Way back in 1791 the founders of the United States agreed that the freedom of speech was just one right that Americans could not do without. They stated that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
Fast forwarding to the present, a new bill is up for consideration called the Broadcast Performance Royalty Tax, which might threaten that right established more than 200 years ago.
The heavily Democrat controlled United States Congress has been furiously debating the merits of the Broadcast Performance Royalty Tax on radio broadcasters; an interesting target for Congress and the White House to address considering that the American radio airwaves contain some of the most scathing voices of opposition to our current administration's policies.
To start things off, let's give a simple run down of what the bill entails. The Broadcast Performance Royalty Tax will impose a new tax on radio stations, forcing them to pay for the use of music, on top of the royalties they already pay to various other entities. The bill adjusts the amount radio stations must pay based on how much revenue they pull in each year.
This new bill has been a catalyst in creating new fears among Americans. Can this bill potentially be used by government to regulate "unwanted" speech, violating the First Amendment?
Well, according to an article written by David Oxenford, a partner with Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, "Committee members desire to not imperil broadcasters by adopting a royalty - including a statement that the CRB would be instructed to take into account, in setting royalties, the impact the royalties would have on minority and female radio operators, small broadcasters, and religious and community stations".
For now, it seems that this bill is being used to generate tax revenue, not to put an end to opinions on the radio waves. It taxes the actual song by an artist; it does not tax a radio host's speech between songs, which is where opinions are usually disseminated.
However, minor changes to this bill can change that completely. What happens if our government happens to begin taxing one genre of music more than another? This tax hike within a select group of musical genres will cause radio stations, and by extension listeners, to avoid those types of music, potentially silencing the voices of the people who listen to that genre.
What happens after the government controls radio with taxation? Television? The internet? This is a very slippery slope we're traveling down, one that we need to watch very carefully.
By Katelyn Pavloff
pavloff@revolutioniptv.com
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Digital Transition
It’s here and it’s not going anywhere. The digital transition that took place in June of 2009 is up and running. Right now you might think there’s no difference, that the DTV transition was some annoying mandate that forced you to go out and buy a silly box just so you can continue to watch “So You Think You Can Dance” every Wednesday night. But it’s more than that; DTV has the potential to change the way that Americans watch television.
With a barrage of commercials from cable providers warning us about preparing for the digital transmission, there really doesn’t seem to be much of a difference. According to the Progress and Freedom Foundation, over 80% of Americans subscribe to either a cable or satellite service which means that most of the United States hasn’t been directly affected by the digital transition.
So, what does this transition mean to the 20% of America that is does directly effect? To answer this I went directly to the source, my television. According to the DTV website, the digital transition will bring a better quality of picture and audio to your television viewing experience, but when I when I sat down to watch television I didn’t really notice a difference. It looked almost exactly the same.
Alright, so the picture and audio quality didn’t quite meet my expectations. However, I did notice that there are several more channels available to watch. Instead of just ABC there’s two or three ABC channels broadcasting different programming, giving non-cable subscribers a larger choice of programming to watch. It also occurred to me that if this box can funnel a few extra stations to my television what else could it do?
DTV has the potential to bring free television programming to a variety of devices that can make television viewing much more portable and convenient. Someday in the future people could be viewing television programming on their cell phones or portable video gaming systems. This technology affects more than just the 20% of American’s without cable; it affects everyone. Now that DTV is here to stay there’s no telling what new technology will follow, but it’s exciting to think about what could come.
By Katelyn Pavloff
Revolution IPTV
pavloff@revolutioniptv.com
www.revolutioniptv.com
With a barrage of commercials from cable providers warning us about preparing for the digital transmission, there really doesn’t seem to be much of a difference. According to the Progress and Freedom Foundation, over 80% of Americans subscribe to either a cable or satellite service which means that most of the United States hasn’t been directly affected by the digital transition.
So, what does this transition mean to the 20% of America that is does directly effect? To answer this I went directly to the source, my television. According to the DTV website, the digital transition will bring a better quality of picture and audio to your television viewing experience, but when I when I sat down to watch television I didn’t really notice a difference. It looked almost exactly the same.
Alright, so the picture and audio quality didn’t quite meet my expectations. However, I did notice that there are several more channels available to watch. Instead of just ABC there’s two or three ABC channels broadcasting different programming, giving non-cable subscribers a larger choice of programming to watch. It also occurred to me that if this box can funnel a few extra stations to my television what else could it do?
DTV has the potential to bring free television programming to a variety of devices that can make television viewing much more portable and convenient. Someday in the future people could be viewing television programming on their cell phones or portable video gaming systems. This technology affects more than just the 20% of American’s without cable; it affects everyone. Now that DTV is here to stay there’s no telling what new technology will follow, but it’s exciting to think about what could come.
By Katelyn Pavloff
Revolution IPTV
pavloff@revolutioniptv.com
www.revolutioniptv.com
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Who Trashed the Pizazz?
Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa.
Van Gogh’s Starry Night.
Both are infamous pieces of history that have been mass produced to the extent of becoming an optional background for your credit card. Millions and millions of copies worldwide of these historical masterpieces exist, none of which measure up to the original; and the intrinsic value of them decreases consistently.
Originality is rare - and today’s media content is following the same pattern of recycled creativity as all of the world’s historical outlets. So let’s assume that we want to stand apart from the crowd, and attempt to find some of the original works of today’s creative masterminds (of media content, of course). Where would we even begin?
Over the course of a week, I surveyed about 20 people, asking them a simple question: “Where do you find original media content online?” After hearing “why?” or “word of mouth” from everyone surveyed, I turned to social media’s current head honcho, Twitter, in hopes for a miracle reply. I received a couple of ad link results from my favorite self-proclaimed social media gurus, but still nothing substantial. I then searched a few variations of the words “original,” “media,” and “content” before finding the gold I was looking for within the melting pot of Twitter.
As it turns out, the “word of mouth” explanation for the discovery of original media content online was all I was going to get. However, the tech-savvy online term is called “social bookmarking.” Sites such as StumbleUpon and Delicious allow internet users to bookmark pages they found interesting, and add keywords and intriguing headlines to their posts, for other users to scroll through. A search engine-like feature suggests those bookmarked pages to you based on interests you select, and allows for a detail-specific search approach as well.
These sites gather an array of websites (as you could imagine) from around 7 million online users daily. The content is original (mostly—with some mainstream pages slipping in), as popular sites are not usually considered “stumbled upon.”
Similar sites exist specifically for news and television shows.
TrueSlant, a news site based entirely on user-created content, is one of the most popularly “tweeted” online media outlets there is—continuously increasing in popularity due to its global range of events coverage and broad spectrum of background opinion in news. Koldcast.tv is an online television network broadcasting original content shows, and has both paid and free distribution of non-FCC regulated creativity available via stream 24 hours a day.
Both of these websites were brought to my attention through the above social bookmarking services. In realizing the existence of “social bookmarking,” I admittedly learned that finding media content may not be the rocket science I had assumed. So why aren’t more people doing it? Why do we stick to re-runs and continuously allow content theft on the internet?
The reality still stands that the majority of people aren’t going to parooz through the latest tweets or bookmarks to chance their entertainment on original media.
So the question remains—why (and how) did the demand for originality lose its pizzazz with viewing audiences?
Perhaps the real question we need to ask ourselves in the industry is how we get it back…
By Christina Morgan
Revolution IPTV
morgan@revolutioniptv.com
www.revolutioniptv.com
Van Gogh’s Starry Night.
Both are infamous pieces of history that have been mass produced to the extent of becoming an optional background for your credit card. Millions and millions of copies worldwide of these historical masterpieces exist, none of which measure up to the original; and the intrinsic value of them decreases consistently.
Originality is rare - and today’s media content is following the same pattern of recycled creativity as all of the world’s historical outlets. So let’s assume that we want to stand apart from the crowd, and attempt to find some of the original works of today’s creative masterminds (of media content, of course). Where would we even begin?
Over the course of a week, I surveyed about 20 people, asking them a simple question: “Where do you find original media content online?” After hearing “why?” or “word of mouth” from everyone surveyed, I turned to social media’s current head honcho, Twitter, in hopes for a miracle reply. I received a couple of ad link results from my favorite self-proclaimed social media gurus, but still nothing substantial. I then searched a few variations of the words “original,” “media,” and “content” before finding the gold I was looking for within the melting pot of Twitter.
As it turns out, the “word of mouth” explanation for the discovery of original media content online was all I was going to get. However, the tech-savvy online term is called “social bookmarking.” Sites such as StumbleUpon and Delicious allow internet users to bookmark pages they found interesting, and add keywords and intriguing headlines to their posts, for other users to scroll through. A search engine-like feature suggests those bookmarked pages to you based on interests you select, and allows for a detail-specific search approach as well.
These sites gather an array of websites (as you could imagine) from around 7 million online users daily. The content is original (mostly—with some mainstream pages slipping in), as popular sites are not usually considered “stumbled upon.”
Similar sites exist specifically for news and television shows.
TrueSlant, a news site based entirely on user-created content, is one of the most popularly “tweeted” online media outlets there is—continuously increasing in popularity due to its global range of events coverage and broad spectrum of background opinion in news. Koldcast.tv is an online television network broadcasting original content shows, and has both paid and free distribution of non-FCC regulated creativity available via stream 24 hours a day.
Both of these websites were brought to my attention through the above social bookmarking services. In realizing the existence of “social bookmarking,” I admittedly learned that finding media content may not be the rocket science I had assumed. So why aren’t more people doing it? Why do we stick to re-runs and continuously allow content theft on the internet?
The reality still stands that the majority of people aren’t going to parooz through the latest tweets or bookmarks to chance their entertainment on original media.
So the question remains—why (and how) did the demand for originality lose its pizzazz with viewing audiences?
Perhaps the real question we need to ask ourselves in the industry is how we get it back…
By Christina Morgan
Revolution IPTV
morgan@revolutioniptv.com
www.revolutioniptv.com
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Boundaries in IPTV Entertainment?
The Internet is continuously changing the face of the entertainment industry as new outlets for posting original web content are born every second. As a result, Internet users are given more options, thereby allowing them to come closer to truly limitless entertainment. But there are drawbacks. With limitless entertainment comes the question of the bounds of decency. With such lenient established restrictions, how are Internet programmers supposed to determine the limitations of their own content and how, with such rapid expansion, can it feasibly be regulated?
This poses a unique challenge. As a nontraditional medium, the Internet is vastly different from television or radio. Instead of being transmitted to all users simultaneously, Internet programming comes down to individual choice. Content can be viewed as it’s wanted and when it’s wanted. The Internet is an open forum, equipped to provide fresh ideas to the masses, but on an individual basis. This is what makes the Internet the future of completely personalized entertainment, the heart of the IPTV revolution.
When it comes to limitations, the idea of methodical regulation must be pushed aside. The creation of content is far too steady for all programming to be reviewed prior to being posted. Also, heavy regulation interferes with First Amendment rights. Although past rulings have never entirely prevented government from regulating free speech, the Internet should be treated differently because it is distinct from other means of expression. If there is demand, content must be created to ensure that the needs of viewers are met, whether or not it’s questionable material. It is up to the programmer to decide what type of content is appropriate for the target demographic and if there are reservations, content should be examined and approved on a case-by-case basis. This is the only way to ensure the benefit of both programming provider and viewer.
Allowing Internet programming to maintain its freedom of expression is the only way to truly provide viewers with the content they want, when they want it. No limits should be placed on creativity. This is what Revolution IPTV intends to ensure. When limits are set on Internet programming, we the viewers grow further from personalization, and without this, entertainment falls short of its full potential.
By Courtney Griffin
Revolution IPTV
griffin@revolutioniptv.com
www.revolutioniptv.com
This poses a unique challenge. As a nontraditional medium, the Internet is vastly different from television or radio. Instead of being transmitted to all users simultaneously, Internet programming comes down to individual choice. Content can be viewed as it’s wanted and when it’s wanted. The Internet is an open forum, equipped to provide fresh ideas to the masses, but on an individual basis. This is what makes the Internet the future of completely personalized entertainment, the heart of the IPTV revolution.
When it comes to limitations, the idea of methodical regulation must be pushed aside. The creation of content is far too steady for all programming to be reviewed prior to being posted. Also, heavy regulation interferes with First Amendment rights. Although past rulings have never entirely prevented government from regulating free speech, the Internet should be treated differently because it is distinct from other means of expression. If there is demand, content must be created to ensure that the needs of viewers are met, whether or not it’s questionable material. It is up to the programmer to decide what type of content is appropriate for the target demographic and if there are reservations, content should be examined and approved on a case-by-case basis. This is the only way to ensure the benefit of both programming provider and viewer.
Allowing Internet programming to maintain its freedom of expression is the only way to truly provide viewers with the content they want, when they want it. No limits should be placed on creativity. This is what Revolution IPTV intends to ensure. When limits are set on Internet programming, we the viewers grow further from personalization, and without this, entertainment falls short of its full potential.
By Courtney Griffin
Revolution IPTV
griffin@revolutioniptv.com
www.revolutioniptv.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
