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!
Another question is: should this work? I am not a historian, but wasn't the whole point of broadcast licenses to prevent frequency interference? Is that really relevant with the way things work on the Internet today?
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.
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.
Makes you stop for a second to think, are they talking about China or the EU?
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.
That was the whole point, preventing people from stepping on each others frequencies. The stuff having to do with foul language and whatnot was a nice side benefit- after all you can't let people curse on the airwaves if they are public, can you? So you get rid of foul language without specifically curbing speech and it's a nice middle ground as long as you have to impose a broadcast licensing system anyway.
But we have gotten used to the side benefit and lost track of the original purpose for the licensing infrastructure, which is almost gone. The only reason to have broadcast licenses anymore is to control what people are allowed to say and which words are to be included in the infamous unutterable seven, and to collect the fines levied on people who say the wrong thing.
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.
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
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.
Come now, you don't think this legislation has anything scientific reasoning behind it, do you? It's just a convienent way for the govenment to exercise control over free speech and raise revenue.
Actually not in Germany, if I remeber right. With broadcast receiving license fees TV and radio stations are funded. And - since they have financing secured in this manner, their programming is actually informative, educational, partially critical, of higher quality and very often a pleasure to watch (bublic broadcasting stations - there are privates as well, more going US style). That may be a positive aspect.
On the downside, attempts are made to milk wherever possible and there seems to be no end to it. They are in the process of increasing the sales tax (actually VAT) from 16 % a couple of % higher.
So, everyone attempting to suck more should get their fingers beaten until they give up.
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.
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
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.
Who sets the rules on acceptable content?
The Iranians would say that publishing an image of their God is blasphamy or a womans face is obsense. Liberal European countries laugh at the US for it's puritan ways (such as obscuring womans nipples in advertising - MTV, Naked Wild On).
Here's the core of the problem
[1] The Internet connects many networks in different countrys together
[2] Each country has different laws. USA laws do NOT work outside of the US - Really! - no BS there, I really do mean that last remark.
So..... [1] If you don't like something on a web site, do visit the web site again.
[2] If you want your childern to see something unsuitble then bring them up to understand right from wrong and sit with them when they use the Internet
[3] Just don't try to force your point of view onto other ppl.
Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
"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
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
The U.S. is in good company, if you compare the FCC's treatment of sexuality & language on television with that of various second & third world theocracies.
Religious Fundamentalists are essentially the same everywhere.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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
"And - since they have financing secured in this manner, their programming is actually informative, educational, partially critical, of higher quality and very often a pleasure to watch"
That's right. But the downside is that starting with 2007 every internet connected computers is seen as a reciever and one has to pay a monthly fee because you can access the websites of the broadcasting stations with it. So while you could get around this fee in the past by not possessing a tv now virtually everyone is forced to pay it (and yes, your pc at work does count. And you have to pay for every location extra) no matter if you really use their services
Claus
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 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
It is bigoted, xenophobic, possibly nationalistic
And, speaking as a UKian who has always thought of the UK as being part of Europe, really rather funny. There's also more than a grain of truth in it; England and France, for example, were at war with one another on and off for centuries. Pretty much every European country has invaded at least one of its neighbours at some point.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
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.
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."
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.)