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. Best, Sean http://463.blogs.com --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], "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 [email protected], "Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones" > > <shirson@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 > > > > > >
