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."

Taxman!

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!

I think George Orwell may just have been before his time...
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. ;-)

Milton

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 [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.

Re:Taxman!

George Harrison

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 :-(

The only thing without frontiers is

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!

Re:The only thing without frontiers is

Wow. That was the quickest reverse slam on the US I've seen on Slashdot yet. The article has nothing to do with the US, the person you're replying to didn't mention the US, yet you managed to make it all about the US. Well played, asshat!

Re:The only thing without frontiers is

"...as long as you don't take part in acts of agression against our country, you're safe. If you're planning on taking part in those things, please leave, and quit bitching about your "rights"."

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.

Re:The only thing without frontiers is

Hmm - I've not seen the meme "Bush is Hitler" before, but maybe that's because I don't watch CNN.

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.

Re:The only thing without frontiers is

Fair enough, though what you and the ACLU are forgetting is we are talking about people who were:

1) Captured on a battlefield
2) During a war
3) And were not abiding by the Geneva Convention

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.

Re:The only thing without frontiers is

Well, the Bill of Rights says that "we hold these rights to be self-evident" and there is nothing in the Constitution restricting the interpretation of law to US citizens.

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.

Re:The only thing without frontiers is

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.

Re:The only thing without frontiers is

The only people this affects are people who were captured actively plotting or engaged in warfare against the United States, its armed forces and or its allies

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.

Re:The only thing without frontiers is

Under the new bill, Habeas Corpus can only be suspended for non-citizens, and (if I remember correctly) even then it must be approved by a judge. You can debate the positive/negative aspects of it if you want, but don't be so disingenuous as to imply that this right has been taken from US Citizens. As it stands, the bill is no threat to citizens at all. It's mainly the 15 million illegal Cubans and Mexicans that should be worried.

Never going to work

Look at the example that the article provided. You Tube. It's located in the United States. What about myself??

Re:Never going to work

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?

Re:Never going to work

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.

Re:Never going to work

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?

The United States is still carrying a lot of repressed (sexual) baggage from its upbringing in a Protestant/Puritan dominated society.

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.

Re:Never going to 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?

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.

Re:Never going to work

wasn't the whole point of broadcast licenses to prevent frequency interference?

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.

Re:Never going to work

"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

On the up-side

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.

How much more stupid are politicians going to get?

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 a great idea, but....

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.

Thin justification

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.

Did I read and understand it correctly?

...recent proposed EU legislation could require anyone running a website featuring video content to acquire a broadcast license.

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.

Where are they headed?

Makes you stop for a second to think, are they talking about China or the EU?

So... how long?

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.

Re:So... how long?

Can anyone point out to me how the UK benefits from being in the EU (as opposed to the EEA)?

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.

The current face of censorship: "Hate speech"

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.

How?

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.

one word

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.

Why video?

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

This will discriminate against he deaf

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.

Flash

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?!'

sounds fishy

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.

They STLL don't get it

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?

money

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

"One size fits all" government

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 [lewrockwell.com] and begin to understand why democracy is doomed to fail under any metric measuring individual freedom.

Not a Bad Idea

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.

They'll stumble on the definition

"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.

Hate Speech

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]

whats next??

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.

This is ridiculous

Before you know it they'll want to charge people to receive analog BBC broadcasts.

It's the effect, not the format

Broadcast Television is not the 4:3, it's not the number of people who see it, it's not who sends it. THe relevant things that make it special are:

• 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.

Starting mouth before putting the brain in gear...

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?

Marked FUD

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.

You are all forgetting something I reckon

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.

Freedom of expression?

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!!

The great paper Tiger

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.

How many can they take?

So how many millions of lawsuits is the EU prepared to file? Get serious. There is no way something like this can be imposed.

Don't just sit there!

I'm typing an email to my MEP as we speak.

Pure FUD

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)?

Television without frontiers

I thought this must be bs when I read it (The Times, a Murdoch rag, is famously anti-EU) but they do seem to have some weird ideas about the internet (from "the portal site of the European Union [europa.eu]"):

One aim is to relax the current rules on advertising. Another is to draw a distinction between "linear" services (conventional television, Internet, mobile telephony) and "non-linear" services (on-demand television and information). The proposed approach would involve the introduction of obligations on two levels: * fundamental obligations (particularly the protection of minors and human dignity) applicable to all audiovisual content services; * "linear" audiovisual services would be subject to second-level obligations similar to those set out in the TVWF Directive, but simplified and updated.

I don't quite get how internet is differentiated from an "on-demand information" service - but the idea that the internet should be subject to the same "second level obligations" as TV sounds ominous. Maybe Ted Stevens has been advising them.

Internet is not "broadcasting"

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.

Thank you

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.

Impossible

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.

This is actually a good thing which I support

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.

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 .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.

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.

Nonsense, see draft

That's nonsense. The draft [europa.eu] explicitly says:

(12) No provision of this Directive should require or encourage Member States to impose new systems of licensing or administrative authorisation on any type of media.

Citizens of the United Kingdom...

Speak Out [speakout.co.uk] against this madness. Get our country out of the EU!

http://www.speakout.co.uk/ [speakout.co.uk]

Impossible

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.

[Press Release] EC moves forward to tax windows

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]

Time to wake up...

It is long past time to get off the RegulatedNet(c) and become active in anoNet [anonet.org]. Hell for that matter there is i2p [i2p.net] (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.

Must be the money

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.

Cultural Imperialism

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.

NAZIs

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!

Just ridiculous...

This is sooo american... it doesn't look european at all. Well, I doubt that someone would take this seriously...

"Hate Speech" is an assault on society itself.

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

Re:You europeans hold the power in your countries

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!

Re:You europeans hold the power in your countries

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.

Re:You europeans hold the power in your countries

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.

Re: consider the source of article

http://www.infowars.net/articles/October2006/17100 6Internet.htm [infowars.net]

Re:EU's a little too left wing these days..

Modern Europe is what would happen if the US embraced socialism. Thank god the Democrats are so disorganized now.

And just to be fair...

Saudi Arabia is what will happen if the US continues to embrace the Religious Right. Too bad there isn't a viable 3rd party.