There is a lot of press today about China's new regulation which appears to decree that only state-owned or state-controlled companies can show or stream online video. As usual, there's the literal reading, then there's the reading of the tea leaves.
Geoffrey Fowler at the Wall Street Journal has a solid story. As Andy Greenberg points out on Forbes.com, its unclear whether the rules will actually be enforced, or how, or whether they are a "shot across the bow."
Note that Marbridge Consulting published an English translation of the rules on Dec. 29th. The original Chinese is here.
For in-depth and informed analysis of the situation, be sure to read today's piece by the China Media Project's David Bandurski: Internet censors move to quiet debate on new online video and audio regulations. He reports that many Chinese journalists and news editors are strongly opposed to the new regulations, quoting two strongly worded editorials in Chinese newspapers (one of them already censored). With so much open opposition, chances are that the regulation is likely to get watered down in the way it's enforced.
Also be sure to read this analysis by Danwei's Jeremy Goldkorn, who feels that much of the Western media coverage has been guilty of "gross exaggeration." He agrees with Kaiser Kuo who wrote in late December: "My gut take on this is that it’s more about holding these video sharing and P2P companies responsible for naughty content than about trying to shake- or shut down the industry."
Reading Marbridge's summary of the regulations, it seems that the regulation's main thrust is threefold: First is to regulate all kinds of streaming video sites - some of them live - that have popped up with all kinds of content that you'll never see on officially sanctioned TV. Second is to regulate P2P video sharing which as Kaiser points out has a lot to do with porn. Third relates to Web2.0 "user-generated content" sites: Chinese YouTube clones like Tudou, Youku.com, 56.com. The regulations seem intended to create more uniform standards for censorship on Chinese online video-sharing sites, combined with a more uniform enforcement and "reporting" structure with SARFT (State Authority for Radio, Film, and Television) as the main government body to which these sites must answer.
All video sites hosted inside China will have to obtain licenses from SARFT and the MII (Ministry of Information Industry) in order to be legal. Thus it becomes easier to shut them down if they violate the terms of their licenses which would include stipulations about content control. The regulations also state that video sites are required to have either state ownership or state investment - however my hunch is that this element will likely be met with creative work-arounds. I would imagine that the larger companies with foreign investment and established brand names will still be able to operate as long as they make adjustments to the way in which their ownership and investment structures look on paper, obtain the required licenses, and adhere to the required censorship systems.
Its not as if China's video sharing sites haven't already been censoring content. All the established ones have been employing whole divisions of people whose job it is to monitor their services for objectionable content (porn and politically sensitive material), taking down anything that could cause trouble for their company. As John Kennedy of Global Voices reported during the Yilishen "ant farmer" protests, a lot of the protest videos uploaded onto Chinese sites got taken down quite quickly after being uploaded. Some people took it upon themselves to download and re-upload these protest videos to YouTube before they disappeared. This is all part of China's rapidly-evolving and increasingly sophisticated Web 2.0 censorship system, in which the private sector is expected to do much of the heavy lifting when it comes to censoring user-generated content. For more on how this system works see my recent blog posts Censorship 2.0 and Is Web 2.0 a wash for free speech in China?
Most press reports have been asking about YouTube. It is hosted outside of China and is thus subject to the whims of the Great Firewall. It has been blocked before, it can be blocked again. The only way for YouTube to avoid being blocked in China is to do a deal similar to the one they did for Google.cn, their Chinese search engine hosted inside China. and agree to censor content. So far, while Google agreed to censor its search engine, it has drawn the line at user-generated content and opted not to create a censored version of Blogspot.com, which tends to be blocked in China. If they plan to be consistent, they would refuse to censor YouTube as well... and just put up with being blocked. It will be interesting to see how they decide to proceed.
Political, thought provoking videos will be the victims of this censorship. All Communists must fight this ruling.
Let me tell the world how access to free information made me go from anti-China to a pro-China.
Before the internet days, I was anti-China. In a sense, I believed that Communists are terrorists, out to kill off all the religions, they do not elect their leaders, but their leaders are all dictators and that 2000 students died on Tiananmen Square in 1989 - crushed by tanks.
These perception were "programmed" into my mind based on the mass media that I had access to - newspapers, books etc. etc.. from both Western and Malaysian sources.
I can go to the library to do more research on these subject to see if what I read is in fact the truth, but that means taking 2 buses each way - PJ to Chow Kit, and transfer from Chow Kit to the National library. Back then, only the National library of Malaysia had the type of resources to tackle these type of research for which I have access to. So of course, I never bothered to verify what I read. It required too much energy.
The rule was this: If the source of the news is Western, then chances are that it is reliable because it is not censored. If the source of the news is local Malaysian, then be careful, because that's what the politicians who control the press wants you to know, which may not be the truth.
But thanks to access to internet, I was able to later verify the type of information that was fed to me.
I found out based on my own research and reading of China's constitution that it is a democracy. That freedom of religion is a right of every citizen. And that elections are held every 5 years. All these is contrary to what I have been reading in the presses about China. What have they been feeding me??
And when it came to youtube, let me share what is one of the most important thing that I debunked, and that is NOBODY died on June 4th 89 at Tiananmen Square.
All the talks about thousands of students crushed by tanks on Tiananmen Square is fiction, thanks to youtube, I know this now.
See:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=igsW5yQ6428
at minute 5 minute 57 seconds.
Here student leader Hui Dejian categorically denies that any body died at Tiananmen on June 4 protest.
so I hope that anybody who supports the government's action would after reading my experience with youtube would turn around and not support it.
What is important is not censorship, but to have a generation of critical readers - who will ask questions and not blindly believe what they read.
Yes, there are lots of lies out there. For example, come this Olympics, I can guarantee you that when the Western TV crew turn their camera on Tiananmen Square, they will regurgitate their 20 year old propaganda story : "Thousands died here on Tiananmen on June 4 fighting for freedom". They are journalists so by now they should know that nobody died there, but they will withhold this from their viewers. They will feed lies again.
And we can only fight such lies by being critical about what we read. Censorship is not a solution. Critical thinking is. Ask questions, do not believe blindly.
Posted by: mahathir_fan | January 05, 2008 at 03:27 AM
Thanks for hosting the blog :-)
"The regulations also state that
video sites are required to have
either state ownership or state
investment - however my hunch is
that this element will likely be met
with creative work-arounds."
The Marburg translation
explicitly says "majority government stake".
What Bloomberg reported. Not sure
how startups can work around that.
Posted by: Ajoy K Thamattoor | January 05, 2008 at 04:24 AM
"let me share what is one of the most important thing that I debunked, and that is NOBODY died on June 4th 89 at Tiananmen Square"
Magnificent, I believe that Mahathir Fan has just made himself the front runner to take the inaugural Ma Lik Meat Pancake Memorial Award.
"I can guarantee you that when the Western TV crew turn their camera on Tiananmen Square, they will regurgitate their 20 year old propaganda story"
Sadly, Mat Fan, you really need to do a bit more of that research you're so fond of. Far from the major Western news organisations wanting to incriminate China for crimes against its own people, they'll be going all out to persuade their audience that the CCP is now as harmless and cuddly as a baby panda. Profit is everything now, and neither Murdoch or Time Warner are going to let a few pesky squashed students (who didn't even die...) get in the way of their pursuit of the biggest untapped market on the planet.
Posted by: barnychan | January 07, 2008 at 07:23 AM
"
"All the talks about thousands of students crushed by tanks on Tiananmen Square is fiction, thanks to youtube, I know this now.
See:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=igsW5yQ6428
at minute 5 minute 57 seconds.
Here student leader Hui Dejian categorically denies that any body died at Tiananmen on June 4 protest."
Magnificent, I believe that Mahathir Fan has just made himself the front runner to take the inaugural Ma Lik Meat Pancake Memorial Award.
"
Oh please...don't flatter me. You should give the award to Chinese dissident and Tiananmen Square protest leader Hou Dejian for that Ma Lik award. He's the one who went on video to give that testimony. I'm just the messenger.
My point is that the internet should remain free and when we have access to it, we can then do our own research and not be so gullible like how we were in the past. Censorship and blocking will only lead the people to be distrustful of their own government and subject them to be more gullible to foreign media.
Posted by: mahathir_fan | January 08, 2008 at 11:07 AM
"Oh please...don't flatter me. You should give the award to Chinese dissident and Tiananmen Square protest leader Hou Dejian for that Ma Lik award"
No, the judging committee (Hu Jintao, his glamorous assistant Regina Ip, Chi-Chi the panda, and Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad) are agreed that you should receive the award.
"My point is that the internet should remain free and when we have access to it, we can then do our own research and not be so gullible like how we were in the past"
Having followed your advice and "researched" a number of controversial issues via the medium of Youtube, I've cast off my past gullibility and have come to the following conclusions:
#1 The earth, far from being the spinning globe of popular (mis-)perception, is flat.
#2 China respects human rights and positively encourages an atmosphere of free and open debate.
#3 The twin towers were brought down by alien space ships.
#4 Ant farming guarantees riches beyond your wildest dreams.
#5 The moon is made of the finest roquefort cheese.
#6 All members of the Politburo Standing Committee of the CCP have full heads of natural jet black hair. Not one of them has the need to resort to a toupée or dye.
From now on I'll never believe the lies of the Western media machine without first checking with Youtube (prop. Google Inc)...
Posted by: barnychan | January 09, 2008 at 01:50 AM
To mahathir_fan :
Nobody died in TianAnMen in 1989??? where did you read this lie??? so many people i heard, even someone i knew personally, lost their lives in that crackdown. Have you ever read about the TianAnMen Mothers story? They are still fighting for justice for their children they lost in the June of 1989.
Just like Malasia press, when you read information sources from PR China you need to be on the alert that the official sites contain only lies!
---From a Chinese
Posted by: A Chinese | January 09, 2008 at 11:41 AM
That's not what I or anybody said. What is said is that nobody died AT Tiananmen Square but they die around it under different circumstances. The Tiananmen Square myth is that tanks came into the square and when the students refused to leave, the tanks crushed them underneath. The death told according to this myth is in the region of 2000 people. This did not happen.
See:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=igsW5yQ6428
at minute 5 minute 57 seconds.
Here student leader Hui Dejian categorically denies that any body died at Tiananmen on June 4 protest.
My own believe is that the official figure for the number of deaths released by the Chinese government on this incident is indeed in the right ballpark. It is about 300 or so. You can check with Tiananmen Mothers and see if this is about right.
I recommend watching the youtube series I linked above called gates of heavenly peace. I think it is one of the most informative one on this. I have seen a few others, but they tend to be overly dressed to "influence" you rather than to "inform" you. Its only negative is that it did not present interviews from the government side of things.
Posted by: mahathir_fan | January 10, 2008 at 02:20 AM
mahathir_fan - Get REAL.
Instead of running your mouth - move to China for 6 months.
Most people who write here, have a lot of personal experience - not you of course. You know better than anyone else. You don't need your own eyes. You know the truth - dont you.
Once again - instead of blasting away your FUD - try living there.
Posted by: DisBelief | January 31, 2008 at 01:27 PM