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.