Internet Video X News

XX on Demand ...

   

Softcore 'cable versions' squeezed out from US cable TV

Full article at Cable 360

Last year Americans spent more on adult entertainment than they did to go out to the movies. So adult content and cable's on-demand service have been making sweet music together in the US, with the niche raking in more than half of the VOD revenue pie. But VOD is also disrupting the relatively stable economics and content of the adult category.

Cable has been pressured to strip away its inhibitions and now offers much more explicit programming. The old 'cable version' softcore has now been replaced by an XX version where real straight sex is shown but anal and cum shots are edited out.

    Unwanted Regulation

From Easy Bourse

Ofcom recently criticized a proposed European Union law regulating the Internet, warning that it could devastate the continent's Internet TV, mobile multimedia and online gaming industries.

Under the E.U. proposal, many Internet "broadcasts" would face the same requirements on advertising content and production quotas as traditional television.

There are major uncertainties about the future "trajectory" of Internet TV, the regulator said in a note accompanying the study: Creators will simply distribute their own material via the open internet, bypassing the need for any form of commercial relationship with other distributors, the regulator said, adding that Internet broadcasters simply would move offshore to escape the regulation.

The U.K. position is crucial. When the E.U. proposal first was floated last year, London opposed all extension of broadcasting rules to new media. Ofcom spokesman Simon Bates said the U.K. has realized that some new services will fall under the regulation. The key is to gain exemptions for particularly vulnerable services.

We understand that some TV-like services that look like TV and feel like TV warrant some protection, he said, adding that fledgling services should remain exempt: Our worst fear would be if blogs are required to be regulated like mass media television services, with rules for example about offensive content.

If infant industries are regulated, Ofcom says they risk being pushed offshore. The regulation could devastate Europe's online games industry, the report added. RAND Europe finds that this industry is global, and that the added value activity of creating and developing games is highly 'portable. This industry is therefore highly susceptible to increases in regulation in one territory, however small, especially when that regulation does not have parallels in other territories."

As a result, the regulator recommends "excluding online games altogether from the scope" of the E.U. regulation.

The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on the proposal before the end of the year. E.U. governments meeting in the Brussels-based Council of Ministers also must approve it. The contested proposal is designed to update the E.U.'s 1989 Television Without Frontiers directive.

  Update: eKeep Your Hands Off My Spac

From The Times

The Government is seeking to prevent an EU directive that could extend broadcasting regulations to the internet, hitting popular video-sharing websites such as YouTube.

The European Commission proposal would require websites and mobile phone services that feature video images to conform to standards laid down in Brussels.

Ministers fear that the directive would hit not only successful sites such as YouTube but also amateur "video bloggers" who post material on their own sites. Personal websites would have to be licensed as a "television-like service".

Viviane Reding, the Media Commissioner, argues that the purpose is simply to set minimum standards on areas such as advertising, hate speech and the protection of children.

But Shaun Woodward, the 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."

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.

British criminal law already covers material that might incite hate or cause harm to children,  Woodward added. The Government's definition of online broadcasting covers feature films, sports events, situation comedy, documentary, children's programmes and original drama. It excludes personal websites and sites where people upload and exchange video images.

Woodward is seeking EU member state support for the British compromise. So far only Slovakia has pledged support, but Woodward believes that other nations will come onboard before a key EU Council meeting on November 13.

  Update: EU Internet Content Consultation Responses

From OfcomWatch
See also consultation responses

The European Commission is asking some important questions about Internet content regulation: How should EU policy be designed so as to stimulate the creation and legal distribution of creative online content and services in Europe? What are the obstacles to the implementation of successful new business models? How can public policy promote a satisfactory degree of cultural and linguistic diversity in online content creation and circulation? How can European technologies and devices be successful in creative online content markets?'

In its recently closed public consultation entitled Content Online in the Single Market (which sounds a bit like an internet dating service), the Commission sought answers. There are a total of 96 responses, covering a wide range of issues. Reading through them basically provides a snapshot of how many of the important European and global players view policy matters dealing with everything from copyright licensing, cultural policy, DRM, and net neutrality. I thought I would quote directly from a few of the more notable responses:

  Update: EU Backs off From YouTube

From The Guardian

The British government is set to fight off proposed European rules that would make it responsible for overseeing taste and decency in video clips on sites such as YouTube and MySpace.

Ofcom, backed by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, argued that the plan was unworkable and would stifle creativity and investment in new media across Europe.

Ofcom said internet users should be left to police themselves within the bounds of the law. Because internet technology does not respect borders, it argued, users would simply turn instead to websites in the US and elsewhere.

In a statement of "general approach" before a vote in the EU assembly, the council of ministers yesterday bowed to pressure to limit government oversight to "TV-like" services on the web. That means Ofcom will regulate TV-style video downloads from major broadcasters, but not video clips on social networking websites.

When it first objected, Ofcom had the support of only a handful of other EU member states, but it has since won them over.

Britain also won majority support for its line on the "country of origin" principle, which makes national regulators responsible for broadcasters operating from within their borders.

  Update: Ominous

  Ofcon to get their repressive hands on Video on Demand

From The Guardian

The European parliament has softened its stance on new broadcasting regulations in its first full vote on the controversial Television Without Frontiers directive.

The scope of the directive has also narrowed so that online companies, such as video-sharing websites like YouTube, will remain unregulated in the short term.

However, media that are considered "TV-like" - directly comparable to a TV broadcast - will be regulated, as will video-on-demand services.

Syed Kamall, Conservative MEP for London said that the "country of origin" principle - under which governments can only regulate broadcasts that originate in their country - had been "reinforced".

A number of states, such as Sweden, wanted countries to have the right to regulate broadcasts from anywhere in the EU. But the EU parliament voted that a member state could circumvent the principle only in the case of fraud and abuse.

However, the Broadband Stakeholders Group, which represents organisations from the telecoms, advertising, broadcasting, internet and mobile sectors, said the vote has created "uncertainty and confusion" for the industry. The parliament has done much to improve the draft directive by limiting the scope, but the weak text on country of origin undermines this progress, said Antony Walker, the chief executive of the BSG.

The commission will issue a second draft of the directive early next year.

    Regulation On Demand !

The police have also been sniffing around the concept of somehow enforcing the repressive Video Recordings Act on download material. There is an article about this in the Adult Industry trade paper, ETO. But really I cannot even guess where they are coming from to suggest that the Act applies to computer communications.

From Hansard

David Cooke, the director of the BBFC, and Peter Johnson, Head of Policy had a session in the House of Commons with the Culture, Media And Sport Committee: New Media And The Creative Industries.

David Cooke

Our fundamental concern is about what might happen in the future, starting right now when things could be very different and we would face not so much a loophole but possibly a bypassing of the Video Recordings Act in quite a major way. Let me just try and explain this. Last year 17,000 titles were classified by the BBFC and 13,000 of those were DVDs, so that is very much the bulk of our business at the moment. In principle, all of those titles could at some point in the future migrate to distribution by download rather than in physical format.

Lawyers disagree about what precisely the impact of the Video Recordings Act is in that situation, but I think that the general view is that the Video Recordings Act probably would not bite. That has not been tested in the courts yet.

That could produce a situation in which our current, we believe, quite well respected and trusted system of age ratings and consumer advice would cease to apply and we know from our workload at the moment that there would be some very abusive material included in that content, and we have given some examples of some of that in our evidence. Self-regulation would obviously apply in that context but the question is really do we believe that that would be adequate or would we be in the kind of situation that we faced in the early 1980s with the concerns on video nasties.

We think that there are probably two broad approaches to tackling this problem.

We are certainly not pitching to trespass on anybody else's patch or to rub up against other regulators and we are certainly not pitching to try and regulate all downloads, which will constitute a huge and variegated mass of material, but we do think it would be possible to look quite carefully to seek to identify that part of the download market which would be very similar to DVD retail and DVD rental and to seek to bring that within the Video Recordings Act. That would be one approach. We can well see that that would be controversial and would be against the tenor of some of the other discussions you have had in the Committee.

Another approach which could be considered, either in conjunction or separately, would be to look at what kind of co-regulatory offerings were possible in this new environment. We believe that our expertise and the trust which BBFC ratings and consumer advice have and the high recognition factor that our ratings have, are the kinds of things that would enable us to play a part.

See the full (uncorrected) transcript of the Session

    Free Internet Hardcore TV

Thanks to Cappy on  The Melon Farmers' Forum

I don't think we are ever going to see Hardcore porn on the so called Adult channels . All we are asking for is close up genital shots in order to spice up our own sex lives . A right deprived to all the sane adults in this country. If you are French German and all the other Europeans then it is freely available to you as they are more of an adult then we are, or so as our powers that be see it.

The progress of the internet and now widely available broadband and internet TV should start to spell the death knell for adult TV providers and more importantly for mainstream TV too with diverse cultures in this country. This further divides the sane from the insane.

    Rushing Into Regulating the Internet

Oh dear, do I detect a change of emphasis from not sticking their repressive hook into the Internet to unbelievable promises of a light touch

From IT Pro

Ofcom say they aren't going to rush into regulating web-based TV in the same way as broadcast

The regulator's head of telecoms technology, Chinyelu Onwurah, used a panel debate on emerging internet issues this week as an opportunity to reassure the industry that the regulation of web-based TV is something it won't be tackling lightly: It shouldn't be a matter of the wholesale rolling over one set of regulation into another world , My natural reaction is hold on because I don't want to see another huge wave of regulation unleashed. We are looking to avoid any knee jerk reaction which says the internet must stay the way it has always been or it says that broadcast television is the right model for regulating the internet.

Onwurah said that Ofcom's role is to protect consumers. But, in the case of TV on the net, to do so it must first understand the potential pitfalls and how to guard against them: If regulation is required on the internet in the interest of end users and consumers, that regulation will develop as part of the normal process.

The internet has thus far evolved using a somewhat self regulatory model and Ofcom plans to use the current debate as an opportunity for some self assessment.

We need to concern ourselves with the potential harm for consumers by education as well as self or co regulatory measures, said Onwurah. [This] makes us reconsider our approach to regulation and the reasons for maintaining regulation in certain areas. So, as part of that we need to understand where regulation is necessary and where it may be less necessary. In Ofcom, we are certainly reviewing what we are looking to achieve by existing regulation.

    Lost up the Amazon

From Film Fodder

Amazon Debuts DRM-Crippled Movie Downloads

Amazon.com has taken the lid off their anticipated online movie download service, and we have to say, well, we're a bit underwhelmed. First off let's take a look at the good news:

• Buy and download DVD-quality and portable-version movies and TV shows. OK, they got the basics down.
• Rent movies and TV shows. Once downloaded, you have 30 days to begin watching them before they are deleted. Once you have started watching, you have 24 hours to finish watching, upon which time the file is auto-deleted from your system.
• Watch videos as you download with the progressive download feature.
• Store your downloads on two different PC's. Each computer can transfer the videos to one portable device.
• You can re-download files you have purchased. No more hard drive crash worries!

Now for the bad:

• Digital Rights Management! Encoded with this crippling WMV copy-protection, files are only viewable in Amazon's proprietary player (or Windows Media Center), or on a supported PlaysForSure portable device (sorry iPod owners).
• Don't try to install the Amazon Unbox player on Macs or Linux boxes. It won't work.
• No burn-to-DVD support, except for backups. This means you won't be able to watch them in your living room's DVD player.
• Prices start at $2 (for TV shows), and then anywhere from around $9 up to $20 for movies, way too much to ask for the lack of hard copy and other features you get from DVD.

We are fairly certain that all these limitations can be laid solely at the feet of the movie studios and MPAA, who are fumbling around in the technological dark trying to figure out how best to bother the hell out of consumers (and wondering why their services are floundering).

    Euro Comms Failure

From The Inquirer

The chances of there being a pan-European telecoms regulator has diminished after Brussels found widespread resistance among companies
.
A survey by consultancy Analysys for the EC will put pressure on the Commission to drop the idea, The Times suggests.

Although some experts believe that only a cross-border regulator will get around tricky areas such as roaming and licensing, there is always the suggestion – this being the EC, after all – that the role could dissolve into faceless bureaucracy that slows down progress rather than knocks heads together across member states.

    Inappropriate Regulation

From Ofcom

The regulation of internet services is the subject of significant international debate. Consumers expect to be protected from fraud or other forms of harm; and their children protected from inappropriate content. To date, this protection has been provided largely through a framework of domestic and international statutory regulation which has been evolving for decades. However, the global reach and open nature of the internet gives rise to some well-known problems, which cannot be addressed by a translation of existing powers and structures. These problems include the ubiquitous availability of pornography and increased availability of illegal imagery (e.g. violent pornography, child abuse), and easier access to products and services otherwise tightly-controlled like gambling or prescription drugs.

As the UK communications regulator, Ofcom has oversight of the wholesale and retail markets for internet connectivity. We also have a statutory duty to promote media literacy, a role in encouraging audiences to connect to the internet, and in helping them learn how to manage the risks to which they are exposed when online. We therefore have a clear interest in the protection of consumers from harm when they use the internet. Furthermore, the current draft of the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive proposed an extension of a broadcast-like regulatory framework to audiovisual content delivered in other ways – and might therefore require statutory content regulation to be applied to a broad range of internet services.

This document is a research report intended to inform the debate about the most appropriate ways to address the consumer protection challenges raised by the internet, such as those identified above. It is a broad survey of the key internet consumer protection issues and the national and international approaches taken to tackling those issues across the world. It does not include policy recommendations, though we do comment on the varying success of some of the initiatives adopted.

We can also draw some general lessons from the survey. There is no doubt that consumers will need to bear a greater degree of responsibility when they engage with internet services. Secondly, the broad range of internet services – from e-commerce to VoD to email – will require a broad and flexible set of regulatory solutions. There is no single answer to the issues to which the internet gives rise. However, there are already many factors contributing to consumer protection online, from the application of general law through to initiatives from individual internet players and collective industry bodies like the Internet Watch Foundation. We believe that such self-regulatory initiatives, allied to effective media literacy initiatives and supported by general law, will continue to be the most effective way to deliver consumer protection.

The full report can be downloaded from Ofcom

    Carry On State Censorship

Press release from the BBFC

BBFC President Calls For Forum To Consider New Media Regulation

In light of the rapidly growing range of audio visual content on offer via a range of media, the President of the BBFC, Sir Quentin Thomas, has called on the Government to bring together commercial and creative interests along with those operating the regulatory regimes to consider how best to provide the public with the information they need to choose which content they wish to consume and how to protect children and vulnerable people from harm.

Writing in his introduction to the BBFC's Annual Report Sir Quentin said:
As the audio visual content on offer to the public grows rapidly, with a marked diversity in the nature of the medium and in the means of delivery or access, it is perhaps not surprising that some observers of this dynamic but confusing scene conclude that there is little future for regulation and the attempt to maintain it seems like attempting to shut the stable door when the horse has bolted. At the BBFC we do not share this view.

The BBFC's Director David Cooke said:
We are putting a good deal of effort into researching, and speaking to others about, the implications of the growth of new media for our system of regulation. We do not argue for regulation except where it is genuinely needed. But effective regulation has clear benefits: the prevention of harm; enabling informed choices; creating a safe environment within which to enjoy creative content. We regularly see and deal with material, whether so-called 'extreme reality', abusive pornography, or simply content which is unsuitable for the age group to whom it is addressed, where our intervention is clearly necessary. No-one should assume that such material will be confined to established platforms such as film and DVD. Whether in a regulatory or an advisory capacity, we believe we have unique expertise and experience to offer.

Sir Quentin said:
There is no doubt that regulation must serve a relevant social purpose, and not needlessly be an impediment between the customer and the services available. Regulatory regimes must command and sustain public confidence and be fit for purpose. There is good reason for thinking that because of the nature of audio visual product and its potential impact the public is likely to expect some oversight, particularly with a view to the protection of children. We believe that there is also a strong commercial interest in demonstrating that product in this field meets accepted standards. Nonetheless, the rapidly shifting nature of the media scene, with new technological possibilities means that these issues need to be kept under review. We welcome the enquiry by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee into new media and the creative industries and would welcome the establishment of a forum perhaps under the auspices of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to advance consideration of these issues.

The BBFC 2005 Annual Report includes the accounts for the year along with information about the work of the Board during the year. Copies of the Annual Report can be obtained from the BBFC, 3 Soho Square, London W1D 3HD or can be downloaded from the BBFC main website, www.bbfc.co.uk (select 'downloads' option on home page)

  Update: Stupid Intervention

From The Times

The Times has picked up the above story and added a couple of comments:

Simon Davies, of Privacy International, which campaigns for freedom of expression said It sounds like the most stupid intervention since the registration of fax machines and photocopiers in communist China.

Sue Clark, a spokeswoman for the board, said that people should be able to make informed choices about what to watch. Regulation, in this case, doesn't mean banning or cutting. It is about providing information.

  Update: BBFC Wackos

Based on an article from The Guardian

Video content on the internet could receive certificate 18-style classifications from film censors under plans submitted to the government today. The proposals could see web videos rated for language, violence, sex and themes in the same way as films, videos and DVDs.

The BBFC said the huge growth of online video content risked making the regulation of old media redundant as more and more people get access to video over the internet.

Internet video has mushroomed in recent years, with the spread of broadband and content-streaming technologies making downloading high-quality footage easier. The video site YouTube sees 35,000 new clips added and 30m clips downloaded every day, while it would take almost 500 years to watch all the content currently indexed by Blinkx, which claims to be the largest online video search engine.

Sue Clark, a spokeswoman for the BBFC, said the government should be looking at ways of providing information to online viewers about the sort of material they were being exposed to: If there's some sort of standardised labelling system that people understand, then they know that it's material they can trust.

And shamefully added: We don't want to go down the route of cutting and banning things and blocking sites... BUT... a lot of the content that's out there on the internet is not something the majority of people would want to view. [...Which they WILL of course cut and ban...] She cited the example of Terrorists, Killers and Middle East Wackos , a compilation of video clips of actual killings and terrorist attacks. The compilation is banned on video or DVD in the UK because the BBFC believed it to contravene the Obscene Publications Act, but it is freely available on the internet through file-sharing sites.

And for an organisation that doesn't want to go down the route of cutting and banning things, it has been reported that 27% of softcore 18 certificate video works have been censored in 2006, along with 23% of hardcore R18's.

The BBFC wrote to the department of culture, media and sport last month, asking the government to consider a system of classification. It said that the most likely scenario would see them advising companies providing video content on what material would be acceptable to viewers. [BOLLOX BBFC, you mean acceptable to the Government and to people who like to impose their views on others about what they should be watching. Eg spanking videos are obviously acceptable to informed viewers that choose to watch them, they are only not acceptable to people who would rather you did not watch them. ie the Government, nutters and censors!]

  Update: More from the BBFC Wackos

Based on an article from IT Week

Sue Clark, a spokeswoman for the shameful BBFC said that people recognised that the internet may not be regulated, ...BUT... expected certain types of content such as films to have passed through a classification process.

The BBFC knew of at least one distributor who sees video-on-demand as a way of getting around its controls on pornography: This guy has stated that he will be putting stuff out which the BBFC will not classify. He has to be prosecuted to stop that. [It should be pointed out that BBFC are censoring and cutting hardcore porn for a whole load of nonsensical reasons such as the the vague possibility that ice or a dildo may possibly cause harm if used in a whacky way by complete imbeciles. The BBFC view on what should be cut is proving near worthless and surely does not automatically infer that the cut material is obscene and liable to prosecution].

The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has set up an inquiry into new media and the creative industries, which Clark hoped would lead to legislation or the introduction of a voluntary industry agreement: We have not asked the government to consider this because we think that it necessarily needs legislation. It may be that the industry signs up to a voluntary system. [As far as I can see the creative industries committee is unsurprisingly more concerned with licensing, IPR, DRM, piracy etc rather than worrying about censorship concerns of nutters and film censors facing redundancy]

Opinion: Soho Square has got it Wrong

From The Guardian

According to reports this morning, the BBFC says it envisages being able to censor what is on the net.

In its annual report, the BBFC says it may be worth having a voluntary system of rating - spinning off from its rankings of U, PG, 12A, 15 and 18 - that can help people surf the web safely.

According to the Times, it says: No one should assume that such material will be confined to established platforms such as film and DVD. Whether in a regulatory or an advisory capacity, we believe we have unique expertise and experience to offer.

Outrageous, cry the web's hordes. Freedom is our watchword, and we will not bow to censors.

It's a laudable position, of course, but one that's not entirely true. Censorship already abounds on the net - just ask Google in China or go back to Yahoo's continental court case about the sale of Nazi memorabilia. We accept some forms of censorship, where appropriate, and in many ways the BBFC recommendations are in this mould.

Web pages and content have the ability to contain tags that promote an age rating. Parents can already employ web monitors like NetNanny to shepherd their children online and block unsavoury or unwanted information. Why not just crank up the regulation and make sure that every site has a rating?

The problem with such schemes, of course, is that the internet is a global phenomenon. How do you enforce censorship across nations? If you force any material hosted on British servers to carry advisory ratings, then some people would just move elsewhere (it's very easy to do). And if you don't enforce the rules, then those who do want to exploit them will just plough ahead and lie, or avoid the ratings altogether.

The ultimate problem, though, is how to regulate what people do in their own homes; how parents interact with technology and with their kids. While it's clear that an 18 certificate for a movie in a cinema stops a seven-year-old child watching the movie on the big screen, the private situation is far from clear. How effective, after all, is the 9pm watershed? How many pre-teens have watched 18-rated DVDs at home? How many kids play Grand Theft Auto with their parents' consent?

Even recent attempts to solve the conundrum have fallen foul of the very people who would welcome the BBFC's comments. When the porn industry suggested a .xxx domain name to house adult material (easily spotted by nanny programmes and blocked by parents), it seemed like a fair idea, but it was shot down by the Christian right - the same people who would no doubt welcome the BBFC's proposals. Why? Because pornography should never be legitimised, and creating a .xxx suffix would do exactly that.

So we're stuck in a world where the veto goes to those who want to have their cake and eat it while ideas are flung about for forcing new rules on producers and consumers alike. Any net censorship would be expensive and almost certainly unsuccessful - and in any case, it would be far easier and cheaper to teach people how to use the tools that already exist. But that would just be too simple, wouldn't it?

    US Cable Migrating from XX to XXX via VOD

From AVN

Aquarius Broadcasting Corporation has announced the launch of its adult Video On Demand service, Sizzling Sex On Demand.

We pushed our initial launches up to May and June into 1,000,000 VOD households , said Robert Herrera, CEO of Aquarius. [That's] a significant achievement, considering we've only been operational two months."

Herrera then touched on Aquarius' June launch of a new XXX rated service, Sizzling XXX Sex. The migration from XX to XXX has begun in cable-delivered VOD, and we intend to very quickly become a dominant force in this new delivery arena."

    European Commission to be Told to Blog Off

From The Times

Popular video blogs will be subject to new European regulations if Brussels's proposals to update television regulation are adopted by Europe's member states.

The threat, confirmed by European officials yesterday, has prompted Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, to say that the European Commission plans are misguided.

The Commission said that "blogs could be caught" by the new rules if they had a commercial purpose, where video was the main element . A blog also has to be popular enough to count as "mass media".

The European Commission wants to update the Television Without Frontiers Directive and include for the first time rules to govern "non-linear audio visual services" — video on demand and internet broadcasting.

The proposed rules for new media are intended to be light-touch, but would require commercial video bloggers and other video website owners to respect rules governing incitement to hatred and child protection. Ofcom, though, said that bringing video blogs into a regulatory net originally designed for traditional television broadcasters was excessive. Both the UK regulator and British ministers believe that Europe's plans should not include internet content in their scope.

Next week James Purnell, the Broadcasting Minister, plans to lobby his counterparts in Germany and other member states in an attempt to convince them to help him to force amendments to the Commission's draft directive.

  Update: Internet With Barriers

From Silicon

The UK's IT and telecoms industry has launched a scathing attack on a proposed new EU directive that would extend TV regulation to online broadcasting.

Brussels is proposing major changes to the existing Television without Frontiers (TVWF) directive. The changes would extend regulation to cover a broad range of new and emerging audiovisual media services including internet broadcasts.

An alliance of broadcasting, telecoms, technology, new media and advertising bodies led by UK IT industry body Intellect and the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG) claims the changes will be damaging for players in the emerging online broadcasting market.

The alliance claims there is already enough existing legislation and self-regulation and that the proposed changes to the TVWF directive will deter new and existing new media players from the market and divert investment and innovation away from the EU.

Antony Walker, CEO of the BSG, said in a statement: As currently drafted, this directive is likely to confuse businesses, overwhelm regulators and let down consumers. The proposed scope is too broad and the definitions used too vague. The result could be an all-encompassing regulatory framework that takes five years to implement, undermines existing safeguards and proves largely unenforceable.

  Update: UK Out on a European Limb

From OfcomWatch

Reuters is reporting that the European Commission is not budging on its proposed Audiovisual Media Services Directive - which includes provisions to regulate (non-linear) internet based services.

The DCMS, supported by Ofcom and other bodies, argue  that the Commission's proposals would stifle innovation and place a disproportionate regulatory burden on new technology.

Reuters claim to have seen the Commission's response to its latest consultation document ahead of publication, which indicates that Britain has few allies on this issue. Quoting from it, they say: The basic approach of the Commission was received on the whole favourably by the (member states' audiovisual working) group. [There was] only one delegation -- with some support from another delegation -- clearly indicating opposition to the extension of the directive's scope to non-linear services.

The final shape of the new rules will be decided jointly by the EU's 25 member states and the European Parliament later in the year.

  Update: Consultation Starts about Adding New Frontiers

From OfcomWatch

The UK public consultation on the European Commission's proposals to amend the Television without Frontiers Directive - now to be known as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS) - opened today. The consultation documents and full details on how to respond are available on the DCMS website here. The consultation documents include:

• a partial regulatory impact assessment of the Commission's proposals
• an issues grid which details the changes to the regulation of audiovisual services which would appear to result from the Commission's proposals
• a list of consultation questions
• an unofficial 'consolidated version' of the amended Directive.

The consultation will run until Friday 8 September 2006.

  Update: I Don't Believe in Internet Censorship... BUT

From CNET News

The European Commission has defended its proposal to revise online broadcasting legislation called Television Without Frontiers, saying Internet businesses would benefit from the changes.

The existing TWF regulations, which cover traditional broadcasters, set minimum standards for advertising and the protection of minors. The EC wants to extend them to cover online audio-visual content, including new media broadcasting and emerging technological platforms.

This has alarmed some in the business and Internet community, and led the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to claim last month that the directive would stifle economic growth, inhibit job creation and hamper the development of digital content and services across the EU.

But Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, pledged not to intervene in business: There will be no regulation of the Internet. I'm not going to intervene in business--I am technology neutral.

The commissioner, said there should be basic rules to protect minors online and to prohibit incitement of hatred and overly repetitive advertising.

Reding rejected the CBI's claims that the TVWF revisions were an attempt to shoehorn digital content providers into rules designed for traditional broadcasters, undermining high-value, high-tech economic growth when it should be stimulating it. When consumers have control and choice, you do not need heavy rules. There are only basic tier rules. The provider has to obey basic rules, but it's for the parents to choose (how to filter content). I don't want to do that top down.

Reding claimed that instead of limiting business, the legislation would enable Internet businesses and content providers to expand in Europe. If you have 25 conflicting regulations in 25 countries, you can't take advantage of the internal market. When the new rules are applied, (content providers) can get authorization in Britain and spread into 25 countries. I see a big chance for European content to travel.

  Update: EU On Demand Bollox Demands Strong Words

Strange that the Government are so happy for all online sales of adult DVD to be driven offshore. Presumably a much wider range of Video on Demand is more of a threat to revenue.

From ZDNet

The British Government has launched a fierce attack on the European Commission over proposed legislation that seeks to regulate online content.

Existing Television without Frontiers (TWF) regulations cover traditional broadcasters, and set minimum standards for advertising and the protection of minors. The EC wants to extend them to cover online audio-visual content, including new media broadcasting and emerging technological platforms.

The UK Government called the proposals ill thought-through and ill-conceived and said that the proposals would inhibit economic growth.

We are completely negative about it , said Shaun Woodward MP, Minister for Creative Industries and Tourism. The more we look at it, it seems a really bad idea. The fundamental flaw is that it probably won't work. I see it doing huge damage to our growth, Woodward continued. The problem is the absolute lack of clarity.

If implemented, the directive would set minimum standards on areas such as advertising, hate speech and the protection of minors. Opponents claim this would force content providers to regulate Internet content.

Woodward said that the exact scope of the legislation the European Commission is proposing is "unclear", as it could cover a range of Internet services and mobile content providers.

We have serious concerns over the inclusion of non-linear services [such as video-on-demand] in the Directive. This is neither desirable nor practical, as there is nothing to stop companies relocating outside the EU to bypass regulations. Companies may relocate, taking jobs and services elsewhere, while the content is still consumed here, said Woodward, speaking at a Westminster Media Forum seminar in London.

This is a good example of where the EU goes wrong. Viviane Reding has got it wrong , Woodward claimed. Reding is the EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, who is pushing through the proposals.

The Government warned that one of the "huge problems" with the amendments to the legislation is that it could regulate "absolutely anything" online, including Weblogs, video Weblogs, and online gaming content. Because of the amount of content, this could create "huge enforcement difficulties," said Woodward.

  Update: A Right to Reply about Crazy Euro-Politicians

From Linx Public Affairs

Jean-Marie Cavada, Rapporteur for the European Parliament's Committee on Justice, Liberty and Security (i.e. Home Affairs) has produced a report on the revision of the Television Without Frontiers Directive ("TVwF") which calls for extending a much greater level of government controls over non-linear (i.e. Internet) content.

Cavada states: It is regrettable that the Commission has confined itself to minimal common rules for nonlinear services, even as regards the combating of discrimination and the protection of minors, on the grounds of a difficult or impossible technological implementation. In order to protect freedoms, the rights and obligations recognised in this field for linear services should be extended insofar as possible to non-linear services, which are becoming an increasingly important part of the audiovisual landscape by the day.

To this end he calls for

• Each Member State to establish a content regulator with authority over non-linear content;
• A right of reply over Internet content
• Requiring Internet services to contribute to cultural diversity and proposes that the [regulatory] implementing arrangements for this be specified.

The rapporteur also feels that it would be a good idea to add to Article 3e respect for human dignity and for the integrity of the person, in order to ensure that, in particular, certain reality television programmes which show participants in humiliating situations are banned.

In other words, he wants to ban Big Brother , which might be a victory for good taste, but hardly one for freedom of expression.

  Update: Demanding Compromise

From The Times

UK rejects proposal to regulate online video.

UK ministers tried to propose a compromise yesterday in an attempt to prevent the European Union extending television regulation to encompass internet video.

Writing to all European Union member states, the Government said that it "was strongly of the view" that the scope of the directive should be confined just to television broadcasting.

However, the letter did concede that if Europe wanted to widen the scope of regulation, it should draw in only video on demand because it is "closely similar to traditional television".

    Korean Lesson

Perhaps a few of our regulators and broadcasters should take note. Surely this will be the of Ofcoms human rights abusing ban on hardcore. And who wants to watch Sky's mandatory PIN protected films when one can skip the whole bollox of control freakery.

From the Korea  Herald

The start of Web-based television in Korea may still take some time with the confrontation between the nation's IT regulator and broadcasting sector over the service's legal boundaries showing no signs of ceasing.

The Korean Broadcasting Commission and the Korean Cable TV Association on Friday lashed out against Information Minister Chin Dae-je's comments earlier in the week that he is willing to approve cable TV system operators to engage in internet phone service business in return for a prompt launch of internet protocol television, or IPTV.

Though technically ready, commercialization of IPTV has been delayed for more than a year in Korea amid a turf war between the nation's telecommunication companies and broadcasting sector.

The nation's broadcasting sector has called for an "industry restructuring" as business domains of the telecommunication and broadcasting industries increasingly overlap with advancements in the IT field. The broadcasting industry says related laws must first be refurbished to ensure a fair business environment before IPTV is introduced.

IPTV, which distributes television contents over the high-speed internet, is considered a killer application for the future internet industry, however, with countries around the world racing to introduce it.

Chin has argued IPTV should be subject to minimum red-tape and quickly introduced because of national interests. The trade-off solution from Chin, however, has drawn heavy criticism from the broadcasting sector, which accuses the minister of favoritism: Chin keeps making comments favoring certain telecom operators like KT and hampering fair competition environment between operators of telecommunications and broadcasting, the Korean Broadcasting Commission said in a statement.

Meanwhile, analysts see the broadcasting sector eventually giving into the information ministry.

It is a global trend (to encourage the introduction of IPTV), said Kim Kyeong-mo, an analyst at Mirae Asset Securities Co.

    Searching for Attonement

From The Telegraph

Google, the giant internet search company, is to lead industry opposition to new proposals from the European Commission to regulate online content.

The company, which last week said it would self-censor its Chinese search engine to appease the country's government, objects to the commission's proposals to extend regulations in the Television Without Frontiers directive (TWFD) to cover video content shown on the internet.

James Purnell, the minister for creative industries, has backed Google's stance. He said: There is no benefit to the consumer that justifies this move. This increased scope could mean significant regulation of the internet and stifle the growth of new media services. That would raise prices for consumers and deprive them of potential new services.

Existing national laws that regulate TV broadcasting - for example, the British ban on tobacco advertising and child porn - were sufficient, he added.

If the proposals became part of European law, Purnell said: in 10 years our successors will bemoan the handicaps we gave to European industry and the restraints we put on free speech. For example, the proposals suggest that member states should ensure that media service providers. . . do not offer material which contains incitement to hatred on grounds of, for example, disability or age. I'm the last person to say that issues like this are not important and of course we have been discussing race and religious hatred in our own Parliament only recently.

But what that debate showed was that these are wide-ranging issues on which there are different, strongly and legitimately held opinions and where intervention must have the strongest justification. Some member states - and I don't just mean the UK - will have serious difficulties with such an approach on grounds of freedom of speech.

The plan to extend the scope of the TWFD is set to go before the European Parliament later this year. The new proposals, if implemented, will govern material shown on the internet which originates in EU member states. The internet industry fears that some content providers will move outside the trading bloc rather than submit to regulation.

The TV and internet industries are moving closer together as new technologies and faster download speeds make it easier to broadcast video on the web.

    Self Regulation (Except for Extreme Porn?)

From The Times

Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, said yesterday that a European Union plan to introduce Internet regulation was unwelcome, arguing that new media were best left to themselves. If we want further regulation, then I believe the best approach is to rely as far as possible on self-regulation. She said that existing EU proposals in a draft directive were "as a whole … still unacceptable."

The European Union is trying to overhaul the 1989 Television Without Frontiers directive, which sets out a baseline for broadcast regulation across Europe. Although Brussels insists it is producing a light-touch approach, it still wants to introduce new rules on the protection of children and the incitement to hatred. It is the first time that the Culture Secretary has taken a position on the subject, although her stance is in line with a speech made by Lord Currie of Marylebone, the chairman of Ofcom, in Liverpool last autumn. He argued that ordinary criminal law was a sufficient way to regulate the Internet.

    Pie in the Sky

But will the service feature real porn?

No doubt a tie up between two leading control freak companies will result in a service where the customers has no rights whatsoever.

From The Times

BSKYB has forged a deal with Microsoft allowing it to launch a video-on-demand service for personal computers next week, extending its push into broadband and giving millions of its subscribers access to films and sports highlights on a new format.

From Tuesday BSkyB subscribers who own PCs with Microsoft's Media Centre software, a user-friendly version of Windows, will be able to access video-on-demand features through the recently announced Sky By Broadband service. The service will be available to BSkyB's premium movies and sports subscribers.

Speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, said the tie-up with BSkyB, in which News Corporation, parent company of The Times was in preparation for the arrival of the much talked about "digital lifestyle".

As Britain's take-up of high-speed broadband internet connections has increased, media and telecoms groups are preparing for the internet to become the main source for television, music and telecoms services. Video-on-demand technology will allow viewers to watch what they want when they want.

Gates said that content from MTV, the US music channel, will also be made available through a similar partnership: We're working with BSkyB and they'll be setting up through our alliance a video-on-demand capability — they have got over eight million subscribers in the UK who will be able to do those downloads.

The announcement reiterates BSkyB's interest in expanding its broadband offering. BSkyB has said that nearly half its satellite TV customers have broadband access.

In October, the company announced a £211 million takeover of Easynet, the broadband telecoms specialist. The Easynet deal enables BSkyB to offer "triple-play" services — a combination of broadband, television and telephony. This will help the group to compete with NTL and Telewest, currently in the process of merging, which both offer triple play.