Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
Here in NYC I occasionally read book reviews in reputable newspapers like the NY Times, New York Post etc. I'm yet to ever take notice of a statement - "this book was supplied at no charge by the publisher" - or something of that ilk, but I somehow have difficulty imagining those journals, or their writers, coughing up the cash for the review copies. Am I missing something? joly On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Tom Gosse wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles wrote: > >> >> >> I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can >> call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not >> want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. >> > > > > > > Well said! > > > -- > Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) > bigdogvi...@gmail.com > www.irishhermit.com > > -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
Before I read through this long thread... Does this apply to anyone who makes a blog post or do you have to be some sort of professional blogger? Thanks. On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: > > > I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover > bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm > > I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against > this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite > some skepticism. > > Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:38 PM, elbowsofdeath wrote: > > I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover > bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm > > I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against > this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite > some skepticism. > > Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. Sure but it doesn't have to be regulated against by law. That's about as silly as having a Ministry of Silly Walks. Just like here in Australia with the government trying to introduce a draconian (and useless) mandatory internet filter. As a blogger I just got offered my first freebie products from a company. I took them of course, and I'll disclose because that's the sensible thing to do. Actually, I have a warning on my blog that says you are free to send me stuff for review if you can handle hearing that your product sucks if it does actually suck! Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. Sure, they have some house standards, and they are self-regulating in cases of extreme breach. But mostly it's just muckraking, partisan politics and sensationalism in the name of trying to stay afloat and not lose advertisers. Look through your newspapers today and tell me that they're being transparent about their advertising. A journalist in this group told me only last month about how his editor killed a story he was writing about a huge corporate crime solely because the criminals were big advertisers. I think maybe the US has a stronger myth of the noble journalist and truth seeking press. However true that is, I don't know - certainly I don't see much in the way of truth seeking editors and proprietors. So I don't see why people writing or publishing online have to be regulated at all, beyond existing laws. There will always be conmen and suckers, politicians and voters, papers and readers. Regulations like this don't change any of that, they're just something for politicians and civil servants to do. And how will this be enforced - whose permits would be monitored and taken away, and how? Surely it's a joke - but a lucrative joke, if your Permit To Speak costs you money to buy. And, in the end, Permits to Speak will be abused by people who don't agree with what you say. On 6-Oct-09, at 4:48 PM, Tom Gosse wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles >wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can > > call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not > > want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. > > > > Well said! > > -- > Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) > bigdogvi...@gmail.com > www.irishhermit.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
The only argument is if it was something done in the UK that was not a crime in UK law. But if it is, or if it was committed in the USA, then if the US decides something is worthy of extradition, it's a done deal. No court can overrule it, no argument can be made by the individual being extradited. So - you're better off going to any other EU country, all of whom refused to sign unless the US reciprocated. Which, of course, they refused to do. On 6-Oct-09, at 4:35 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: > ah yes, but presumably Blair at least left a court to determine this? > in which case it is still reasonable to think that an English court is > not going to extradite an English citizen for cash for comment in > their blog :-) > > or can we expect extraordinary rendition for cash for comment > bloggers? > > On 07/10/2009, at 2:19 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: > > > Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a > one- > > sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of > > anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of > > course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens > > under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the > > name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more > > often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of > > Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. > > cheers > Adrian Miles > adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au > Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours > vogmae.net.au > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles wrote: > > > I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can > call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not > want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. > Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) bigdogvi...@gmail.com www.irishhermit.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
ah yes, but presumably Blair at least left a court to determine this? in which case it is still reasonable to think that an English court is not going to extradite an English citizen for cash for comment in their blog :-) or can we expect extraordinary rendition for cash for comment bloggers? On 07/10/2009, at 2:19 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: > Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a one- > sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of > anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of > course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens > under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the > name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more > often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of > Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a one- sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. On 6-Oct-09, at 4:03 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: > > > --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose > > something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then > > get Scotland Yard to arrest you? > > no, US law does not apply in Britain, and vice versa. > > > > This a brief rundown of worries. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
On 07/10/2009, at 12:40 AM, Jay dedman wrote: > You dont know the US very well. Criticism stands on complete anger > that the government would regulate the web at all. well, a lot of existing media law applies already, certainly outside of the US where free speech provisions are not as strong. But a lot of this stuff seems quite confused. For example quite a few years ago an Australian businessman (with international reputation/profile) successfully sued a US publisher over their online service for defamation in Australia. Existing media law handled it, a) the service was actually subscription based b) they did sell it in Australia even though it it originated in the States so c) it was deemed to be published here and they certainly had a company here d) they did defame the individual. > --Who's going to keep track? Who pays for this supervision? More > bureaucracy. Perhaps other bloggers? Who ensures the press reveals such conflicts of interest? > --Bloggers especially feel it's an attempt to limit their ability to > take on big power by entrapping them in legal limbo by silly lawsuits. > --it starts by regulating "disclosure". what will be next? It'll get > to the point where an individual person needs so much paperwork and > legal help to blog that only big companies can afford it...thus taking > away why the web has been cool. that is an argument that equates 'rules' and 'regulations' with not having to understand your obligations. try to get a gun licence in nearly any western democracy *except* the united states if you want to experience bureaucracy, but that is not a criticism of gun control, just that yes, there is a role for government in managing and overseeing and policing some things, and having a communications authority suggest that if you blog, and if you are being paid by a third party for your opinion but not revealing that, then there's a problem. Precisely because the web is a *publishing* environment. Any reputable paper will point out if a journo went on trip x as part of a junket, and clearly understands the difference between reportage, opinion and advertorial. I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. > --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose > something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then > get Scotland Yard to arrest you? no, US law does not apply in Britain, and vice versa. > > This a brief rundown of worries. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
How is this even being discussed as an option in the USA? Surely this is rather decisively forbidden by the first amendment? On 6-Oct-09, at 2:51 PM, Markus Sandy wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: > > > I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are > > against this, though I start from the position of viewing their > > stance with quite some skepticism. > > I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: > > Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals > under the guise of protecting people. > > markus > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: > I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are > against this, though I start from the position of viewing their > stance with quite some skepticism. I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals under the guise of protecting people. markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
> I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover > bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm > I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against > this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite > some skepticism. > Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. You dont know the US very well. Criticism stands on complete anger that the government would regulate the web at all. --Who's going to keep track? Who pays for this supervision? More bureaucracy. --Bloggers especially feel it's an attempt to limit their ability to take on big power by entrapping them in legal limbo by silly lawsuits. --it starts by regulating "disclosure". what will be next? It'll get to the point where an individual person needs so much paperwork and legal help to blog that only big companies can afford it...thus taking away why the web has been cool. --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then get Scotland Yard to arrest you? This a brief rundown of worries. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] FTC rules on blogger Payola
I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. Cheers Steve Elbows
