Slashdot Log In
EU Considering Regulating Video Bloggers
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Oct 17, 2006 08:23 PM
from the license-to-speak-just-a-small-additional-fee dept.
from the license-to-speak-just-a-small-additional-fee dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Taxman! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Taxman! (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime [wikipedia.org]
Next thing you know I'll need a licence before I can hum a tune in my head.
They can have my videoblog when they pry it from my cold dead server.
Parent
Milton (Score:5, Informative)
Actually you can go all the way back to 1644 with John Milton's rather important essay called Areopagitica [uoregon.edu] -- "A speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing to the parliament of England." (Wikipedia entry here [wikipedia.org])
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.
Parent
Re:Taxman! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or just like Reagan have said: "If it moves - tax it, if it still moves - regulate it, if it cease to move - subsidize it".
The same greedy career hunting bureaucrats having had M$, now look for something new to profit from. True image of EU :-(
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
37% of our income is taken in taxes on average, which may be acceptable to pay for free health care and a decent society. What is not acceptable is that new ways of collecting revenue are being dreamed up every day. If you want to regulate hate speech then put the perpetrators in jail, don't impose yet another tax collection scheme and jail those who don't get the paperwork right.
I'm heartil
The only thing without frontiers is (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was Ben Franklin. Not a president.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And suspension of HC (I'm sick of typing it out!) _is_ a big deal. When the UK introduced the RIP bill [wikipedia.org] (another odious piece of legislation) that would bring back the Star Chamber [wikipedia.org] for some off
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:4, Informative)
That would be all well and good if the government were required to demonstrate that the people in question actually committed any such acts. As a matter of fact, as of right now, my wonderful government doesn't even have to charge people with anything specific to hold them indefinitely without access to the courts, a lawyer, or anyone else on the outside. Unless something has changed that escaped my notice, they are not even compelled to disclose the fact that they are holding you. (Theoretically, if any of these people were US citizens, how would we even find out?)
The argument that these losses of liberty are unimportant because the people being shortchanged are terrorists is getting very tired. We don't know that they are terrorists, we don't even necessarily know who they are. The idea that we should blindly trust the executive branch of our government to not get overzealous with so few restrictions and no oversight is laughable.
"Second, the bill doesn't trump the Constitution, it just points out that foreign enemies don't get the benefit of the Constitution."
I do not believe that someone having been born in another country (or perhaps more precisely, with a different faith background or color of skin) is any less human or any less deserving of guarantees of their basic liberties.
"Quit being such a cry-baby."
Seventeen people from Guantanamo Bay have just been releasted. All were found to have committed no crime. Most of these were Afghan citizens taken from their home country to have over *four years* of their lives taken away while living in a prison where, as many of them allege, they were subject to methods of psychological torture. I could go on and on about various US prison abuses, or about reasons to doubt the ability of our executive branch to exercise sound judgement, but you should be familiar with them already. We have ample evidence that rights that most of us would agree should be provided to everyone have been taken away from a great many people by our government. People's lives are, in fact, being irrevocably harmed by our actions.
Without any transparency or accountability, we have no idea how many people have been so wronged, and will have no idea whether or not it is continuing or expanding. We are essentially being asked by certain factions in our government to simply trust them to use these powers wisely. I find little reason to do so, either on the grounds of ethics or competency. I would ask that others try not to make decisions on this matter (like voting) while thinking that these changes only affect "bad guys," which is the mentality being promoted. People should not be indiscriminantly punished for the crimes of extremists that happen to share a region of birth with them. I certainly wouldn't want to be.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1: We don't lose the right to habeas corpus. You do. An enemy combatant - which can be anyone - can be put in prison indefinitely, and subjected to any act that does not meet a very narrow definition of torture. Habeas copus is an option if and only if the person is a US Citizen. The theory is that anyone else is essentially an enemy soldier, and doesn't deserve it.
2: Habeas corpus is actually in the original Constitution, not the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments). As for t
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a fair amount of criticism of this latest insult to human rights, and it's not just on CNN. The right of "habeus corpus" is the fundamental right of a prisoner to demand a *fair* review of why he is a captive. If you don't have that right (which by the way, your constitution prevents being suspended unless you're being invaded or you're in rebellion), pretty much any other right in the bill of rights is irrelevant. You can be held indefinitely, and suffer any indignity because they never have to free you.
[from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]]
According to Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel, "nothing could be less American than a government that can indefinitely hold people in secret torture cells, take away their protections against horrific and cruel abuse, put them on trial based on evidence that they cannot see, sentence them to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and then slam shut the courthouse door for any habeas petition, but that's exactly what Congress just approved."
Simon.
Parent
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all! We are talking about people who are "designated enemy combatants". They may have been captured anywhere, at any time, and may not have committed any crime at all, let alone war crimes.
Jose Padilla, for instance, was arrested in Chicago, when he got off the plane at O'Hare airport. Not on a battlefield at all.
The Bush regime would like you to think this: "these repressive laws apply only to dangerous criminals - if you aren't a terrorist you have nothing to fear". But until people have had a chance to defend themselves, how can you possibly know that they are criminals? Answer: you can't. Well over 200 people held as "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo have been released and allowed to return to their homes. These people turned out NOT to be enemy combatants after all, didn't they? But it took years for this to be established, not least because they were unable to offer any defence to the charges which were made against them because they did not know what the charges were! How can you offer an alibi to disprove a secret denunciation? "I wasn't there your honour!" "I didn't do it!".
On the basis of secret "evidence" (oxymoronic - secrets are by definition not "evident"), Guantanamo inmates were held in pretty ugly conditions, for years. Shackled, abused, some of them literally beaten to death. Some of them despaired and committed suicide. They are denied the basic human right to justice which the US constitution supposedly guaranteed. This is legalised now! Now, under US law, you are no longer innocent until proven guilty. The president can legally just pick up the phone and "designate" you, and you can be "disappeared". What's to prevent abuse? How you can have any confidence that these disappearances are even based on good intelligence? Going by the record, I wouldn't trust the intelligence agencies to sit the right way on a toilet seat.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah? You've never hung out near Baggage Claim then.
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of the legal mumbo-jumbo, how can you possibly subscribe to a system of human rights that you only believe apply to citizens of a certain country? Either those values are applicable to all of humanity, or your laws are based on hypocrisy and selfishness.
Parent
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:5, Informative)
You are partially correct.
Although the U.S. Constitution does not specify the rights of non-citizens, The Third Geneva Convention [wikipedia.org], Article 3, says the U.S. must give non-citizens the same rights we afford citizens.
Most importantly, it says that a detainee must be sentenced by a regularly constituted court. Not a secret court, using secret evidence. Detainees must be tried and sentenced using the same rules that the country would use to try and sentence any other person accused of criminal action. Detainees must be given all the rights recognized as indispensable by civilized people. The U.S. Constitution outlines all the rights that Americans believe to be indispensable. This means a detainee must be given all constitutional rights.
This article specifically outlines how a signatory of the Geneva Conventions must treat a non-signatory.
In signing the Geneva Conventions, those are the rules the U.S. agreed to abide by. The U.S. administration would like everyone to believe they don't have to abide by these rules because the current circumstances are exceptional, but there is no "...unless the signatory gets very, very angry" clause.
Parent
Re:The US Constitution and Citizenship (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, one more thing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we have over the years become exactly what we hated - we have become the same as the nation we broke away from.
Re:The only thing without frontiers is (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Also, why don't we just abandon the whole court system and let the cops just lock people up directly (after agood beating)? After all, this only applies to the criminals they catch. Why bother about their rights?
Some of us have more than two synapses, are familiar witht the concept of "checks and balances", and are able to see the problem with a "guilty by accusation" policy.
Parent
On the up-side (Score:4, Interesting)
On another note, it seems very interesting, timing-wise, that this would come up so soon after Google acquires Youtube.
How much more stupid are politicians going to get? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thin justification (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Where are they headed? (Score:3, Insightful)
So... how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Europeans need EU to stop from killing each other (Score:3, Funny)
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 domin
How can it be racist? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:So... how long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, for one thing, some people welcome a culturual interchange - even a union - of European countries. I wouldn't mind seeing a single, federated government for Europe, as long as it's a sensible and democratic one. I certainly feel that way, and I certainly feel a certain bond to other people from European countries, the UK in particular because I'm fond of your language. It's sad that it doesn't go both ways, but such is life.
A more practical approach is that joining forces is really the only way the countries in the EU have any chance of remaining a political power on a global scale. The individual countries, including very much the UK and France already are fairly minor compared to the rising powers or, of course, the US. Great Britain in particular has seen an almost catastrophic loss of power over the course of the 20th century, or even the post-WW2 half of it. Even with a common foreign policy, the EU will have a hard time bargaining with Russia and Asia in 20 to 40 years, as individual states there is just no chance at all. Of course, predicting the global state in 20 to 40 years is prone to enormous errors.
Furthermore, political union makes sense as a step after economic union. For instance, there are currently plans to have a common level of taxation on cars and gasoline. As it is, people from Germany routinely drive over the open borders to fill up their cars, saving on taxes in the process. The reverse is true for other goods. This kind of competition might be good for the consumers, but it's not good for the states who lose tax revenue and a political means of rewarding fuel economy (or restraint from alcohol, or whatever), so they have a reason to level the playing field in those regards. And since by definition our governments represent us, of course we consumers want the playing field levelled, too.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current face of censorship: "Hate speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that's necessarily true, historically. Look at the history of free speech in the United States: in the last century, we've seen net progress in the scope of what people can say and write without fear of government interference. The obvious example that comes to mind is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger [wikipedia.org]
Which is not to say that we shouldn't be vigilant about o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech [wikipedia.org]
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religi
How? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
This will discriminate against he deaf (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, a lot of people prefer firing up their webcam or their videophone over textual communication, often for similar reasons why hearing people prefer the phone, but not limited to these.
Also, there are a lot of deaf people who feel far more comfortable with signed languages than with written text. Sadly, literacy is still a big, and contentious, issue in deaf education.
Several examples to back up my point:
Flash (Score:3, Interesting)
sounds fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
They STLL don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
So how does the EU plan to regulate a website run from say, Uganda, exactly? Sanctions? Boycott? Censorship?
You are all forgetting something I reckon (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Nonsense, see draft (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Never going to work (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Never going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Never going to work (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Never going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Never going to work (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Never going to work (Score:4, Informative)
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
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Y