Slashdot Mirror
EU Considering Regulating Video Bloggers
Aglassis writes to tell us that recent proposed EU legislation could require anyone running a website featuring video content to acquire a broadcast license. From the article: "Personal websites would have to be licensed as a "television-like service". Once again the reasoning behind such legislation is said to be in order to set minimum standards on areas such as hate speech and the protection of children. In reality this directive would do nothing to protect children or prevent hate speech - unless you judge protecting children to be denying them access to anything that is not government regulated or you assume hate speech to be the criticism of government actions and policy."
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!
-George Harrison
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The EU's desire to regulate every little aspect of a person's life. The question we need to answer now is whether the EU was just a great idea or if it was the greatest idea ever!
Look at the example that the article provided. You Tube. It's located in the United States. What about myself??
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
TFA is actually about the UK government trying to prevent this directive from being passed, so the whole world hasn't quite gone insane yet.
On another note, it seems very interesting, timing-wise, that this would come up so soon after Google acquires Youtube.
On the one hand, the government just wants more money. On the other hand, these are the same officials who likely go along with the internet being a series of tubes. But seriously, how can these asshats believe that hosting a video is anything like being a broadcaster? Oh, yeah I just answered my own question: it's the money despite any other explanations they give.
EU is such a great idea. Too bad it has too many idiots running the show over there. Regulating streamed material on the internet won't help anybody, it also won't stop anything at all.
Once again the reasoning behind such legislation is said to be in order to set minimum standards on areas such as hate speech and the protection of children.
As for protecting the children, I think they'd be more interested in regulating MySpacesterKut et al. I mean, that's where all the pedophiles are gathering, which represents an ACTUAL threat to children, rather than the viewing of naughty videos, which represents... well, no real threat at all. I mean, WTF?
But more to the point: anytime someone wants to do something "in the interests of the children", doesn't your bullshit detector go off like crazy? Mine did, so I thought this through:
1) Hate speech and naughty content can occur equally as well via the media of text and pictures. Video doesn't necessarily add anything to either one. In fact, any smart, savvy Holocaust denier will tell you that text is a far more efficient and cost-effective method of defaming Jews.
2) Text (chat, specifically) is really the ONLY thing for which you can make a halfway-serious argument about the protection of children online. The idea that videos will somehow threaten children (they'll come get you in the middle of the night!) is just inane.
3) Broadcast license fees open up a new revenue source for the government, which can be used to directly tax internet content (which so far is nearly unheard of).
I mean, this is practically a QED: It's about money, specifically taxes.
You've never lived in Europe before have you? Cameras n every street corner being fed into private homes byt he government. Federal papers being required to travel. Secret prisons for other countries. Laws against believing what you want (ie: Germany with Nazi's and France with the Turkish genocides). Laws against symbols and speech. Huge election scandals. Are we talking about the same Europe? Mine's located on all the maps as 'Europe.'
Based on this article, it would seem more like a bunch of bored bureacrats in Brussels (Ooh! Alliteration!) are the ones with all the power.
Hey, Europe: At least WE get rid of Bush in 2008, and we have a chance to put someone else in charge. You guys are stuck with the EU until someone starts WWIII. Sucks to be you!
cameras and papers does not constitute any diminishing factor to your power over your governments.
the nazi genocide was a reality, so it doesnt matter if there is a law against disbelieving it or not.
what is important is that, european bureucracy consist of people more susceptible to people than the big money circles, despite the situation in united states. you have much more chance.
Read radical news here
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =200038011808
The solution is pretty simple:
Register the site in the Bahamas and bingo! Or better still, keep it registered in the EU and get content from abroad. Problem solved, period.
Makes you stop for a second to think, are they talking about China or the EU?
... think of the CHILDREN!
How long until we see countries leaving the EU? I mean, I really like the idea of a common currency, but given the number of problems and the obvious attempts to create a single government to rule over Europe, how long until the UK decides to leave?
Can anyone point out to me how the UK benefits from being in the EU (as opposed to the EEA)? When (not if) the Conservatives come back to power, what reason do they have to remain in a union that subsidises crappy French farming?
Too many problems of history are wrapped up in the EU. Germans are afraid of their past, and so is everyone else. France wants to get the EU Constitution so it can try to run Europe as a rebuilding of Napoleon's empire. A lot of poorer nations have joined to get subsidies. It sounds really nice, but the cost is egregious.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Thanks to all those who are "offended" by ignorant, belligerent, and on rare occasions insightful opinions, we have the PC phrase "hate speech." This phrase is a wonderful thing, being so flexible that it can be applied almost without limitation. Today it's used against people who are pro-life, against racial and gender quotas, practice or identify their faith publicly, or oppose illegal immigration. Today, it will also be used to justify modding down this post. Tomorrow, it will be used against you to place you in prison.
You reap what you sow.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Are you asserting that the average European has more rights and influence on their leadership? How is it that Americans are being denied those things? Please be specific.
Until you realize that large groups of people can be idiots also. Those fundimentailists that everyone complains about in the United States dam well managed to get the police to "monitor" her performance in Germany.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Enforcement is going to be the pain here...are they going to go after hosting services that aren't located in any EU country? Or just after the originator of the material? Or the person holding the domain registration?
Unenforceable laws do nothing but weaken the entire legal system, and it doesn't matter what nation or group of nations sets the law up. My advice, unasked: don't bother. 'Nuff said.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
I was talking about Madonna in her latest concert tour.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
You are slamming the EU by comparing it to a better world - but it is a world that has never existed in Europe.
The fact is that Europeans enjoy slaughtering and conquering each other in extreme numbers. England once three quarters of the globe under its domination. Romans and Spaniards conquered by the sword. Scandanavians raped and pillaged across the continent. Anyone remember Bosnia? And as for Germans - well, lets not even go there.
The fact is that Europeans are savage and warlike and desperately need structures to take their minds of the delicious thought of grabbing their neighbour by the throat.
The EU, with the possibilities it presents of arguing about efforts to introduce standard sizes and curvatures of cucumbers, is just such a device, despite the massive inefficencies it leads to and the bulging false economy it brings to strange people such as the Belgians who if not for the burden of keeping the EU running would be sitting at home listening to never-ending stories of the latest outrage by their largely paedophilic citizens.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
Last time I tried to build a politician I got this response.
Need more money.
And don't get me started on researching laws.
You must construct additional lobbyists.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Who was the politician? Please name him or her. Do you have the text of your correspondance with the politician that you can share here? That would be helpful.
UNENFORCEABLE
There is no way that this can be enforced unless of course you have Storm Troopers and Darth Vader. They will hunt you down.
Because text and pictures are protected by the constitutions of all EU countries (free speech). You can say and publish anything without asking for permission from anyone. You can be prosecuted (slander, discrimination etc), but only after the fact. Video and internet, a series of tubes as I gather, just wasnt around when those constitutions where written. I think our constitutions should be brushed up to include free speech on internet.
So what about radio and tv, broadcasters need a licence. Thats because the airwaves are owned by the government, which rent frequencies to broadcasters. This gives governments power over who broadcasts in advance, which has pros and cons, but ultimatly hampers free speech.
Bas
If this directive passes, it will severely restrict freedom of speech and expression among deaf sign language users. In the past year or so, sign language videos and video blogs have exploded in popularity and are well on their way to become the primary means of sharing information across the Internet among the deaf.
Video communication would be severely curtailed, compared to voice communication. As ridiculous as it may sound, one unintended consequence of this directive would thus be discrimination against a specific disability, which itself is prohibited under EU law. This needs to be fought tooth and nail, for more than just free speech reasons.
since bush got into it i started hating the government more significally then before.. hell i didn't even acknowledges all these rediculous laws when cliton was in office.
this link seems to be original article quoted
Hate speech laws are founded on the assumption that minorities will start to riot as soon as they are insulted, and as a minority person who is quite capable of self-restraint, I am offended by this. If you insult my people I will see you as a fool, but I will not riot. I have dignity.
At least in the U.S. The justification for curbs on foul language on the Public airwaves is thjat they are "coming to you" and using up a public resource into the bargain. The argument is "the children might accudentally tune in and do we want our scarce public resources (airwaves) being devoted to noneducational filth (with a special exception for most TV)?
This argument doesn't map onto the proposed situation because a) the broadcasts are not "over the air" but on a webiste that must be willingly accessed by the viewer (moreso than on a TV). b) the broadcaster is not "filling up scarece tubes" in any meaningful sense. The presence of video blogger A does not prevent video blogger B from setting up shop. Therefore there is no conflict and no justification.
That said this is based upon American legal and social traditions not the European ones where all hate speech is banned except hate speech based upon religion or national origin.
Europe's on this stint of mentally retarded liberalism these days. God forbid anybody should be offended by somebody elses opinions these days. Do you think the 'regulation' is going to curb those bloody islamists posting videos of people getting their heads chopped off in the name of god? Mind you it's part of their culture and all cultures are euqal no matter what horrific values they may embrace. I guess in the views of the European Union this qualifies as hate speech.
Would Flash animations (and animated GIFs, for that matter) be regulated too? I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be (cartoon boobies -- won't someone please think of the children!), but it seems like that type of regulation would be even more upsetting to the general population than one on live action video. 'What, you mean I can't watch H*R when I'm supposed to be working anymore?!'
I think someone is being influenced by the RIAA. If you can manage to get this passed, then they could start regulating all of the media including ALL music, and video. Think about it. They mentioned other Countries will also go along with this plan. What better way could they come up with to halt it all? First the media, next is wav mp3 and so on. Total control in the end.
recent proposed EU legislation could require anyone running a website featuring video content to acquire a broadcast license.
So how does the EU plan to regulate a website run from say, Uganda, exactly? Sanctions? Boycott? Censorship?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
supposed to be originally to allocate frequencies and set some standards and make sure folks didn't step on each other and open up broadcasting "to the public". Now they are a censor and fine organization for sale to the highest transnational corporate bidder so only the extremly rich get monopolies on the good frequencies for the most part. Oh well.....
Governments-anyplace going by historical examples- inevitably evolve or de-evolve-into for-profit businesses, and get extremely pyramid shaped and more insistent on their rights and powers over the public they are supposed to serve. They turn into rulers over subjects. Goes all the way back to wherever we still have good records. And I don't think there's anything inherently weird about that, given human nature. Humans are social creatures but we are also *predators*, so we develop predatory governments and other aspects of life. Just how it works.
New governments are exciting, people are filled with hope for the future and have a lot of energy. Then, after some time, they get bloated and big and slow and full of incompetence and corruption. Then they collapse and fall and "times are interesting" again, with a little of that end-of-empire "excitement" action, then the process repeats in a slightly different way from previous. And that's how it goes. hmmm, kinda goofy but sounds like a big software project....
in other words, the EU wants the equiv of a TV licence in the uk. they just want to exploit someone into getting themselfs loads of money
portfolio
This sort of thing is exactly why I rail against any form of compulsory government.
Democracy has the illusion of liberty without the substance of liberty because you don't have the freedom to make individual choices based on what is best for you. Instead you have only the freedom to lose election after election and forfeit right after right to those that need to satisfy their own sense of moral superiority by declaring that certain things are good for you whether you would choose them or not. Hence, "one size fits all" government.
To the math geeks on this site, I'd point out something that seems very obvious, but evidently isn't because few people have caught on. Let's say there are N issues of importance (Iraq, drug war, taxation, right to self-defense, etc.) and each has a minimum of two possible distinct stances. That puts the number of positions you can take on these issues at *at least* 2^N. Guess what? In a system like we have in the States, you have 2 choices. In a parliamentary system, you realistically have 4 or 5.
Good luck with that democracy thing. When you're interested in true liberty---that is, when you want to understand what "freedom" really means---read the book introduced by its author, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, here and begin to understand why democracy is doomed to fail under any metric measuring individual freedom.
[ home ]
It's about control. More and more, it seems as though those in government can't stand the idea that there's something out there that they aren't in control of. Yes, this initiative might bring in a little more revenue, but more importantly requiring a license means that they can revoke that license whenever they decide that they disagree with what is being said.
Is it 30 fps? 10? 1 fps with audio? What about a flash movie with audio? A still photo with audio? When does it go from audio stream to slide show to video?
The lack of content regulation in Internet media is Not Good (TM). Anyone can post disturbing images (animal mutilation, sick sex, you name it) for children to see... It just doesn't make any sense. There really should be common rules guiding content providers. There's a lot of psychopaths out there who need a leash. Some sort of oversight board is not necessarily a bad thing. At the very least, route everything through a content rating board (NR, PG, R, X, etc.). Then have the browsers filter set based on the content rating. Heck, we moderate comments here at Slashdot and apply filters in the same way, and I don't think anyone has died from it yet.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Europeans are no different than say the Japanese. The Europeans had the opportunity to fight and dominate. If other countries were in the same position, they would have done the same things. The Nazis were a particular ideology though. Communism did a number in China. It's nothing inherent in Europe.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"Internet broadcast" would be too broad. Animations would include flash animations and banner ads, so too broad again..
Animated photos? Again too broad.
If they do, then do I need license if I embed someone else's video on my page?
What if I only link to my video, but on YouTube?
What if the videos are anonymous? Would YouTube require your license number to create an account?
It's the internet: the multimedia experience is well integrated with the web as an inseparable part of it. Attempts to bring old models and force them on us, even if for "the good of the kids" or "world peace" or whatever you could think of, simply will fall so flat on its face, it's imbelievable.
So let me guess, you're all those things and some evil liberal (being obvously high on marijuana, the lefty-scum) called you a "fat, balding, conservative fucktard" (or something to that effect) so you assume there's some conspiracy against free speech out there! Oh noes... angst!!!
Haha... you even threw that one in there!! More angst!! Martyr for your cause!!1
The town is under attack!
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
"I loath the administration and what they've done to the fundamental rights of humans, all in the name of "protection". "
How is the Bush II administration any different from the many other socialist presidents we've had since FDR that have eroded individual rights in the name of "justice" (such as Affirmative Action or the Americans with Disabilities Act) and "security" (such as welfare, social security, etc)? For the better part of a century our governments been stealing more money and power and leaving citizens with fewer and fewer rights -- this isn't a Bush thing. Land of the free? Hah, that's a joke. Just because we don't have it as bad as people in the EU doesn't mean we're free -- and if many in congress have their way, we'll be identical to the EU very soon.
Starcraft?
I've seen many a website pop up all on their own, faster than they could be closed, thank you very much. Many unscrupulous people want control of your browser. That's why pop-up blockers and spyware removers exist: to keep the will at the user's end not the webvertizer's and porn producer's.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Not to mention those who oppose the War in Iraq.
Those who oppose the policies of the Bush administration.
Those who oppose the grinding of our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights into gerbil litter.
I've been called a Hater so many times now, I've lost track of it's meaning.
Playing the part of a victim may get you sympathy from your mom, but it's fucking pathetic. Grow up already and take responsibility for your mistakes in life instead of whining whenever people point them out to you.
I hate americans, I hate mexicans, chinese, and koreans. And europeans, and russians.
I *hate* igloos, they freak me out.
I hate rebublicans, democrats, and those that don't vote.
I hate the white, I hate the black.
I hate the yellow, and red.
In fact I hate the whole Pantone range. But I hate grayscale too!
I hate conservatives, but hate even more liberals.
I hate those hate and those that don't hate!
I hate you all!
And so this was my hate speech. Completely without video. Because I hate video too.
[applause]
Thank you, thank you...
[applause]
"European" is not a race.
The only race in Europe worth mentioning is the Nurburgring. And that hasn't been the same ever since they made it so short. Note, however, this was not the fault of the EU, nor was it done to protect children.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
If they start restricting internet content, whats to stop them from taking away all of your guns and putting closed circut cameras on every street corner (complete with loud speakers). oh wait, they already did that over there ..sorry.
You are going as far back as the Roman Empire and Viking times. I can only presume that, according to you, our warlike nature is genetic. In that case, everyone who migrated out of Europe (Americans, Canadians, Australians etc.) is also warlike. You, too, are warlike (and a hypocrite).
Isn't it strange how such a warlike and savage continent has produced Western civilization as we know it? Yes, the very same civilization that was transplanted into America, Canada and Australia. If you don't like Western civilization, you can move to Pakistan.
If Europeans were as warlike as you say, then I don't think countries like Britain, Sweden and France would have civil wars of varying degrees (muslims vs. the rest) while people talk about tolerance, respect, interfaith dialogue and the importance of being inoffensive. The fact is that we Europeans are huge pussies. We fiddle around with Rapid Deployment Forces without any intention of ever using them, certainly not in situations where there could be casualties. We just roll over and play dead whenever there's trouble, and the next time the shit hits the fan over here, the US will have to rescue us. Again.
Before you know it they'll want to charge people to receive analog BBC broadcasts.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Get that deaf finger out of your hearing ear! Deaf makes millions of video calls every day.
Check out the following Video phones immediately available today:
http://www.sorenson.com/
http://www.packet8.net/about/video.asp
Not to mention Gnumeeting, Netmeeting, and a bunch of other H.323/Video applications.
Any tax on our personal video communication is an unfair one-sided tax to a specific group of people, especially if hearing people can already communicate MUCH cheaper (less than 10 cents per minutes) than deaf people can (tax at a more per minutes or more unfairly by bandwidth).
- It's channelized. A channel becomes popular or has an exclusive frequency, or one way or another acquires an audience that continue to trust it to produce consistent output. TV is push. People don't like to be surprised by a push of pornography in what they thought was a safe medium. Or by challenging ideas.
- It's passive. People view it uncritically. People settle into Alpha brain wave patterns and become suggestible.
So broadcast TV is anything that with carefully crafted programming can influence large numbers of people very quickly. Of course - how it is desirable to control such a powerful medium looks like a different issue when you phrase it this way.The original justification for a broadcast license is that the spectrum was sorely limited. When the spectrum was unlicensed, people broadcasted over eachother, tried jamming rival stations, etc. Online, there are no such limitations. And such, licensing makes no sense.
You can still regulate online content in your country through traditional legislation about what is morally applicable in the circumstance, etc. It may not work that well for pornography, but it has been OK on the most eggregious copyright infringement. If your country feels that none of your citizens should spread hate speech, put up a penalty for spreading hate speech. Don't force everyone to register as a non-hate speecher. That will lock your citizens out of the discourse without having a appreciable impact on what you're trying to ban.
The ______ Agenda
It's called a DNS registration. It clearly identifies you, your site, and (by domain choice) the broad purpose of the site.
And that should be good enough for anybody.
The ______ Agenda
Do byrochrats have that short memories and little minds? TV stations are licensed because they use radio waves to broadcast their messages. That was the original reason - which often still holds. When cable came along, this line was continued although it didn't really fit. Now this???
There are parallels:
Since my front door is accessible for all using a car - must I have a drivers license?
What about telemarketers? Must they be licensed?
Prostitutes are publically available - must they be licensed? And where do I apply for the test positions?
My wife was sunbathing when google took the arial shots for their map - must they be x-rated?
When I debate something with my friend on the bus - should I be licensed too?
When lawyers comes up with such BS - must they pay polution taxes?
The article is horrible biased towards the tinfoil hatters -- we have no problems here criticizing the government actions, or even persons in specific in the government. Hate speech is of course an unfortunate law to some citizens, but personally I see that as largely a law against trolls, as what's ruled out is basically saying "all jews should be killed". I haven't heard of anyone in my own country that has had trouble with this law.
Where the part about "or you assume hate speech to be the criticism of government actions and policy" comes from, I have no idea. Heck, even our national government funded TV channel do this quite heavily today.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
In many country in EU Hate speech and violence incitation is already penalised, as well as nazi crime denier. And yes, web site in written form also fall under this law. Think the auction about nazi memorabellia for example.
If anything this only bring video web site up the SAME standard as other media. Which is IMO not a bad thing (having the same standard that is).
Now you can argue to death that thougth crime are bad and should not be penalized, but this is forgetting TWO THING :
* USA with its constitutional amendment is the USA, and never had global war on its soil except texas mexican war, and indep war (19th century all of it, isn't it?). No I do not really count as "global" war.
* EU still bear the scar of WW2 in some place, and certainly bear the scar of nazism at least in its culture, and has at least 2 global war on its soil in the last 100 years. Some are still alive to remmember what the Nazi at that time did.
In other word you are judging OUR culture with the "mass and measurement" of YOUR culture. All I am saying is that you might get a conclusion that such a law is bad for your cultural stand point, but this is like judging the egyptian culture : it is quite easy to judge your neighbours or somebody foreign to you, but another to judge itself.
Frankly if I wanted to spark a real debat I would say "why are you all screaming murder for this simple broadcast law, whereas you aren't on the street taking arms when your own governement suspend habeas corpus, and can make people disappear like in a very bad dictature ?"
Think deeply on tat before modding me either up or down.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Why? What is the real purpose? If I make in my spare time video's and I would like to put them online why should I be licensed as a "television-like service"? This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever encountered.
What about the freedom of expression? Think of a website as some form of art, just for a moment, I like to express my artistic freedom by making it nice and beautiful and I like to put on there my artistic video's for everyone to watch if they feel like it.
I am not broadcasting, I am offering a file for people to download and play on there local workstation. This is not a "television-like service" this is a website!!
Regards, Johan Louwers.
The EU has developed from a great idea to an organisation that tries to regulate every aspect of its "citizens". One may ask why this is the case. After all, the whole point behind the EU is to create a free market, without border inspections or import regulations between its memberstates. Maybe it is because the politicans in the EU have nothing else to do, since they have virtually no power over all the interesting stuff, like military or foreign relations. Instead, they focus on regulating every product they can find and by this way, destroying the free market they once build up. On my personal view, i am sick of all these "Think of the children!" argumentations, which are mostly dull explanations for censorship. Wasn't the western world once so proud of the freedom its citizens had? To protect children from the harms which wait in the world, or at least prepare them, is the job of their parents, not the state. It is an insult to every hard-working mother or father, when the goverment (or in this case, a pseudo-goverment) tells them that they are simply to stupid to raise their kids right and there have to be laws to ensure their safety.
This report is somewhat exagerated, although there is still lots to worry about. There will be no need for licensing, and a simple video blog looks set to be taken out of the scope of the Directive. Regulation kicks in at the same time as tax - when a blog is so succesful with advertising that the profits attract the tax man then along will also come the content regulator (the curse of success).
However, nerds should be concerned. Consider a site that provides videos about building (or dismantling) computers (or the rugby website cited in the original article). There are two obligations that you need to watch out for:
- it would be inappropriate to mention the makers of the computer components (refer to "graphics card" rather to an "nVidia FX12345" as that might be perceived as undue prefernece or even product placement). Of course that defeats the object but trying telling that to the Commission.
- you may find that you have to pay a tax to help support film makers in your country.
There is of course no link between a neds computing website and film-making but the principle being extended is that TV used to reserve half its output for Europe works and now all audiovisual websites wil have to do their bit too, albeit in a differnet way.
The Directive is not yet adopted and things could change - clearly the amounts of money that YouTube have attracted will increase the lobby saying that Google seems to be very rich so they should also help to pay for film making.
Then we would have the bizarre situation that new talent would effectively be subsidising those that have made a name for themselves and are now on the inside track for subsidies. That seems a recipe for long term cultural decline.
Contact your MEPs: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert.do
It's sort of obvious that his intent is satirical. After all, nobody in an online community could be stupid enough to sit there with his bare face hanging out and actually mean the idiotic things this guy just said, right?
We tried having the government try to protect young people in the manner he describes. We got Mark Foley, R-NAMBLA.
It's getting increasingly clear that we need to protect young people from government, not have government protecting young people.
Tech Public Policy stuff
So how many millions of lawsuits is the EU prepared to file? Get serious. There is no way something like this can be imposed.
I'm typing an email to my MEP as we speak.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Maybe it is meant to prevent tube interference
In most instances (three you mentioned - Homeschooling, Nazi paraphenelia, and religious insensitivity), the US definetely has the better end of the freedom vs. security stick. (At least for citizens.) But correct me if I'm wrong, the FDA does require that food labels be in particular units - milk in gallons, fresh meats in pounds, etc, etc... (Although soda you can sell in liters? I never got that one.)
It can't be so impractical to register every video serving website with the State. In the days before cheap IT the Soviets registered every typewriter. Think of the children!
To me, this sounds awfully lot like all the other stupid "directive proposals" we've been hearing about, and there are a lot of those."The EU wants to regulate the curvature of bananas", "Tar will be banned forever", "Growing linen will not be allowed", etc. You get the point.We should remember that these draft proposals are written up all the time, in huge numbers. And hey, what was that word again? PROPOSAL. It's not like it's definately going to make the cut. In fact, most proposals don't. And if it happens to pass, most likely it'll end up watered down, setting only guidelines on advertising and hatespeak, not licensing. A completely other thing is, do we really need this? As has been mentioned earlier, hatespeak, kiddypr0n etc. is already banned in most countries. This is redundant. Besides, how are they going to enforce such a directive? Suppose I "lose" my e-mail account's username and password, and they end up in the hands of a few buddies and strangers. That would mean that I made my data public, enabling everybody to download the bestiality-smut from my inbox...;-) How would that be different from a simple accident (not punishable)?
Nobody did mention the fundamental difference: video-content on the internet is NOT broadcasting, it is singlecasting, direct end-to-end connection. ...
The "signal" is not "in the wild" and everywhere as it is with radio, television,
The entire point of the television (and radio) broadcast license is very simple. We ALL own the air that is used to broadcast television, and we ALL have a fundamental right to use it for broadcast. However, a compromise was struck with government (the FCC) to regulate the broadcast spectrum to a few licensed broadcasters. We gave up our fundamental rights to broadcast in exchange for community services that licensed broadcasters are required to provide: news, election coverage, etc. The internet is completely differently because the internet infrastructure is a paid service, not a natural resource. Over-air broadcast style licensing therefore can not apply. Sadly, this is just a way to quash the latest mechanism of free-speech, free-speech being something the poor citizens in the EU don't enjoy, and something EU governments refuse to allow.
+0 Meh
I wish I had modpoints - I'm laughing so hard right now :)
Lets. The Germans -- at your knees or at your throat.
I would like to thank the submitter and the poster for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. We in Europe have a pretty good grip on the things that are happening in the US, but not always about what's happening at home. I suspect that has something to do with Americans being much less trusting of the government and more vocal about it than people in Europe, but whatever the cause is, I think it's beneficial for all parties involved if Europeans were more informed and active about EU politics.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
"Correctocracy" - the rule based on perceived given truths none dares to dispute, even against the will or interests of majority. In essence, it is not that much different from theocracy (the difference is in source of Postulates), or the term should even encompass it. In practice, it is rule of bureaucracy or untouchable, unelected (on general elections) elite. Since it intrinsically lacks self-controlling mechanisms, it allways perverts itself into tyranny, which eventually ends in bloody overthrow and subsequent period of barbarism, as it compromises most moral values which are, as such, good. Rebuilding of humanity usually takes several decades after the overthrow. It actually happened often, under various names of various revolutions in history. Humans tend to install correctocracies, usually as a way to perpetuate the rule of certain social groups. Unfortunatelly, it is like sealing the safety valve on a boiler...
The great thing about the net as a communication medium is that it is open to all and very difficult to censor/regulate.
I strongly doubt anyone would care if it was required to have a license, it would be impossible to enforce.
Sites like youtube and google vids would obtain licenses soon enough and they would still be accepting content from anyone, so people could still use these services to distribute their content.
On the other hand:
Surely this would mean that any software developer who provides a video tutorial or similar would require a license?
How do you define video content? Surely videos distributed in adobe flash format would be affected, what about flash menu bars on sites? animated gifs?
In summary: bad news, but noone would care.
Well, Greenland alredy left (sort of) and Aaland threatens to leave (btw, I do not smoke and please do not take this link as smoking advertising from me).
Then there are countries which never joined EU in the first place even thou they are in Europe, are in "Shengen", etc.: Norway, Switzerland. Did I forgot some?
hany
First of all, please note it is a draft proposal and the final text is not ready. EU allows plenty of time for individual countries to react and change proposals which is a good case.
.gif or sites like YouTube. The latter might need to make adjustments so that certain content is clearly marked as and not available next to the latest Madonna video clip.
But now why do I support this case. When turning on the TV for my children I'm assured there is no porn during the day except on specific adult channels. When they are watching a cartoon, I can be assured there is no political message hidden in a flashing background. In other words, I have a relative good understanding of what is beeing served to my children or to me.
Broadcasting companies are moving towards the internet and are there to make money. Does this mean they can broadcast whatever they want? Interrupt a Teletubbies cartoon with a commercial about condoms? Show hard sexual content in the 15 minutes break of a soccer match (lot's of children in Europe are staying up late to see their country or local club play)?
What most probably needs to be done is to differientiate between internet services, something which does not seem to be in place. Unfortunately I could not read the original draft proposal, but I'm not afraid that the EU will create draconian leglislation that forbid animated
Personally I'd like to see age-rating on those sites as YouTube. Who didn't get an email with a link to a video which seemed innocent. But just when your boss entered your cubicle (or wife) the video made a funny twist and you're now facing some explicit sexual handlings. Oops.
Move on, nothing to see here. It is NOT restrition of free space and it is NOT tax related. It is a sane idea (needs to be worked out further) necessary in our world to protect the weak.
Claus
Yep. You forgot Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Albania.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
The text identified as a quotation from the article is in fact a couple of short quotes taken out of context, followed by a bunch of paranoid editorialising that does not appear anywhere in the article at all.
I can understand Slashdot readers not bothering to RTFA, but I must say I'd hoped the editors would have the integrity not to post lies.
Speak Out against this madness. Get our country out of the EU!
http://www.speakout.co.uk/
``Would Flash animations (and animated GIFs, for that matter) be regulated too?''
I hope so. Then at least some good comes of this legislation.
Yes, I'm kidding.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The presence of some of the countries on your list is misleading, in that a few of them want to join, but haven't been allowed in yet.
u ropean_Union#Potential_candidate_countries
Croatia and Turkey are official candidate countries and started accession negotiations in October 2005.
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognized as potential candidate countries.
Vatican City can't join because it's a theocracy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_E
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
Andora
Everybody's got a digital camera or a webcam these days capable of shooting video and so many people have websites, how can the government possibly hope to monitor all that? Are they going to include moving GIFs in this definition as well?
This totally stinks on another level too. Part of the Internet revolution was that we would all become information providers for each other, but now they're trying to limit what we can say. (First, with broadband they limit our upload bandwidth, and now this). I wouldn't be surprised if Big Media was more to blame for this initiative than the taxman.
Freakin' FCC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLSETUCyS48&mode=r
FCC Censorship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmxDF2zGO1c
To add to the parent post, there are a very few places in the US Constitution where citizenship (or something equivalent thereto) is explicitly mentioned (e.g., who can run for US President, etc.), which is an even stronger argument that those places in the US Constitution that do not explicitly mention citizenship are therefore meant to apply equally to all people, citizens and non-citizens alike.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
The EU's memberstates desire to get the EU to regulate every little aspect of a person's life in order to postpone the faith of their lagging domestic industries.
It's not the EU. The EU doesn't work like that. Definitely it's the government of a mememberstate trying to protect their own television industry.
Trust me, I work for the government.
The US Constitution does not anywhere state that things like rights to freedom of speech, a speedy and fair trial, etc., apply only on US soil.
So the whole Gitmo thing is unconstitutional, even though it is occurring on foreign soil to non-US citizens (some of whom may indeed be terrorists), because the abuses there are being perpetrated by the US federal government at a time when a declaration of war is not in effect.
All the lies of George W Bush, Dick Cheny, and others do not alter this fact, nor does the recent passing of clearly unconstitutional legislation by the US Congress that tries to give more powers to the President than those to which he is entitled.
By violating his oath of office (which includes the phrase "protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America"), George W Bush (and others, including those members of the US Congress, be they Republican, Democrat, or "Independent", who voted for the "Rubber Stamp Anything That The President Does That Furthers His Imaginary War on Terror" Act) are comitting treason.
They should be impeached and removed from office ASAP, and then be tried for their crimes (in a Constitutional manner, of course).
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Next move in campaign to regulate possible means viewer access content, EC considering adding a tax for house windows. The view from windows closely resembles what most of us see on TV thus making it a way to access public information. Also it indirectly competes with TV so taxing all windows installed in houses is just natural extension of TV/Radio/Internet taxes.
[sarcasm off]
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? But the cartels running your country are going to do everything in their power to make sure he stays for another four years.
It is long past time to get off the RegulatedNet(c) and become active in anoNet. Hell for that matter there is i2p (I just happen to be more active on anoNet since it is a full ipv4/ipv6 network).
The fact of the matter is, EVERY day they add one more reason to hide and conceal everything you do.
Reminds me of other circumstances of how the Elite controls most of "us". Once upon a time - I taught in high school. At the weekly staff meeting - the principal (a Monty Python character) told us that he had one phone call from a "resident" (no name = Mr. Big) complaining that students were smoking cigarettes on the way home from school - that is smoking on public sidewalks.
The principal wanted us teachers - upon finishing our legal responsibilities at the end of the school day - to then spread out throughout 1/4 of the town's streets and patrol the streets and/or follow likely student smokers home and stop them from smoking!
No I am not kidding or exaggerating.
The point is that the power that Mr. or Mrs. Big everywhere is overwhelming and of course flies in the face of Democracy government. The above is just one example of thousands that occur on a daily basis - everywhere.
I think George Orwell may just have been before his time...
Actually you can go all the way back to 1644 with John Milton's rather important essay called Areopagitica -- "A speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing to the parliament of England." (Wikipedia entry here)
Back in Milton's day, the King of England decided the new printing press was a pain in the ass since every time the King did something corrupt, the printers would crank out leaflets blowing the matter wide open. Kings, who remembered how they used to be gods, really didn't like little common people criticizing them. He made laws that required an official seal from the King to be permitted to own and operate a printing press, and made the penalty for being found in possession without the official seal rather severe (death). Interestingly, a printer could immediately lose a seal if he printed something the King didn't like, and the King's men could take time letting you know you no longer had that seal.
Not many printers decided to print leaflets critical to the King then.
Milton challenged this by taking the King's argument of "protecting the people from harmful falsehoods" at face value and discovered that if this was the King's value, the presses instead must be free. Truth and falsehood must be permitted to grapple if truth is to be found. Milton's essay won over the minds of men and historically has held true. Societies and religions that accept criticism and deal with the ugliness of open argumentation have thrived and rised to the top. Those that surpress truth and only permit state or religious-sanctioned speech have sunk to the bottom.
So EU... what direction are you going? All of us in every nation and society need to oppose the elites when they try to led down this status quo-preserving path of societal decay.
The Constitution does not "grant rights," it limits the power of the government to infringe rights that are naturally held by all people. It's a subtle distinction, but a crucial one.
And by the way, it's up in air whether this law can actually do what it says. It has not yet been subjected to review by the Supreme Court of the U.S.--who struck down an earlier incarnation of the suspension of habeus corpus.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Oddly you forget the war of 1812 when the US tried to take advantage of the UK having to battle a dictator in Europe.
Can't understand how you can forget the whitehouse being burnt down.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Anytime the government wants to regulate something it's more to do with revenue collection than anything else. They just want their cut of the action.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
If the EU thinks they have a problem with American cultural imperialism now, I wonder how they'll feel in a few years when the web is overflowing with the video blogs of a billion American, Chinese, and Indian teenagers, and EU kids are only allowed to watch.
This has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.
Eh? U.S. Presidents are limited to two terms of office. You can't run, after that. That's OK, though--I couldn't tell you the details of terms of office for anywhere in Europe.
Sometimes I think the EU just wants to destroy Europe and recreate all of USA's mistakes. Then I realize: no they want to make it worse than USA. Laugh at Bush, and lament American foolishness and our desire to become slaves, but mark my words: someday you will all think of USA as "Land of the Free."
What's really sad is that you Europeans aren't merely inheriting a problem. This shit is happening right now, in your own lifetimes. Your grandparents didn't do this to you. (Granted, they made some mistakes of their own, just like ours.) But you did this. We will probably get over our current unaccountable asshole leader, but you're getting ready to install yours: an unaccountable beaurocracy where no citizen has a say in what happens. Congratulations.
I guess when you get right down to it, it's not really a European problem. People all over the globe seem to want tyranny. America got lucky in the 1700s, but that was an anomaly.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I pretty much agree with you, but don't expect an up-mod for that sentiment around here.
To date, I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how, exactly, anything the Bush administration has done could really affect a U.S. Citizen. Yes, they tried at one point to go there, and the courts (rightly) came down on them for it. Since then they've concentrated on non-citizens, and there doesn't seem to be any clear path for transitioning their legal maneuvering with regards to non-citizens, in order to make it applicable to citizens. The courts have pretty much drawn the line: the Executive branch has been allowed to assert wide powers over the treatment of foreign enemies of the State, but was stopped when it tried to assert those same powers on citizens.
If you're a Citizen and you get involved with terrorism, you'll in all likelihood end up getting charged with treason, or any of the various other Federal crimes that have been created with regards to terrorism, many of which carry the death penalty. Not exactly an outcome you'd want, but the whole Orwellian "OMG they're going to torture you to death in Gitmo" is ridiculous. (Notwithstanding the fact that Guantanamo Bay is actually a lot nicer than most Federal prisons; I'd much rather go there than some overcrowded PMITA State or Federal pen. Want to talk about the torture of U.S. citizens? How come nobody talks about prison rape? I'd rather be 'waterboarded' by some CIA interrogator than sodomized by some AIDS-infested cellmate.)
Lots of people seem mystified why there isn't more public concern in the U.S. over the habeas corpus thing. (And there really hasn't been, outside of circles where people already didn't like the President anyway.) It's because nobody has presented a clear argument as to why U.S. citizens should care, that doesn't involve non sequitur historical parallels (reality check, please -- as much as you dislike him, Pres. Bush is not Hitler and is not getting himself appointed Dictator for Life), or emotional appeals. First, the courts have done exactly as they should and stopped the Executive branch when they tried to assert powers over citizens. The framework that they have created for detaining foreigners would not translate easily to the theoretical oppression of a domestic minority, at least not without the complicance of the entire court system -- and at that point, it's hardly an Executive-branch coup.
Second, there's scant evidence for a 'slippery slope,' because we have multiple historical examples of instances when the Executive branch has taken much wider powers, and the country hasn't descended into a tyrannical police state. In fact, some of the Presidents that have done so are well-regarded by history. (E.g. Lincoln, FDR.) There is a certain obsessive fascination with the "decline and fall" concept of irreversibility in this country, which has historically been false far more often than it has been true.
If other countries are unimpressed by U.S. treatment of their citizens -- if, for example, the government of Afghanistan feels that the detention of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay is unjust or unwarranted -- then there are existing channels for the lodging of protests and the resolution of grievances between nations. The treatment of foreign citizens has long been governed by relationships between countries; many places have differing laws for the treatment of citizens, residents, and foreigners. In the extreme case, a nation that disagrees with U.S. treatment of its citizens could treat U.S. citizens similarly; although I question if it would be in their best interests, I cannot dispute the fairness of that.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Jose Padilla was the Administration's experiment in applying their legal reasoning to U.S. citizens.
It failed. The courts correctly shot them down, and right before the USSC was going to rule against them, the Executive branch basically gave up and remanded him to Federal prison for conventional (civilian) charges.
I don't think that case supports your argument very well; it seems to me that it is an example of the court system functioning correctly. The Executive branch overstepped, the Judicial branch stepped in and said (or was about to say) 'no way,' and as a result he got sent to Federal prison. Since then, the Bush administration has basically given up on that strategy and has been dealing with U.S. citizens through the conventional court system -- for example, there's Adam Yahiye Gadahn (who was recently indicted for treason in civilian court, by a Grand Jury). One branch of government attempted something that would have been illegal, they were stopped by another branch, and now they're doing it (more) legally.
Seems like the system worked the way it's supposed to: the courts have allowed the Executive branch to assert some authority over foreign detainees (implicit allowance; by declining to hear certain cases -- although they did reverse the Administration in certain respects), but stopped them when they began to do the same over citizens. You may disagree with this interpretation, but then your beef is really with the Federal and Supreme Court judiciary, not really with the Executive branch alone.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Just as I was about to call the entire EU NAZIs, it occured to me that there might have been a reason that the NAZIs wanted to shovel these people into ovens. I can not say that I disagree with them.
Andy Out!
This is sooo american... it doesn't look european at all. Well, I doubt that someone would take this seriously...
Limiting the range of opinions and sentiments that people are allowed to express does nothing to change those opinions and sentiments. Instead all it does is sacrifice the rights of one person in order to protect the feelings of another. Of all the reasons for the state to forcibly abridge speech, this is one of the least justifiable.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you want to dispell hate and bigotry then the LAST thing you want to do is encourage it to hide under a rock.
The term "Hate Speech" itself is an attack upon our society. Our society (and by that I mean western civilization) is based upon the free exchange of ideas and opinions, regardless of how ill recieved those ideas and opinions may be. Any regulation that limits which ideas are permissible that is not based upon an immediate threat of danger, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, is a corruption of the principles upon which western civilization is founded.
You can either have the right to free speech, or you can have the right not to be offended. You can't have both.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I was about to post if anyone had a link to the actual draft directive, instead of that obviously alarmist rubbish, but there it is. Thank you!
I cite another article, adding emphasis:
So, this is yet another example of typical British anti-EU hysteria and the predictable Slashbot kneejerking. Nothing to see here, please move along.
(I do wish the UK would go ahead and leave the EU already.)
If you're in Germany and order things from Italy, you pay Italian VAT on your invoice. You can reclaim the VAT only if you're exporting the item outside the EU.
A limited range customs duties still exist for trade between member countries for commercial purposes - the UK still levies duty on alcohol and tobacco imported from France if it's for resale in the UK, for example - UK duties on these goods are significantly higher than those in most of the rest of Europe. For most goods, though, there aren't import tariffs.
If you're bringing it yourself into the country for personal use, however, there is no duty to be levied. UK Customs & Excise have rapped over the knuckles by the courts after confiscating goods and vehicles belonging to people going on a 'booze cruise' over the Channel to stock up on drink on suspicion that they're going to resell it. If you order a case of wine from France to be delivered to your home, duty is still applicable, though.
Buying stuff from outside the EU is a bit of a lottery. The value of goods have to be declared as they pass through customs and any Duties and VAT will be due. If it's under £18 (about USD 33) VAT and duty may be exempted.
You could under-declare the value of items, but then your goods would be under-insured. There's a healthy trade along these lines in camera equipment from Hong Kong where the vendor will guarantee to refund your VAT if the item is stopped at Customs.
Wising up, the EU has started working over the last couple of years, with major internet retailers like Amazon US to ensure that VAT is levied at the point of sale, before it hits European borders.
But see, that's sort of the problem. You can say that, but where's the evidence for it?
... then they came for me" doesn't have a whole lot of connections to reality. Far from it being a slippery slope, the more powers that the Executive branch has taken, the more scrutiny they've been subject to. And as happened in the case of Jose Padilla, when they overstepped their authority, the courts correctly slapped them down.
Saying "First they came for the terrorists
The main problem with the whole discussion right now, is that there's very little rational conversation. What could be a fairly interesting argument over the power of the executive branch has been in many cases hijacked by people who hate Bush and just want any excuse to compare him to Hitler, and that's not productive. It doesn't produce a convincing argument to the average person, and there's really no evidence for it. Basically it comes down to "Bush ordered people arrested; Hitler ordered people arrested; therefore, Bush is Hitler. QED."
Everything about the United States discourages long-term deviation from the median. Isn't that what people are always complaining about? That both of our political parties are basically the same, because they're both pandering to the same group of "moderates?" You can push in either direction -- right or left -- but the further you go away from the center, the greater the resistance becomes.
Bush isn't pushing the country down a slippery slope, he's pushing it up a greased hill; the further away from the historical mean it becomes, the greater becomes the scrutiny of and resistance to further changes.
I'm not saying that people should just put their fingers in their ears and stop paying attention (because that could lead to an actual slippery slope), but just that the ridiculous, overwrought, intellectually dishonest historical parallels aren't productive and aren't helping the discussion any.
In retrospect, I think we're going to see the Jose Padilla case as the high-water mark of the Bush administration's testing of Executive powers. They pushed as far as the other branches of government would allow, they were stopped when it came to actually imprisoning U.S. citizens, and now they're basically consolidating the power over foreign nationals that the courts implicitly granted them.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."