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?"

5 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" by babbling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Broadcast license by natslovR · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think it's a lot simpler than they suggest here, but they are looking at it wrong. If you have a broadcast license (or whatever the equivalent is) then whether you send video content out over the internet, mobile phones, or TV frequencies, you should be held accountable to broadcast standards no matter the medium.

    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.

  3. Re:For those who are confused... by 12ahead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  4. Re:I think people are slightly missing the point by Mr2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The incident would have been illegal if it had been shown on traditional media and as it happened and was broadcast within Austrialia to Austrailians, why is it unfair for the Prime Minister to call for the broadcasting laws and restrictions to extend from older types of media (the television) to newer forms (such as internet streaming). [...] Now I dont know if Big Brother in Oz is streamed free to the public, but I would assume that it is, so I would imagine that the 'protect the children' (kneejerk) principle actually has some weight for once. If the stream was to registered adults (paying customers) then it would be different.

    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.
  5. Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" by mcbridematt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...