Paying To Blog? (Updated)
No, not "Paid To Blog" but "Paying To Blog".
As taken from "One Shot At A Time": Philippines To Require License To Post Content. Her post:
Link: http://mikeabundo.com/2009/01/21/philippines-content-license/
Kaloka naman ito. There's this proposal that requires for one to have a license before creating online content -- text, media objects, you name it.
Wow. Nagpapatawa ba sila? That's like saying every Filipino who has Friendster, Facebook, and blogs should shell out P6000 annually. Oh, wait! That's the point, isn't it?
I've read the proposal (December 22, 2008 draft date) from the National Telecommunications Commission and its definition is quite broad. For example, under "Content", they have this:
refers to all types of contents delivered to/accessed by the users/subscribers such as music, ring tones, logos, video clips, etc.
Under "Information" they have this:
refers to all types of information delivered to/accessed by the users/subscribers, e.g. road traffic information, financial information, visa application information, etc.
Under "Contents Developers" they have this:
are persons or entities creating contents
The filing fee is P300.00. The annual fee is P6,000.00.
Bloggers can fall under "Contents Developers", since bloggers by nature are "creating contents". In fact, they create all kinds of "contents".
Under "Contents" and "Information", none of the specifics mentioned there fall under what most bloggers do, except for the "etc." at the end, which can mean practically anything. A blogger though who copies-and-pastes "financial" or "visa application" information taken from, say, a newspaper website, would surely fall under this. Given that I'm thinking of bringing PGS online so as to reach a wider audience, I would fall under the "etc.", since I'll be providing stories by Pinoys. And like I mentioned, all bloggers, even if they're just blogging about what happened to them during the day, are already providing "Information" and "Contents", and are "Contents Developers" by default.
Am I reading this right? Are all bloggers and website owners going to be required to register and pay the annual fee just to blog? Whoah. I suppose the National Telecommunications Commission is trying to cover all Pinoys who post content on the web. How will they enforce this, not just locally, but on Pinoys blogging from overseas as well? By the proposal's broad definitions, even updating a social networking site (like Facebook, Friendster, and the like) can be considered "providing content", right? Your Facebook or Friendster page is your page, after all, as long as you follow the regulations of the social-networking site; that's the deal.
Here's the post from The Mike Abundo Effect, the link to which was provided by One Shot At A Time.
I'm attending a hearing tomorrow on a proposal by the Philippines' National Telecommunications Commission that will require licenses for online content developers.
Yes, you read that right. The Philippine government wants to require licenses for people to create and post content online. Under the proposal's extremely broad definition of a content developer, you would need a license just to comment on this post.
This is the most unenforceable proposal I have ever seen. What are they going to do, require five million Filipino Friendster users to get a license before posting pictures? This proposal clearly comes from the outdated mindset that only corporations can develop content.
It's a public hearing, so feel free to join me. If nothing else, it'll be good for a laugh.
Update: It seems a flood of interest in this proposal has brought down the NTC site. For your information, the public hearing's set for 2pm Thursday, GMT+8 at the NTC Executive Conference Room, 3rd Floor, NTC Building, BIR Road, East Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
Updated: There's a comment from Marking Out over at the PGS Multiply mirror which explains that only those sites which work "for compensation" are covered. That's a relief! Click on this link to read his full comment. He has also made a blog entry, "On Blogging And Regulation...", further expounding on the topic.
As taken from "One Shot At A Time": Philippines To Require License To Post Content. Her post:
Link: http://mikeabundo.com/2009/01/21/philippines-content-license/
Kaloka naman ito. There's this proposal that requires for one to have a license before creating online content -- text, media objects, you name it.
Wow. Nagpapatawa ba sila? That's like saying every Filipino who has Friendster, Facebook, and blogs should shell out P6000 annually. Oh, wait! That's the point, isn't it?
I've read the proposal (December 22, 2008 draft date) from the National Telecommunications Commission and its definition is quite broad. For example, under "Content", they have this:
refers to all types of contents delivered to/accessed by the users/subscribers such as music, ring tones, logos, video clips, etc.
Under "Information" they have this:
refers to all types of information delivered to/accessed by the users/subscribers, e.g. road traffic information, financial information, visa application information, etc.
Under "Contents Developers" they have this:
are persons or entities creating contents
The filing fee is P300.00. The annual fee is P6,000.00.
Bloggers can fall under "Contents Developers", since bloggers by nature are "creating contents". In fact, they create all kinds of "contents".
Under "Contents" and "Information", none of the specifics mentioned there fall under what most bloggers do, except for the "etc." at the end, which can mean practically anything. A blogger though who copies-and-pastes "financial" or "visa application" information taken from, say, a newspaper website, would surely fall under this. Given that I'm thinking of bringing PGS online so as to reach a wider audience, I would fall under the "etc.", since I'll be providing stories by Pinoys. And like I mentioned, all bloggers, even if they're just blogging about what happened to them during the day, are already providing "Information" and "Contents", and are "Contents Developers" by default.
Am I reading this right? Are all bloggers and website owners going to be required to register and pay the annual fee just to blog? Whoah. I suppose the National Telecommunications Commission is trying to cover all Pinoys who post content on the web. How will they enforce this, not just locally, but on Pinoys blogging from overseas as well? By the proposal's broad definitions, even updating a social networking site (like Facebook, Friendster, and the like) can be considered "providing content", right? Your Facebook or Friendster page is your page, after all, as long as you follow the regulations of the social-networking site; that's the deal.
Here's the post from The Mike Abundo Effect, the link to which was provided by One Shot At A Time.
I'm attending a hearing tomorrow on a proposal by the Philippines' National Telecommunications Commission that will require licenses for online content developers.
Yes, you read that right. The Philippine government wants to require licenses for people to create and post content online. Under the proposal's extremely broad definition of a content developer, you would need a license just to comment on this post.
This is the most unenforceable proposal I have ever seen. What are they going to do, require five million Filipino Friendster users to get a license before posting pictures? This proposal clearly comes from the outdated mindset that only corporations can develop content.
It's a public hearing, so feel free to join me. If nothing else, it'll be good for a laugh.
Update: It seems a flood of interest in this proposal has brought down the NTC site. For your information, the public hearing's set for 2pm Thursday, GMT+8 at the NTC Executive Conference Room, 3rd Floor, NTC Building, BIR Road, East Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
Updated: There's a comment from Marking Out over at the PGS Multiply mirror which explains that only those sites which work "for compensation" are covered. That's a relief! Click on this link to read his full comment. He has also made a blog entry, "On Blogging And Regulation...", further expounding on the topic.
posted by pgenrestories at 4:39 AM
7 Comments:
Here’s how the proposal defines content developers:
Contents Developers – are persons or entities creating contents.
That means anyone who creates content, paid or otherwise.
Hi, Mike! Yeah, that's what got my attention too, at first. The whole proposal is pretty broad and vague, and can have a number of interpretations. May I refer you to the PGS Multiply Mirror (the link is in the body of the post, near the bottom)? People smarter than me have laid out their arguments regarding this proposal, and have stated their case on it. This could help you in case you're going to the NTC to talk it over with those who wrote the proposal. TY!
Hmm, on that part of "for compensation", it just struck me: if I, as a small business owner, were to put up a website on a site that allows free hosting advertising my company's services, telephone number, email address, snail mail address, etc., then I would be advertising for compensation, wouldn't I? Not direct compensation, as I wouldn't be getting any money out of the site in a straight line, but the site is up for the purpose of letting people know about my company, who would then call, and give me business. That's kinda' like compensation, and I can see the NTC using the proposal to require me to register with them. That doesn't seem fair, given the free nature of the internet.
Hi, Mike.
After reading the details of the proposal, I may have to disagree with your comment above. The full statement reads:
"Contents Providers – are persons or entities offering and providing contents to the public for compensation through the networks, systems and/or facilities of authorized networks, systems and/or facilities providers."
The proposal does indeed describe contents providers as you have stipulated, but this part goes on to mention the "for compensation" portion.
However, it doesn't address the concern I brought up in my comment above.
The proposal could use a rewrite, more streamlining, to make things clear.
Anyway, I refer you to all the links mentioned above. Like I said, smarter people have left their level-headed, steady comments on the matter.
The definition of content providers mentions compensation. The definition of content developers does not.
Hi again, Mike.
I think that's why the proposal needs a clearer rewrite.
If one were to stretch it further, a blogger can claim to be either a content provider or a content developer, or both, and then take action from there. One person told me that his reading of it is that when the proposal defines content developers, it means the content developers of content providers (which to my mind, opens up another can of worms).
In any case, the proposal needs more work and a rewrite, I think, so as to prevent misunderstandings and ambiguities like these. Whoever wrote this proposal clearly was not prepared for the effects of his vague writing. Do check out the PGS Multiply mirror too. I think someone familiar with the law has raised other valid points, some of which have not yet been raised by you or other bloggers.
Thanks very much for your time.
that's the lamest thing i've ever heard!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home