Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Regulation That Could Stifle Video Over the Net? 155

bb writes to tell us that recent comments made by the FCC could be cause for concern for proponents of internet video. Being considered under the guise of a push against child pornography on the internet, VoN founder Jeff Pulver stated that this is just a warning shot. From the article: "He drew a parallel between this potential regulation and an attempt to ban or restrict Internet voice in 1996, and predicted a long battle and offered to help advocates of rights of IP video innovators. 'The VoN coalition will take people through the stages of what's going to happen,' he said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Regulation That Could Stifle Video Over the Net?

Comments Filter:
  • by ShaunC ( 203807 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:06PM (#16097712)
    Why don't we just make children illegal? That would solve a whole slew of problems, and makes just about as much sense.
    • by legoburner ( 702695 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:16PM (#16097808) Homepage Journal
      It does make me wonder how long it will be before some rich person or company buys a few islands, establishes a country and bans children from them (think an almost-permananent vacation spot). I would assume that there are a lot of laws designed to push agendas based on 'protecting the children'and so I bet it would be quite an interesting country that only allows childless people to come and live there, and would certainly have interesting TV!
      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @03:14PM (#16098273) Homepage Journal
        "It does make me wonder how long it will be before some rich person or company buys a few islands, establishes a country and bans children from them..."

        I've often thought we could do something a little 'closer to home' than that.

        We have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. I've always wanted to expand that into children and non-children sections. Sure would make a nice meal much nicer if you didn't have to worry about some inconsiderate parents bringing out a child that is too young to maintain themselves in a public manner.

        I'm not talking about a Chuck E. Cheese's mind you...that is a child oriented place, but, most any other place out there should be free from listening to little Johnny screamin his fool head off, and the parents won't take them out...or letting them walk all over the place "visiting" all the nice other patrons in the restaurant that really have no interested to see the interesting things he has done with a cracker and spit....

        • by InThane ( 2300 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @03:23PM (#16098346) Homepage Journal
          They're called "bars" or "taverns", and nobody under the age of 21 is allowed in them, at least in the United States. Mind you, many of the patrons of such establishments have problems acting better than the kids somebody would go to such a place to escape...
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by binarybum ( 468664 )
            Where are you getting this info from? I've lived in many states and have never been to one where children accompanied by adults aren't allowed into bars (unless a particular bar or tavern has a policy against that). Plenty of bars allow people under the age of 21 to enter unaccompanied, they're just not allowed to drink.
            • Try Wisconsin. But they are working on trying to keep kids out of bars...
              http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthen e ws/2003/wis-lawmaker-wants-to-stop.html [jointogether.org]

              "Rep. John Ainsworth (R-Shawano) wants to change a Wisconsin law that allows children to consume alcoholic drinks at bars as long as their parents are present, the Associated Press reported Aug. 20.

              Ainsworth's bill would only allow individuals age 18 and older to drink in bars if accompanied by a parent or guardian."

              So only 18 year olds a
              • s/reigns/reins -- need more coffee...
              • by binarybum ( 468664 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @05:06PM (#16099264) Homepage
                a Wisconsin law that allows children to consume alcoholic drinks at bars as long as their parents are present

                    This makes great sense as a way to curb reckless drinking. The culture surrounding drinking in the states is so backwards - teens are discouraged and prevented from drinking which automatically makes it a pretty cool thing to get away with doing. Then they reach this magic age of 21 where they're suddenly set free like a toddler in a candy-shop. How many parents treat other things such as driving this way? - "Here you're 16 now, take the keys, figure it out, have a blast." It took me and a lot of people I know a long time to really learn how to drink, and a lot of dumb mistakes could have been prevented if we weren't teaching ourselves. Wisconsin folk, take your kids to bars, teach them to drink responsibly, and you'll also crush the hell out of the "cool-factor" that so often leads to reckless underage drinking. Take advantage of the unique freedom your state has before it's taken away.
                • by bky1701 ( 979071 )
                  If I am right, children are allowed to drink any time with their perents permission. So I would guess that law is an attempt to only make drinking at BARS illegal, but would still allow it at home. But don't call me if you get put in jail.
                  • by LocalH ( 28506 )
                    I dunno, in my area I've been hearing these PSAs on the radio that are basically saying "parents, don't allow your kids to drink at all, not only is it a bad idea, but it's the LAW".
                • dammit. finally something bright and my mob points expired yesterday...

                  one could also say similar things about sex education. same (lousy) idea, same (lousy) effect...
                  • yes I suppose, but I really hope you're referencing that loosely as the direct correlate would be... well it would be very very wrong.
            • by Amouth ( 879122 )
              some bars/areas in NC will not let under 18 in even with a parent after a certian time..

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by futuresheep ( 531366 )
              Washington is one. Minors are not allowed in bars, taverns, or the lounge area of restaurants.
            • Georgia (or maybe just Atlanta; I'm not sure) recently enacted laws like that -- I was annoyed that my girlfriend and I suddenly couldn't eat at The Vortex (which is technically a bar, but we go there for the great burgers) for a few months because she was only 20 at the time.

          • Bull. I think they should be banned, but I've done to the Olive Garden and had 5 year olds sitting at the bar. Also many bars do actually serve food, and kids are still allowed there.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by toleraen ( 831634 )
          Why stop there though? As is happening with smoking, more and more cities/states would just adopt a child free environment. Children would be required to either stay at home, stay outside of publicly accessible buildings (and at least 10 feet from any entrance), and would only be allowed in businesses where at least 50% of revenue is made from toy sales.

          Ahhh, sweet sweet utopia.
        • by Skater ( 41976 )
          Remember the Lazy Inventor section on the Dilbert website? (If you're not familiar with it, the idea was you could post ideas and get feedback on them. "All talk, no funding.") The best one was "child-free days" where someone suggested restaurants and such have children-free days where adults could eat without screaming kids running around.

          You would've thought he'd suggested shooting all children on sight and clubbing baby seals to boot. The flamewar was HUGE.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Sure would make a nice meal much nicer if you didn't have to worry about some inconsiderate parents bringing out a child that is too young to maintain themselves in a public manner.

          My daughter has had good restaurant manners since the age of 2. I personally get rather annoyed when we get stuck in a section filled with parents who haven't taught their children to behave just because our daughter is the wrong age. Why should we have to suffer just because some people can't teach their children proper etiqu

          • by bky1701 ( 979071 )
            I agree, since it doesn't take being a kid to be obnoxious anyway. I love the people who can't sit down... up, down, up, down....
          • Because the resteraunt doesn't have time to get to know your kid... they are trying to serve the most amount of people and make them as happy as possible. You might think that your daughter is a saint, and a wonderful little bundle of joy that everyone should love to have around - but so does every other parent in the world.
            • You might think that your daughter is a saint, and a wonderful little bundle of joy that everyone should love to have around - but so does every other parent in the world.

              Haven't seen very many parents lately, have you? The instances of parents that hate their children is getting rather frightening these days, though the frequency of it ever is pretty frightening for someone with no frame of reference for such an insane state of mind.

        • The problem is that you can't legislate manners because someone will always find a way to get around it. Besides, like it or not, one of the greatest freedoms in America is the freedom to be an asshole.

          • Wrong, if you use that logic we cant legislate murders, but we do anyways.
            You can legislate anything and enforce it, whether it is practical to stop every occurance, that is doubtful.

            But just cause people will find a way around it doesnt mean it shouldnt be legislated.
            • Well, first off I don't think we actually "legislate murders", although I'm sure Howard Dean has some incoherent rant to the contrary. However, I think I know what you meant.

              If you use your logic you end up with tens of thousands of useless laws that no one can enforce because while they are well-intentioned, if they can't be enforced they are meaningless. Only an idiot would do something like that, oh wait, that's exactly what we have now. Never mind.

              The solution, of course, to unenforceable laws, is mo
              • I am just pointing out that way too many people are afraid of any concept of legislation, when in fact it can be quite effective. Since they basically abstain from that in entirety, they have no effect on what eventually happens, stupid laws.
                • I am just pointing out that way too many people are afraid of any concept of legislation, when in fact it can be quite effective.

                  I think they're afraid of legislation, because bad legislation takes forever to get fixed. The U.S. STILL has the DMCA and crypto export laws, for example.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by shilly ( 142940 )
          Two thoughts:
          1) The main reason why American babies cry so much is because the US has a very dysfunctional parenting culture. You want your kids to stop being whiny brats, try not leaving them to scream their lungs out for hours at a time at the age of 3 months. And try hugging them too. Oh, and feeding them with breastmilk when they show signs of being hungry/thirsty. And letting them sleep next to you for the first couple of years of their life, as they are evolved to do. That way they will generally grow
      • In the US we have these "islands" all over the place. They're called "senior housing."
      • by Shimmer ( 3036 )
        I read this twice, and it seems that you are mostly serious. The Shakers [wikipedia.org] tried something like this (though with a very different intent) via celibacy.

        Turns out that societies that don't actively reproduce tend to tie out pretty quickly. Who'd a thunk it?
    • Why don't we just make children illegal? That would solve a whole slew of problems, and makes just about as much sense.
      But that's a little too forceful and grating of a proposal... we need something a little more... modest.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by smithbp ( 1002301 )
        While I am in agreement that there are certain situations in which a child would be best left at home, I am also a new father. I do not think that a child who is unable to control themselves should be taken into say a nice restaurant or some other venue which would generally be quiet without their presence. Having said that though, there are certain places where people should expect for their to be noise, whether it be from the overly amplified TV sound or the conversation of the other 300 people eating a
        • Having said that though, there are certain places where people should expect for their to be noise, whether it be from the overly amplified TV sound or the conversation of the other 300 people eating at the restaurant, that a baby's cry or a small child's unruliness should be tolerated for the few moments that they could occur.

          A baby's screams are magintudes more annoying than an overly loud tv or 300 people having a converstation. The fact that you CAN hear the screams over 300 people talking should be a
          • by mibus ( 26291 )
            Why not? If someone does, why should people with kids care? Why the protests? How about just accepting it and not going? After all, the restraunt owner can keep out whoever he wants.

            Right. Let's ban disabled people too, because those damn wheelchairs are so huge! I mean, they take up all the gap between tables and it's difficult to walk around them. (Especially with a pram ;)

            Seriously though, whenever I go to a restaurant I do my best to keep my two kids quiet; that said there's no 100% way to guarantee tha
            • Right. Let's ban disabled people too, because those damn wheelchairs are so huge! I mean, they take up all the gap between tables and it's difficult to walk around them.
              You are confusing behavior with a condition. One is voluntary, the other is not.
        • "You can't put a sign on the door that says "No Shirt, No Shoes, Kids, No Service" and expect that no one is going to say anything or that every parent group in the area is going to crush you with protestors and paperwork."

          The restaurant owners would never know there were protesters due to the overwhelming crowd of people constantly trying to get in and eat there.

          And hey, if the government can tell private business owners other legal activities they can't do in their own businesses (like smoking), then
        • by dfghjk ( 711126 )
          Not everything goes how we'd like and screaming kids are just one of the things we have to accept. Parents should, and generally do, use judgement when taking small children out, but we can't ban children from life's functions (nor should we).

          People need to stop thinking so selfishly. Next time you hear a child scream just think about how good your life is and how much worse it could possibly be. If you're reading /. life can't be all that bad (thoug it could be better ;-) ).
      • Hehehe.

        Oh that's wicked.
  • by chad.koehler ( 859648 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:06PM (#16097718)
    Child porography is already illegal, why make a ban on it on a specific medium? Also, how does the FCC have any say in this anyway?
    • by mordors9 ( 665662 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:35PM (#16097973)
      Using a gun to kill someone is illegal, but some still feel the overwhelming need to ban guns... I would finish my thought but that might bring the wrath of the moderators down on me...
      • Using a gun to kill someone is illegal

        Not to troll, but only under certain circumstances. Using a gun to kill in self defense or in service to your country is not illegal.

        Fight crime, shoot back.

        • Not to troll, but only under certain circumstances. Using a gun to kill in self defense or in service to your country is not illegal.

          This actually varies by state in the US. In some states, if someone breaks into your house and attacks you with a knife and you shoot him, you can be arrested for the use of unreasonable force. Here's a quote from a defense law website:

          Any force that exceeds the minimum amount reasonably necessary to defend against an assailant may result in the authorities charging the defe
          • This can be a real problem in some cases because a trained fighter can be accused of using unreasonable force simply for punching someone.

            A friend of mine has been in the military and has had a little bit of specialized hand to hand combat training.

            One night, coming out of a bar, he was mugged by a man carrying a knife. He did exactly what anyone confident enough in their ability to defend themselves would do, he disarmed the guy and punched him in the face, knocking him down and allowing my friend to ge

            • by vinn01 ( 178295 )

              A friend of mine is a Thai kick boxing champ. He had a similar problem when a drunk a-hole jumped him. Being too well trained makes it "not a fair fight" (according to the law).

              If you ever have to defend yourself, never admit to having *any* training. Get a lawyer. Keep your mouth shut. Don't assume that just because you are morally right (acting in self-defense), that will keep you out of legal trouble.
          • What is it with people thinking that knives aren't dangerous weapons? If I have a gun, and somebody comes after me with a knife, I'm damn well going to shoot him, and it would be foolish for me to do otherwise. The only major disadvantage a knife has is that it has a limited range.

            Hell, knives can rip through A good many bullet-proof vests!

        • by dfghjk ( 711126 )
          You'd just better hope the one you killed isn't a cop.

          If you have to make a decision to take such extreme measures, you should expect to have a difficult time defending yourself afterward regardless of the circumstances. The best solution is always avoidance if at all possible.
        • What country do you live in?
        • According to crazylaws.com, it's legal in some states to shoot more than 5 Native Americans in a group, under the assumption that they're a raiding party.

      • by brunes69 ( 86786 )
        People always use this gun analogy and it is (pardon the pun) dead wrong.

        The fact of the matter is, a gun is far more likely to kill the owner of the gun, a casual bystander, or someone totally different (when the gun is stolen), than it is a criminal while protecting life or property. The odds of you dying from a gunshot wound increase by a large margin when you own a handgun.

        Whether you agree with the practice or not, regulating handguns can at least *BE PROVEN* to reduce these types of deaths of people w
        • You are correct that if you own a gun, it is more likely to injure a family member than a criminal (at least on average). What it interesting though is that allowing non-criminals to have guns reduces crime rates in general. Thus, it is in your interest to be allowed to have guns, but not in your interest to actually own one.
        • by Agripa ( 139780 )
          The fact of the matter is, a gun is far more likely to kill the owner of the gun, a casual bystander, or someone totally different (when the gun is stolen), than it is a criminal while protecting life or property.

          Comparing the number of criminals killed with firearms to other firearm deaths leaves out the vast majority of cases where the presence of a firearm prevents a crime when not discharged or even brandished.
      • If you must use a firearm related analogy, the GPs point could be more accurately represented as

        Murder is already illegal,why ban it from cinemas?

        Don't need to bring gun control into it at all...

  • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:06PM (#16097722)
    I could have sworn that child pron' videos where allready illegal, regardless of medium.
    • TFA was pretty sparse on details, so here's a stab at what I think it was talking/worried about:
      <guess>
      The concern might be that this is similar to the movement to hold ISPs responsible for their content.

      The trick is that sites like myspace.com allow users to post their own content. Now, suppose some randy under-aged teenager posts sexually-suggestive photos or vids of him/herself on his/her myspace page. Technically, this would be considered child pornography and would be illegal (in the US, anyway).
    • That would be a fine objection if there were some new proposed legislation, which there isn't. The article, if you take the time to look at it, is nothing but fearmongering - not "think of the children," but "beware those who cry 'think of the children.'" The whole "issue" is just some group pontificating about something they hope the government doesn't do in the future.
  • Just say no... (Score:3, Informative)

    by HatchedEggs ( 1002127 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:08PM (#16097735) Homepage Journal
    I would be very disappointed if the government allowed actions that had a negative impact on internet video.

    My wife is from Sweden and she uses it to communicate with her parents regularily. Without that we'd be limited in our ability to spend quality time with them... even a continent apart. I know there are tons of people just like us that find internet video to be incredibly important in their lives.

    I certainly support the government in doing what it can in dealing with child pornography and other things along those lines... but trying to apply a tax or stifle innovation in regards to technological advance would have alot of societal negatives.
  • This article only has about one sentence of new information, and it's second-hand at that. What did the FCC commissioner actually say?
  • Pipe dreams (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Electronik ( 821589 )

    a video could be coded so a person watching could run a cursor over the shirt an actor is wearing, right click on it to find out more about it and left click on it to buy it, Pulver said.

    ... as he took another hit from his bong.

    Who is going to sit and encode this information, mapped frame by frame? You would have to encode EVERYTHING in the film this way, otherwise it would be worse than mystery meat navagation, it would be MOVING mystery meat navagation!

    Pulver needs to think things through!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by deadryk ( 576748 )
      Mornin'

      Actually, Media100 came out with this several years ago, http://www.creativemac.com/HTM/News/07_00/media100 i.htm [creativemac.com]
      . It was QT based and not that difficult to define and use. It did add to the post production, but you could do some swanky interactive stuff with online video. Too bad it never really took off. Twas fun stuff.

      oh yeah, almost forgot, "But think of the children..."
    • It's actually much simpler than this; you just have a separate stream (along with the video and audio -- think subtitles) that defines clickable areas with links, relative to a frame range. You can even do morphing links, where the link changes shape and tracks a moving object. I can't see the application being much different than what QuickTime already does, or from Closed Captioning/subtitles for that matter. You could even have the links link to subtitle streams, where pointing at a laptop will bring
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:11PM (#16097774)
    First of all, video through the internet bypasses all and any kind of regulation when it comes to the "distribution of distribution", i.e. the way video content and its distribution ways work today, where certain groups hold the right to broadcast certain content in certain areas. Why do you think Region Codes exist for DVDs? Why do you think satelite TV providers are under constant fire from them because they technically don't have the "right" to show this content in that area, even though that satelite can be received in the latter?

    The internet is by its very definition an international medium. What would keep me from getting a stream directly from the country it originates instead of waiting until some distributor in my area buys the rights to distribute it? The distribution market would very suddenly hit a very deep hole. Not the worst thing in my books, by far not, but I can see the flak generated from that area.

    And of course, control. Blogs have already shown what can happen when normal people dare to speak their mind and publish it. With the 'net, it's no big deal. Everyone can afford doing it, while you'd need quite some amount of money to get the same kind of audience with a newspaper or similar publication. Now imagine this for news broadcasts. Which is a serious threat to control mechanisms employed to keep networks under control.

    TV networks, especially news networks, are in the hands of a very small group of people, who are for one very easy to influence (being a small group), and who have a lot of influence themselves (by being the ones who have the monopoly on "the truth" that is broadcast). Both is endangered by the ability of "normal" people to do the same, bringing news to you.

    And unlike blogs, you don't need to be literate or willing to read to get the info. You only have to turn on your "internet TV".
    • you internet hippies with your youspaces and your mytubes... why don't you just let anyone put any freakin thing they want up there? and let other folks see it for free? video media is media of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. you, sir, are not a corporation! this great united states was built on money and control. why do you hate america? next thing you know there will be videos on the intertubes blaming the government for 9/11, or saying that al qaeda doesn't really exist
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:11PM (#16097779)
    Maybe it's time to write a new novel, with "think of the children" as the foundation for the enslavement of the masses in a giant bureaucratic industrial machine?

    This collectivization, represented by nurses wearing bracelets that allows people to track how much time they spend in the bathroom, video cameras in public restrooms, and on and on... threatens to turn the public into peasants -- people who own nothing, not even their own voice. We're already seeing a push away from ownership of anything with DRM and infinite copyright.

    Welcome to the new Tsarist Russia!
  • by CosmeticLobotamy ( 155360 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:12PM (#16097786)
    Since the article was completely content-free aside from a mention of considering banning child pornography on the internet (whatever the hell that means when it's already illegal), I'm going to take this opportunity to talk completely out of my ass.

    Damn you, government. Why must you intrude into every aspect of my life? The free market will punish child pornographers, and regulation killed my son.
  • by Perp Atuitie ( 919967 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:13PM (#16097792)
    I guess "terrorism" is getting old as the all-purpose excuse for enforcing every corporate and political wishlist on the public. Time to haul out the ol' child porn whip to keep monopolies going, keep incumbents in office, secure better bribes for the elect. Wrecking the Internet is sure easier than having a society that's interested enough to teach kids to take care of themselves. Something like 8000 kids die from cars every year, but I haven't heard a peep about banning cars, or even thinking about minor changes in the transportation system. That, apparently, wouldn't feather any "child protectors'" nests.
    • I guess "terrorism" is getting old as the all-purpose excuse....

      Are you saying we'd find Osama if he was a kiddy fidler? I dont know what TSA would do if the next al-quaeda airplane attempt was not a hi-jack but to 'fiddle with little Johhny'... what then, ban HANDS?

      I think you are quite right though, pushing through legislation with this kind of tactic reeks of media companies involvement. When all they had to do was regulate video due to the terrorists Iraq beheadings. You are right Jsaltz, this is an

  • by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:17PM (#16097815)
    They said they wanted us at /. to stop talking about child pornography.
  • by Rectum2003 ( 686009 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:17PM (#16097820)
    What we should do is to make a Godwin's Law of The Second Kind, which would say:

    "As justifications for restrictive online laws are given, the probability of a politician mentioning child pornography approaches one."

    At that point that politician should be publicly humiliated, thrown out of Congress, and stoned in the street.

    Enough already with child porn, the new communism and the new terrorism.
    • At that point that politician should be publicly humiliated, thrown out of Congress, and stoned in the street.

      No, hanged from the nearest lamppost.

      "Stoned" might be taken to mean giving the politician marijuana, and we want to avoid any such politicians having a pleasurable experience. Maybe if the marijuana was laced with PCP and then a crowd dressed in demon suits started dancing around the politician with flaming torches to give them that extra-special eerie glow...

      -b.

  • good thing (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:22PM (#16097859) Homepage
    Could Stifle Video Over the Net

    Good thing. We wouldn't want the tubes to get all clogged up with video. When my staff sends me an internet, I need to get it on time.
  • I hope... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:24PM (#16097880)
    I hope they ban family portraits next. All it does is show children dolled up like they're trying to look good for adults. Who knows how many less pedophiles we'd have if they were never exposed to the Sears Portrait Center advertisements? Don't even get me started about the telephone. 1-900-hawt-kid indeed.
  • Summary, 70's style. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kesch ( 943326 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:24PM (#16097883)
    *Intended to be read in the voice of a stoned hippie*

    Iternet video is like totally cool and stuff and theres like a bunch of potentail in it and stuff, man. And, uh..., the FCC is like maybe gonna regulate it or something cause you know there could be like child porn and the FCC likes regulating stuff, cause you know this Internet video stuff kinda looks like TV and the FCC regulates that.

    *end hipie*

    Honestly this article is one of the most useless waste of 2 pages I have ever seen. The one time I RTFA and it turns out to contain less information than the ingredient list of the yogurt I'm eating.
  • by klui ( 457783 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @02:39PM (#16098004)
    The internet has allowed videos/shows to be distributed more easily that can embarrass or harm those in control in the U.S. Just do a search for a show that was to be shown on the Discovery Channel named "Conspiracy of Silence" for instance.
    • True... but most people have been conditioned to think Government Regulation = Protecting the People, that there is virtually no regulation the vast majority of people will not support so long as it addresses some fear (say, Child Porn or Hate Speech or whatever).
  • Isn't this the same excuse China gave for regulating internet? So FCC is taking a page out of China's playbook of how to restrict information? Well, at least they are learning from one of the biggest censor in the world. I am so tired of all these "Why won't you think about the children?" crap, if we let these people run things, next thing we know, the children will watch nothing but Barney on PBS.
  • by KeyThing ( 997755 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @03:37PM (#16098448) Homepage


    IMHO, the whole deal falls back to people in "power" not fully understanding how things work, thusly fearing them. First VOIP. They feared is, as they did not understand it, and did not know how they would "control" it. They initially thought every kid who could run a linux box at their house would end up being their own telecom. (Not too far from the truth, but hey). Now VOIP has matured, and they're regulated (for the most part).

    Enter (so to speak, it's been around a while) Video "over IP" (man, we can't call it VOIP, and MOIP just sounds weird)... they freak out. They fear people will be broadcasting their own TV shows (lonelygirl?) to the world. Fear of loss of control enters. So, they pull out the big guns. Namely the "child porn" gun.

    Yes. Child porn is illegal. It's wrong. It's bad. It's horrible.

    But Child porn isn't the issue.

    The issue is they don't understand how Streaming media works. They don't understand how they can regulate it. They don't understand how they can make money off of it.

    So, *FUD*, they pull out the kiddie porn gun.

    Education before legislation. That's the key. That's what they're missing.

    As a person who is making a decent living off of Video on the web, I can tell you, I don't feel that much will come of this. I don't think I'll open my mail one day to a C&D Order from the government, nor some big bill from the IRS. I think this one will just blow on over.

    • IMHO, the whole deal falls back to people in "power" not fully understanding how things work, thusly fearing them. First VOIP. They feared is, as they did not understand it, and did not know how they would "control" it. They initially thought every kid who could run a linux box at their house would end up being their own telecom. (Not too far from the truth, but hey). Now VOIP has matured, and they're regulated (for the most part).

      Dood, they understand it alright. What they understand best, though, is t

  • The fact that the Internet isn't american, the fact that the video's aren't american, the problem with regulation of stuff that is already a heavy crime, or the fact this isn't even worthy news.

    I'll assume everyone heard everything and the last one is the only one worth meantioning.

    This article isn't say there's legislation in the house. This is saying the FCC is considering legislation. Let's find the legislation first and then rally ourselves into a frenzy. It's good to be aware of the coming storm, bu
  • "I hope they ban family portraits next. All it does is show children dolled up like they're trying to look good for adults. Who knows how many less pedophiles we'd have if they were never exposed to the Sears Portrait Center advertisements?"

    While we're at it, might as well ban all children from the Sears, JC Penny, Wall-Mart catalogs and other ads containing children's clothing. You never know how many pedophiles get these things and jack off to the pictures. Do the world a favor, shoot a politician.
  • I'm not some wierdo who has any kind of sexual thoughts about kids, and like most healthy adults the concept itself turns my stomach and pisses me off. However: I've just about had it with anybody limiting my personal freedoms or civil liberties in the name of stopping child pornography.

    Does a psychologist here know the numbers on what portion of society is affected by that sickness? Wouldn't it be better that a few pervs get their stupid kiddie porn rather than ending any kind of free society for the re
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )
      Keep in mind that, in the US, pornography involving those under 18 years old is illegal. I think that it's safe to say that there are a whole lot of people that have "sexual thoughts about kids" in that context. The US needs bring its age of consent definition in line with the rest of the first world.

      "Does a psychologist here know the numbers on what portion of society is affected by that sickness?"

      None that would care to comment I would guess. There's nothing more taboo than speaking frankly and objecti
  • Really. It's true [fcc.gov]. However, in spite of the fact that Congress and the Supreme Court have been curtailing the FCC's mandated oversight capabilities (much less oversight it has not been given) for years, somehow one statement by one person means that there will soon be a serious threat to our ability to freely upload crappy videos to YouTube.

    The FCC would have to be given this mandate by Congress, and given current political realities, I find that highly improbable. Chalk this one up to bureaucratic bombas

  • by SonicSpike ( 242293 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @07:53PM (#16100384) Homepage Journal
    If a government is limited to its most basic and absolute functions, it won't have the power to over-reach its place in society. Big business likes big government because big government has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of big business.

    Anyone out there who really thinks that this legislation is designed to protect children from being victims of porn, is delusional, naive, and misguided. It is simply an excuse to begin legislating and regulating a sector that has previously not been subject to regulation. Why would they want to do this? Because big media wants it that way.

    Look at the sponsors of this, and then goto http://www.opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org] and find out who is contributing to them. That might help understand the money trail a bit.

    The libertarians are right on about keeping a small limited government for this very reason.
  • You know, she may just be in one of those monthly moments. You know, how we wimmin are. . . .

    Just wait a few days . . . .

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...