A couple of weeks ago, I reported that the national broadband plan would request the creation of a video archival site called Video.gov. With the release of the plan last week, there is now more information on the proposal but certainly not as much as one would hope.

There are two parts of the idea to consider — the Web site itself and copyright law.

Generally speaking, the idea for an archival video service is probably a goo idea. It essentially travels the same lines as the Library of Congress, which was established in 1800 in an act that transferred our nation’s seat of power from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. The original purpose of the library was to create a place for “such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress — and for putting up a suitable apartment for containing them.”

Essentially the Library of Congress was not meant to be a public library as we know it today but rather a private library for members of Congress and the Supreme Court. Conceding that point and the fact that realities and times have altered the Library of Congress into a more general-purpose collections agency for archival purposes, the idea of archiving video seems to fit right into the system. Taxes would be needed to build such a system, but generally speaking, archiving important video footage seems like a worthwhile endeavor.

But in order to create Video.gov, the FCC has requested that Congress make adjustments to the Copyright Act in order to bypass potential rights issues to ensure that “archival content is open and accessible” (pg. 305 of the broadband plan). Specifically, the proposal asks Congress to adjust the Copyright Act in order to “grant reasonable, non-commercial, downstream usage rights for this content to the American people” (pg. 304). This is where the request seems to become white noise.

The request is both specific and vague in that it speaks about changing copyright laws in order not to run into rights issues with video “contributions” — a term that generally means the provider of the gift is not requiring something in return. This is to say that a broadcast corporation that contributed to the project would not be requiring royalties for the use of the video content. If true, then why the call to change the law?

The concern is how any changes might affect other video archival services like the HistoryChannel.com or EASEHistory.org, which offer free historical video on an advertisement-based business model. Such companies and organizations certainly will be concerned that changes to copyright law may affect content that generates profit for them.

Furthermore, the question must be asked, “Who determines what is archival video?” If it is the Library of Congress, which has been suggested as a potential proprietor of the site, or any other government entity and copyright law is adjusted to allow them to freely acquire any video deemed “archival historical video,” then holders of copyrights for historical video may face acquisition via the eminent domain granting government rights to property at fair-market value.

Ideas can be noble, but when they inflict damage on others, they become burdensome. The plan to create Video.gov has that potential depending on the copyright details to come. Stay tuned for updates.