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?"
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.