Disillusioned Discordian writes to Geeklawyer with a worrying but implausible scenario from a mailing list:
- Under new EU proposals website providers and bloggers will face prosecution if they “advertise” certain products.
Under the guise of reforming the 1989 Television Without Frontiers Directive the EU is planning to regulate the content of blogs and personal websites. The main purpose of the proposals is to bring web-based TV within the scope of the Directive. In particular new rules will outlaw the placement of certain products in moving pictures. However, the proposals will also affect websites and blogs. This means that website providers and bloggers may face prosecution if they unwittingly show images of alcohol, cigarettes and illegal drugs on their pages.Draft Directive amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
Geeklawyer is not persuaded that this is not an alarmist interpretation but he hasn’t had time to read the relevant regulation proposal. Certainly if true it would seem to be unnecessary undesirable and unworkable. Mind you that doesn’t normally stop legislatures.
More worryingly is the idea that statutes might specifically target blogs: if they are swept up in the general remit of legislation that’s fine but if legislators get it into their tiny little heads the blogosphere is a legitimate target for specific legislation everything is going to go tits up online.
That phrase...
The directive as originally worded ‘might’ have resulted in problems for bloggers, however the directive will only apply to “audiovisual media services” and the European Parliament clarified that an AMS does not include services where the provision of audiovisual content is merely incidental to the service and not its principal purpose. The Directive ” does not cover activities which are primarily non-economic and which are not in competition with television broadcasting, such as private websites and services consisting of the provision or distribution of audiovisual content generated by private users for the purposes of sharing and exchange within communities of interest. The definition excludes all services not intended for the distribution of audiovisual content, i.e. where any audiovisual content is merely incidental to the service and not its principal purpose.”
I certainly hope your reading is right. I will try to find an online copy and read it soon & update this post with my view. I certainly think your assessment would be more consistent with broad policy perspective but …
Jolly Good,
Wouldn’t be ironic if the alarmist story put out on the news group actually put the idea into their minds.