While the U.S. media and Blogstonia obsess on the copyright issues impacting the online video market, two big UK outlets arch their right eyebrows at what portends to be an even bigger future issue: Content regulation. The impetus is a new effort by the UK government to drive a compromise on the controversial Television Without Frontiers EC proposal that could place similar regulations on Internet and mobile video that currently are enforced on traditional broadcasters.
And, yes, if you are a longtime reader of The 463, you know that we've been following TV Without Frontiers closely for some time now. Loads more can be found in our online video policy category (and, specifically, in our Regulation Without Tears post -- BTW, while you are smirking at Europe, online video regulation could be a reality in the U.S. sooner than you might think. See our review here.)
Back to the new UK coverage, The Economist opines this week...
The proposed rules may be unrealistic as well as onerous. The idea that websites can be regulated like broadcasters, which are required to keep strict records of what they show in order to help watchdogs investigate complaints, is untenable. Firms could simply relocate outside the European Union to escape the new rules...
Behind the debate is the question of how best to balance competition and protection. Traditional broadcasters worry that they will be shackled by regulations while nimble start-ups can do as they please—so they like the idea of extending regulation to their new rivals. But even if the rules are approved as they stand, they will not come into force until 2010. Such a long, slow process seems incongruous given the pace of technological change.
And, today, the Times (of London) delves into the attempt for compromise led by the UK (which, thus far, is only big in Slovakia)...
Shaun Woodward, the (UK) Broadcasting Minister, described the draft proposal as catastrophic. He said: “Supposing you set up a website for your amateur rugby club, uploaded some images and added a link advertising your local sports shop. You would then be a supplier of moving images and need to be licensed and comply with the regulations. Ministers argue that while television programmes should be subject to minimum standards, the content of websites should not be subject to EU regulation.
Mr Woodward is proposing a compromise that requires EU states to agree a new definition of what constitutes “television”. He said: “It’s common sense. If it looks like a TV programme and sounds like one then it probably is. A programme transmitted by a broadcaster over the net could be covered by extending existing legislation. But video clips uploaded by someone is not television. YouTube and MySpace should not be regulated.”
Patrick Ross at the Progress & Freedom Foundation has been all over this issue like weiß on Reis, and already has written up thoughts on the proposed compromise today and provides other color...
To be honest, without further detail I'm not sure I can endorse it; I think I'd prefer TVwF simply be abandoned. But anything less restrictive than the current proposal is preferable to the current proposal being adopted by the Parliament and implemented by EU member states. The time is now, however, as numerous EU committees are examining the proposed directive and will begin releasing proposals soon.... the irony here is that TVwF is part of the EU's Lisbon agenda, a goal to catch up to the US in productivity by 2010 through embracing the digital world. Imposing burdensome regulations on new media in Europe will only serve to retard economic growth and productivity, continuing the stagnation that continent has endured throughout this decade.
The House of Lords EU Sub-Committee B (Internal Market) is also doing an investigation into the ridiculous Directive - people are giving evidence and theres a story on BBC News online technology "EU Threat to Internet Freedom"
Posted by: John Middleton | October 17, 2006 at 12:55 PM
Links for above comment: BBC News Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6056942.stm
Posted by: John Middleton | October 18, 2006 at 07:56 AM
Throughout this great pattern of things you secure an A+ for effort and hard work. Where exactly you actually misplaced me was first in your specifics. As as the maxim goes, details make or break the argument.. And it couldn't be much more correct here. Having said that, allow me reveal to you just what exactly did give good results. Your article (parts of it) can be really persuasive and that is probably why I am making an effort in order to opine. I do not make it a regular habit of doing that. Secondly, even though I can easily see the leaps in reasoning you come up with, I am not convinced of how you appear to connect your ideas which inturn produce the conclusion. For now I will subscribe to your position but hope in the near future you actually link your dots much better.
Posted by: zuzanna | January 26, 2013 at 04:41 AM