Many media industries have been subject to waves of regulation and deregulation over their histories. The internet has complicated the issue, as it is global in scope and does not necessarily obey national borders. Choose a specific media industry and develop an argument in relation to how the internet has complicated regulation and/or governance of the industry.
Introduction
The debate concerning the issue of media deregulation and regulation takes place following diverse approaches deployed in different nations to address the subject, especially considering that it applies within a given jurisdiction. This claim suggests that what may be termed as an acceptable film for a TV broadcast in one nation may be prohibited in another. However, the Internet has complicated the issue of film regulation since it is global in scope and it does not necessarily obey national borders. This paper narrows down to the film industry to argue that although the Internet has eased the way media content is transmitted, its global nature has been an obstacle that many nations have to battle with in their media regulation/governance endeavors.
How the Internet Has Complicated Regulation/Governance in the Film Industry
The Motion Picture Association of America (US MPAA) is a typical case example of a regulatory body that deals with films broadcasted through television. The organization is voluntary, with the mandate of rating various films released by different distributors. Rating forms an important tool deployed in the regulation of films that are shown on broadcast television. The TV parental gridline receives backing from the Federal Communication Commission to help in regulating films that are aired on broadcast television. However, amid such regulation, materials that are considered inappropriate for broadcast still reach the audience through the Internet. In today’s technologically advanced world, the fact that the Internet can be accessed from mobile phones and other inexpensive personal computers following the affordability of broadband and other forms of Internet-connected devices renders the regulation on films aired on broadcast TV ineffective.
Internet diffusion has given rise to horizontal interactive communication networks. The networks connect both global and local societies in real time. As Castells reveals, the networked society is characterized by “the global web of horizontal communication networks that include the multimodal exchange of interactive messages from many to many both synchronous and asynchronous” (246). As a result, following the convergence of mobile communication coupled with the Internet that is accompanied by broadband diffusion, people have acquired an immense communication power, both within and beyond jurisdictional borders, hence making it almost impossible to control contents that are worth including in films. Hence, the Internet has enabled them to reach all realms of global society’s social lives. Using the power of the Internet and its borderless traits, people have developed their own communication networks, for instance, YouTube and other channels, which allow the sharing of films and clips globally, irrespective of the content. This situation has eroded the possibility of regulating films in today’s Internet-connected society.
While the regulation of films on broadcast television has successfully prevented access to inappropriate contents such as sexually explicit materials, whether legal or illegal, the Internet has complicated the matter. Convergence characterizes the current trend in the media industry. Regulation and Censorship supports this assertion by noting, “multiple or bundled packages of services such as telephone, the Internet, and television are provided to a market using shared infrastructure, for instance, fiber optics.” For example, Google fiber deploys optic cables to deliver the Internet at overwhelmingly high speeds compared to a broadband connection. Through the shared infrastructure, materials that are not allowed to be disseminated through the broadcast television would still reach the audience through the Internet.
On the global context, jurisdictions recognize the difficulties of film regulation in the era of Internet technology. Digital technology has altered what has been traditionally understood as ‘media’. The Internet has now altered and opened a new debate on the concept of media regulation. In three decades ago, before the massive spread of the Internet, the film industry was subjected to massive censorship and regulation (Regulation and Censorship). This situation explains why contemporary films, including the Saw Franchise, could not be certified for TV broadcast. The Internet marks a transition into desensitization where audiences are extremely exposed to saturated media. This Internet-based cultural and/or social shift has even received the audience of regulatory authorities such as BBFC, PCC, and Ofcom. However, the bodies are unable to respond swiftly following the difficulties in the regulation of the film industry.
A classical case of BBFC illustrates well the regulation and governance challenges in the film industry in the Internet era. Although the organization rarely imposes bans on films, in 2012, it banned the film Human Centipede 2 (Regulation and Censorship). This decision was attributed to the argument that its original script portrayed obscene acts or sexual violence. However, the organization offered its director an option of eliminating some key scenes and reframing certain shots that supported the ban. However, there was high public interest in the unedited version. People resorted to a massive search of the uncut version via the Internet. Despite director Tom’s success in removing some sections of the film, the original version can still be accessed via the Internet. This situation renders the regulation of the film ineffective since consumers have a choice to view both versions over the Internet, despite the witnessed success in the regulation of Human Centipede 2 in broadcast television.
Conclusion
Through media convergence, film content that could only be scheduled for broadcast in the past has acquired other means of transmission via a plethora of different systems, including mobile phones and/or the Internet, as opposed to the earlier airwave dissemination. While films aired through broadcast television would have to follow specific decency guidelines, broadcasting regulators only have the mandate of controlling what is filmed through other means. However, they are unable to regulate and/or control materials transmitted through an Internet-enabled shared platform. Hence, despite the efforts to regulate films that are broadcasted via televisions, it is now complicated to achieve regulatory goals in the contemporary Internet-based economy.
Works Cited
Castells, Manuel. “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society.” International Journal of Communication, vol. 1, no. 1, 2007, pp. 238-266.
“Regulation and Censorship.” BFI, 2014.