Slashdot Mirror
Regulation That Could Stifle Video Over the Net?
bb writes to tell us that recent comments made by the FCC could be cause for concern for proponents of internet video. Being considered under the guise of a push against child pornography on the internet, VoN founder Jeff Pulver stated that this is just a warning shot. From the article: "He drew a parallel between this potential regulation and an attempt to ban or restrict Internet voice in 1996, and predicted a long battle and offered to help advocates of rights of IP video innovators. 'The VoN coalition will take people through the stages of what's going to happen,' he said."
Why don't we just make children illegal? That would solve a whole slew of problems, and makes just about as much sense.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Child porography is already illegal, why make a ban on it on a specific medium? Also, how does the FCC have any say in this anyway?
I could have sworn that child pron' videos where allready illegal, regardless of medium.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I would be very disappointed if the government allowed actions that had a negative impact on internet video.
My wife is from Sweden and she uses it to communicate with her parents regularily. Without that we'd be limited in our ability to spend quality time with them... even a continent apart. I know there are tons of people just like us that find internet video to be incredibly important in their lives.
I certainly support the government in doing what it can in dealing with child pornography and other things along those lines... but trying to apply a tax or stifle innovation in regards to technological advance would have alot of societal negatives.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
This article only has about one sentence of new information, and it's second-hand at that. What did the FCC commissioner actually say?
Remeber the scariest nine words in English: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
... as he took another hit from his bong.
Who is going to sit and encode this information, mapped frame by frame? You would have to encode EVERYTHING in the film this way, otherwise it would be worse than mystery meat navagation, it would be MOVING mystery meat navagation!
Pulver needs to think things through!
-=test-sig_0.1.5(NoWhitespaceVersion)=-
First of all, video through the internet bypasses all and any kind of regulation when it comes to the "distribution of distribution", i.e. the way video content and its distribution ways work today, where certain groups hold the right to broadcast certain content in certain areas. Why do you think Region Codes exist for DVDs? Why do you think satelite TV providers are under constant fire from them because they technically don't have the "right" to show this content in that area, even though that satelite can be received in the latter?
The internet is by its very definition an international medium. What would keep me from getting a stream directly from the country it originates instead of waiting until some distributor in my area buys the rights to distribute it? The distribution market would very suddenly hit a very deep hole. Not the worst thing in my books, by far not, but I can see the flak generated from that area.
And of course, control. Blogs have already shown what can happen when normal people dare to speak their mind and publish it. With the 'net, it's no big deal. Everyone can afford doing it, while you'd need quite some amount of money to get the same kind of audience with a newspaper or similar publication. Now imagine this for news broadcasts. Which is a serious threat to control mechanisms employed to keep networks under control.
TV networks, especially news networks, are in the hands of a very small group of people, who are for one very easy to influence (being a small group), and who have a lot of influence themselves (by being the ones who have the monopoly on "the truth" that is broadcast). Both is endangered by the ability of "normal" people to do the same, bringing news to you.
And unlike blogs, you don't need to be literate or willing to read to get the info. You only have to turn on your "internet TV".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe it's time to write a new novel, with "think of the children" as the foundation for the enslavement of the masses in a giant bureaucratic industrial machine?
This collectivization, represented by nurses wearing bracelets that allows people to track how much time they spend in the bathroom, video cameras in public restrooms, and on and on... threatens to turn the public into peasants -- people who own nothing, not even their own voice. We're already seeing a push away from ownership of anything with DRM and infinite copyright.
Welcome to the new Tsarist Russia!
Since the article was completely content-free aside from a mention of considering banning child pornography on the internet (whatever the hell that means when it's already illegal), I'm going to take this opportunity to talk completely out of my ass.
Damn you, government. Why must you intrude into every aspect of my life? The free market will punish child pornographers, and regulation killed my son.
I guess "terrorism" is getting old as the all-purpose excuse for enforcing every corporate and political wishlist on the public. Time to haul out the ol' child porn whip to keep monopolies going, keep incumbents in office, secure better bribes for the elect. Wrecking the Internet is sure easier than having a society that's interested enough to teach kids to take care of themselves. Something like 8000 kids die from cars every year, but I haven't heard a peep about banning cars, or even thinking about minor changes in the transportation system. That, apparently, wouldn't feather any "child protectors'" nests.
They said they wanted us at /. to stop talking about child pornography.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
What we should do is to make a Godwin's Law of The Second Kind, which would say:
"As justifications for restrictive online laws are given, the probability of a politician mentioning child pornography approaches one."
At that point that politician should be publicly humiliated, thrown out of Congress, and stoned in the street.
Enough already with child porn, the new communism and the new terrorism.
Could Stifle Video Over the Net
Good thing. We wouldn't want the tubes to get all clogged up with video. When my staff sends me an internet, I need to get it on time.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I hope they ban family portraits next. All it does is show children dolled up like they're trying to look good for adults. Who knows how many less pedophiles we'd have if they were never exposed to the Sears Portrait Center advertisements? Don't even get me started about the telephone. 1-900-hawt-kid indeed.
*Intended to be read in the voice of a stoned hippie*
Iternet video is like totally cool and stuff and theres like a bunch of potentail in it and stuff, man. And, uh..., the FCC is like maybe gonna regulate it or something cause you know there could be like child porn and the FCC likes regulating stuff, cause you know this Internet video stuff kinda looks like TV and the FCC regulates that.
*end hipie*
Honestly this article is one of the most useless waste of 2 pages I have ever seen. The one time I RTFA and it turns out to contain less information than the ingredient list of the yogurt I'm eating.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Whew. Was I the only one who quickly title read *Religion* That Could Stifle Video Over the Net?
Who cares, the internet is more than the US.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Perhaps the FCC person talked about prohibiting anyone under 18 from distributing video over the internet? They did specifically mention that we will start to see more videos created by children now that equipment and broadband are cheap and widely available. That would be stifling, for sure.
The internet has allowed videos/shows to be distributed more easily that can embarrass or harm those in control in the U.S. Just do a search for a show that was to be shown on the Discovery Channel named "Conspiracy of Silence" for instance.
I recently came across an interesting example of this promotional video/clothing advertising, over some fairly well edited pr0n. Googling 'shai' should get you there.
You sir, are a troll. On the whole, the rest of the world has historically been more than willing to bend to inquiries from the various US governmental agencies. I would go on but why waste the time indulging you.
Isn't this the same excuse China gave for regulating internet? So FCC is taking a page out of China's playbook of how to restrict information? Well, at least they are learning from one of the biggest censor in the world. I am so tired of all these "Why won't you think about the children?" crap, if we let these people run things, next thing we know, the children will watch nothing but Barney on PBS.
if we let these people run things, next thing we know, the children will watch nothing but Barney on PBS. ... and they will be breaking the law by doing so!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
They're called "bars" or "taverns", and nobody under the age of 21 is allowed in them, at least in the United States. Mind you, many of the patrons of such establishments have problems acting better than the kids somebody would go to such a place to escape...
InThane
"FCC killed the video star..."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Hey FCC. Just lock up everyone in a little tiny cage, that will solve all of your bull shit problems.
It's not internet video that promotes child prono, but yet the fact that there are children.
You also have a long history of trollish "So why should I care?"-type posts. Please do us all a favor and come back to the table when you have something intelligent to add to the conversation. Right now all you do is demand to know why you should care. Perhaps you are destined not to care ;) So please don't care and move on.
Thanks.
Regards,
The Slashdot Community
IMHO, the whole deal falls back to people in "power" not fully understanding how things work, thusly fearing them. First VOIP. They feared is, as they did not understand it, and did not know how they would "control" it. They initially thought every kid who could run a linux box at their house would end up being their own telecom. (Not too far from the truth, but hey). Now VOIP has matured, and they're regulated (for the most part).
Enter (so to speak, it's been around a while) Video "over IP" (man, we can't call it VOIP, and MOIP just sounds weird)... they freak out. They fear people will be broadcasting their own TV shows (lonelygirl?) to the world. Fear of loss of control enters. So, they pull out the big guns. Namely the "child porn" gun.
Yes. Child porn is illegal. It's wrong. It's bad. It's horrible.
But Child porn isn't the issue.
The issue is they don't understand how Streaming media works. They don't understand how they can regulate it. They don't understand how they can make money off of it.
So, *FUD*, they pull out the kiddie porn gun.
Education before legislation. That's the key. That's what they're missing.
As a person who is making a decent living off of Video on the web, I can tell you, I don't feel that much will come of this. I don't think I'll open my mail one day to a C&D Order from the government, nor some big bill from the IRS. I think this one will just blow on over.
--- http://www.keything.com
The fact that the Internet isn't american, the fact that the video's aren't american, the problem with regulation of stuff that is already a heavy crime, or the fact this isn't even worthy news.
I'll assume everyone heard everything and the last one is the only one worth meantioning.
This article isn't say there's legislation in the house. This is saying the FCC is considering legislation. Let's find the legislation first and then rally ourselves into a frenzy. It's good to be aware of the coming storm, but when your Florida and the storm hits New Orleans it might not be worth it. From the sounds of the article this is a rally cry for an outrage that hasn't even been confirmed to be coming. Let's not turn our focuses from current problems to something that may be coming but may not even work or make sense.
People always use this gun analogy and it is (pardon the pun) dead wrong.
The fact of the matter is, a gun is far more likely to kill the owner of the gun, a casual bystander, or someone totally different (when the gun is stolen), than it is a criminal while protecting life or property. The odds of you dying from a gunshot wound increase by a large margin when you own a handgun.
Whether you agree with the practice or not, regulating handguns can at least *BE PROVEN* to reduce these types of deaths of people who have nothing to do with the crime.
Regulating child pornogrpahy on the internet does nothing to protect anyone or reduce anything, because anyone involved in posting it or looking at it is already doing something illegal. There *are* no "innocent bystanders".
Simply apply for a liquor/beer license and advertise your establishment as a "tavern". It doesn't matter what your business is, whether you sell videos, work on cars, etc. The legal fact that you "sell" alcohol is enough to make it a kid free zone.
I'm sorry, but this is pretty content-free. "It's possible that the government, possibly with noble but misguided intentions, could create regulations that make it harder than we'd like to do things."
It's also possible for the government to try and force everyone through a huge national proxy. Or to require all ISP's to monitor your activities at all times. Or to ban the number zero and make us all use ones.
The COULD do a lot of things. Are they trying to? Is there any evidence of a problem?
Better headline: "Alarmist warns that things could be made worse if the government wants to do so."
Well color me suprised.
I hereby proclaim this to be Rectums Law!
I'm not some wierdo who has any kind of sexual thoughts about kids, and like most healthy adults the concept itself turns my stomach and pisses me off. However: I've just about had it with anybody limiting my personal freedoms or civil liberties in the name of stopping child pornography.
Does a psychologist here know the numbers on what portion of society is affected by that sickness? Wouldn't it be better that a few pervs get their stupid kiddie porn rather than ending any kind of free society for the rest of us?
How is freedom of speech, freedom to communicate, and a truly free communication infrastructure for all any less important than whether or not a couple of sickos are spanking it to pix of a couple of third world kids who very likely would've been exploited by some local asshole anyway?
I'm all for stopping child pornography, but anybody waving that banner to limit MY freedoms can have a swift kick in the face as far as I'm concerned.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
You are correct that if you own a gun, it is more likely to injure a family member than a criminal (at least on average). What it interesting though is that allowing non-criminals to have guns reduces crime rates in general. Thus, it is in your interest to be allowed to have guns, but not in your interest to actually own one.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
How could you be against this? After all, it's for the children.
Have you read my journal today?
you internet hippies with your youspaces and your mytubes... why don't you just let anyone put any freakin thing they want up there? and let other folks see it for free? video media is media of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. you, sir, are not a corporation! this great united states was built on money and control. why do you hate america? next thing you know there will be videos on the intertubes blaming the government for 9/11, or saying that al qaeda doesn't really exist, and comedians making fun of the president to his face. it'll be hell on earth i tells ya! hell on earth!
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
a Wisconsin law that allows children to consume alcoholic drinks at bars as long as their parents are present
This makes great sense as a way to curb reckless drinking. The culture surrounding drinking in the states is so backwards - teens are discouraged and prevented from drinking which automatically makes it a pretty cool thing to get away with doing. Then they reach this magic age of 21 where they're suddenly set free like a toddler in a candy-shop. How many parents treat other things such as driving this way? - "Here you're 16 now, take the keys, figure it out, have a blast." It took me and a lot of people I know a long time to really learn how to drink, and a lot of dumb mistakes could have been prevented if we weren't teaching ourselves. Wisconsin folk, take your kids to bars, teach them to drink responsibly, and you'll also crush the hell out of the "cool-factor" that so often leads to reckless underage drinking. Take advantage of the unique freedom your state has before it's taken away.
ôó
Find some legal regulation that bars letting minors into your establishment because of governance of said business activity, set yourself up as technically engaging in said business activity (even though you really don't), and voila, a kid free zone. And if people complain, you can point to the regulation, and then threaten THEM with wanting to violate the regulation. It's sheer genius.
Really. It's true. However, in spite of the fact that Congress and the Supreme Court have been curtailing the FCC's mandated oversight capabilities (much less oversight it has not been given) for years, somehow one statement by one person means that there will soon be a serious threat to our ability to freely upload crappy videos to YouTube.
The FCC would have to be given this mandate by Congress, and given current political realities, I find that highly improbable. Chalk this one up to bureaucratic bombast. Everybody wants to rule the world, but nobody is going to let the FCC do it.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
If a government is limited to its most basic and absolute functions, it won't have the power to over-reach its place in society. Big business likes big government because big government has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of big business.
Anyone out there who really thinks that this legislation is designed to protect children from being victims of porn, is delusional, naive, and misguided. It is simply an excuse to begin legislating and regulating a sector that has previously not been subject to regulation. Why would they want to do this? Because big media wants it that way.
Look at the sponsors of this, and then goto http://www.opensecrets.org/ and find out who is contributing to them. That might help understand the money trail a bit.
The libertarians are right on about keeping a small limited government for this very reason.
Libertas in infinitum
You know, she may just be in one of those monthly moments. You know, how we wimmin are. . . .
Just wait a few days . . . .
Cleara
What??? That purple pervert who wears no pants??? How the hell old is he, hanging around those pure little innocents? I'd guess forty at least.
Don't need to bring gun control into it at all...
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
What's stopping someone sending a video over P2P to another country, then the video being published from there?
Of course the whole thing about media is bordering on the ridiculus, but that is another story.
It does make me wonder how long it will be before some rich person or company buys a few islands, establishes a country and bans children from them (think an almost-permananent vacation spot). I would assume that there are a lot of laws designed to push agendas based on 'protecting the children'and so I bet it would be quite an interesting country that only allows childless people to come and live there, and would certainly have interesting TV!
I've been there.
I don't remember if the TV was especially interesting but the clothing shops were Fabulous!!