Re: [videoblogging] Re: First John Edwards. What Happens Next?/video regulation
Friday, December 29, 2006, 7:01:55 PM, J. Rhett Aultman wrote: Another interesting question to pose has to do with the regulation of money going to political ads. Does this even extend to the Internet? Can political candidates exploit lapses in campaign expenditure regulation to pay video bloggers for time on their blogs? What about advertisement storms on YouTube and the like? I guess if you live in the USA it's sometimes easy to forget, but the modern economy is global. As US politics moves into modern media and the internet, then the rest of the world gets a say. If it's OK for the USA to intervene in Iraqi politics, is it OK for people outside the USA to intervene in US politics, too? Sure, non-US-citizens don't actually get a vote, but US presidential elections have been becoming less and less about individual votes for years. It's all about how much money and media each faction can wield, and how it is used to shape the voters into voting one way or another. In the past, this was mainly a domestic thing. Pretty much the only people who cared who occupied the White House were the people of the USA. But that's all changed. The USA is now such a a big player on the world stage that everyone on the planet is affected by what the USA does. US Politics used to be the playground of American business lobbies and corporate interests. They have worked tirelessly for years to ensure that they can manipulate the political process just by spending money. Spend more money, get more influsnce. But think about it. How much money could (for example) China or a coalition of Moslem oil states put into political campaigning for the upcoming US election? Would they care at all about the FCC or campaign contributions, impartiality, journalistic ethics or traditions of political integrity? As a US voter, you have NO WAY of telling who or what domestic or foreign interests are funding, producing or editing anything that you read, hear, or view. Whatever rules used to pretend that there was any sort of impartiality are worthless. Scary? -- Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk
Re: [videoblogging] Re: First John Edwards. What Happens Next?/video regulation
Another interesting question to pose has to do with the regulation of money going to political ads. Does this even extend to the Internet? Can political candidates exploit lapses in campaign expenditure regulation to pay video bloggers for time on their blogs? What about advertisement storms on YouTube and the like? -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime Likewise, when I see Rocketboom filming official campaign video for John Edwards and then running what looks like to an old-media eye as an objective interview on a news-like entertainment program the next day, I can't help but wonder if the online video community should be discussing appropriate standards for political liaisons before others do. (And, I appreciated Andrew Baron's reponse on this issue yesterday). Again, if issues like these are completely avoided because it's the Internet, than, I'm afraid, folks might be surprised down the road by incremental encroachments on their commerce and/or art. Best, Sean http://463.blogs.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not all regulation is bad, because it is not always as simple as turn the channel or don't watch it, it is a matter of respect for your fellow human beings Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sean_m_garrett sean.garrett@ wrote: The reporter that interviewed Jeff channeled the typical DC/regulator mentality perfectly. That is, if broadcast TV is regulated and then you find this thing that happens to be delivered over the Intenret, but looks a lot like TV, well then, shouldn't that be regulated, too? Of course, the better question is that with true convergence coming, why would you regulate any form of TV in the first place? But, that's generally not the way regulators think. Tech policy is my job, so naturally I believe this is serious stuff. But, I do gently suggest that folks in this amazing niche start considering a world where they are not 100% bullet-proof from government incursions just because it's the Internet. The sooner this is done, the better you'll be able to fend off rules. BTW, along with indencency standards (children are our future and all that), history has shown that political speech is a leading bridge drug to red tape. I'm not a big blog plugger (to my detriment), but I do cover online video policy issues closely here: http://463.blogs.com/the_463/online_video_policy/ Best, Sean --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones shirson@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Pulver jeff@ wrote: [snip] The last thing anyone needs is to see legacy broadcasting rules applied to the Internet. But what happens when legacy broadcasting behavior and content are applied to the internet? We are seeing quite a bit of broadcast television being aped on the internet. I agree that the same rules should not be applied, but it does raise issues. Stan Hirson http://hestakaup.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: First John Edwards. What Happens Next?/video regulation
Traditionally, the legal rationale behind regulating broadcast TV is that broadcast spectrum is a finite and very limited resource which can only accommodate a relatively small number of channels (or radio stations, for that matter). Hence the government has to step in and make sure the available spectrum is used wisely and in the public interest--which it does by licensing chunks of the airwaves, subject to certain conditions such as no obscenity, equal access, closed captioning, and technical rules like power limits and encoding standards. This is how the federal government can legally impose standards on broadcast stations which might otherwise run afoul of the first amendment. That's also why a lot of FCC rules don't apply to cable. It would be a huge stretch for the U.S. government to try to impose old-media style regulation on Internet video. There's no licensed and limited resource, no presumption that internet broadcasters should operate in the public interest, and that pesky first amendment problem. Heck, we can't even agree on the technical standards (i.e. flv vs. mov vs. wma). Captioning online video isn't a bad idea (if for no other reason than it will increase your potential audience). But as a legal requirement? I doubt it, and if the U.S. government tried, it would almost certainly fail any court challenge. Any sort of content fairness regulation (like the old equal time rule) is almost laughable under current legal standards as long as there's no fraud involved. -Peter On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:48 PM, sean_m_garrett wrote: Very true, Heath. And, I'm sure many of us had our Ayn Rand phase and then got over it ;) Still, what Jeff and I warning of is the slippery slope of regulation. Take, for example, something far away from sex and politics. How about closed captioning for the hearing impaired? That's something that's hard to disagree with and that's why it's mandated across the traditional TV spectrum (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html). I've already read of disabled rights activists suggesting that these rules be applied to broadband video delivery. Now, I'm not suggesting that this would happen anytime soon, but I am suggesting that these issues be considered and pre-empted. And the best way to avoid regulation is to self-regulate. Continuing on the closed-captioning example, Google Video proactively started adding CC to select content in September. That's a healthy way to begin to address an issue like this. See: http://video.google.com/videocaptioned Likewise, when I see Rocketboom filming official campaign video for John Edwards and then running what looks like to an old-media eye as an objective interview on a news-like entertainment program the next day, I can't help but wonder if the online video community should be discussing appropriate standards for political liaisons before others do. (And, I appreciated Andrew Baron's reponse on this issue yesterday). Again, if issues like these are completely avoided because it's the Internet, than, I'm afraid, folks might be surprised down the road by incremental encroachments on their commerce and/or art.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: First John Edwards. What Happens Next?/video regulation
I think it was Kafka who said that the liberation of all revolutions ultimately results in its own aristocracy and the bureaucracy to defend it. See also George Orwell. Me? I'll just have a drink and go find some kids doing capoeira to video. It's less depressing. :) -- Rhett. http://www.weatherlight.com/freetime But I did think that part of the equal time has merits, because it does ensure (in theory) that all sides can be heard, one of the things that could happen very easily is that a canadaite has a lot of money and hires people to create and flood the internet with their vidoes, etc, I don't knowI'm just sick of it all, real issues and real problems keep getting swept under in favor of retoric and people buy into it, don't inform themselves or just give upWe need leaders and people with vision and convection in all areas in politics and until that happens...SSDD. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Peter Leppik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Traditionally, the legal rationale behind regulating broadcast TV is that broadcast spectrum is a finite and very limited resource which can only accommodate a relatively small number of channels (or radio stations, for that matter). Hence the government has to step in and make sure the available spectrum is used wisely and in the public interest--which it does by licensing chunks of the airwaves, subject to certain conditions such as no obscenity, equal access, closed captioning, and technical rules like power limits and encoding standards. This is how the federal government can legally impose standards on broadcast stations which might otherwise run afoul of the first amendment. That's also why a lot of FCC rules don't apply to cable. It would be a huge stretch for the U.S. government to try to impose old-media style regulation on Internet video. There's no licensed and limited resource, no presumption that internet broadcasters should operate in the public interest, and that pesky first amendment problem. Heck, we can't even agree on the technical standards (i.e. flv vs. mov vs. wma). Captioning online video isn't a bad idea (if for no other reason than it will increase your potential audience). But as a legal requirement? I doubt it, and if the U.S. government tried, it would almost certainly fail any court challenge. Any sort of content fairness regulation (like the old equal time rule) is almost laughable under current legal standards as long as there's no fraud involved. -Peter On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:48 PM, sean_m_garrett wrote: Very true, Heath. And, I'm sure many of us had our Ayn Rand phase and then got over it ;) Still, what Jeff and I warning of is the slippery slope of regulation. Take, for example, something far away from sex and politics. How about closed captioning for the hearing impaired? That's something that's hard to disagree with and that's why it's mandated across the traditional TV spectrum (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html). I've already read of disabled rights activists suggesting that these rules be applied to broadband video delivery. Now, I'm not suggesting that this would happen anytime soon, but I am suggesting that these issues be considered and pre-empted. And the best way to avoid regulation is to self-regulate. Continuing on the closed-captioning example, Google Video proactively started adding CC to select content in September. That's a healthy way to begin to address an issue like this. See: http://video.google.com/videocaptioned Likewise, when I see Rocketboom filming official campaign video for John Edwards and then running what looks like to an old-media eye as an objective interview on a news-like entertainment program the next day, I can't help but wonder if the online video community should be discussing appropriate standards for political liaisons before others do. (And, I appreciated Andrew Baron's reponse on this issue yesterday). Again, if issues like these are completely avoided because it's the Internet, than, I'm afraid, folks might be surprised down the road by incremental encroachments on their commerce and/or art. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: First John Edwards. What Happens Next?/video regulation
Well, that's the beauty of Internet video. If you think there's a real issue to address, go out and address it. Nobody's stopping you. On Dec 29, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Heath wrote: But I did think that part of the equal time has merits, because it does ensure (in theory) that all sides can be heard, one of the things that could happen very easily is that a canadaite has a lot of money and hires people to create and flood the internet with their vidoes, etc, I don't knowI'm just sick of it all, real issues and real problems keep getting swept under in favor of retoric and people buy into it, don't inform themselves or just give upWe need leaders and people with vision and convection in all areas in politics and until that happens...SSDD. Heath http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Peter Leppik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Traditionally, the legal rationale behind regulating broadcast TV is that broadcast spectrum is a finite and very limited resource which can only accommodate a relatively small number of channels (or radio stations, for that matter). Hence the government has to step in and make sure the available spectrum is used wisely and in the public interest--which it does by licensing chunks of the airwaves, subject to certain conditions such as no obscenity, equal access, closed captioning, and technical rules like power limits and encoding standards. This is how the federal government can legally impose standards on broadcast stations which might otherwise run afoul of the first amendment. That's also why a lot of FCC rules don't apply to cable. It would be a huge stretch for the U.S. government to try to impose old-media style regulation on Internet video. There's no licensed and limited resource, no presumption that internet broadcasters should operate in the public interest, and that pesky first amendment problem. Heck, we can't even agree on the technical standards (i.e. flv vs. mov vs. wma). Captioning online video isn't a bad idea (if for no other reason than it will increase your potential audience). But as a legal requirement? I doubt it, and if the U.S. government tried, it would almost certainly fail any court challenge. Any sort of content fairness regulation (like the old equal time rule) is almost laughable under current legal standards as long as there's no fraud involved. -Peter On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:48 PM, sean_m_garrett wrote: Very true, Heath. And, I'm sure many of us had our Ayn Rand phase and then got over it ;) Still, what Jeff and I warning of is the slippery slope of regulation. Take, for example, something far away from sex and politics. How about closed captioning for the hearing impaired? That's something that's hard to disagree with and that's why it's mandated across the traditional TV spectrum (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html). I've already read of disabled rights activists suggesting that these rules be applied to broadband video delivery. Now, I'm not suggesting that this would happen anytime soon, but I am suggesting that these issues be considered and pre-empted. And the best way to avoid regulation is to self-regulate. Continuing on the closed-captioning example, Google Video proactively started adding CC to select content in September. That's a healthy way to begin to address an issue like this. See: http://video.google.com/videocaptioned Likewise, when I see Rocketboom filming official campaign video for John Edwards and then running what looks like to an old-media eye as an objective interview on a news-like entertainment program the next day, I can't help but wonder if the online video community should be discussing appropriate standards for political liaisons before others do. (And, I appreciated Andrew Baron's reponse on this issue yesterday). Again, if issues like these are completely avoided because it's the Internet, than, I'm afraid, folks might be surprised down the road by incremental encroachments on their commerce and/or art. _ Peter U. Leppik CEO Vocal Laboratories Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
