EU to Regulate Video Blogs
Being a shy and retiring type, I have not as of yet, posted any videos on this blog. If the EU gets its way, I never will.
The European Commission proposal would require websites and mobile phone services that feature video images to conform to standards laid down in Brussels.
They are upset that the changing nature of media is taking some of it out of their sweaty grip. It make sense that Internet Television should be treated the same as terrestrial, but typical Brussels, they want to control You Tube and Blogs as well.
8 comments:
Deciding to visit a webpage with video on it is NOT broadcasting.
It's more like banning the delivery of books.
Does the EU burn at 451F?
Actually no. This Directive has nothing to do with personal websites or video blogs.
Further, the Parliament is making sure that personal sites are explicitly excluded. If you care to look at the Parliament's draft[url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/628/628314/628314en.pdf] report (amendment 13, article 13):
"Consequently non-economic activities such as blogs and other user-generated contents without an
economic objective and all forms of
private communication such as e-mails and private websites, do not all within the scope of the directive."
Further, this is still very much a work in progress. The draft is still in first reading in the parliament. If you care so much, why not drop your MEP a line stating your views?
I don't even like the idea that the EU should be deciding what I can and cannot look at.
"No thanks" is a phrase that the EU just cannot understand.
FactCheck,
Fact is that the EU has always used a step-by-step approach to minimize opposition against their freedom-restricting regulations.
Why should the internet be regulated in the first place? Why shouldn't people have the right of free speech whether on private on commercial media?
"If you care so much, why not drop your MEP a line stating your views?"
The EU politicians refuse to accept the rejection of the EU constitution by entire nations. How much effect would it have on unelected bureaucrats to drop a line to a MEP of the powerless European parliament?
Even the vice-president of the European Commission, Guenter Verheugen, is complaining about the power of high-ranking civil servants within the commission who are able to influence decisions according to their personal whims.
The powerful vice-president of the European commission said in an interview with the German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung that "the whole development in the last ten years has brought the civil servants such power that in the meantime the most important political task of the 25 commissioners is controlling this apparatus."
This is not unexpected if one has read the work of the renowed economist Ludwig von Mises about bureaucratic management.
According to the vice-president of the European commission, "There is a permanent power struggle between commissioners and high ranking bureaucrats. Some of them think: the commissioner is gone after five years and so is just a squatter, but I'm sticking around"
"In my opinion, too much is decided by civil servants," he said.
In other words, the future and the right to free speech of the people in Europe depends on the mery of a few unelected bureaucrats. And nobody seems to be able to control their lust for power.
Are you by any chance working for this club?
Are you by any chance working for this club?
I assumed that factcheck was. As the point raised was relevant, I dealt with it in another post.
The argument posed by colin is a very important one and goes far beyond any particular directive.
Nope, sorry, I'm not a bloated eurocrat.
I am however a lobbyist for the advertising industry, which some of you might consider just as bad.
But in any case, this is a subject which I am following with close attention. The Directive being discussed updates the existing TV Directive to take account of things like internet tv and video on demand service.
Fuzzy wording on the part of the Commission led some to beleive that the websites would be covered. However, the Parliament, under pressure from lobbyists and UK tory MEPs, is ensuring that this will not be the case.
So, some services delivered across the 'net will be covered (TV from your phone company), but not personal web sites.
Cheers,
FC
Factcheck,
You wrote: "I am however a lobbyist for the advertising industry, which some of you might consider just as bad."
Why should advertising be considered bad as long as people remain free to choose. However, I do not yet understand, why lobbying for the advertising industry in needed. Does Brussels now want to regulate advertising or is it already doing?
Furthermore, you didn't let us know your view about the main question:
"Why should the internet be regulated in the first place? Why shouldn't people have the right of free speech whether on private on commercial media?"
I would very much appreciate to learn your view on that important issue. Naturally only, if you don't mind.
Veryy nice blog you have here
Post a Comment