[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver petition that Internet Video is not Subject to FCC Regulation
Good initiative, as clarity is good and there are various businesses and creators who may want reassurance in this area that their plans arent going to be killed by regulation. Ive been reading up on the proposed EU directive, as it was mentioned in the petition. Being in the UK this is obviously more directly relevent to me, although as most of the sservice providers content creators are stateside I am obviously interested in what happens there too. So having studied the EU draft document, here are my thoughts on its aims and implications Firstly non-commercial use, private websites, or people making non-comemrcial videos to exchange information etc within a community, are exempt. So that would cover quite a chunk of vloggers but not everybody. If you dont fit into that opt-out, but you dont have any traditional broadcast tv networks transitting your programming, so only offer 'non-linear' (ie on demand or internet) stuff, then you have to follow some of the rules in the directive, but are exempt from lots of other rules. The sorts of rules youd have to stick to (or risk investigation by the national regulator in your country) are: Protection of minors No hate speech, racism etc No tobacco advertising No prescription drug advertising Follow code on not advertising crappy foods to kids Clear distinction between the advertising and the show Rules about product placement Rules about sponsorship No sponsiorship of news or current event programs Required to promote European-made shows and make sure they make up a sizeable chunk of the content you offer Then like I said there are a load more regulations for those broadcasting 'linear' content, covering all the sorts of traditonal TV regulation, so more restrictions on advertising amounts, protecting minors, and a whole bunch of stuff to create a 'competitive market'. At several points in the document they make it clear that they are mostly interested in mass media, and the sorts of traditional media/tv companies that are used to regulation, and these services moving onto the internet etc. Quite a lot of it is to do with relaxing certain advertising constraints in the face of things like viewers being able to skip adverts more easily. But certainly it lays the ground for a future where the content that individuals make, if they are trying to reach a sizeable audience, being regulated. I assume that in reality much of this is already covered by existing laws, as in the EU whilst there is free speech stuff in the Human Rights declaration, there are plenty of laws that ban all sorts of expressions of opinion, such as racism, incitement to kill or injure people, holocaust denial, fraudulent advertising, child porn. Anyway if such a thing as the EU stuff were proposed in the USA, it would certainly potentially impact a service like network2, so I dont blame them for seeking clarity. From a content creators point of view, those making risky content already face the potential to have existing laws used against them, or to have their service terminated due to offended viewes moaning to their video service provider or ISP, etc etc. Any new legislation will have the biggest impact on commercial services/sites and on advertising, although this would obviously have a knowck-on effect to content creators in the end. And I dont know where Janet Jacksons nipple fits into all of this. What part of the communications regulations that govern TV did this come under? To me this is the other sort of regulation and control, which can be slipped in via things like 'child protection' clauses. It remains unclear to me whether the net will be a suitable candidate for this level of control and censorship, it hasnt worked in the past but then we are still in wild frontier times. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday at VON Jeff Pulver mentioned the petition to the FCC to not regulate Internet Video. Today Jeff's blog has a post on the petition: http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006642.html and here's the fcc petition: http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/network2/Network2%20Petition.pdf From what I gather the 2004 Jeff Pulver petition to not have VOIP (voice over IP) regulated led to that ruling by the FCC: http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2004/20040212b.asp Allowing services like Skype to develop without FCC regulation. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com
[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver petition that Internet Video is not Subject to FCC Regulation
Oops a little more waffle left in me on this one.. The reasons to oppose regulation are pretty well laid out in the network2 petition. I imagine the 'US leads way, good for US economy' stuff is overstated because thats a standard argument to use in such rallies against regulation, although its also true, though nobody quite knows how much real economic worth such things have yet. Reasons to support regulation include the protection against consumers being mislead by advertising beyond the currently acceptable amount. Personally Id rather have strong regulation to discourage all sorts of unsavioury and exploitative business practice, although Im well aware that this can have many negative implications. As a consumer I want protection against subliminal advertising, I want clear information about sponsorship info, I want the advert and the program to have clear seperation. Granted I am a cynic who would have no more confidence in a voluntary code of uncorruptable bloggers than I would in any other voluntary code that is created by traditional industry to try to stave off real legislation that has teeth. But where does this stance lead to? Amanda Congdon is now in various DuPont adverts on the internets, at least I know they are adverts, I dont want to live in a future world where its impossible to know whats an advert and whats a show. Still as an Englishman Im not too sure of my own stance here so maybe I stand even less chance of any citizens of the USA joining me if any of that stuff about the free market and deregulation that gets spouted over there is actually believed by the multitude and not just the few with access to the traditonal quack amplifier. Lets see if at least 27 years of loud 'big government is evil' rhetoric will enable sadvertisers to get away with more in a deregulated wonderworld of the future. I hear theres a flat tax in Iraq now, wooo lucky Iraqi's, not. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver petition that Internet Video is not Subject to FCC Regulation
Oh it seems that the Amanda Congdon DuPont adverts has caused some to start ranting about the sorts of advertising issues the EU draft legislation proposes to cover in our part of the world. http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/03/abcs-rocketboomer-powered-by-dupont.php So there seems to be a situation where Amanda is allowed to do corporate ad work wheras other ABC staff arent allowed to do that sort of thing in case it calls ABC's impartiality into question? As for the actual adverts, hard har they are a modern equivalent of those corporate public info films from the middle of last century that can be found in the prelinger archive. And DuPont is an easy corporation for critics to attack from multiple angles, so I doubt she's going to get a particularily easy ride in the blogosphere over this one. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amanda Congdon is now in various DuPont adverts on the internets, at least I know they are adverts, I dont want to live in a future world where its impossible to know whats an advert and whats a show. Still as an Englishman Im not too sure of my own stance here so maybe I stand even less chance of any citizens of the USA joining me if any of that stuff about the free market and deregulation that gets spouted over there is actually believed by the multitude and not just the few with access to the traditonal quack amplifier. Lets see if at least 27 years of loud 'big government is evil' rhetoric will enable sadvertisers to get away with more in a deregulated wonderworld of the future. I hear theres a flat tax in Iraq now, wooo lucky Iraqi's, not. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: Jeff Pulver petition that Internet Video is not Subject to FCC Regulation
Ouch heres a c-net story on he same topic: http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6169002.html That one touches on the possible differences between being a blogger, a journalist, an actor/entertainer. Also features quotes from Amanda that seem to suggest that new media is all about breaking rules. Still it sure does seem like people are taking issue with it because of Amandas ABC work, so I dont know if someone without mainstream news affiliation would come under the same scrutiny. So this situation may not be comparable for the sorts of regulatory issues that the network2 petition is designed to prevent, as it involves a traditonal broadcaster. Still if its more of an issue if ABC does it, what does that say about the perceived credibility of blog journalists, why doesnt it matter so much if they do ads? And where are the people who used to talk about preserving the integrity of the blogosphere, are they still out there blogging about this stuff? Meanwhile all of these questions as applied to advertising and integrity on the net, could also be raised when it comes to political videos, funding for them etc. So that would be another reason why some might be interested in legislating some rules about video on the net. Great timing to have these 2 things happening at the same time, yet to see how many people really care about this stuff though, until it affects them. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh it seems that the Amanda Congdon DuPont adverts has caused some to start ranting about the sorts of advertising issues the EU draft legislation proposes to cover in our part of the world. http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/03/abcs-rocketboomer-powered-by-dupont.php So there seems to be a situation where Amanda is allowed to do corporate ad work wheras other ABC staff arent allowed to do that sort of thing in case it calls ABC's impartiality into question? As for the actual adverts, hard har they are a modern equivalent of those corporate public info films from the middle of last century that can be found in the prelinger archive. And DuPont is an easy corporation for critics to attack from multiple angles, so I doubt she's going to get a particularily easy ride in the blogosphere over this one. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins steve@ wrote: Amanda Congdon is now in various DuPont adverts on the internets, at least I know they are adverts, I dont want to live in a future world where its impossible to know whats an advert and whats a show. Still as an Englishman Im not too sure of my own stance here so maybe I stand even less chance of any citizens of the USA joining me if any of that stuff about the free market and deregulation that gets spouted over there is actually believed by the multitude and not just the few with access to the traditonal quack amplifier. Lets see if at least 27 years of loud 'big government is evil' rhetoric will enable sadvertisers to get away with more in a deregulated wonderworld of the future. I hear theres a flat tax in Iraq now, wooo lucky Iraqi's, not. Cheers Steve Elbows
