Party Video 2016
- This topic has 303 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:#249,Brian posted that on our blog with a couple of graphics http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2016/09/why-do-people-hate-their-work.html#252If it is downloaded on your computer and the right format, perhaps the blog can use the videos. Not sure of the technicalities, so no promises
They would of course require EC approval
lindanesocialist wrote:They would of course require EC approvalNot necessarily. As I understand it, the EC's ruling only applies to videos issued in the name of the Party as a whole. Which is not unreasonable as the same applies to pamphlets. But nothing in the ruling prevents members publishing their own videos advocating socialism or even promoting the Party. The content is then their responsibility not the Party's. The same applies to blogs.
ALB wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:They would of course require EC approvalNot necessarily. As I understand it, the EC's ruling only applies to videos issued in the name of the Party as a whole.
Except that the EC's ruling contravenes its own Terms of Reference for the Audio-Visual Committee and similar rulings have never been applied to the many other "videos issued in the name of the Party as a whole". Let's not beat around the bush. This was a blatant example of prejudice based on a member's past transgressions.
I'm not saying it should exercise it, but the EC has the power (and must have) to overrule a decision of any of its subcommittees. I agree that normally it should leave the editorial committee, the publications committee and the AV committee to get on with their respective remits without needing to refer everything to the EC, as sensibly set out in their terms of reference, but I think (I'm not sure) that in this case it is not clear that the video was made by the AV committee. Not that that would necessarily prevent the EC adopting as a Party video a video produced by a member or group of membersI only know of one other video issued in the name of the party as a whole and that was the one for the 2014 Euroelections (incidentally, can't that be adapted/edited for general use too?). There are a couple of other videos we sell (one produced unofficially, the other a debate on climate change) and there are quite few talks and other debates on our site but these are not really "videos issued in the name of the Party as a whole".I don't know what motivated those EC members who voted to turn down the video but it is also possible that they thought it was not up to scratch or not to the level required to be an official Party video. Which wouldn't prevent its distribution as long as it didn't claim to be official.
There exists an orphan blog, Socialist TV, first begun by John Bisset and i think Carole Taylor from the old NE branchhttp://socialist-tv.blogspot.com/I'm aware that there is a big problem with copyright on some of the content but there are plenty, plenty of videos and animation going around that are well worth a watch distributed under the Creative Commons so all that is needed is proper credit of original source.i see number of videos on the blog can be deleted as they have been blocked on copyright grounds but others remainI beg to decline to volunteer but surely someone can get the password from John (if he still remembers) and activate it . Not necessarily as an official Party blog, but one we can recommend and direct visitors to. I believe Vlogging is becoming popularhttp://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-VloggerI also know most of you own a smart mobile phone that do good-quality video that can be immediately uploaded to the net and to a website like Socialist TV. So next time we are doing lit sales on a protest or just the street stall or public meetings it can be used almost live.
There was also the video exclusively on blip.tv produced in the early 2000s at head office which used an old party banner. This was not the debate with Ian Bone.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/bliptv-interview-early-2000shttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/video-removed
ALB wrote:…and there are quite few talks and other debates on our site but these are not really "videos issued in the name of the Party as a whole".Really? Here's a selection which are available for viewing on The SPGB 1904 YouTube channel and all sporting the party logo – can't get much more official than that.https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCC4BC26346B45BB9https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9-F4_fswW4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MkdZbAXxAshttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfxPWuN7tZz0w_HRM3tPIznJ5Tk3kFtYVhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwMSZE63rhUhttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfxPWuN7tZz3tksLE3Cun58cW-78b4km0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0lBdA0q-fI&list=PLfxPWuN7tZz2r_xIyhXr6N4h_pgBDZyaihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic28EwLsLqUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdf1P76SJ18https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb75_6i_cc4
gnome wrote:Let's not beat around the bush. This was a blatant example of prejudice based on a member's past transgressions.There's a lot of that about! So I'm glad you said it and not me
These are not specially made videos such as the AV committee might make but videorecordings of meetings. Not quite the same thing. Incidentally, I didn't notice our 2014 election video or did I miss it?
ALB wrote:These are not specially made videos such as the AV committee might make but videorecordings of meetings. Not quite the same thing.No, of course they're not quite the same thing. But the distinction is very tenuous. It's more or less been generally accepted that the EC should not be passing judgement on matters of artistic merit and the consequences of copyright infringement have been grossly exaggerated. Which probably just leaves legitimate concerns about accuracy of political content. Video recordings of meetings are just as likely, perhaps more so, to contain statements with which "the Party as a whole" may not approve, just as there are occasionally articles in the Socialist Standard which do not always 'come up to scratch' in some members eyes.
Quote:Incidentally, I didn't notice our 2014 election video or did I miss it?It's certainly on The SPGB 1904 YouTube channel but not on the list I gave because it was the one video the EC not only approved but instigated as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScJyrOPT5DgOne video of note which was on the list was "Capitalism & Other Kids' Stuff".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb75_6i_cc4The producers of that video were not on the AVC at the time they made it. Although that video doesn't mention the party or socialism and wasn't endorsed by the EC, it was nevertheless adopted semi-officially and advertised widely anyway.Contrast that with the current video which does mention the party and socialism. The then member of the AVC who spent weeks working on it single-handedly gets dismissed from the committee, the video disowned and members told by the EC to stop sharing it.
gnome wrote:the consequences of copyright infringement have been grossly exaggerated.No, the risk of getting caught is low, but the potential harm is high, especially if maliciously enforced: the remedy is simple, as there is plenty of public domain or creative commons material available: and being able to demonstrate a generally diligent response to issues of IP and copyright makes it easier to defend claims when we do slip up. It's not rocket science.
Young Master Smeet wrote:gnome wrote:the consequences of copyright infringement have been grossly exaggerated.No, the risk of getting caught is low, but the potential harm is high, especially if maliciously enforced: the remedy is simple, as there is plenty of public domain or creative commons material available: and being able to demonstrate a generally diligent response to issues of IP and copyright makes it easier to defend claims when we do slip up. It's not rocket science.
And good practice. Perhaps a word with the party's official Youtube site wouldn't go amiss
Young Master Smeet wrote:gnome wrote:the consequences of copyright infringement have been grossly exaggerated.No, the risk of getting caught is low, but the potential harm is high, especially if maliciously enforced: the remedy is simple, as there is plenty of public domain or creative commons material available: and being able to demonstrate a generally diligent response to issues of IP and copyright makes it easier to defend claims when we do slip up. It's not rocket science.
So there's no other issue, other than copyright in the event the potentially infringing material was removed and the same video resubmitted?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.