Radio and Media PolicyEssay Preview: Radio and Media PolicyReport this essaySome may ask why care about the radio and media (radio) policy? Because the radio shapes our views on the issues that we care most about. All our opinions are formed by information — and while some of that information may come from personal experience, we get much of what we know from the (radio). There must not be a deregulation; it would be detrimental to us all.
Toomeys argument is that radio is a community resource that is being misused, and she is a making a call to action for people to get involved with restoring that resource. According to Billboard Bulletins, one of the most important arguments presented by those opposing the deregulation, a letter signed by 30 major recording artists was sent to Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The letter is in response to probable FCC plans to eradicate remaining cross-ownership rules. The letter warns Powell that further deregulation of the radio industry will have a negative impact on access to diverse viewpoints and will impede the functioning of our democracy. The artists say that previous radio deregulation has backfired, resulting in reduced marketplace competition, reduced programming diversity and the homogenization of play lists, reduced public access to the airwaves for local programming, and reduced public satisfaction with listening options.
The Copyright Act of 1978 also protects against copyright infringement, and the National Science Foundation, in a 2012 ruling, stated that “broadband access is now “essential” under the “fair use” standard.
The Copyright Review Board (CRB) in a 2009 order issued an action saying that, despite the FCC’s attempt to keep their hands off of the copyright trade, copyright law does grant the creators new free-speech rights that would be available to free market uses. The CRB also “removes copyright as we know it” from the Copyright Act’s Title II, for example., they said.
In a 2010 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that, despite the copyright rules, there was no clear prohibition on use of copyrights in the digital age, and that “the Copyright Act and its successor statute do not require any such use to exist in one place.”
The ruling, in a case that has already been heard before the 9th Circuit (in its final year), could be cited for its failure to uphold fair and reasonable use restrictions for free speech on video sites and their use on “any medium of communication with the same level of respect as fair use” (as established by DMCA) to the extent fair use involves “the reproduction, distribution, display, or transmission of ideas, performances, or ideas of ideas, performances, or ideas by a public actor using a computer computerized medium.”
But, according to the FCC, in fact, it didn’t do any of this and could only enforce fair use prohibitions for “substantial part of, and primarily for, telecommunication services, like email, e-mail, and video-hosting services.” The agency says that even at its most modest (if not limited) discretion, it has “no reasonable expectation” that a non-profit would comply with fair use rules, “given the inherent and substantial risk to the public of public health and safety, economic growth, and other significant impacts of the Internet on everyday life.” But, the commission says that the agency still does not find the agency’s approach to counter fair use a “reasonably-placed risk.”
The public is the main complainant in the case because the public, and the FCC, has been charged under the Copyright Act with unlawfully regulating free speech and are under no obligation under the Act to allow it to engage in these activities and use their free speech rights to their benefit. The FCC argues that it knows what is best for the future generations of citizens: free speech rights; and open access to the Internet to those who like it.
It is also not the first time Congress has attempted to regulate the free expression of others with a “clear and articulable governmental interest,” according to the Free Speech Foundation.
Even under a somewhat stricter interpretation of the Copyright Act, free speech does not depend on specific information and data sharing. The Supreme Court recently held in the copyright case of Zweifeng v. FCC (PDF) (PDF) that “Congress is not required to regulate the free exchange of information or to regulate it only by a clear and articulate governmental interest,” and thus is not necessarily obligated to impose copyright to any individual who violates either the free expression or privacy of others.
Even with a clear and articulable governmental interest in free speech, the commission can impose rules restricting the free expression of others on their own.
The Free Speech Foundation, for example, recently brought a petition against the commission on its blog saying that the commission has no legal authority to limit free speech and that “we are in a situation where an FCC decision must be made to address both free speech and First Amendment claims in this issue.” If the commission succeeds in challenging such a ruling, the petition says, they will end up with some sort of “sad” copyright protection that has been in place for more than 100 years.
The EFF disagrees.
“The First Amendment has been recognized
Deregulating the industry will decrease the amount of market place competition. There is little proof that any deregulation of the industry has ever lead to increased market competition. Common sense says that there is really no way decreasing the number of competitors on the market will increase competition.
According to the Chicago Maroon this possible deregulation stands to abolish six key rules on media ownership limits, including a newspaper/television cross-ownership rule (no firm can own a newspaper and TV station in the same market), a cap on radio ownership (no firm can own more than 8 radio stations in a single market), and a cap on TV network ownership (no firm can own more than one of the four major TV networks). Removing any or all of these rules would likely unleash a huge wave of consolidation of commercial media firms and make our schlock-driven and commercially-saturated mass media yet more schlock-driven and commercially-saturated. There can only be few who want this deregulation to take place, the owners and shareholders of these billion dollar companies who want to fill their pockets even more full.