Slashdot Mirror
Australia Wants to Regulate Internet Streaming
Paul writes "After an incident that occurred on a popular television show's internet stream, the Australian government has once again demonstrated that it simply does not understand the internet by indicating that they intend to regulate streaming video. I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?"
No, we're not all like John Howard, but the majority of us are. We, Australia, elected him to represent us. If we didn't think John Howard represented us, we could have voted for a different party, of which there are many.
Personally, I vote for The Greens.
We'll regulate that too, damnit!
(in jest, however - sadly, it appears that's probably what they'll propose if previous internet related legislation is anything to go by).
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
If you don't have a broadcast license you should be able to do whatever you want with your webcam. Television has a lot of power. Setting up a webcam in my kitchen isn't going to draw hundreds of thousands of viewers, but when a TV station comes along and does it, with all the promotion and hoo-ha that goes with it, then people will watch it. Their web broadcast should be covered by the same standards as their TV broadcasts.
No charges - see here. And if you watch the footage and consider the circumstances, it bedazzles me how it can be blown out of proportion that much. They are three young adults who have been living together for 70 days, 24 hours a day. The girl and the 2 guys were very comfortable with each other and slept in the same bed, with her being topless and all of them hugging. There was some sort of sexual tension between them, so this did not come out of nowhere. The girl even said "Are you going to turkeyslap me now?" so she saw it coming. In the end she did tell them to stop and so they did.
It is a TV show and there is a lot of bullshit and manipulation through the way it is broadcast. However, these people do live their lives in there and form relationships that are probably stronger than one can imagine watching 10 minute blurbs of footage each day.
The politicians are just proving that it is not the TV show, but rather themselves who deserve the title Big Brother!
Well, there's a big difference between internet and TV.
At least in the US, the reasoning goes that the government is entitled to regulate the content of TV broadcasts because the airwaves belong to the public. The amount of spectrum available for broadcasting is limited, and since the people are allowing private entities to use that limited resource, they (through their representatives) have the right to decide how it may be used. Cable TV doesn't use public resources, so it can't be censored except under the same laws that could be used to censor books or magazines (obscenity, copyright, national security, etc.).
The internet works differently. As we all know, it's a series of TUBES, and those tubes belong to private entities. Furthermore, unlike broadcasts, which are pushed invisibly from a transmitter through the air in your home (and which are passing through your body right this second!), internet streams are delivered only to those who request them. Whether or not you have to pay for the stream is irrelevant; either way, it isn't forcing itself upon anyone. It's like comparing a mass mailing to a box of pamphlets which you can take if you're interested: it'd be silly to complain about the content of the pamphlet when you made the decision to seek it out.
Finally, the kneejerk "protect the children" principle never has any weight, because there's no evidence whatsoever that children need to be "protected" from content like this. It's an argument based on gut feelings rather than fact.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I don't get it
What is the issue? The girl knew what she was getting into when she climbed into the bed. She did not seem particularly surprised or offended by the events. I do not know what type of parties the majority of slashdotters attend but this seems like harmless banter. Now, if she objected or expressed discomfort with what was happening, the situation might be different, but these are consenting adults.
As to government restrictions on internet broadcasts, let them try. There will always be a way for the truly dedicated to find the information they are looking for.
Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
On the topic at hand, never mind the porn, can't we ban Big Brother for being offensively stupid?
Lets ban stuff because christian fundamentalist tools don't know what an 'off' button is and believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them! Next some other group will want something else taken off because they also believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them!
Yes, its smut, but if you don't like it, don't watch it and let the networks decide when the lack of ad revenue doesn't justify another reality tv iteration.
SBS should really rush the two South Park Cartoon Wars episodes on air...
That's an assisine comment. There's a world of difference between a sensible, substainable economy, and one that consumes all resources as fast as possible for the biggest short-term profits. The Greens argue for a sustainable economy. There's no sane person left on the planet who claims that our current resource usage is sustainable. It's just that mainstream political parties have no interest in doing anything about it.
It was hardly a meltdown. He let of some steam, that's for sure. If I were him, I would have felt the same way. Labor castritates his policies and threw the election to the Liberals so they could continue to play to the conservative factions ( inside and out ) Latham would have actually been a leader, whereas Howard is simply following the US ruling class all the way to hell. But on the topic of meltdowns, I seem to remember a certain prominent Liberal politician attempting suicide ( and failing ). Now that was a meltdown. Latham was just venting.
They are only going to regulate locally produced content. But we would know this already if the editor had bothered to spend his time doing some research rather than falsely accusing the Australian government of not understanding the Internet. No one accuses TV regulators of not understanding the medium, even though anyone with a transmitter can broadcast whatever they want. Everyone's just so used to TV being regulated that it doesn't occur to them that the radio spectrum is physically just as unregulatable as the Internet. Just like the internet, there's no way for the government to physically block people from using the medium.
Not really. Most people held captive tend to fall for their captors (Stockholm syndrome) and would likely feel there wasn't REALLY a crime commited.
Not to mention all the rape victims that get tricked into believing they really did deserve it, after all they were leading him on and wearing such a short skirt..
Then theres also plenty of statutory laws, which while you or I may disagree with them, they're still illegal.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx