Federal Officials and YouTube Nearing a Deal 80
GovTechGuy writes "The federal government is on the verge of reaching an agreement with YouTube that would allow agencies to make official use of the popular video-sharing service. A coalition of federal agencies led by the General Service Administration's Office of Citizen Services has been negotiating with Google, YouTube's parent company, since summer 2008 on new terms that would allow agencies to establish their own channels on the site.
Agencies have not been [allowed] to post videos to YouTube (although many already have) because under the current terms of service, people who post content are subject to their state's libel laws. Federal agencies must adhere to federal law.
On Tuesday, government officials said the negotiations were 'very close' to being completed."
Having had read this through (Score:3, Interesting)
Agencies have not been able to post videos to YouTube (although many already have)
So the many agencies that have posted videos when they have not been able to post videos have ignored that they cannot post videos or have bypassed the problem that was having them unable to post videos?
Be ready for Microsoft's complaint (Score:5, Interesting)
And I will support Microsoft in its complaint if it ever materializes. Why should my tax dollars be used to purposefully enrich a private corporation? Microsoft no longer gets the limelight. Was there any bidding done in order to select YouTube? What's wrong with our public officials? I wonder what Steve Ballmer is thinking right now.
Re:Be ready for Microsoft's complaint (Score:3, Interesting)
How much does it cost? Currently you can't grab the videos from youtube and do anything with them without violating the youtube TOS. So the videos are effectivly theirs and not the publics unless your wanting to face felony computer trespass charges like the chick who caused the girl to commit suicide.
So how much does it cost to produce videos of government and give them away to a company that supported the current administration's election so that company can end up with exclusive control over them and serve all the ads they want? I would say the cost of production at least. And I would say the cost of freedom when the government is allowed to do this without an open bidding process or authorization by congress to give public domain works to a company that backed the president [latimes.com] during his bid for election.
Is this the hope and change we can believe in? Or is it yet another example of politics as usual being blinded by technology?
Re:Comments/Ratings policy, propaganda (Score:3, Interesting)
There are idiots that actually care to read the Youtube comments besides the idiots that reply to them?