Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/18/2005, 3:39 PM

The Beeb should have told Hollywood to stuff it.


farss wrote on 5/18/2005, 4:03 PM
Read the second page, they did just that and Hollywood came back cap in hand.
Bob.
Grazie wrote on 5/18/2005, 11:56 PM


Hey Guys! You really shoud NOT be surprised. The BEEB is a real PSB-ster in the REAL sense of the word. It is the nearest thing to a Charity with "similar" Aims and Objectives that charity bodies have - here in the UK.

The BEEB knows it has to do to "engage" its Users . . yes the BBC has "users"! At the centre of its activities is the Royal Charter . .. It HAS to engage its users, otherwise it looses its position and "contract" with the Country. The Annual Licence Fee? I'd pay twice as much.

Please read these pages . . . I'm very proud of the BBC ( or afffectionately called by them that knows - "Auntie" )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/

Best regards,

Grazie


HHaynes wrote on 5/19/2005, 4:26 AM
A bit behind the times, eh?


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050506/tc_nm/media_broadcastflag_dc

Appeals court tosses FCC's broadcast flag rule
By Peter Kaplan Fri May 6, 6:37 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a
Federal Communications Commission rule designed to limit people from sending copies of digital television programs over the Internet.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the
FCC had "exceeded the scope of its delegated authority" with the 2003 rule, which would have required TV set manufacturers to start using new anti-piracy technology by July 1.
apit34356 wrote on 5/19/2005, 5:39 AM
FCC guidelines were in trouble since the beginning because their charter does not give them power to regulated content on the internet. Many argue that the regulations controlling wire communications,(phones), automately applied. But the internet was develop by the DOD outside the FCC and with no input from the FCC concerning operations of the network. FCC has input about the hardware in general use but not about content.

This is why hollywood and the networks are busy in the D.C. with congress the last 6 years, trying to get special laws on the books.
craftech wrote on 5/19/2005, 8:32 AM
I love the BBC. If it weren't for them, I wouldn't have a clue as to what is going on in the United States, especially when it comes to political agendas here. Unfortunately for the United States, there has been a steady relaxation in media ownership regulations which started with the Reagan Administration when there were 50 individual large media corporations to the present bottom of the barrel with only FIVE companies owning everything and shrinking.

Any attempts at reinstituting the laws that at one time 'required' a minimum number of media companies, in order to ensure diversified and non-influenced news reporting have been soundly squashed by our political leaders. That's why I have to laugh when people call the media in the United States "liberal". They are either too young to remember "liberal" media or too senile.

John
Laurence wrote on 5/19/2005, 8:37 AM
Thank you John! That's exactly how I feel, except that people give me blank stares like I've lost my grip entirely when I try to explain it. Well said!
Grazie wrote on 5/19/2005, 8:42 AM
" . . except that people give me blank stares . . " oh yes . . oh yes . ..
rmack350 wrote on 5/19/2005, 6:06 PM
Liberal? Our media? You mean this type of liberal?

a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

I think the media is under a lot of pressure here in the states to not act that way. Evidently it isn't fair to conservatives.

Rob Mack