Slashdot Mirror
FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows
The Importance of writes "Under current FCC rules, in order to make an indecency complaint about a broadcast you have to provide "a significant excerpt from the program or a full or partial tape or transcript of the program." However, broadcasters aren't required to keep a tape of their broadcasts so, rarely, an indecency complaint gets dismissed for lack of evidence. But that is going to change. The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [PDF] [TXT] that will require broadcasters to maintain recordings of their broadcasts for 60-90 days. The FCC is also considering reducing what you must claim in order to enter a complaint, thus opening the floodgates for indecency complaints by groups like the Parents Television Council, which is already keeping the FCC censors busy. Doesn't the government have better things to do?"
Why is it censorship if you require the broadcaster to keep a record of what was transmitted?
And if a broadcaster has something to say, whether contentious or not, why would you not want to keep a record of it?
I just tend not to watch TV.
The most offensive thing is that the shows suck. It's pretty bad that with all the 'first rate channels' my cable company gives me, I end up watching Pauly Shore movies.
Surely tapes can be used in defence against complaints too. e.g. "You said such a liebelous thing, and all my friends heard it", says the person making the complaint. "No I didn't, that could clearly have been anyone I was talking about, here's the tape to prove it".
From what I can tell, only a minority of the population would actually care enough about TV to actually complain. Most people just turn off the tv or watch something else when something's on that they don't like.
Back, a long time ago, (I think), there were many, many complaints about a lingerie poster with Kylie Minogue in it. A couple of hundred got through, out of about 20000, IIRC. Even if that seems significant, more people entered a competition to win the poster than the number of people who complained.
Why make laws to fix a problem when it can be fixed with an ON/OFF switch? I for one am sick of these 'think of the children!!!' laws, which don't help the children at all. Being 14, I don't think that restricting content or information from getting through is a good way of doing things. My parents have tried to give me certain opinions my whole life. Trying to censor information isn't the way to make things good. Especially when you can't stop it after it has been done.
While keeping the tapes seems reasonable, making complaints easier looks rather like censorship through the backdoor.
Rather than a govenrment body directly cracking down, they can say they are responding to complaints, and fear of complaints may force some broadcasters to change things.
That is a bit tinfoil hat thinking, but some people in the current US admistration do seem very keen on "cleaning things up" (Ashcroft anyone?).
Yes. However, since the prudes (religiously motivated prudes in particular) make a very loud crowd that also tends to vote, the government listen to them.
I for one am worried about the recent re-emergence of social conservatism both in Europe and abroad. One good thing about conservatism is that it encourages people to vote. Voting just doesn't seem to be "cool" amongst the young social liberals and now we're seeing the results.
The owls are not what they seem
Shouldn't this parent's tv society or whatever be reponsible for what tv shows they let their children watch, instead of attempting to censor tv for all of us. Their site didn't even rate south park, I really wanted to see how they reviewed it, haha.
Thing is, why should the onus -only- be on the broadcaster in these cases?
If you've got an indecency complaint to make, you should be able to make your -own- copy of the event.
Copyright laws seem more designed to prevent open criticism of the quality of media, than the actual control of copy of that media. Frankly I think far too many TV and "Mass Media" broadcasters are getting away with nefarious info-war rubbish, and it has gone on too long... the public need education on propaganda, and they -need- the right to record all media they perceive, on persistent and undeniable basis.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I think it's perfectly normal. People are lazy by nature.
Besides, who are you to say what people should be doing with their lives?
The owls are not what they seem
I have read many complaints here. And I want to get somethign straight. There is complaining because a bunch of tv stations with a lot of money have to record and keep on file what their overpaid broadcasters say/do on air. This is in case they do something they are not allowed to do so they can be held laible for their actions.
I'm sorry. If someone does something they know is wrong and do it on the air... then they should just own up. There are consequences to your actions. If they screw up they can own up.
Evolution or ID?
But it's an offence to copy onto a video tape! So how do I legally present present this "evidence" in court. Even if I win the indecency case I'll probably get sued for breach of copyright or circumventing the DMCA or whatever else trumped up charge the corporate pond life can get away with.
how does that work?
"hey that was disgusting, put a tape in quick and record 5 minutes ago"
Hmm, but aren't the broadcasters and FCC etc. about to make it impossible to make your own copy of the event with the new broadcast flag, drm etc.
I guess the broadcasters can't have it both ways - if they want to prevent everyone else copying then seems reasonable they are going to be required to keep definitive copies for evidence...
My guess is your job isn't to be a raunchy DJ. Howard's JOB is to do that. And yet he is fined for it. If you're a computer scientist and you make fart jokes, it might be considered inappropriate at work. However, construction workers that want to hear fart jokes can tune in Howard. If your office wants to censor you listening to Howard, technically they probably can. The government can NOT, however, and should NOT, because 18 million people (about) enjoy listening to the show in various public (and allowed private) places. If you think for one minute that your kid is being warped by Howard, turn it off, or better yet, get real, because your kid has heard 10 times worse at school every day since kindergarden.
stuff |
I know corporations are not really given any rights under the constitution. However, the 5th Amendment specifically says, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Could being forced by the government to keep tapes for the specific purpose that said tapes might be used against you in the future during a criminal proceeding go against this concept?
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
I'm quite amazed that this isn't already demanded for broadcasters. I would think they should be required to provide full recordings of every program they make (but drop the advertisement), and submit to the national library.
I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, that this is already done in Norway - and everything is archived in the national library. I'll have to say I would be terribly disappointed if this isn't done.
Remember that great scifi-series has been lost for all time, due to not beeing archived. Great shows has gone down the drain forever.
In an ideal future, all such materiell would also, after a time, be made available for the general public through the Internet.
I seem to remember that BBC had some plans about making all their stuff available. Not sure what came out of that though, but it would be truly wonderfull.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
I, for one, don't welcome our Christian fundamentalist government and it's regulation of morality.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
So what your saying is that people like howard stern should not be liable for what comes out of their mouths. I am held liable for what I say at every job I have ever had. How is he above that? Because he is a celebrity? Please explain it to me.
Because you can switch him off if you find him offensive? Same as your boss tells you to shut your mouth, only you don't even have to tell him to his face, just hit that dial! The feeling of POWER must be overwhelming!
Inoffensive speech needs no protection. That's what the First Amendment is all about. Protecting speech that others don't like.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
"People" don't have FCC broadcast licenses - corporations do. Corporations, since they can't be arrested, incarcerated, or killed, among many other unavailable enforcement options, must be required to document their actions, to provide comparable evidence, of guilt or innocence, to that naturally created by living humans.
--
make install -not war
I'll tell you why
Because whoever is behind this shit sees the blood in the water and is now looking at past tapes to see if they can apply Today's standards to yesterday's broadcasts.
I think it stinks and is completely unfair.
WTF? Over?
Don't the programme-makers have better programmes they can make?
Our problem in the States these days is that parents want the government to be responsible for their kids. When their kids get in trouble for shoplifting or shooting another kid over a pair of shoes, they want to point to violence on TV or the music they listen to as the problem. Unfortunately, the real problem, as most intelligent people know, is the parents themselves. They don't want to take the time to raise their kids. They want the onus of responsibility to be with the government, hence these absurd laws.
The Republicans are always going on about family values, and while I'm a liberal myself, I have to agree with that one issue. Family values in this country have, for the most part, gone to shit. I was raised by a single mother who worked full time. She still managed to raise me to know the difference between right and wrong. Even after a long, hard day's work, she managed to come home and spend time with me and talk to me about my day.
The fact is, getting the government to charge out after indecency on TV is a complete and utter waste of time. As if kids can't find stuff 100 times more indecent and profane in the SPAM in their inboxes anyway.
What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again. At least that's my opinion. Parents can be much better parents than any government, if they have the incentive.
You mindless fucking right wing republicans are no better than the mindless fucking camel jockeys that flew those planes into the towers on 9/11. I believe in freedom, I may not like how some people use those freedoms, but I'll fight to the death to make sure that that freedom is protected. If you want to live under a dictatorship where dos and don'ts are laid out for you, then move to North Korea. Post your home address and I'll mail you $5 to help you on your merry way to your new life in Kim Jong utopia. Even if you pass on my offer, at the very least I can take solace in the fact that there's a special place reserved in the deepest, darkest pits of hell for the lot of you right wing fascist neo-nazis.
Remember that First Amendment thing? It allpies to EVERY AMERICAN....Not Just Stern, or Rush, or Al. The guy down the street can get on a CB and cus and curse all he wants. That's public airwaves...right?
My
In other words, does the government have anything better to do than listen to a group of people that I don't agree with. That seems to be what the story submitter is implying. Fortuneately the government does listen to various groups of people with differing opinions on matters. That's why you have your free voice too -- because you belong in a group of people who (I imply) may speak out for less censorship. By indicating the goverment should ignore the opinion of a group of people under the guise of "government [has] better things to do", you would be diminishing the voice of a group of people, and that seems to be a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Now cue the arguments about what is democracy :)
If either of you are interested in the real irony here, it is that October 30th is continually protesting what he/she believes to be torpors statement of the unacceptablity of an individual being "allowed to waste time", by trying to imply torpor is not "allowed" (i.e. who are you? comments) to have an opinion / make a suggestion about the matter. Even moreso as it seems quite apparent torpor wasn't
suggesting individuals should not be allowed to watch television (i.e. it should be outlawed,etc.) he/she was merely stating his/her belief that he/she has found it to be a waste of time, during which many other wonderful things could be experienced. Yes, there does seems to be a bit of elitist cock stroking mixed in with the potential helpfulness of the statement, however this is not unusual. As it is not unusual for october to attempt to silence all those perceived to disagree with his/her ideas. He/she used with militant diligence to rob the feeble minded of petty pleasures.
Anyone is allowed to have an opinion, but when the opinion is made public it also becomes subject to public criticism.
As it is not unusual for october to attempt to silence all those perceived to disagree with his/her ideas.
True, if you mean that I am not actively seeking consensus and like to provoke reactions instead.
The owls are not what they seem
As someone else already pointed out, they're putting the burden of proof on the accused not the accuser.
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
If a broadcaster doesn't record everything now. And the government decides that they have to record everything and keep it on record, they now have the added cost of maintaining the new manditory data. There are costs for people, equipment etc. Even if it only added $1 of cost per month, they shouldn't be forced to do this. How does this relate to the 5th amendment? If you ask me, the groups who offer the complaints should be providing the proof, not the broadcasters. That's like forcing me to install equipment in my fridge that detects when I'm drinking on Sunday! (Illegal in some areas).
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
this sounds a lot like "guilty until proven innocent".
FCC dude: "you'd beter keep proof that you're not being indecent, otherwise we'll know you are! think of the children!"
me: "shut the hell up - if you don't want children being exposed to "indecency" you'd better not let them go outside. if your kid hearing the word "shit" is your biggest problem then you're doing ok in this world".
This is terrible. What's next? Is the government going to force everyone to where a gps device so we can track and make sure they don't commit crimes? How's about cammera's on every street corner with little microphones, just incase some one says something offensive?
The FCC shouldn't monitor what is said over the airwaves at all. They have turned into the government's censership enforcement. The only responciblity of the FCC should be make sure my brodcast isn't interfering with your broadcast. That's it. The airwaves should be privately owned, bought and sold. They are not "public airwaves" They are no different than owning land property. Do what you want with it, but don't screw with your neigbor's land.
makes me sick. The radio and your TV has 2 buttons. One to change the channel, One to turn it off!!
This is what I really hate about the FCC and groups like the PTC. They should have no say is what I can or can't watch or listen to and what can or can't be shown/said on TV and radio.
The only duty they should have is to enforce the accurate and complete labeling of what a show contains (Adult Language, Nudity, Violence, R X, PG etc) and keep those ratings honest.
Let me decide what I want to see and hear, not some coucil with a stick up their ass who freaks everytime they hear the work ass or bitch on TV.
Parent your children. There are two knobs: volume and power. Use them. Don't force my favorite shows to a G level because you can't parent your children or use a remote control.
A prime example. After the Janet Jackson thing, the Bob and Tom radio show simply sucks. They can't play or say nearly any of the things they used to, so now I don't listen to them any more.
All because someone couldn't handle the site of a nipple on TV.
On the radio the other day, someone equated the erosion of our liberties to the process of boiling a frog: you don't throw the frog into boiling water, it's reflexes are faster and it will hop out; what you do is put the frog into water then boil the water. If you want to take away liberties you start small and unnoticable and erode them before anybody notices what is going on.
This is just another step in that slow but eventual process.
Add to this measure recent amendments added to the defense authorization bill by Brownback (increase fines) and Harkin (get Rush off military radio), and INDUCE by Hatch and company, and Clear-Channel fined to a "clean-slate" status; one can see that government is positioning itself to enforce the political agendas in power.
-Phil
Shoot questions, first ask later...
Hmmm, where to begin?
1) Do you really think that sex on TV, or women wearing tighter or more revealing clothing, causes more illegitimate children and more sex crimes? Where are the data to support this? I recall reading that illegitimacy is actually on the decline at the moment.
2) Why don't you also complain about violence on TV? People have been dying like flies on TV shows and movies since the 50's. Are we more violent because TV shows and movies are making us violent? People have tried to make this argument, but the data don't support it.
3) Hey, maybe it's all the fault of our local TV news programs! That's what Michael Moore suggests ("Bowling for Columbine"). Maybe we should prevent the local news from carrying sensational stories about murders and stabbings, so we'll all feel safer and for some reason stop killing each other (there are no data to support this, either).
You seem like a well-meaning person. Unfortunately you have drawn a conclusion that isn't supported by any data. The pinups of the 40's, for example, hardly seem racy today -- but back then, a glimpse of thigh was big big news, indeed. Had you been around back then (were you?), you probably would have joined the ranks of the outraged at seeing the famous Betty Grable leg shot.
Just checking -- how do you feel about recreational drugs, like marijuana? Do you think that marijuana starts people down a slippery slope to crank, coke, heroin, and so forth? No evidence for that, either, I'm afraid.
Did I read that right? In order to for me to bring a complaint against the broadcaster, *I* have to provide a tape of the show? Doesn't that conflict rather seriously with the broadcast flag that will in future prevent me from making that recording?
www.sjbaker.org
In the UK, television stations can show whatever they like after 21.00; I don't know when in the morning they are obliged to start being "family-friendly". In Mainland Europe, I believe the system is even simpler: everyone understands that television broadcasts are {primarily} for adults, and parents are entirely responsible for deciding what their kids should or should not watch.
If you don't like what you see, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it. And if you can't stop your kids watching TV when they shouldn't be, then you are an unfit parent.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
But what is acceptable to the majority? Despite the loud fuss made about the Jackson nipple by some, it does seem to be a minority who where offended. Most people seem to think of it as a cheap and tacky stunt by a failing "artist" and I don't think there are many who would go out of there way to find pictures of her nipple.
When you say as a parent I have to monitor my children's viewing, fine, I already do but when supposedly mainstream programming shows crap like the half time show then I can't rely on any rating scheme. Just cut my efforts off at the knees
you could record and watch programmes before hand to check there suitable this is something allot of parents do here in the UK I even remember my parents doing it, why? Because different people have different opinions on what there children should see so they take and accept that responsibility themselves and don't devolve it to others like the TV stations and expect them to think the same as them. To quote South Park Horrific deplorable violence is OK so long as you don't say any naughty words. (or show "gasp" a nipple)i saw some whe i was 1 hour old because i was breast feed.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
So, a bunch of guys beating the crap out of each other is what you consider good family entertainment?
This sig is the express property of someone.
It wouldn't surprise me that in the end they will force people running web servers to keep a copy of every page served.
Just wait....
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
clear channel or huge commercial stations can swing this easily.... but again this is another thing that would be a nightmare for shoestring budgetted non-commercial / community / educational radio stations.
i realize it's easier to archive 90 days than it was 20 years ago, but 90 days of audio 24/7 recorded and archived is a lot of mess for smaller stations.
there are still plenty of little stations that have the DJ record their show on cassettes. if i remember right the current rule only requires the archive to be kept for 2 weeks. obviously some people (Howard Stern, Rush etc) archive everything they do.