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.
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!
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.
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.
Mornin'
0 i.htm
Actually, Media100 came out with this several years ago, http://www.creativemac.com/HTM/News/07_00/media10
. It was QT based and not that difficult to define and use. It did add to the post production, but you could do some swanky interactive stuff with online video. Too bad it never really took off. Twas fun stuff.
oh yeah, almost forgot, "But think of the children..."
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
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
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