Slashdot Mirror
First Video Broadcast From Mt. Everest Peak Outrages Tourist Ministry of Nepal
hutsell writes "On May 19th, Daniel Hughes spoke to BBC News live from the world's highest peak using his smartphone, making it the first live broadcast from Everest. (The actual video — showing the importance of oxygen along with his panoramic view — on the BBC page, is bookend with talking heads and a front-end advert.) However, since he and his team failed to get a commercial broadcast permit (costing about 2 grand) without the Nepali Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Aviation's knowledge, officials want to impose the penalty of having them banned from obtaining climbing permits for 10 years or from entering the country for 5 years. From the article, a quote from Dipendra Poudel, an official of the Ministry's mountain branch: 'The mountaineering rules say if you want to make a live telecast from the mountain, which is a restricted area, you have to get a permit first and inform us early about what you're going to do.' Those protesting against the decision feel the intent of the law is being misinterpreted; it's failing to keep up with the recent fundamental changes in technology. A permit that was meant to deal with ecological repercussions, doesn't seem to apply in this case. If it doesn't, is it really about disrespect, money, a tourism copyright angle, or all of the above? Then again, should the Nepal government ignore outsiders questioning their motives?"
A permit that was meant to deal with ecological repercussions, doesn't seem to apply in this case. If it doesn't, is it really about disrespect, money, a tourism copyright angle, or all of the above? Then again, should the Nepal government ignore outsiders questioning their motives?
Fuck you, hutsell, for making rhetoric trying to blame Nepal for BBC's disrespect for other country's law. So what if it is about money? Non-western country can't make money from broadcasting rights?
From the story:
Mr Hamilton said he had been operating in Nepal for the past 20 years without infringing local laws and sensibilities.
"If we realised this filming was going to be an issue, we would have tried to head it off at the beginning.
"As far as we see it, the rules are a little bit grey about shooting short video clips and putting them on websites."
And fuck you, too, Mr Hamilton. If you operate in a country in 20 years and still don't know their laws regarding the single most place there, you are incompetent and negligent, period.
The rules are only "a little bit grey" because you broke it and is making excuses.
Try shooting "short video clips" from English Premier League without a license and put it on BBC News live broadcast, then see how "a little bit grey" broadcasting rights is in your own fucking country when they sue your ass off, instead of just banning you from coming again for 10 years.
This is not an example of a human rights problem, it is an example of a bureaucracy wantonly inflicting some punishment upon someone, justified by a tenuous reading of an inapplicable regulation. The whole situation is an epitome of bureaucratic abuse, of which many more can be found all over the world. If calling specific people on the phone is illegal from the summit of Mt Everest, a new regulation should be written for future visitors, because calling one guy, with a consumer smart phone, a broadcast television crew, is pretty much bullshit, and you know it.
Anyways, this seems more like a PR nightmare for Nepal, somewhere on the level of suing your customers, or filing slander lawsuits against reviewers.
Also, kindly shut the fuck up about libertarian. Your vauge, broad strokes, ad hominem attacks on libertarians could easily apply to nearly any political persuasion followed by college students (look around a campus, and you will find some outspoken, spoiled person that you don't like). Frankly, it is trite. If you really feel the urge for public discourse, at least talk about something meaningful or relevant. This might include doing some actual research or reading, and generally commenting from a position of knowledge, instead of blurting out the first thing you remember from some rant you heard once, somewhere.