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 know....I'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 up....We 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]
