Discussion in 'Offtopic Discussions' started by Klumpen, Apr 12, 2017.
Thanks to our dear Landesmedienanstalt:
As far as I can tell, that is a law that only applies if at least 500 viewers can potentially be reached and also just in cases where there is an extended programming involved. This is an old law, many youtube channels from Germany have bought a license in the past. This message just concerns one channel (pietsmietTV <- notice the TV in their channel name) and they are broadcasting 24/7 and have thousands of viewers. Also the license does not cost 10.000€ but can cost up to that amount. The lowest amount being 1000€. Still a lot of money, but this whole issue doesn't apply to all streamers!
To clarify: This does not concern streamers in general. This is a different case and the law only applies to channels which offer a 24/7 programming akin to TV programming.
Also this license is valid for 4-10 years depending on the pricing etc...
Willkommen im Neuland.
Really interesting is the question of why they have done a press release prior to informing pietsmiet... and that the CEO of Germany's most obnoxious crap TV station is head of the committee
@Klumpen could you please change the title of the thread? Noone ruled anything, the law is from 1987. Also they have just singled out one channel (which is bad enough) but the law does not concern most live streamers.
That's not really anything new, that's been like that for longer than I've worked in that business.
We had to get licenses for broadcasts for wider audiences as well when we did some live streaming (e.g. of hockey events).
It shouldn't be hard to cap a stream at 500 viewers though - and if someone needs more than that, he probably also makes enough money.
*shrug* as stated above they send 24/7, Piet has made a statement that it's not a big deal.
I'm curious about the fact that the Landesmedienanstalt, as stated in the link in the OP, have admitted it's an archaic law that needs adapting to modern circumstance. That's a very diplomatic thing to say. Does that mean less restrictive ruling, or a change of law that allows targeting a bigger group of streamers? I.e. why not get some of that youtube gold people keep making?
i panicked for a second, but the few german streamers (well, streaming group or whatever) i watch already have that license but now i'm curious why that law is there in the first place
...most likely to fund the Landesmedienanstalt.
Well, if there were no law I doubt those streamers would be licensed already. In the UK you only need a license to broadcast in the radio spectrum (or to own certain breeds of dog, or to fish in many waters etc.) - nothing to make a broadcast via the set of pipes known as the internet. As far as I know, none of the UK streamers I watched are licensed for such broadcasts, and indeed what sort of license would they apply for? At least this law mean there are licenses for streamers to buy if they want to
I think Germany is the only country in Europe which where this licence sh* is needet.
Even Austria, where the bureaucratic madness is even more extreme, there isn't a streaming licence needed (at moment).
The interesting thing is, that the whole "All streamer need a licence" thing is started from the new head of the Landesmedienanstalt which is coming from RTL.
RTL owns manny trash TV-channels.
Because people got tired of the shitty TV program, they stopped watching it and switched to live streams.
It looks like, RTL is trying to stop people from leaving through the way of killing the new competitors.
The funny thing is, that the rules could get interpretet that way, that everyone have to get this licence, including the big bureaucratic costs.
At the moment, only one big streamer got targeted, because that way the medial attention is much higher.
But they indicated to attack much more streamer.
There where attempts from politics to clear the whole situation.
But the problem is that there is not one Landesmedienanstalt, there are many competing agencies which have to concur when the rules get changed.
And that is next to impossible.
Sounds like the eBook story:
That feels like an important detail to the story. I can't imagine this particular brand of cash grabbing, trash hurling* private media doing anything for the sake of correctness edit: without being on the receiving end of a major backlash.
*) I was going to link RTL's 2011 gamescom coverage, which amounted to an insulting report on gamers/gaming culture. Two subtitled videos formerly found on YT are now curiously unavailable.
The summary of the video:
"Everyone who is playing games is a potential amok runner / terrorist which don't wash himselfe, stink, is stupide, shut in and not able to talk to girls"
The funny thing that thime is the response of the Landesmedienanstalt after theire server went down after the imense protest-notifikation.
They said that they couldn't see anny insulting passages and the protest wasn't that big"
The RTL-head added his comment after the huge protest wave that the stupide gamer should shut up, because all what was in the video is true.
I followed that case because I watch PietSmiet regulary. He explained the case in some Videos and he also had the opportunity to meet some politicians who also confirmed that the current broadcasting license laws are old and need some serious overhaul. Let's hope they find a solution that really fit into the 21. Century.
Nope, we in Poland have something more hilarious: if you have a blog - you have to pay for license like for newspaper printing. License for press are banned in constitution? Who cares!
Of course this is used only if some website is inconvenient for government. Or if law offices need more money and want to pay them for "settlement" that they won't file you to court about lack of license. Between different court sentences there are differences even in the thing is blog a press or not.
And it won't change as it's too handy for politicians, companies and marketing.
2013 - exaclty. Ages ago in the Neulands. Let's hope!
Can you link a resource? I was trying to find out more about this, but all I get in English or German is about driver's licenses.
It will be a bit hard for non-Polish resource. I'll try to find something which translates well with Google Translate:
Here are sentences that it's press because it was handy for government: 1, 2
The most funny thing in this Duszniki case is that the accused man was previously accused for publication and distribution of anti-communist press in 1980s, when we had a martial state in Poland.
Not a court verdict, but summing-up: 3
Now years passed, government changed and knowledge about opposition party became needed for current party's propaganda. Charges against one blogger have been dropped. But he started to write about current oficess scams too. Here we go again: 4
To sum up, looking as years pass, this looks totally normal to me. In mid-1990s I paid for Internet access, I got a shell account with this nice 10MB for /public_html. In late 1990s, I got FTP account, and I could publish on any license I wanted. In mid-2000s providers said "f...k you" and now you have to pay for publishing space as well as use (at least officially) a true name in registration. If not, "social media" will take care of my license and use it e.g. in advertisement. That's because Internet comes to a state in which meatware known previously as user is the processed product, and true users are supplying advertisements hidden in "content". Because "content" is used only to hide advertisement, it's not needed for it to be high-quality. Then any means are good to stop products from competing against "content".
Interesting read, thank you. Apparently this small town mayor made some mistakes and tried abusing the law to silence criticism by Radke. Justice is such a fickle concept.
Separate names with a comma.