Planning Board 11/28/06 [video]

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Planning Board 11/28/06 [video]

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:28 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3983&hl=en

<embed id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7542304592413023983&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

    4. Dennis High – Review for possible final approval of an application proposing a 6-lot
    conventional subdivision in the R-Residential District, located at 41 Bedford Rd. Parcel lies
    within the Aquifer Conservation District and the Wellhead Protection Area. Tax Map Parcel
    6D/232. This item is continued from the November 14, 2006 hearing.

    5. C&K Realty/Able Crane – Review for Acceptance and consideration for possible Final
    Approval of a request for waiver of full site plan review of application to amend a previously
    approved site plan, for a proposed 30 foot by 50 foot building addition. Parcel lies within the
    I-1 Industrial District, and the Aquifer Conservation District, located at 12 Star Dr. Tax Map
    Parcel 3D-1/010. This item is continued from the November 14, 2006 hearing.

    6. Mazzaglia – Review for possible disapproval of a site plan application proposing conversion
    of upper level of building from residential use to office use, with associated site
    improvements in the I-1 Industrial District, located at 251 D.W. Highway. Parcel lies within
    the Aquifer Conservation District. Tax Map Parcel 3D-2/040. This item has been withdrawn
    from the agenda. Applicant has withdrawn the application.

    7. Regency/McDonald’s Corp. – Discussion and possible action on request to waive parking
    requirements found in Table 1 of Section 7.02, General Standards, relative to a site plan
    application proposing the demolition of an existing structure, to be replaced by a 3,330 s.f.,
    50-seat, drive-thru McDonald’s restaurant with associated improvements. Parcel lies within
    the C-2 General Commercial District, and the Aquifer Conservation District, located at 5
    Continental Blvd. Tax Map Parcel 4D/054-3.

    8. Omnipoint PCS Wireless Communication Tower – Approval of tower removal bond
    amount posted for property located at 43 Baboosic Lake Road. Tax Map Parcel 5D-3/001.
    This item is continued from the November 14, 2006 hearing.


Also you can check out merrimackforum.org's own M@ mentioning the video availability at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... n#1h25m30s

-Nat
Nat Fairbanks
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:05 am
Location: Merrimack NH

Postby Brian McCarthy » Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:21 pm

The discussion - 'legal' .... then it cut out...

The short answer is - anyone can go into that meeting and tape it and do what they want with it.

The Town's recording and broadcast is just cutting that part of it out.

I had a senior moment - it was Nelson Disco that was questioning things.

Brian
Brian McCarthy
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:12 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby M@ » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:41 pm

Kewl Stuff Nat - the second I said that "Someone could send a link to..." I realized someone would probably link me saying that.

M@
M@
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:36 pm
Location: No longer a Merrimack Resident

Postby Michael Thompson » Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:56 am

I must say that I find it amusing regarding the concern of copy right issues.
Michael Thompson
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:25 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:32 am

Michael Thompson wrote:I must say that I find it amusing regarding the concern of copy right issues.

Actually it's a legitimate concern in some ways. While there should be no question that the video content of the meetings themselves are not copyrighted; if certain things are done in the processing before they air then there could be copyrighted materials used in the airing of the taped meetings that the cable department has a license to air but a private citizen does not.

However our cable department has not done anything like that in the taped meetings that I've observed so I have no worries about copyright being an issue with the meetings I've taped and uploaded. That's also the reason why I've let both the Town Council and School Board know that I'm the person doing it. That way it's a matter of public record of who to contact in case someone has a legitimate concern. So far all the feedback I've gotten has been positive, most of it amazingly positive so I doubt an issue will arise at all.

-Nat
Nat Fairbanks
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:05 am
Location: Merrimack NH

Postby Michael Thompson » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:49 am

Nat Fairbanks wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:I must say that I find it amusing regarding the concern of copy right issues.

Actually it's a legitimate concern in some ways. While there should be no question that the video content of the meetings themselves are not copyrighted; if certain things are done in the processing before they air then there could be copyrighted materials used in the airing of the taped meetings that the cable department has a license to air but a private citizen does not.

However our cable department has not done anything like that in the taped meetings that I've observed so I have no worries about copyright being an issue with the meetings I've taped and uploaded. That's also the reason why I've let both the Town Council and School Board know that I'm the person doing it. That way it's a matter of public record of who to contact in case someone has a legitimate concern. So far all the feedback I've gotten has been positive, most of it amazingly positive so I doubt an issue will arise at all.

-Nat


Nat, I think what you are doing is GREAT.

I think my amusement came mostly from it being the first words spoken (maybe not the exact first). Instead of excepting the increased flow of information the board starts to worry about it right away.

If it does become an issue Nat please let us know (I don't expect it), I am sure a lot of us would help to assure the flow of publice information.
Michael Thompson
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:25 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Brian McCarthy » Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:58 pm

The Town produced those videos - since everything the Town produces (I'm sure there are some exceptions) is 'for the public', those tapes fall into that catagory.

Can a Town entitiy produce copyright materal? Hmm.. That 'right-to-know' RSA keeps ringing in my ear.

Non-public meetings are not taped - they are non-public for a reason - of course, one could argue that once the minutes of the non-public are released, any video of the meeting could be released also - but the cameras are off/out/disabled during non-public sessions.

Programs broadcast on the MCTV (22) are NOT produced by the Town and can not be rebroadcast without the producer's approval.

I think the majority of the programs broadcast on METV (21) are also produced by someone other than the Town and can not be rebroadcast. The School District controls the policy on that channel.

On another note, I didn't realize Google Video was reviewing before releasing. YouTube, I don't think, does that (check out their 'most recient' link sometime). Youtube is also limited to, I think, 10 minutes before you have to jump through some hoops.

Brian

Nat Fairbanks wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:I must say that I find it amusing regarding the concern of copy right issues.

Actually it's a legitimate concern in some ways. While there should be no question that the video content of the meetings themselves are not copyrighted; if certain things are done in the processing before they air then there could be copyrighted materials used in the airing of the taped meetings that the cable department has a license to air but a private citizen does not.

However our cable department has not done anything like that in the taped meetings that I've observed so I have no worries about copyright being an issue with the meetings I've taped and uploaded. That's also the reason why I've let both the Town Council and School Board know that I'm the person doing it. That way it's a matter of public record of who to contact in case someone has a legitimate concern. So far all the feedback I've gotten has been positive, most of it amazingly positive so I doubt an issue will arise at all.

-Nat
Brian McCarthy
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:12 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:22 pm

Brian McCarthy wrote:The Town produced those videos - since everything the Town produces (I'm sure there are some exceptions) is 'for the public', those tapes fall into that catagory.

Can a Town entitiy produce copyright materal? Hmm.. That 'right-to-know' RSA keeps ringing in my ear.

I will start by saying I don't have a shred of evidence either way, but I'll elaborate my #1 concern (beyond the ones I share with Brian about content on channel 21 & 22 other than meetings). Music is played as background during the "flashcard" info bits. If that music is copyrighted I (as a private citizen) have no license to republish it on the internet so I make sure to remove the pieces that I record before and after the meetings. It could be that the music is public domain or otherwise permissible for me to republish, or it could be that the town holds a license to use it on the PEG channels. Rather than worry about it, I remove it.

I also haven't decided or asked others about other content on the Government PEG channel. Things like the "Inside Merrimack Town Hall: Economic Development" features may or may not be produced by town employees. It's valuable content that I would love to see online if possible, but I'm only going to concern myself with public meetings at this point.

Brian McCarthy wrote:On another note, I didn't realize Google Video was reviewing before releasing. YouTube, I don't think, does that (check out their 'most recient' link sometime). Youtube is also limited to, I think, 10 minutes before you have to jump through some hoops.

I'm not really sure what Google does beyond converting the video to the flash format. They may or may not review every minute of every bit of content uploaded but I chose them because they had no file size limit on uploaded files but Youtube had a 100MB file size limit as far as I could tell. Very few of these videos are under 100MB.

-Nat
Nat Fairbanks
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:05 am
Location: Merrimack NH

Postby Brian McCarthy » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:26 pm

Ah the music - you are right there. The Town pays a very small amount of money to be allowed, as a public entity, to use those songs. I don't know the exact details of WHICH songs but as I recall, if it was on a CD from a record label - it was covered.

Brian
Brian McCarthy
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:12 am
Location: Merrimack, NH


Return to Meeting Videos

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron