Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Australia Wants to Regulate Internet Streaming 257

Posted by samzenpus
from the what-you-streaming-mate dept.
Paul writes "After an incident that occurred on a popular television show's internet stream, the Australian government has once again demonstrated that it simply does not understand the internet by indicating that they intend to regulate streaming video. I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Wants to Regulate Internet Streaming

Comments Filter:
  • by dave1791 (315728) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @02:58AM (#15665345)
    Why Ted Stevens' internet took five days to get to him! All that streaming filling those tubes...
  • by Raul654 (453029) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @02:59AM (#15665347) Homepage
    ...the write up here is awfully vague. The incident it refers to happened on Big Brother Australia [cnn.com] - one of the guys in the house held a girl down while the other rubbed his penis on her face. Both are now facing charges.
    • by babbling (952366) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:03AM (#15665357)
      They're not facing charges. [smh.com.au] Police say there isn't enough evidence.
      • by HillBilly (120575) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:32AM (#15665428)
        The media blew the whole issue out of proportion.

        All those cameras and there is still not much evidence tells me it was just a bunch of young adults just having fun, until BB decided to be a party pooper. Lets have a realaity check here, if the girl was in any serious danger BB would have had security in their in an instant.
      • >> They're not facing charges. Police say there isn't enough evidence.

        Its unavoidable that someone make a 'size' joke out of that. So I just did, without actually making one.
    • by SolitaryMan (538416) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:21AM (#15665397) Homepage Journal
      one of the guys in the house held a girl down while the other rubbed his penis on her face.
      Australians don't know that this is exactly what we have an internet for? :)
    • by 12ahead (586157) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:42AM (#15665461)
      No charges - see here [smh.com.au]. And if you watch the footage and consider the circumstances, it bedazzles me how it can be blown out of proportion that much. They are three young adults who have been living together for 70 days, 24 hours a day. The girl and the 2 guys were very comfortable with each other and slept in the same bed, with her being topless and all of them hugging. There was some sort of sexual tension between them, so this did not come out of nowhere. The girl even said "Are you going to turkeyslap me now?" so she saw it coming. In the end she did tell them to stop and so they did.
       
      It is a TV show and there is a lot of bullshit and manipulation through the way it is broadcast. However, these people do live their lives in there and form relationships that are probably stronger than one can imagine watching 10 minute blurbs of footage each day.
       
        The politicians are just proving that it is not the TV show, but rather themselves who deserve the title Big Brother!
      • Unfortunately Australia, like the UK, does not require there to be a complaintant to push charges on someone. The Crown could prosecute these two for sexual assault and win. They won't, because it's a big waste of time, but they could.
    • THe two men involved ar NOT facing any charges, the women involved did NOT want the police to be involved.
      http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867 ,19696864-7582,00.html [news.com.au]

      This is a beatup by a right-wing government. Get your facts straight.
  • by skimitar (730902) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @02:59AM (#15665349)
    As an Australian, I can only shake my head and say "we're not all like this". Originally our Prime Minister wanted the broadcaster to take the whole show off the air. I guess this latest response is after someone pointed out that you could originally only see the offending footage live over the net at 4 in the morning (really, someone needs to get a life if this is what they are doing at 4 am).
    • by babbling (952366) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:08AM (#15665375)
      No, we're not all like John Howard, but the majority of us are. We, Australia, elected him to represent us. If we didn't think John Howard represented us, we could have voted for a different party, of which there are many.

      Personally, I vote for The Greens.
      • Yay for us! (Us, Australia, that is.)

        Considering Bob Brown's starve-in-the-dark economic policy and Mark Latham's post-election meltdown, John Howard was the least worst of the choices offered to us.

        On the topic at hand, never mind the porn, can't we ban Big Brother for being offensively stupid?

        ...

        What am I thinking? We'd have to ban three quarters of all human activity.

        ...

        No, that would not be a good thing!
        • In my opinion, it's about time the economy (businesses) suffered a little bit for the community (people) to be better off.

          Stop treating "the economy" as though it is something sacred that mustn't be trampled on. It is just one aspect of our society, and not really the most important one, despite the fact that people treat it like it is.
          • > In my opinion, it's about time the economy (businesses) suffered a
            > little bit for the community (people) to be better off.

            The economy is all of us - not just 'business'. When you hurt business the ocmmunity suffers.
            • The economy is all of us - not just 'business'. When you hurt business the ocmmunity suffers.

              That's the defense that capitalists always turn to, yes. But the simply fact is that businesses will only ever pay workers as little as they can possibly get away with. When the economy is going strongly, they take all the profits - wages do not rise - and they certainly won't rise now with Work Choices ( Business Choices ). But when the economy is going badly, businesses us this as an excuse to decimate wages a

        • by mcbridematt (544099) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @04:04AM (#15665523) Homepage Journal
          On the topic at hand, never mind the porn, can't we ban Big Brother for being offensively stupid?

          Lets ban stuff because christian fundamentalist tools don't know what an 'off' button is and believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them! Next some other group will want something else taken off because they also believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them!

          Yes, its smut, but if you don't like it, don't watch it and let the networks decide when the lack of ad revenue doesn't justify another reality tv iteration.

          SBS should really rush the two South Park Cartoon Wars episodes on air...
          • Lets ban stuff because christian fundamentalist tools don't know what an 'off' button is and believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them!

            Calling someone a "christian fundamentalist fool" and misspelling the word "fool": priceless.

            Yes, its smut,

            No it isn't :(. Naked reality TV would be a nice idea. Don't vote people out, vote that they have to lose clothes. If they're allready naked, have them perform sexual acts. Simply let them use a pseudonym and a facial mask (or just pixelatio

            • Calling someone a "christian fundamentalist fool" and misspelling the word "fool": priceless.



              I think you need to consult with your dictionary about the secondary meaning (especially the more vulgar ones) of the word "tool".



              Here's a link for you:



              www.websters.com

            • Calling someone a "christian fundamentalist fool" and misspelling the word "fool": priceless.

              Fool is a good word in his context, but "tool" is just as good - as in "someone who is used". I believe he's implying there are a bunch of numb-minded christian fundamentalists who are being used as tools of their leadership.

              That's what god tells me, anyway. An angel read it to me off some pretty golden plates.
          • Yes, its smut, but if you don't like it, don't watch it

            True, up to a point. However, the sad fact is (at least in UK, I imagine it is the same everywhere) that all you are given to watch on tv is crap like 'reality' TV, sports events, celebrity chefs and makeover programs; so it becomes a question of not having a tv or enjoying this brainless shite by the cubic meter. How I miss the days when tv was at times well made and intelligent.
          • christian fundamentalist tools don't know what an 'off' button is

            They know precisely what an 'off' button is...and they want to make damn sure yours gets pushed when they want it pushed.

            rj

        • by vandan (151516) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @05:16AM (#15665697) Homepage
          Considering Bob Brown's starve-in-the-dark economic policy

          That's an assisine comment. There's a world of difference between a sensible, substainable economy, and one that consumes all resources as fast as possible for the biggest short-term profits. The Greens argue for a sustainable economy. There's no sane person left on the planet who claims that our current resource usage is sustainable. It's just that mainstream political parties have no interest in doing anything about it.

          Mark Latham's post-election meltdown

          It was hardly a meltdown. He let of some steam, that's for sure. If I were him, I would have felt the same way. Labor castritates his policies and threw the election to the Liberals so they could continue to play to the conservative factions ( inside and out ) Latham would have actually been a leader, whereas Howard is simply following the US ruling class all the way to hell. But on the topic of meltdowns, I seem to remember a certain prominent Liberal politician attempting suicide ( and failing ). Now that was a meltdown. Latham was just venting.
          • There's no sane person left on the planet who claims that our current resource usage is sustainable.

            Perhaps not, but there are very sane people who say that it's not relevent: Since necessity is the mother of invention, some enterprising person(s) will solve the problems (at a profit, no less) when it's necessary to solve them.
            For example: we're running out of oil, but we need oil to run our cars and factories and such.
            Solution: There are already people 'manufacturing' oil in a variety of ways, includi

          • Am I the only person who wouldn't have voted for Mark Latham before his "vent", but would have afterwards? I was impressed by it, at least more so than I am impressed by Kim "Just Like John" Beazley.
      • by 6th time lucky (811282) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:32AM (#15665427)
        No, we're not all like John Howard, but the majority of us are. We, Australia, elected him to represent us

        Ok i am not an electoral expert but with our preferential system it is very possible to have a *party* that less than half voted for as a first preference. Only because we *have* to put them down somewhere did they end up with more than half the votes. (ie on my card i probably put the major parties last and second last - 8 and 9 if i remember-, who i really wanted doesnt really matter)

        On a second note, noone actually voted for John Howard. He is a figure head of the party we voted for. The PM is not elected like the president of the USA, but by his mates in the party, once again on a similar system that could have a person that is not half of everyones 1st choice (and is corrupted by being an open system with lots of deals being made).
        • More specifically, the Liberal Party has never, ever won a majority. Without the coalition with the National Party, we'd have been under Labor for a long, long time now. To the matter at hand, though...jeez, she actually says "you're going to turkey slap me, aren't you?" giggling as she obeys the summons to 'come over here', it's clearly just a bunch of semi-retarded attention whores having some lowbrow good times. I love that of all the atricities going on, the one that excites our glorious leaders is a p
      • Got into office [wikipedia.org] != Majority [wikipedia.org]
    • And recording [frogbert.host.sk] it no less.
    • > As an Australian, I can only shake my head and say "we're not all like this".

      Did you read the story? It's not talking about anything other than a review and of the three political forces quoted in the story the government is the most reasonable.

      > Originally our Prime Minister wanted the broadcaster to take the whole show off the air.

      Well - yes - but he said was that he dislikes the government telling the business community what to do. He suggested that there's a place for self-regulation and that ch
      • Well - yes - but he said was that he dislikes the government telling the business community what to do. He suggested that there's a place for self-regulation and that channel ten had an opportunity here to exercise self-regualtion. Your comment could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the government was about to cause it to happen.

        We are not gonna tell you what to do at all! but now we are talking anyway, you did this and this, and we regard that as prime example of you failing to self regulate.. FIX IT
        • > We are not gonna tell you what to do at all! but now we are talking
          > anyway, you did this and this, and we regard that as prime example of
          > you failing to self regulate.. FIX IT!

          Yeah - fair enough.

          > Makes me wonder, did you copy/paste that post? it sounds a lot like
          > the typical political misdirection,

          The quote was paraphrased from what I saw on lateline earlier this week. Or do you mean the whole post? Er? I wrote the post and paraphrased the bit featuring what Howard said. I thnk it is re
          • The quote was paraphrased from what I saw on lateline earlier this week. Or do you mean the whole post? Er? I wrote the post and paraphrased the bit featuring what Howard said. I thnk it is relevent that Howard specifically indicated he wasn't in favour of legislating against channel ten or shows like Big Brother before he made the remarks that the media services chose to quote in isolation but still - my critism of what you said was still too thin to be valid.

            Well, I meant the entire post. But you made cle
    • originally only see the offending footage live over the net at 4 in the morning

      I was absolutely floored when, after the incident occured, suddently everyone is talking about reviewing TV ratings.

      IT WAS NEVER ON THE FSCKING TV!!!!!!!

      Pieces of the incident were aired on TV during subsequent news programs, but only to illustrate something that was available for viewing on the internet. And really, compared to the footage they've been showing from Iraq and Indonesia lately during prime time news, the incident i

  • Better information (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xiroth (917768) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:08AM (#15665372)
    What a terrible article to link on the issue. It has next to nothing to say about any kind of regulation of online content other than that content broadcast live online is not covered by current laws. It seems quite sensible to bring this in line with other laws governing online content - it's what those other laws are which is the sticking point. The relevent federal minister's statement on the events can be found here [dcita.gov.au] - a link I found in a good blog post (on the news site linked in the summary) here [smh.com.au]. I would say that this is a classic case of governmental over-reaction and bumbling misunderstanding, but you can't really tell that from the article linked in the summary. In fact, I would say that the real fallout from it hasn't been seen yet - we'll see what legislation brings.
  • what you say? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smash (1351) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:10AM (#15665379) Homepage Journal
    I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?"

    We'll regulate that too, damnit!

    (in jest, however - sadly, it appears that's probably what they'll propose if previous internet related legislation is anything to go by).

    • by bh_doc (930270) <blhiggins@NosPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:45AM (#15665463) Homepage
      You know, we Aussies have a bunch of pricks for a government, but what's worse is we have an even dumber bunch of pricks for an opposition. The leader of the opposition Kim "OMFG" Beazley is actually gunning for a great firewall of Australia - *opt-out* violence and pornography filtering placed mandatorily *at the ISP level*. Not only is that a major affront to civil-liberties, he has precisely no idea just how infeasible this idea is technically. And he expects it to help him win an election.

      The sad thing is, pandering to the conservative right like that might just help him. God I wish there was an opposition worth voting for. I'm not asking for much, just some people who, you know, present alternative ideas, and have a clue. Oh, sorry, I forgot these guys are career politicians for a second, ignore me.
  • Obvious (Score:5, Funny)

    by Penguin Programmer (241752) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:13AM (#15665384) Homepage
    I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?


    Whacking it like they're 12 again?
    • Whacking it like they're 12 again?


      Hopefully their ability to enjoy sex hasn't been going downhill since 12 ;) Hmm.. it could explain a lot though...
  • by Aceticon (140883) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:13AM (#15665385)

    I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?


    Trust me, there's a lot more porn coming from the US.

    Not that i'll know it .... I .... er ..... know someone which knows someone which visits pornosites
    • The thing is, that's exactly what the Government has done in past - they effectively killed the Australian online porn industry by preventing it being hosted in Australia. So now the money goes overseas and people get their porn anyway.

      *sigh* That's what happens when you have a conservative, religiously-leaning government with aspirations to become something like the current US government.
  • by chillieburger (987121) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:15AM (#15665387)
    "I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?"


    Maybe watch it after the wife goes to bed!

    • Its funny. Our capital city Canberra is notoriously boring. At one point my wife and I had to go there to renew her malaysian passport, so we flew to Canberra on the sunday intending to take in the museums first and do the passport thing on the monday.

      We got a room in a hotel in the CBD. The funny bit was a sign above the reception desk: Due to problems with previous groups we do not accept bookings from Canberra residents. I can't imagine what they were up to but I was a bit pissed about not knowing about

  • by The OPTiCIAN (8190) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:16AM (#15665389)
    "Australian government has once again demonstrated that it simply does not understand the internet by indicating that they intend to regulate streaming video. I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?"

    This is a poor summary of the situation. It's clear from the article that the government's intention is the review regualtion, not necessarily (as the poster snidely suggests) to impose regulation on porn streamed from Europe. The outcome of such a review could reasonably be that material streamed from within Australia should meet certain guidelines. While this doesn't prevent trash coming from overseas sources, it does ensure that broadcasts where responsiibility lies within Australia meets certain standards. This is typically what governments seek to do, and would lead towards consistency with other broadcasting formats for shows which have a large, youthful viewership such as Big Brother.

    About eight years ago the government did show naivity on internet regulation by passing measures that were unworkable and which were panned within the IT community and within sections of the Liberal party itself. However, the current minister has cleaned things up a lot. Her approach to internet regulation has been to encourage education of parents and availability of client-side filtering - which is exactly the approach that I'd expect most of the slashdot readership would endorse.

    Notice that of all the players with something to say in this article the government is the most restrained - calling for a review but not going overboard with censorship demands. In fact, it has been the federal opposition in recent times which has called for ridiculous measures while the government has been realistic in its approach, even by the reasonable (but in earlier times typically conflicting) standards of Electronic Frontiers Australia. See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/mandatoryblock ing.html [efa.org.au]

    Slashdot editors - panning Australians for our bad internet regulation system may once have been fitting. However, it would be nice if you could review things a bit more carefully based on the evidence rather than knee-jerks to posts making grand claims about Australian policy. It's annoying to see my country being portrayed as stoneage based on bad evidence. This snide post is not a story and it shouldn't have been put through.
    • by StArSkY (128453) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:31AM (#15665424) Homepage
      The poster of this comment is spot on.

      We have broadcast standards for TV stations and radio, same as in the US. In Australia, our standards are much more relaxed. We don't need to sensor out anywhere near as much nudity or bad language from free to air broadcasts.

      People moaned to the regulator about a TV STATION braodcasting a "LIVE Sexual Assult" on the internet. So people complained that this was a breach of the television code of conduct.

      The regulator reviewed the incident and said no breach occured because it was an internet broadcast, and the footage was not aired on TV. They then went on to say that the legislation should be reviewed in light of changing technology.

      This would suggest that "Licensed" broadcasters may have to uphold the same standards on the web as they do on FTA TV, which oddly enough is a logical bow to draw.

      It does NOT mean they try and apply that regulation on the rest of the worlds content coming into Australia.

      • This would suggest that "Licensed" broadcasters may have to uphold the same standards on the web as they do on FTA TV, which oddly enough is a logical bow to draw.

        Holy Fuck it is not logical.

        Since when do internet broadcasters need to be licensed and for GOD'S SAKE WHY?
    • Well said, The problem here is a TV station using internet streaming to broadcast
      parts of a show they could never get away with on free to air TV.

      It is their attempts to bypass normal programming standards that our gov is looking at.

    • by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@NospAm.hotmail.com> on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:52AM (#15665487) Journal
      Notice that of all the players with something to say in this article the government is the most restrained

      Australian Prime Minister John Howard is calling on Network Ten to cancel its edition of Big Brother. (various news services)

      HELEN COONAN: It is not technically broadcasting within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act and Schedule Five of the Act. So what we are doing is we are now going to extend by legislation the content rules to other sorts of services, new and emerging services, over converged platforms such as mobile and the internet.

      The Liberals (just a name, they're not really liberal) know they're going to need the Family First's (Australia's fundamentalist political party) support over the next few years. This sort of posturing is their way of pandering to the religious nuts without actually changing anything. In reality, the Libs are pretty much owned by the big media outlets and won't be doing anything to annoy them - as evidenced by their response to attempted media reform.
      http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/media-reforms- whittled-down-to-a-runt/2006/06/29/1151174330032.h tml [smh.com.au]

      • > The Liberals (just a name, they're not really liberal)

        I can't think of a situation where a name of an elected political outfit is fitting. In this case, the federal government coalition is a 'catch-all' grouping and and thus don't have a pure defining philosophy. However, the Liberal Party is economically liberal - much more so than self-proclaimed Liberal parties in most other countries, and while the majority of members are not generally socially liberal there are some who are.

        > know they're going
      • The Liberals (just a name, they're not really liberal)

        Depends on whether you use American or European terminology.
        Historically Americans focused on social policy and Europeans focused on economic policy.
        Traditionally right wing governments tend to have strict social policies and free market policies while left wing governments have loose social policies and interventionalist market policies.
        So in an economic sense right wing governments are liberal (let the corporations do whatever they like and leave

    • Slashdot editors ... it would be nice if you could review things a bit more carefully based on the evidence
      Yeah, they'll start carefully reviewing articles, right after they implement a method of catching dupes =)
    • Notice that of all the players with something to say in this article the government is the most restrained - calling for a review but not going overboard with censorship demands.

      Lets just start with saying that Big Brother as a program does not at all cater to viewers hoping to get a glimpse of something naughty happening...

      At any rate, how nice that the Ausie government doesn't go overboard with censorship demands just yet.. Previous attempts and current comments give some reason however to believe that th
  • Put the story in perspective: Only 20,264,082 [cia.gov] (July 2006 est.) people live in Australia.
    • Come on be fair :-)
      we have first past the post electoral system here, that's been gerrymandered pretty well.
      So really only 5mil of those people elected the wrong leader.
      The rest are too young, shuffled into strangely shaped electorates, or just voted down the page.
      • we have first past the post electoral system here

        No we don't. I should also point out that Australia is a democracy, and of those voting there are of course people who didn't vote for the government.
    • You obviously have no idea what the opposition leader at the time of the elections was like. He later left politics, and was convicted of theft and destruction of property for punching a reporter, stealing his camera, taking it home and laying into it with a hammer when the photographer took a photo of him and his sons in a public place.

      We elected the right leader, its just there wasn't a huge range to pick from.
  • The incident would have been illegal if it had been shown on traditional media and as it happened and was broadcast within Austrialia to Austrailians, why is it unfair for the Prime Minister to call for the broadcasting laws and restrictions to extend from older types of media (the television) to newer forms (such as internet streaming). In his view any media law that does not include the internet is just out of date and IMHO that is a reasonable position to take.
    Now I dont know if Big Brother in Oz is stre
    • by Mr2001 (90979) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:46AM (#15665471) Homepage Journal
      The incident would have been illegal if it had been shown on traditional media and as it happened and was broadcast within Austrialia to Austrailians, why is it unfair for the Prime Minister to call for the broadcasting laws and restrictions to extend from older types of media (the television) to newer forms (such as internet streaming). [...] Now I dont know if Big Brother in Oz is streamed free to the public, but I would assume that it is, so I would imagine that the 'protect the children' (kneejerk) principle actually has some weight for once. If the stream was to registered adults (paying customers) then it would be different.

      Well, there's a big difference between internet and TV.

      At least in the US, the reasoning goes that the government is entitled to regulate the content of TV broadcasts because the airwaves belong to the public. The amount of spectrum available for broadcasting is limited, and since the people are allowing private entities to use that limited resource, they (through their representatives) have the right to decide how it may be used. Cable TV doesn't use public resources, so it can't be censored except under the same laws that could be used to censor books or magazines (obscenity, copyright, national security, etc.).

      The internet works differently. As we all know, it's a series of TUBES, and those tubes belong to private entities. Furthermore, unlike broadcasts, which are pushed invisibly from a transmitter through the air in your home (and which are passing through your body right this second!), internet streams are delivered only to those who request them. Whether or not you have to pay for the stream is irrelevant; either way, it isn't forcing itself upon anyone. It's like comparing a mass mailing to a box of pamphlets which you can take if you're interested: it'd be silly to complain about the content of the pamphlet when you made the decision to seek it out.

      Finally, the kneejerk "protect the children" principle never has any weight, because there's no evidence whatsoever that children need to be "protected" from content like this. It's an argument based on gut feelings rather than fact.
      • it [an internet stream] isn't forcing itself upon anyone

        Neither is a television broadcast, one still has to purchase the correct equipment, tune the television to that channel (in order to receive it) and then still choose to watch that particular channel. IMHO from the perspective of broadcasting that is basically no different to an internet stream, there are technical differences (the many different tubes) but that doesn't really matter.

        Dont forget that Big Brother is a television show that is *also* b

        • ("it [an internet stream] isn't forcing itself upon anyone")

          Neither is a television broadcast, one still has to purchase the correct equipment, tune the television to that channel (in order to receive it) and then still choose to watch that particular channel. IMHO from the perspective of broadcasting that is basically no different to an internet stream, there are technical differences (the many different tubes) but that doesn't really matter.

          I disagree. A TV is only capable of receiving a finite number of

        • First, "Big Brother" is not being broadcast on the net. Unless it is being sent via UDP/RTP protocols, (say, via mbone). Which is not the case. It is an extreme narrowcast, and is only "received" by explicit request.

          Television is sent over the air, and can reach you, WITHOUT explicit request. This makes the medium "broadcast". The PUBLIC owns the airwaves (frequencies), and thus governmental (public) regulation can be applied. This was done by government granted monopoly because the frequencies are consider
        • Neither is a television broadcast, one still has to purchase the correct equipment, tune the television to that channel (in order to receive it)

          Both true.

          and then still choose to watch that particular channel.

          People get disturbed by 'stumbling' upon it, even if they decide to switch away.

          IMHO from the perspective of broadcasting that is basically no different to an internet stream, there are technical differences (the many different tubes) but that doesn't really matter.

          There is a rather significant differe
      • Finally, the kneejerk "protect the children" principle never has any weight, because there's no evidence whatsoever that children need to be "protected" from content like this. It's an argument based on gut feelings rather than fact.

        We're not so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you
  • Broadcast license (Score:4, Insightful)

    by natslovR (530503) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:31AM (#15665425)
    I think it's a lot simpler than they suggest here, but they are looking at it wrong. If you have a broadcast license (or whatever the equivalent is) then whether you send video content out over the internet, mobile phones, or TV frequencies, you should be held accountable to broadcast standards no matter the medium.

    If you don't have a broadcast license you should be able to do whatever you want with your webcam. Television has a lot of power. Setting up a webcam in my kitchen isn't going to draw hundreds of thousands of viewers, but when a TV station comes along and does it, with all the promotion and hoo-ha that goes with it, then people will watch it. Their web broadcast should be covered by the same standards as their TV broadcasts.

    • He talks sense. This push is simply trying to do what slashdotters always say they want: hold activities performed online to the same standard as activities performed on traditional media.
  • Good Stuff (Score:3, Funny)

    by Joebert (946227) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:37AM (#15665439) Homepage
    I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?

    The same thing any good regulator would do, keep the good stuff & send the rest through.
  • by nathanh (1214) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:45AM (#15665466) Homepage
    "After an incident that occurred on a popular television show's internet stream, the Australian government has once again demonstrated that it simply does not understand the internet by indicating that they intend to regulate streaming video. I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?"

    The government is just trying to stop the TV stations from exploiting loopholes in the legislation. Capital 10 (one of the Big Five stations in Australia) broadcast some sexually explicit material live through their website. Apparently that's legal because it wasn't broadcast over the television band. The government reckons that's a copout and I agree.

    Now bear in mind that Australia has some very relaxed rules for sexual content on TV. The stations are allowed to broadcast sexual intercourse, full frontal nudity, and even fetishes. One of the stations SBS is sometimes called "Sex Before Soccer" because they'd frequently schedule something blue from Europe before the live soccer broadcasts. The stations just have to show that content at certain times and put an appropriate disclaimer at the start of the show. There is censorship but it's very mild (eg, no penetration unless it's educational).

    In this case, Capital 10 stepped over the line and was enabling children to view filthy content via the Internet. The dominant audience for Big Brother is the 12-14 year old teen market. Do you think it's appropriate for young teens to see a bunch of dimwitted Big Brother contestants teabagging a female contestant who was being held down against her will? I don't.

    I think the government is doing the right thing here. Personally I wish they'd say "we're backdating this new legislation and slapping you with a big fine for being jerks". I'd support any bending of the law necessary to force Big Brother off the airwaves.

    • I would say that's a touch unfair on Network Ten. They were broadcasting an unscripted show live at (if memory serves me) something like 3am - as much as I don't like reality TV, I don't really see how they could do much about it, other than what they did. As I understand it, the stuff also happened off-camera, and as far as I know, they've not rebroadcast it at any stage other than when it was live.
      • I would say that's a touch unfair on Network Ten. They were broadcasting an unscripted show live... I don't really see how they could do much about it,

        So put in a delay loop, like most talkback radio does, so someone can hit the kill switch before something nasty goes to air.

        • Oh come one, think of the poor guy they are going to get to watch that crap! Have you no humanity? Haven't you ever heard of the Geneva convention? This is exactly the reason the UK wants to bring in a bill of rights!
    • Dude, have you actually watched it? She jumps in bed with them, says half heartedly "youre not going to turkey slap me are you?". She is not held down and there are 8 other preple in the room.

      Also this is no where near as bad as some of the other things that have been screened on the late night television show "Big brother - adults only"

      Make no mistake - this is channel 10 using the free publicity for ratings while at the same time destroying the life of 2 young men.
    • In this case, Capital 10 stepped over the line and was enabling children to view filthy content via the Internet. The dominant audience for Big Brother is the 12-14 year old teen market. Do you think it's appropriate for young teens to see a bunch of dimwitted Big Brother contestants teabagging a female contestant who was being held down against her will? I don't.

      If the clips linked from other posts are all that happened, without a written descripotion you couldn't tell what happened. You see more filth

    • In this case, Capital 10 stepped over the line and was enabling children to view filthy content via the Internet. The dominant audience for Big Brother is the 12-14 year old teen market. Do you think it's appropriate for young teens to see a bunch of dimwitted Big Brother contestants teabagging a female contestant who was being held down against her will? I don't.

      If your 12-14 year old kids are watching live Internet streaming at 4:30 a.m. (which, for everyone else, is the time that this was streamed), you

  • by LoonyMike (917095) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @03:58AM (#15665504)
    Where's the link for the porn streamed from Europe?
  • Same thing ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by bm_luethke (253362) <<luethkeb> <at> <comcast.net>> on Thursday July 06, 2006 @04:33AM (#15665597)
    ... the US plans to do - something that doesn't reflect reality.

    People try and fit things they do not understand into things they do. We all do it, many times with things called "analogies". I know some of the better description I had of networking revolved around analogies to roads - I had enough knowledge to know where those analogies failed. In this case regulation has always worked - why not now? After all it's just broadcasting and lines within thier control.

    Unless you can frame it how they understand it (and in a way they care about, for example if cost is irrelevant then saying it's cheaper will persuade none) you are wasting breath/bandwidth/time.

    This will continue to happen for some time. As the population that is comfortable with current technology comes into power it will recede. But then, there were be something new out there that gets the same treatment. It always has and it always will.

    It's a fact of life. If you want to affect change you have to accept it and work within those strictures (that doesn't mean not try and change it, just accept it happens and work from there).

    Accept what you can not change, strive to change what you can.
  • To my way of thinking I would much prefer it if they just banned Big Brother. Now thats legislation would like to see down under ;)
  • by MonkeyOfRage (779297) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @04:35AM (#15665607)
    I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?

    Capture, catalog, and burn "best of" CDs, of course.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @08:31AM (#15666170) Homepage
    Since when has intelligence become a substitute for decisive action?

Entropy requires no maintenance. -- Markoff Chaney

Working...