Slashdot Mirror
Australia To Consider Licensing Streamed Content
TheSync writes: "The Australian Broadcasting Company is report ing that the Australian government is considering whether Internet streaming video and audio should come under the definition of broadcasting, and thus be liable to licensing requirements by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Other articles on this issue can be found at TheAge.Com.au and Austra lia IT. This could lead to streaming
licensing fees and possibly more censorship." Seems like the legislature believes that Australia should be an island unto itself, instead a well-connected island.
As an austrialian with a sense of national pride i agree on the principle of regulating broadcast content. While i believe in an unregulated market to provide the highest possible quality there is a factor here that can't be measured by economic value - it is important that certain material is localy produced for a local market. I don't want my children learning to speak with an american accent about some american tradition. I don't want my world news to be biased to a foreign viewpoint (CNN). The problem is, with the internet serving more of this content it will be impossible to stop. What i imagine we will see is a repeat of the recent net regulations which contain a big fat "where possible" statement that makes it totally ineffective. So we'll be one step closer to being McDonaldsLand the second - as if we're not close enough allready. :(
I believe that the consensus is that Australia is a continent.
I though Australia was a continent. When did it get downgraded to an island?
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Although I normally despise government interference, there are some thing I would accept. While I would NOT want the FCC to decide on what the standards are, I would find it acceptable that the standards be open for compatibility purposes (except communications not crossing a state boundary which the federals have no authority to control).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Heh. For those outside .au, the censorship laws passed re content have NOT been enforced in the slightest...
You can still use Telstra's ISP News Servers (Telstra is partly gov-owned) and get a full alt.sex.* feed if you so wish.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
In theory. That law has not been enforced. I have not heard of a single case, and as mentioned previously, on a partly government-owned ISP, you are still free to download anything from Usenet, the Web, whatever.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
It is a private transfer between privately owned machines, using privately hired connections, just like a telephone conversation.
It is especially not broadcasting because there is no limit to the number of people who can offer content in this manner (though there may be a limited number who can receive at any one time). Anyone can do it, and it doesn't push anyone else out their spot.
It's a lot more like renting videos than watching television.
They already are married (if not the same person) They are trolls, and a big reason why /. sucks pretty bad from time to time.
Remember, if you can't believe how big an idiot someone is, usually it's cause they are trying to be the biggest idiot they can.
--
+&x
Okay, firstly it's Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I'm pedantic, so sue me! ;)
It's interesting that there's an emphasis on 'streaming', because after all in terms of data transfer, the streaming is no more a broadcast than any other form of data on the net is it?
That may be nitpicking, but I really can't see a similarity between a TV/Radio broadcast and an ordered download of a video file!
It's really a one-to-one file tranfer that's initiated by the user, and stoppable by the user. It's also only part of the medium.
I suppose it just depends where you draw the line on a broadcast. What I am trying to convey is that it's less intrusive than traidional broadcast media. For now at least.
If it'll stop the net turning into a big TV at the expense of bandwidth, it probably a good thing though!
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
I notice your e-mail addy places you in Canada. Did you know the CRTC backed off regulating content on the Internet for the time being until things stabilize?
I don't think the geeks here are just being "libertarian" and defending "the right of corporations" - what about the right of individuals too? There's a much better chance that a large corporation run by someone like, oh, I dunno, Rupert Murdoch, could pull together the legal fees and lawyers necessary to get a license as opposed to a couple guys running a Shoutcast or Real stream of their favourite trance hits.
After all, streaming content is broadcasting, which is something that, being of public interest, governments regulate. So in principle, there should be nothing against them doing it.
Broadcasting over airwaves is regulated because it's possible and easy to disrupt broadcasts if multiple sources try to use the same frequency at once. It would rather suck if a Top 40 station suddenly decided to use the police or EMS bands in a large city. The only limiting factor over the 'net is bandwidth, and that's an issue for ISPs to deal with.
There's also something of a "freedom principle" on the 'net, where any Joe, Bob or Suzy is able to put up their own content adhering only to criminal laws of their home countries and the terms of serivce of their ISPs. This includes streaming content; I occasionally listen to a Shoutcast stream run by a few guys out of the Canadian West for the hell of it.
They could impose good restraints on large corporations going into this-- like space for public interest spots and so on.
And individuals? Would they also have to get a license to stream using MP3 or Real or whatever? Right now, the 'net is rather close to reaching the same state the "public" airwaves are in - controlled by a few large companies, with some token gestures toward "public broadcasting". This stream licensing business sounds like another step in that direction, meant to benefit only a few who can afford it.
I say: if it makes the establishment more accountable to the general populace, more power to Australians.
Great, now how will this make the "establishment" more accountable? For that matter, what is the establishment? Just the government? Or does that include any large entities that thrive on media control? Perhaps nothing is the "establishment" - just people in power constantly jockeying for position. Either way, I think it's better that the bandwidth remain open for people to set up their own streams - at least give the public one outlet they can handle on their own without being marginalized!
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Your odd notion that the government will actually represent the "interest of the public" rather than the interest of the loudest and most obnoxious special interest reminds me of the joke about the quarterback, the acrobat, and the economist stuck on a desert island.
They found a coconut tree, and tried various ways to get the coconuts down. The quarterback slammed into the tree to shake some loose, but none of them fell. The acrobat tried to climb the tree, but the tall branchless trunk defeated him.
The economist watched this for a while, then burst out laughing. "The solution is so simple! First, assume a ladder...."
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The goverment of Australia regulates broadcasting for the same reasons except that
1) there is a bunch more frequency bands per market (tv channles can't conflict, the cities are too far apart)
2) They have strict rules about content that relate to protecting children from the normal things.
3) They like having their hand in everything.
It would seem to me that bringing the regulations in will require streaming media to contain rating tags. To get "offical" rating tags, you have to pay the goverment about $4000 to rate things like video games.
If Australia forces licensing of streaming media in the same manner of broadcast, they'll be hacking the roast, because the whole point of broadcast licensing is simply to control the bandwidth and prevent interference. That's something the FCC has forgotten here as they put their greasy fingers into things such as censorship where they have no business meddling. They're a technical service, and should know better. Since the Internet is a theoretically unlimited resource, and we already have Internic to prevent "interference", then government regulation of streaming media would just be another bureacracy to boost big business... the only ones who would be able to afford the licensing.
Besides, it's not Australia's net. It's everyone's. There are no borders.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Ouch, man.
.y.o. son stumbling upon some pornography on the net than having someone else; some bureaucrat or appointed holier-than-thou 'decency commissioner' control what content is available on the Internet.
I would rather chance my 8
I don't need Big Brother telling me how to do my job as a parent, or dictating what ideas and pictures are too 'dangerous' for me or my child to see. I am fully capable of making my own personal decisions - I don't need you or anyone else to make them for me.
--
Hear, hear.
;)
Every once in a while I drop into the CNN site to see what the sheep are watching these days, but other than that I have almost completely tuned out the corporate media blather.
If you don't like corporate-run sites, don't visit them. I don't understand why you would want the viewing habits of other people to be controlled. Shouldn't they be free to make their own decisions?
Besides, Open Media is about to eat Old Media for lunch. Haven't you been reading Jon Katz's stories?
--
Now consider streaming. It is more like renting a videotape. Nothing is pushed into your home unless you specifically ask for it. I don't think that it could be considered broadcasting in the traditional sense. Yup, a lot of people in a large area can watch that stuff simultaneously but it just isn't the same. If anything is being licensed it should be done the same way like with video rentals.
BTW. Is there anything good that's internet-related in Australia? With all the recent news it seems to me like the legislators down under are mostly out of their minds..
You'd rather have corporations than governments control the web, eh? SO who would you rather turn your web site over to: The MPAA, Microsoft, or CyberCop?
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The whole Australian Internet censorship fiasco is not an indication of the Australian peoples, but is simply a result of an unfortunate political circumstance.
About 5 years ago, the Australian conservative party (ironically called the Liberals) were elected to power for the first time in over a decade. This is generally thought to be a result of the fact that the Labor party had held office for so long, that people thought it was time for "a change", and elected the conservatives. The conservatives generally count the right-wing segment of the populace as their strongest constituents, and so, in an attempt to please them, they have enacted a large-scale Internet censorship campaign.
A large proportion of the population welcome this, as having never used the Internet, they see it as a large cesspool of sex, violence, and immoral behaviour, because that is what the evening news generally portrays it as.
The right-wing constituents are pleased, and so the "Liberal" party continue their campaign of censorship. They also relish using taxpayers' money for large-scale propaganda campaigns to assure they are re-elected.
Thankfully, the voters are starting to see through the propaganda, and realise that the "Liberals" are mismanaging the economy, and implementing unworkable censorship laws. Rest assured that as soon as the Labor party win office at the next election, everything will return to normal.
I personally broadcast a radio show via the internet because it's free and I can. The reason I don't do it via public access or radio is the licensing fees or broadcasting fees that come along with that. I'm not an Australlian, but I'm sure there are people from Australlia with the same situation as me and I know I wouldn't take kindly to a situation such as this.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Oh, wait. You don't like that world. Apparently choice == bad for you.
Everyone likes a police state, when they get to be the police. But the only chance for true freedom, and true human dignity, comes from allowing the widest possible choice. For democracy to work, you have to trust the people. But a lot of those clamoring for "decency" can't be bothered with the arduous task of convincing their peers and compatriots to do the right thing ... so they cry for the government to step in and do it for them.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
...broadcasting for a few reasons:
1) Infinite amount of channels. Having government licensing/regulation over this is unnecessary. It is a layer of bureaucracy where there need be none (especially since streaming media is highly decentralized.)
2) Since there is an infinite amount of channel space, it is also extremely hard for a child to stumble onto truly inappropriate media. So, the government doesn't need to get in on this, either.
3) Infinite amount of choice. Public interest spots/equal time are not needed, since there is not a limited amount of channel space. So, each individual can select whatever his/her pleasure may be. Is one stream too biased? Check out another, just a click away!
In short, streaming media is egalitarian enough- I can make a stream exactly as good as anything Mr. Murdoch puts out. All I need to do is score the capacity, and off I go. In the real world, I need frequency licenses to operate- but on the Internet, there are no frequencies.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
3) Infinite amount of choice. Public interest spots/equal time are not needed, since there is not a limited amount of channel space. So, each individual can select whatever his/her pleasure may be.
So how do you reconcile that with the fact that the vast amount of streams are being provided by a relatively small number of large corporations, or by companies owned by those corporations?
By creating my own, and publicizing it. It's not hard
When a particular minority with very special interests gets an overwhelming amount of mindspace, the public needs special protective measures against the corps abusing their power.
But how will licensing protect the individual? I see it only as a means by which the largest folks can stick their hands in and deny others the ability to broadcast. Surely you would prefer a world in which everyone has the right to broadcast whatever they like? The key is that I am limited in my choices by physical difficulty in radio/TV. On the Internet, the only thing limiting me is how hard I'm willing to look.
Now you could say "but no one is willing to make the effort to inform themselves!" This is true. But current regulations involving conventional broadcasting do nothing to assist this. They only make sure that Channel A isn't stepping on Channel B's frequency. At best, they affect political campaigning, which essentially results in everyone getting their 10 seconds at the end of the evening news. Not terribly effective. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.
Go to Yahoo Full Coverage, and see the streams they provide. Very rarely you'll see a link to some non big media stream. Certainly, "other" streams are more than a click away.
Surely, these portals are not the alpha and omega of the Internet! To a new user, they are a beginning- but the nature of the medium is to expand the user's informational horizons.
These efforts are best pursued in conventional broadcasting, where the space is severely limited and only a few specific individuals have control of nearly everything.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
The thing I have always found amusing is that the p0rn industry in Australia is mostly in ACT (for those who don't know that's appromimatly the equivilent of it being based in Washington DC)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck load of tapes
Yeah, in your little fantasy world maybe, but the sad fact is that in our current socioeconomic model nothing, except masturbation, is free. As more and more services move online it only makes sense that the government, who has been democratically elected by the people, should exert regulatory powers over content and service. After all, you'd squeal loud enough if you got ripped off online, wouldn't you?
Why should people on the net be allowed to put out shoddy and/or offensive material? You wouldn't want to let your kids see pornographic filth on TV, why should you let them watch it on the net. This kind of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking is what has led to the current backlash against the net by decent people in Australia today, and doesn't to anyone any good.
So, the net is not free, and indeed shouldn't be free.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
That is a *very dangerous assumption*, given the general government attitude toward corporate interests, which you yourself mention.
The government is supposed to act within the interests of all of its citizens, whether they are corporate or personal... you can't make a cake without breaking some eggs after all, no government is ever going to make everyone happy.
Remember, healthy corporations mean lots of tax revenue which is good for everyone. Governments are right to encourage corporate profitability.
Licensing is unlikely to solve this problem- it is most likely to make it worse.
Ha! Look at American TV for a counterexample, whereby the huge flood of "open" channels has provided nothing of any worth and more mindless drivel, pornographics filth and immoral posturings than any other country. Licensing imposes at least some kind of quality control.
My greatest concerns in this area lie with the preponderance of advertising content being dumped on individuals by means of "free PC" type services, with the portal of choice being mandated by the hardware provider.
And? If you want to "free" PC then you have to put up with these conditions... I think it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's not really going to be free. If they don't realise this then they deserve everything they get IMHO.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
You don't know what you're talking about. I mean, don't you know that most of the traffic in the web is from people who pay porn sites to have material to watch while they jerk off?
Yes, I am fully aware of the vast amount of pornographic filth that is available to those of weak morals on the Internet, and I deplore the current wave of liberal, atheistic thinking which proudly proclaims that it is alright to engage in the "fruits" of an industry that makes its money from the degredation and rape of women. Attempts to make pornography sound like a genuine business are at best misguided and at worst the work of the Devil himself!
Those that make use of this particular "service" are filthy sinners who are obviously unable to find themselves a woman and instead must resort to an unethical, un-Christian practice which all right-minded people should deplore.
Of course, this also neatly proves that the net is a haven of male privilege.
Of course, the net was created by men and run by men. Men are better with technology, women are better with the "softer" sides of life. What's your point?
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Sorry, but you are so wrong it makes me want to cry for how stupid you are. I used to live in America until I couldn't take the sheer perversion of a nation which has not only turned its back on God, but has indeed spat on God himself! A country in which books like Daddy's Roommate are allowed to be published is not one I wanted to live in.
So now I live in England, where things like pornography are thankfully not tolerated. You, my ignorant friend, are thinking of places like Denmark and Holland where the law practically rewards those who engage in this foul business! Until America, and indeed mainland Europe, accepts that pornography is immoral and wrong, I will be staying here.
Europe is a decadend society.
Decadent, my ignorant friend.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Of course, since this is /., now the "geeks" will cry "censorship", and rant about how the net should be "free". Some "Libertarians" and/or Randians will decry government interfering with corporations (nevermind that governments create corporations in the first place). I say: if it makes the establishment more accountable to the general populace, more power to Australians.
Are you adequate?
So how do you reconcile that with the fact that the vast amount of streams are being provided by a relatively small number of large corporations, or by companies owned by those corporations?
When a particular minority with very special interests gets an overwhelming amount of mindspace, the public needs special protective measures against the corps abusing their power.
Is one stream too biased? Check out another, just a click away! Go to Yahoo Full Coverage, and see the streams they provide. Very rarely you'll see a link to some non big media stream. Certainly, "other" streams are more than a click away.
Are you adequate?
I moved here from the US, and noticed a vast difference in the govt. attitude towards the net/media.
The US policy in general is that business must be left alone, unless necessary to safeguard consumers. The Australian policy is that govt. must *guarantee* good results to consumers. This can take comical effect.
In parliament, you can hear the Prime minister and the opposition leader argue over the management details of how Telstra, the govt. monopoly phone company, should be run, what the pricing policy should be, etc. From a US perspective, this is shocking stuff - elected leaders running company business.
Thus it is not surprising that the govt. here is dreaming about regulating streaming media on the net. For all the whining that Americans do about how bad they have it, they have no clue how lucky they are.
The problem is not that the Aussie govt. is particularly clueless about the net. All govts. are equally clueless - the problem is that the Aussie govt. has WAY too much power over what people can hear and read.
The govt. can decide what/when/how things should be broadcast. Check out this story on ABC news , the govt. funded media/news corporation. But it's even funnier when politicians regulate pr0n.
Yes, Virginia, there is censorship in Australia. Want to see what the Aussie govt. thinks of your favorite multiplayer game? Go check it out! Yes, books are censored too. Don't you want to be sure the public doesn't read naughty things?
Having said there, there is considerable irony in some situations. Breasts can be seen all over the place, even on movie posters in public view. Some weeks ago there was a TV show on censorship, and lo and behold, there was shown a scene of two women licking breasts, on prime time news. Unthinkable on good old American soil, land of free speech and all. Yet openly shown in a country with censorship, on a program on censorship, on a govt. funded TV channel. The irony doth overflow.
Overall, though, the regulation stifles competition. One side effect of all this is that Australia lags behind the US by about 4-5 years in bandwidth, because everything is so heavily regulated and the competition is dampened. When I check out ISPs, there are still those stupid "plans", depending on your download limits and how many hours you spend online. Not one ISP in this city offers unlimited bandwidth AND unlimited hours. All on 56K, of course.
Anyway, I'm done with my ranting. Australia sucks on a grand scale when it comes to the internet.
w/m
more censorship info here
This appears to be related to proposed legislation that would ban the use of data channels (datacasting) in digital television broadcast transmissions for streaming audio/video. The goal of the legislation is to prevent people from competing with the Australian television networks by stuffing video programming in a datacasting stream. See this article for a fuller description of the controversy.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The principle behind FCC regulation of broadcasting in the USA was that the radio spectrum needed to be managed because it was not practical to just allow anyone who wanted to use it however they wanted to use it to go ahead and use it. Today, technology allows much great use of the radio spectrum in the air than they could have imagined then. Still, there are only 67 TV channels in the USA, and that number is declining (most cities cannot use 14-20).
FCC regulation has extended to Cable TV which doesn't have the problems of over the air broadcasting. Anyone with the money to hang their own wires could do so and it won't interfere (for the most part). Still, it is regulated. And there are some causes for it, or at least there used to be. One reason was that the resources required were so immense, but once paid out and deployed, so much was possible on a shared basis, that governments thought this should be done. That and the fact that public resources were being used to lay the wires (varies by jurisdiction).
The FCC could very well try to apply regulations of Cable TV to internet broadcasting. Obviously the internet model already permits massive sharing, and the technology has made so much possible. But government bureaucrats may still not see it this way. They may still want to control things such as content. Can we legally advertise cigarettes on the internet, even if it is a broadcasting format? What about pornographic images of children which there are clearly broad laws against? How do you define what laws apply and what laws do not (especially laws made before the internet existed)?
There is an opposing danger, too. What if monopoly control of the internet facilities ends up giving too few too much control over it all, and they end up doing things that stop the little guy, or the controversial (especially anti-big-corporation) speech, from happening or getting out very far? Would we want government to step in and prevent the monopoly control?
How to balance this is the big issue I see.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
does not make it a duck. It's just a "review" at this point, and hopefully someone will explain to this board the difference between analog broadcasting over public frequencies and packet-based unicast on private leased lines. Regulating one is management of a finite shared resource; regulating the other doesn't serve the public interest and is mostly unenforceable.
The only analogous situation I can imagine would be if the Australian government subsidized a national IP network which supported multicast, and people were transmitting ("broadcasting") things on that. This study sounds like a case of either the government seeking a new source of revenue, or traditional media lobbying for a "level playing field" to help them compete.
Even if they do come to some ridiculous conclusions and make them law, that shouldn't have any effect on streams coming from outside Australia, any more than they could make someone in Malaysia get an Australian license for their late-night shortwave broadcasts.
Eventually I expect IP-over-radio services for portable computers (or other network-aware devices) will be available in many areas, and it will be interesting to see how that pans out in terms of regulation, especially if any bandwidth currently used for analog transmissions is reclaimed for packet radio.
Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
How about if a bunch of citizens set up a private network apart from the Internet? It'd be fairly easy to do -- DSL is relatively cheap and point to point, so you could establish a private network with just a few lines.
How about establishing a private VPN on top of the Internet? Would that be prone to the same government regulation?
How big would any of these have to get to become a blip on the governmental radar? It's the same thing with setting up an alternative DNS. If only a few dozen people use it, no one notices. No trademark suits will likely arise from its use. If a million or so people start using it, that would likely change, despite the fact that the service would be essentially a private creation with no affiliation to any of the traditional internet governing bodies. At what point does it become regulatable property?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Like it or not (and I guess most don't), there really are good reasons for government intervention sometimes.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Now the problem for me is that we sell video streaming stuff, but low end (AXIS 2400's etc) streaming JPEG stuff , for small end corporate use (IP security cams etc).
Now my first thought would be to licence it as say free for under 10,000 viewers and at a rate above that, but on further thought, the bastards would just take it offshore, leaving the little guy paying the bill.
Radio frequencies are indeed getting crowded, but don't kill video conferencing IP style just yet. That'd just be dumb.
Stupid govt. I'm voting Labor next time.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I don't agree with what they're doing at all, but I think one of the main reasons behind this would be so the Australian government can help "encourage" local content.
The media in Australia has some very strict local content quotas and although I don't live there at the moment (I'm from New Zealand), it's been very successful in making sure that Australians get some decent good quality local productions. It's also been great for the local music industry because, for example, the radio stations have to play a certain amount of "new" local content meaning they have to keep scouting for it.
What they're probably doing for better or worse, is trying to grasp control of internet streaming before it gets away from them so they can control it in the same way. It's no secret that sooner or later, internet types of media will eventually replace analogue transmissions. If the Australian government is not in control of it by that time, it would be much harder to transfer the quotas.
===
We've already seen this happen with cryptography, betting and porn. The standard for the net as a whole is set by the least restrictive country that is connected.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck load of tapes
Licensing broadcast media makes sense because, and was originally done because, there's a limited amount of broadcast frequency available and because broadcasting effectively travels across everyone else's property.
Not so of web broadcasts--there's an effectively unlimited number of frequencies (URLs) and bandwidth is plentiful. The two rationales for licensing streaming content are therefore censorship and taxation.
As for taxation, I don't know how it is in Australia (can someone from Down Under inform us?), but here in the U.S. we don't even tax traditional broadcasters much for the frequencies they use--it's always annoyed me that the airwaves in the U.S. are practically given away to large corporations, when they should be rented by the government at a fair market value instead. But instead of taxing the corporations in this country, we tax the people... blech...
Censorship is of course the biggest issue here, and probably the one which most excites the Australian government. It amazes me that the same country which used to fairly often publish pictures of naked 16 year olds in the Australian version of Playboy, now restricts tightly even mildly sexual content on web sites, not to mention mere stories and text. Western cultures and societies have to start moving towards less censorship and more understanding of different viewpoints and their value, or endure a tyranny of the majority which will stamp out all individuality and turn us into something from an Orwell novel. Regulating Net video streams may not seem a step in this direction, but it is. Restricting violent video games, as a story from earlier today says Canada is doing, doesn't seem a step in this direction, but it is. Things which are personally offensive must be tolerated, if for no other reason than that each of us likes something or another that someone else will find offensive, and if we each got the government to censor what we don't like, nothing unique would be left uncensored.
That's why it bothers me so much when Australians censor sex, violence, and drugs on the Net, when Americans censor sex on TV and everywhere else, and when Europeans censor even unrealistic violence, when France censors opinions about WWII and even WWII relics, and when Canadians censor books and magazines about homosexuality. What kind of a Western Civilization does that leave us with? What kind of a future can we look forward to, when "global culture" emerges full of the censorships and biases of each country melded into one seamless McDonaldsization of mediocre sameness? We have to start working extra hard to make sure we emphasize our rights and freedoms, not our selfish desire to censor, because we're living in times when those very rights are in flux thanks to new media.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
In the United States, the theory on why the government should regulate broadcasting is:
- There are only a limited number of frequency bands out there to use.
- The electro-magnetic spectrum is public property.
(Or it used to be something like this).However, the Internet isn't limited to a certain number of bands, and the Internet isn't considered public property, so the FCC hasn't applied broadcasting regulations to the Internet (thank God!).
But in Australia, what is the theory behind regulating broadcast mediums? Would this theory hold that the Internet should be regulated as well?
--Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Will they be setting up a block on any streaming media arriving in Austrailia? Maybe they will require ISPs to block every unlicensed stream? What about buddyphone?
Anyone want a free trip or Australia? Just send some streaming media there, and they'll haul you off to Australia for a trial.
Fight Spammers!
As most Australians know, the media moguls (in particular Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch, and to a lesser extent, Kerry Stokes) wield considerable power and few politicians dare to defy them. Possibly this "suggestion" has something to do with them trying to retain their power base. I agree that it's not a very sensible idea.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net