Wireless networking, like knives, guns and explosives, can be used in the commission of a crime. Therefore, wi-fi...bad.

Tech Dirt points out, "...there [are] a number of terrible things being done, and the use of open WiFi -- the least of the issues -- [gets] all the attention."

"In this first case, we had someone arrested for: (1) driving the wrong way down a one way street (2) driving without any pants on (3) using a laptop while driving (4) using that laptop to download child porn (5) which he accessed via a free WiFi connection.

"In another case, a scam was committed in Finland involving the financial firm GE Money: (1) the company's own head of data security (2) stole banking software from the company after which he (3) took confidential users passwords for its bank accounts. He then (4) stole money from GE Money's accounts by transferring it to a (5) secret account he had set up months earlier. Oh yeah, he did this last bit (6) via an open WiFi connection. In that second case, the case went to trial and the guy and three of his partners were convicted. What does the press cover? Four convicted in rare wireless fraud in Finland."

"The wireless part has almost nothing to do with the story. Even the account of the crime in the article focuses on the fact that they transferred money using WiFi and barely mentions the actual fraud."

News is a hard business, and with budget cuts, you can invision unwitting and underpaid news directors & producers now telling their equally unwitting and underpaid reporters to go get stories about how wi-fi is causing a crimewave in our cities and should be stopped -- and they do this because it seems like cutting edge reporting; consumers need to know.

That may seem goofy, but let's take it a step further anyway, because this will sound frighteningly familiar, if not bizarre.

Meanwhile, at the statehouse, a few prick politicians, who probably studied law, are being told by their advisors they "must speak out and legislate against open wi-fi hotspots, otherwise you'll be seen as soft on crime and be defeated in the upcoming elections". The new legislation will give criminal investigators new tools to snoop for -- and arrest -- hotspot owners in dramatic sting operations, which is naturally leaked to and reported by those same not-wit reporters. Those who are otherwise law abiding citizens are turned into a new class of criminal, further seperating people from their money and re-over-populating jails & prisons.

Missing Keith and the Girl

It's almost 1 AM CST, making it almost 2 in New York. So, where's my new episode of Keith and the Girl?

How disappointed was I?

I had to listen to Dawn & Drew.

Keith and the Girl

Sometimes you just have a really bad day.. - Yahoo! News

Doesn't it happen to us all once in a while?

West Wing Goes South

Two renditions of CSI and no West Wing? Two and a Half Men comes in at number 16, but Sorkin's baby not among the hot 16 TV shows in the November sweeps? Desperate Friggin Housewives, for chrissake!!?? NBC doesn't even show up in the top 12 shows!

Prime-Time Nielsen Ratings - Yahoo! News

Oprah: The Anti-hump

It made for good follies, but looks like the fun may be over. Although I'll believe it when I see it, Oprah finally finds her sense of humor and agrees to appear on Letterman.

Letterman finally gets Oprah to return - Yahoo! News