Parliament footage is nearly impossible for constituents to use
I recently contacted the administrators of parliamentlive.tv to see about getting access to about five minutes of footage from a House of Commons session I wanted to include in a video project.
Being that this was a public proceeding, lacking any sort of national security concerns and having to do with the common good, I thought this should be a fairly simple process. After all, the footage is openly available on a government website. It’s already been filmed, edited and posted. Getting the raw file should be no big deal. As it turns out, however, UK Parliament keeps about as tight a control on its content as the BBC does an episode of Doctor Who.
The response I got back cautioned me that “The situation relating to the use of Proceedings of Parliament on website is very complex.” And while I could freely link to any recording on the Parliament website I wanted to, should I actually choose to host and play a clip anywhere else or combine it with a video project, “this would be possible subject to a number of conditions.”
The Conditions:
1. The recording must be streamed only and not able to be downloaded by visitors to the site in any form.
2. It must not be able to be embedded in third party websites.
3. It must not be shown alongside any form of advertising.
4. It must be used in an informational context and not part of any campaign.
The response also said “Should we be satisfied that these conditions are met, we would be prepared to release the recording, however due to Licensing restrictions we are not able to release the recording until 14 days after the date of (the) hearing.”
If those weren’t enough hurdles, here’s a high jump bar at the end: “The cost for the recording will be £110+VAT for up to 30 Minutes worth of recording and £180+VAT for more than 30 Minutes.” Up to 30 minutes. My 5-minute request would still come to £126.50 (VAT included). All for a public-record document (video footage).
This is all sort of added insult to the orginal injury: I had wanted to, at the actual hearing in question, video the portion I wanted to use, but the use cameras by attendees was banned.
And don’t get me started on the website’s rubbish accessibility standards, which rules out entire operating systems from showing its footage without jumping through several Microsoft download plugin hoops. Disgraced Labour MP Hazel Blears not so long ago chastised 10 Downing Street for starting to post video content on YouTube, using her now famous, quasi ironic statement: “YouTube if you want to. But it’s no substitute for knocking on doors or setting up a stall in the town centre.” YouTube may still not be the perfect open source, mix and remix medium, but it’s a fair deal more open, accessible and easy to use, reuse and republish than what parliament currently allows, which is another closed door on its constituents.
We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.
