Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

EU Considering Regulating Video Bloggers 351

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the license-to-speak-just-a-small-additional-fee dept.
Aglassis writes to tell us that recent proposed EU legislation could require anyone running a website featuring video content to acquire a broadcast license. From the article: "Personal websites would have to be licensed as a "television-like service". Once again the reasoning behind such legislation is said to be in order to set minimum standards on areas such as hate speech and the protection of children. In reality this directive would do nothing to protect children or prevent hate speech - unless you judge protecting children to be denying them access to anything that is not government regulated or you assume hate speech to be the criticism of government actions and policy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Considering Regulating Video Bloggers

Comments Filter:
  • Taxman! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:24PM (#16479367) Homepage Journal

    Let me tell you how it will be
    There's one for you, nineteen for me
    Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

    Should five per cent appear too small
    Be thankful I don't take it all
    Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

    If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
    If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
    If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
    If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

    Taxman!
    Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

    Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
    If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
    Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

    Now my advice for those who die
    Declare the pennies on your eyes
    Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

    And you're working for no one but me
    Taxman!


    -George Harrison

    • Re:Taxman! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zarniwoop_Editor (791568) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:51PM (#16479653) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by scoove (71173) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @09:48AM (#16484059)
        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! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ThePhilips (752041) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @04:19AM (#16481977) Homepage Journal

      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 :-(

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by coastwalker (307620)
      Agreed, the issue in the UK at the moment is the sudden realization that we are being taxed to death by stealth taxes.

      37% of our income is taken in taxes on average, which may be acceptable to pay for free health care and a decent society. What is not acceptable is that new ways of collecting revenue are being dreamed up every day. If you want to regulate hate speech then put the perpetrators in jail, don't impose yet another tax collection scheme and jail those who don't get the paperwork right.

      I'm heartil
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:28PM (#16479415)
    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!
  • Look at the example that the article provided. You Tube. It's located in the United States. What about myself??
    • by viniosity (592905) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:33PM (#16479471) Homepage Journal
      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?
      • by MillionthMonkey (240664) * on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:48PM (#16479619)
        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.
        • by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @01:43AM (#16481259) Journal
          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.
      • Mission creep: Originally, yes, spectrum regulation was intended to allow a more efficient market to emerge by artificially creating exclusivity, and thereby a kind of propery right. But anything that becomes a source of tax revenue will eventually be justified by government on that premise alone. Like you do.
      • by SeaFox (739806) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @10:18PM (#16479883)
        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.
        • by viniosity (592905)

          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.

          It might.. but you're right about government wanting to exercise control. I think it's actually a little more urgent than some suspect which is why I wrote this rant [urbanpuddle.com].

      • At least in the U.S. The justification for curbs on foul language on the Public airwaves is thjat they are "coming to you" and using up a public resource into the bargain. The argument is "the children might accudentally tune in and do we want our scarce public resources (airwaves) being devoted to noneducational filth (with a special exception for most TV)?

        This argument doesn't map onto the proposed situation because a) the broadcasts are not "over the air" but on a webiste that must be willingly accessed
        • I've seen many a website pop up all on their own, faster than they could be closed, thank you very much. Many unscrupulous people want control of your browser. That's why pop-up blockers and spyware removers exist: to keep the will at the user's end not the webvertizer's and porn producer's.
      • by no-body (127863) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @10:23PM (#16479939)
        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.

        • by swarsron (612788) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @03:06AM (#16481665)
          "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
      • by westlake (615356)
        I am not a historian, but wasn't the whole point of broadcast licenses to prevent frequency interference?

        The issues have never been exclusively technical.

        The arguments are usually framed in terms of the "Public Interest, Convenience and Necessity."

        NBC grew so big in the twenties and thirties that it was broadcasting across two national radio networks, the Red and the Blue, and if left unconstrained would have probably spun off a White.

        --- and you thought Clear Channel had a lock on the airwaves,

  • On the up-side (Score:4, Interesting)

    by atomicstrawberry (955148) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:33PM (#16479475)
    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.
  • by the_humeister (922869) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:34PM (#16479479)
    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.
    • by ricree (969643)
      It's about control. More and more, it seems as though those in government can't stand the idea that there's something out there that they aren't in control of. Yes, this initiative might bring in a little more revenue, but more importantly requiring a license means that they can revoke that license whenever they decide that they disagree with what is being said.
  • Thin justification (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MoralHazard (447833) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:34PM (#16479485)
    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.
    • 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

  • ...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.

    • 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.



      Even simpler. Post the videos. Put on a disclaimer that the site contains no broadcast streaming video as in not television. Put a link to Netflix, Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc. Put a video checkout button instead of a view button on the blog videos. Now the site looks like a local Blockbuster video rental store and not like a t
  • by Makito (518963) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:41PM (#16479551)
    Makes you stop for a second to think, are they talking about China or the EU?
    • What, didn't you get that memo?
    • by bogaboga (793279)
      After that, they go arround the world preaching freedom with a colonialist attitude that makes them appear to be an utopia as compared to others. Hypocrites! Shame, shame, shame on them all.
  • So... how long? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cyphertube (62291) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:43PM (#16479587) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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?

      You are slamming the EU by comparing it to a better world - but it is a world that has never existed in Europe.

      The fact is that Europeans enjoy slaughtering and conquering each other in extreme numbers. England once three quarters of the globe under its domin

      • The fact is that Europeans enjoy slaughtering and conquering each other in extreme numbers. England once three quarters of the globe under its domination. Romans and Spaniards conquered by the sword. Scandanavians raped and pillaged across the continent. Anyone remember Bosnia? And as for Germans - well, lets not even go there. The fact is that Europeans are savage and warlike and desperately need structures to take their minds of the delicious thought of grabbing their neighbour by the throat.

        Unlike, s

    • I don't see Americans willing to leave America just as I don't see Europeans leaving Europe. What I DO see is a giant Western Civilization uprising against our oppressive governments that have grown too bloated and unchecked over the years.

      Being how much the Internet has opened our eyes to the world of politics and becoming ever more watchful of our governmental directions; I smell a major revolution. It's about time we as citizens slap ourselves in the face. It's about damn time we hold our elected officia
      • by voidptr (609)
        I don't see Americans willing to leave America

        We tried that once back when we believed the nation was a coalition of individual states bound together for a common good. It didn't go so well when the president declared the right of secession didn't exist, and statehood was a one way trip.
    • by Trogre (513942)
      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?

      I don't know, but some guy called John had some ideas quite some time ago about what might become of it.

    • Re:So... how long? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by moonbender (547943) <moonbender@NOSPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @06:45AM (#16482591)
      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by moonbender (547943)
      Oh and another thing I forgot in my more general previous post, more to the point: Do you seriously think that a law like this wouldn't be enacted in individual countries? You've got to be kidding me. Just look at some of the shit that was made into law in the UK in the course of the terror scares. The remainder of Europe seems positively sane by comparison, although of course we've got our own ministries of the interior who are looking into changing that. And individual countries are more prone to lobbying
  • by operagost (62405) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:44PM (#16479593) Homepage Journal

    Thanks to all those who are "offended" by ignorant, belligerent, and on rare occasions insightful opinions, we have the PC phrase "hate speech." This phrase is a wonderful thing, being so flexible that it can be applied almost without limitation. Today it's used against people who are pro-life, against racial and gender quotas, practice or identify their faith publicly, or oppose illegal immigration. Today, it will also be used to justify modding down this post. Tomorrow, it will be used against you to place you in prison.

    You reap what you sow.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MoralHazard (447833)
      Today, it will also be used to justify modding down this post. Tomorrow, it will be used against you to place you in prison.

      I don't think that's necessarily true, historically. Look at the history of free speech in the United States: in the last century, we've seen net progress in the scope of what people can say and write without fear of government interference. The obvious example that comes to mind is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger [wikipedia.org]

      Which is not to say that we shouldn't be vigilant about o
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Gryle (933382)
        I'm on a first name basis with one of the librarians at the local public library. In light of Banned Books Week [ala.org], we were discussing censorship. He noted that the USA has some of the best anti-censorship laws in the world*, both in strength and legal firmament.


        *public schools notwithstanding
    • by Rix (54095)
      And the next day, it will eat your eyes with a rusty spoon.

      So long as we're spouting bullshit.
    • The maxim "people get the government they deserve" comes to mind here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689)

      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.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech [wikipedia.org]
      Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religi

    • by sheldon (2322)

      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.

      Not to mention those who oppose the War in Iraq.

      Those who oppose the policies of the Bush administration.

      Those who oppose the grinding of our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights into gerbil litter.

      I've been called a Hater so many times now, I've lost tr

    • 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 plac

  • How? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TVmisGuided (151197) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .pmuj.nala.> on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @09:50PM (#16479647) Homepage

    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.

  • by Krischi (61667) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @10:17PM (#16479863) Homepage
    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ScentCone (795499)
      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.

      I have no numbers to go on here, but... SURELY the written word continues to be the primary way that deaf people communicate online? IMs, e-mail, and web content? I have a hard time imagining
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Krischi (61667)

        Yes, a lot of people prefer firing up their webcam or their videophone over textual communication, often for similar reasons why hearing people prefer the phone, but not limited to these.

        Also, there are a lot of deaf people who feel far more comfortable with signed languages than with written text. Sadly, literacy is still a big, and contentious, issue in deaf education.

        Several examples to back up my point:

        • In the USA, Internet-based videophones and video relay services have almost completely displaced t
  • Flash (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eurleif (613257) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @10:24PM (#16479947)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WeeBit (961530) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @10:25PM (#16479963) Homepage
    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.
  • by Dunbal (464142) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @10:27PM (#16479979)
    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?
  • by Bizzeh (851225)
    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
  • 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
  • "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 a
  • 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
  • by aepervius (535155) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @02:59AM (#16481641)
    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.
  • Nonsense, see draft (Score:3, Informative)

    by 3247 (161794) on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @06:21AM (#16482485) Homepage
    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.
    • I was about to post if anyone had a link to the actual draft directive [europa.eu], instead of that obviously alarmist rubbish, but there it is. Thank you!

      I cite another article, adding emphasis:

      (13) The definition of audiovisual media services covers all audiovisual mass-media services, whether scheduled or on-demand. However, its scope is limited to services as defined by the Treaty and therefore covers any form of economic activity, including that of public service enterprises, but does not cover non-economic

  • Time to wake up... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @09:38AM (#16483947)
    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.

Time sharing: The use of many people by the computer.

Working...