Judge: City of Inglewood can't use copyright to censor videos of council meetings


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Whenever I read a story such as this my first thought is always, who thought this was a good idea? Or rather, how did enough council members think this was a good idea to allow it? Even if a local judge had upheld the mayor’s position–which wouldn’t surprise me–it would have likely spawned protests and copycat videographers. That would lead to more lawsuits and the city having to spend more money.

Short of keeping the public out of city council meetings–an idea I know has been suggested and shot down elsewhere–I don’t know how they thought this could ever work.


#3

No word on the nature of the criticism. Would attitudes be different if the mayor’s race was the issue?


#4

What I’ve learned from my small town politics experience is that they’ll tend to blame legal council first. And then other fingers will be pointed.

But the buck always stops at (and usually originated from) the emo board that can’t take criticism.


#5

Having a municipal lawyer for a brother, my guess is that the council members whined about their constituent’s actions. Their lawyer, who is on retainer, more than likely cautioned them against this action (probably citing the Streisand Effect).

My brother always tells municipalities to “just let it go” whenever they get bees in their bonnets. Sometimes it works, but often it doesn’t.


#6

A good lawyer is one who tells you not to bill more hours.


#7

Attitudes might be, but legal principles wouldn’t.


#8

If Inglewood’s legal counsel actually said this was okay, they need to be disbarred, since they don’t know the first thing about copyright with relation to government work. Seriously, who the hell thought that was acceptable.


#9

No, I think you’re right.


#10

A key potential benefit of digital computing and networks is to facilitate democratically shared work and decision-making.

Policing exchanges of digital information with heavy fines and federal law enforcement is ineffective — as in this case — and abuses the technology as a for-profit, anti-democratic panopticon.


#11

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.