Essex Audiovisual 2010

LW660:Freedom of Expression, Privacy and the Media: Towards a European media law?

2011-06-13T03:01:00.000-07:00

LW660:Freedom of Expression, Privacy and the Media: Towards a European media law?: "The European Parliament has considered an academic paper on privacy and FoE, which concludes : 'I strongly believe that it is imperative to ..."

ATVOD: over-paid, over-regulating over here?

2011-04-27T10:37:00.000-07:00

The ATVOD funding scandal rumbles on, with the Periodical Publishers Association stating: "essentially digital businesses are being unfairly penalised because Ofcom designated ATVOD as the co‐regulator when, it seems, it may have been better for Ofcom to administer the content rules derived from the Directive (and implemented into the Act)."

Sun TV and other newspaper websites held to be TV-like services

2011-04-03T08:55:00.000-07:00

Ofcom is expected shortly to hear an appeal by News Corp. newspaper websites which have been classified as TV-like services and hence subject to co-regulator ATVOD. ATVOD reasoning is as follows:

ATVOD has concluded that the Service is an ODPS. This is because the Service fulfils each of the relevant criteria set out in section 368A(1) of the [Communications] Act as follows: (a) its principal purpose is the provision of programmes the form and content of which are comparable to the form and content of programmes normally included in television programme services; A single website or domain may contain more than one service, and Sun Video section does appear to ATVOD to constitute a service in its own right, albeit a service which sits alongside an electronic version of a newspaper. The video content is aggregated on a discrete section of the website providing a catalogue of viewing options. Whilst the videos may in some cases have a specific connection to content in the newspaper, the viewer is not invited to consider the content as subsidiary or ancillary to the online version of the print newspaper. Sun Video is presented as a consumer destination in its own right, and the programmes provided within Sun Video service can be viewed, enjoyed and made sense of without reference to the newspaper offering. The programmes themselves are comparable to the form and content of programmes normally included in television programme services, ATVOD considers that the principal purpose of ‘Sun Video is to provide these TV-like programmes. As noted above, a thematic or topical connection to the (online or offline) newspaper offering is not sufficient to make the video service an integral and ancillary part of the online version of the magazine, given the presentation of the service as a video on demand service in its own right. It is ATVOD’s view that where a video does have a related text article, the programmes can and do make sense without reference to that article (for example ‘Exclusive Jay Kay Chat’). There are also a significant number of programmes which do not link to a related text article at all (eg. ‘2001: A Babe Odyssey’).

(b) access to it is on-demand; Sun Video can be watched at a time of the viewer’s choosing.

(c) there is a person who has editorial responsibility for it; The programmes on Sun Video have been selected and organised into a coherent catalogue of viewing options with a distinct editorial proposition.

(d) it is made available by that person for use by members of the public; and Sun Video is made available on the open internet. Anyone with access to the internet can view the programmes on Sun Video.

(e) that person is under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The registered office of the provider of the service, News Group Newspapers Ltd, is: 3 Thomas More Square, E98 1XY

In coming to this determination, ATVOD has taken note of Recital 21 of the Directive, which is not binding, and has concluded that Sun Video is a service in its own right which is distinct from the online version of the newspaper and which has as its principal purpose the provision of programmes which are comparable to the form and content of programmes normally included in television programme services.

EC writes to SIXTEEN member states regarding potentially faulty implementation

2011-03-29T14:26:00.000-07:00

That's a lot of miscreants, see details here. The most important are:

Jurisdiction/country of origin principle: The country of origin principle is essential to give service providers legal certainty and to help them develop new cross border business models.

Jurisdiction for satellite broadcasts (Article 2) When a broadcaster based outside the EU uses a satellite up-link in an EU country, that EU country will have jurisdiction. When there is no up-link in the EU, the EU country whose satellite capacity is used has jurisdiction.

Countries can restrict broadcast of unsuitable content (Article 2) EU countries can restrict the retransmission of unsuitable on-demand audiovisual content that may not be banned in its country of origin when this is required by overriding general interest considerations such as the protection of minors.

Two-step safeguard for receiving countries (Article 4) If an EU Member State objects to the content in a television broadcast from another Member State, it can use a consultation procedure (cooperation procedure) to address the country of origin. The latter shall then issue a non-binding request for the broadcaster to comply with the stricter rules of the targeted country.

If the broadcaster circumvents these national rules, the objecting country can also - with the Commission's prior approval – take binding measures (circumvention procedure).

Member States cannot block broadcasts or on-demand services from other Member States without following these procedures.

Definition of audiovisual commercial communication (Article 1(1)(h)) The AVMS rules have a broad definition of what constitutes advertising, including sponsorship, product placement, teleshopping, etc. This is to ensure that all forms of commercial audiovisual content are covered by the same common set of rules, regardless of how they are used for the programmes. The AVMS rules define the conditions under which product placement is allowed. Member States are free to adopt stricter rules for media companies under their jurisdiction, provided that those rules comply with EU law.

2010/13/EC updates 2007/65/EC with Charter of Fundamental Rights

2011-03-29T14:21:00.001-07:00

The official consolidated text is now available here.

Turkey lifts YouTube ban after 2.5 years

2010-10-30T23:47:00.001-07:00

Google has agreed to remove offensive videos under the 2008 Turkish law.

Commission welcomes implementation of EU rules on TV and video-on-demand by Austria

2010-10-29T05:30:00.000-07:00

European Commission has welcomed Austria's notification of measures to implement the EU Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive into national law. As a result, the Commission has decided to end the legal action which it had launched against Austria. All EU Member States had agreed to implement the modernised rules for Europe's audiovisual industry into national law by 19 December 2009. The AVMS Directive (2010/13/EU) strengthens Europe's TV and audiovisual industry by reducing regulation and creating a level playing field for audiovisual media services across frontiers while maintaining high consumer protection standards. It removes outdated restrictions on digital TV over the internet, video on demand and mobile TV and created a Single Market for all audiovisual media services, providing legal certainty for businesses and protection for consumers. EU Member States agreed to implement the AVMS Directive into their national law by 19 December 2009 (see IP/09/1983). In June 2010, the Commission sent formal requests, in the form of so-called 'reasoned opinions', to twelve Member States (Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, and Slovenia) to update without delay their national broadcasting rules (see IP/10/803). Austria has now implemented the Directive, and the Commission is monitoring implementation in the other eleven Member States very closely. Unless these other countries adopt and notify their implementing measures to the Commission very soon, they could be referred to the European Court of Justice.

The "Television without Frontiers" Directive was adopted in 1989 (IP/91/898) and amended for the first time in 1997 (IP/97/552). In December 2007, an amending Directive was adopted (see IP/07/1809, MEMO/08/803). On 10 March 2010, the provisions of the original "Television without frontiers" Directive were merged with the provisions contained in the amending directives to form the codified version of the now called "Audiovisual Media Services" Directive. The AVMS Directive can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/avms/index_en.htm For more information on EU infringement procedures, see MEMO/10/530.

Media ownership: the 'Big Six' American media conglomerates

2010-05-28T06:14:00.000-07:00

An interesting set of data charts.

EU - Audiovisual Media Services Directive consolidated 2010/13/EU

2010-04-30T09:45:00.000-07:00

Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive). Codified version. OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1.

What is obscene? Violence to animals at 11am or simulated sexuality at 5am

2010-03-07T00:45:00.001-08:00

Very interesting cross-textual analysis of Ofcom's judgements in Broadcasting Bulletins 120 and 152 (note self-serving authors from the porn industry).

BBC spending breakdown - almost nothing on radio, their real public service

2010-03-02T00:00:00.001-08:00

Very useful graph - note they plan to abolish BBC6Radio - when almost no-one watches BBC3 TV - look at respective budgets!

UK consults on co-regulatory scheme for Internet video

2009-10-28T07:33:00.001-07:00

Ofcom has just closed its consultation on the implementation of the 2007 Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

It intends to regulate via its co-regulatory bodies, the Advertising Standards Authority and Association of Video on Demand (ATVOD), the latter formerly a self-regulatory body established as a front to persuade the European Commission that it didn't need legislation in this area.

Since AVMS establishes that co-regulation is needed, ATVOD has had to reform itself by the end of this year into a formal co-regulatory body, meaning Ofcom has audit functions and backstop powers to take over if ATVOD fails to regulate properly.

The one exception is the BBC iPlayer, which will have separate arrangements reflecting the unique position of BBC public services.

Co- and self-regulation and the media

2009-01-06T09:35:00.000-08:00

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation published an online 'cookbook' in 2004 - see chapters on co-self-regulation.

Co-regulation - Ofcom's view

2008-12-24T07:48:00.000-08:00

Ofcom has released its final post-consultation report on its approach to co-regualation - the result of a 2-year process. It is largely a very well-written and researched and sensible document - I would have liked more emphasis on sustainability and 'mission creep' of self- and co-regulatory bodies but that's my report for the EXC - if you want your own work, write it yourself!

Excellent work by Tom Keidrowski and his team!

"We also received a link to the RAND study for the European Commission in the response

from Dr. Chris Marsden. The study examined a range of national schemes, including the

IMCB, ATVOD, ICSTIS, Nominet and IWF in the UK, as part of an evaluation of potential coand

self-regulatory solutions for online services. Similarly to our view - that a spectrum of

options is available when addressing particular issues -, the RAND study proposes a

‘Beaufort scale of self-regulation’ based on the degree of government intervention. While the

published study was an evaluation of schemes, it veered toward a view that there was merit

in considering co-regulation rather than purely self-regulation in many instances."

European TV developments

2008-12-01T07:50:00.000-08:00

Very good up-to-date blog here.

Legislation on privacy before net neutrality in US?

2008-11-29T00:26:00.000-08:00

California liberal Henry Waxman will be new head of the Commerce Committee, replacing Bellhead John Dingell. That makes both privacy and NN legislation more likely. Frannie Wellings, assistant to Sen. Dorgan, certainly expects that.

Meanwhile in the EU, the mini-super-regulator has been voted down by the Council of Ministers, and we grind on to the 2nd Reading in Parliament...

Content and its potential harms

2008-11-28T12:34:00.000-08:00

Good new USC Annenberg academic papers here and here.

AVMS agreed December 2007

2008-03-25T09:13:00.000-07:00

The European Parliament formally approved without amendments the Council's common position on the new Audiovisual Media Services without frontiers Directive.

Ofcom paper on convergence

2008-03-25T08:36:00.001-07:00

In preparation for Monica Arino's seminar Wednesday at 12, you might find this new paper interesting: http://www.culture.gov.uk/Convergence/submissions/seminar1/ofcom_update4feb08.pdf

Council of Europe paper on jurisdiction

2006-05-16T06:57:00.000-07:00

Very useful paper: http://www.obs.coe.int/online_publication/transfrontier_tv.pdf.en

Greater European Regulatory cooperation promised

2006-04-11T03:35:00.000-07:00

Commissioner Viviene Reding hosts a meeting to discuss closer cooperation in view of the Al Manar case.

Short extracts and viewers' rights

2006-04-03T02:18:00.000-07:00

The 'Right to Information' and Digital Broadcasting - About Monsters, Invisible Men, and the Future of European Broadcasting Regulation by Natali Helberger - focuses on viewers' right to consume rather than market arguments from economics.

Reading for Week 10, 21 March

2006-03-16T06:12:00.000-08:00

Two pieces to collect at the end of the week-
first an article by Anna Herold about sports rights and public service TV,
second a quite dense and comlicated article about essential facilities and competition law, with a lot of media references - read only if you really want to take that question!

Anna is the legal advisor at the European Commission on the new Directive....

Competition law and IP

2006-03-14T11:34:00.000-08:00

How Battlestar Gallactica killed broadcast TV

2006-03-13T14:37:00.000-08:00

Overview with some interesting points

new report on advertising covering 34 countries, and the Commission's 5th Implementation Report

2006-03-10T00:56:00.000-08:00

Both available here.

Market for TV Sports Rights

2006-03-09T04:06:00.000-08:00

Interesting 2001 article from Norway.

Subjects and reading for Week 9, 14 March

2006-03-08T04:06:00.000-08:00

We will mainly deal with the Premium Programming and Competition Law issues, but with a sideways look at media pluralism and diversity.
1. Read Cowie and Marsden (1999) on conditional access - don't spend too long on the standards part (rather technical).
2. Read Marsden for the Council of Europe esp. Part 3 on 'must carry'.
3. Read the articles on movies, football, especially Ungerer's 2003 article.
4. Those interested in state aid might want to read ahead on Eurovision/EBU - a case dealt with in the first blog entry:http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_plus/iplus10_2005.pdf.en

70% of UK households have digital TV...

2006-03-07T10:12:00.000-08:00

...and the World cup will drive this to 80% by this time next year, reports BBC News

Interesting take on IPTV and 'geo-coding' for DRM

2006-02-28T00:48:00.000-08:00

But he is selling his open source solution...

Flash / Google AdSense video / VW ad

2006-02-27T15:16:00.000-08:00

- Alltime classic flash animation from Joel Veitch on rathergood.com - independant woman
- Google's new adsense video adverts - first example described here
- An example of an advert being posted as content (NSFW)

Additional question requested

2006-02-27T03:23:00.000-08:00

Is European competition law a sufficient tool for ensuring plurality and/or diversity in the broadcasting media? Refer specifically to either: [1] state aid case law involving public service broadcasters (specifically Eurovision and by extension Altmark), or [2] Article 81/82/merger case law.

Kappa Mikey: Flash animation

2006-02-27T01:31:00.000-08:00

A piece in the New York Times Friday about a new show "Kappa Mikey" from The Animation Collective. What makes it interesting is that it is done in Flash.
Doing animation in Flash is nothing new nor is the idea of simplified production (as with South Park or even Clutch Cargo nearly half a century ago). Flash content doesn't take much network capacity because it is coded mostly as objects. It avoids the whole the need to compress - it is a compressed format.

Proposed essay titles

2006-02-24T04:40:00.000-08:00

1. Does the distinction between linear and non-linear definitions for audiovisual services make sense in view of national and European legislation and proposed legislation and case law?
2. 'Advertisers should take advantage of the deregulation of the Internet to avoid all TVWF rules'. Do you agree? Has case law and legislative reform already removed most obstacles to new advertising techniques?
3. Does the Country of Origin rule truly apply to audiovisual services? Explain with regard to any or all of the following: [1] the rules for listed sports events in TVWF; [2] the Convention on Transfrontier Television; [3] the proposed 'codification' of the case law of the European Court of Justice.
4. Is a competitive pan-European broadcast market possible? Explain with regard to case law and legislation in either: [i] essential facilities; or [ii] programme rights.

Reading for 28 February

2006-02-22T03:45:00.000-08:00

1. Blog what you can find in terms of new Video-on-Demand or other 'non-linear' services on the Internet - that will cause problems for the push-pull idea that the ECJ and European Commission are committed to.
Here are examples:
http://www.vingo.tv
http://www.three.co.uk/explore/services3/detailLifestyle.omp?cid=1130772971819
http://www.fabchannel.com/
2. Read the Jacubowicz article that you can collect from Hayley.
3. Look at Annex 1 of the RAND report.

Reading for 21 February

2006-02-15T12:57:00.000-08:00

There is a lot to pick up from the Graduate Office - but its all relatively small articles:
[1] The Directive itself is there, a consolidated version from 1997.
[2] You will have the slides from this week's lecture.
[3] There are 3 Commission documents on the European cultural provisions in Articles 4/5.
[4] There is a set of notes on how to define broadcasting within services by a top Commission official - to be discussed.
[5] There is an academic article by the excellent young Amsterdam-based Irish academic Tarlach McGonagle - examining how broadcasting is regarded on the Internet.

If you really want to read something else, try Carole Tongue, Chapter 5 in Marsden and Verhulst (1999).

Jurisdiction and Television

2006-02-14T00:24:00.000-08:00

Very useful background presentation from the Association of Commercial TV for the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities.

Revised topics for Weeks 4-9

2006-02-09T03:51:00.000-08:00

These are the remaining weeks:
4. Television without Frontiers – Jurisdiction and Enforcement
5. European Cultural Diversity and Programme Quotas
6. GUEST SPEAKER Dr Ian Brown: IPTV and video on the Internet
7. Premium Programming and Competition Law
8. Content Regulation and Protection of Human Dignity
9. Review of Television with Frontiers and the Proposed Audiovisual Content Services Directive

These are what we've done:
1. Introduction to Broadcasting Policy
2. Access to Infrastructure – Impact of Convergence and the Telecommunications Package
3. Advertising and Commercial Communications; Freedom of Movement of Services

Audiovisual developments in numbers

2006-02-07T11:10:00.000-08:00

The EC statistical annex on how the market is changing.

Reading Week 4 14th February

2006-02-07T11:05:00.000-08:00

For next week:
I will provide copies of:
[1] The 1997 Directive and the proposed amendments;
[2] the RAND impact assessment (DON'T READ IT YET);
[3] the EC proposals to change the Country of Origin principle in the Directive.
I will also find some background reading on the various MedTV cases.

Eurpean modernisation of audiovisual policy

2006-01-31T11:25:00.000-08:00

The website is here - look around and you will find the presentation...

Reading for 7 February

2006-01-31T11:23:00.000-08:00

Please read the Introduction (Marsden and Verhulst) and Chapter 1 (Pepper and Levy) of the 1999 'Convergence in European Digital TV' book in the library.
Also on FRIDAY please pick up from Hayley/Maria the article by Scheuer and Woods.

What is co-regulation?

2006-01-31T11:21:00.000-08:00

Excellent presentation and report by the Hans Bredow Institut for the EC - also the UK case studies are by Professor Lorna Wods from Essex!

State aid in the audiovisual sector

2005-12-05T04:31:00.000-08:00

A special report by the Council of Europe/European Commission funded European Audiovisual Observatory.

Content regulation and context

2005-11-02T06:58:00.000-08:00

A truly appalling advert for the Mazda MX-5, broadcast pre-watershed, attratced 425 complaints and received widespread coverage. The UK Advertising Standards Authority upheld the decision to show the ad on TV and cinema, previously passed by those self-regulatory authorities. It referred to the 'Carry On' style of the ad, by J. Walter Thompson, which was shown in 4 European countries.
I found it blatantly offensive and realise why - the context not only of being shown to minors, but also because - it simply WASN'T funny. This actually negates the contextual claim.
But consider: as a content self-regulator, you are required to judge whether an advert is funny and acceptable, or pathetic and therefore ill-judged and crass.
The same can of course apply to racial hatred and unfairness claims - satire (e.g. Private Eye or 2DTV) can comment where factual programming cannot.

New Directive drafted and soon published

2005-10-02T02:14:00.000-07:00

The European Commission is NOT regulating the Internet, they say!
http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/revision-tvwf2005/consult_en.htm

Recommended Text

2005-10-02T02:13:00.000-07:00

There is no one recommended textbook for this course.
The library has several copies of ‘Convergence in European Digital TV Regulation’ and ‘Regulating the Global Information Society’ by the course supervisor, chapters of which will be recommended for each topic.

This course runs in Term 2 Topics

2005-10-02T02:12:00.000-07:00

1. Introduction to Broadcasting Policy
2. Impact of the Free Movement of Services
3. Access to Infrastructure – Impact of Convergence and the Telecommunications Package
4. Television without Frontiers – Jurisdiction and Enforcement
5. European Cultural Diversity and Programme Quotas
6. Advertising and Commercial Communications
7. Premium Programming and Competition Law
8. Content Regulation and Protection of Human Dignity
9. Review of Television with Frontiers and the Proposed Audiovisual Content Services Directive

LW658/717 - European Broadcasting Law and Policy

2005-10-02T02:11:00.000-07:00

Outline:
This course looks at EC audio-visual policy and how it has developed from being an aspect of free movement of services to an area of policy which highlights cultural diversity and protection of fundamental expression rights. It also focuses on particular aspects of audio-visual policy, many of which highlight the tension between economic objectives and social, cultural and political concerns. In doing so, the course will consider how audio-visual policy interrelates with other EC policies and affects Member States’ freedom in this area. This course looks at the broadcast media in context, that is, the rapidly changing digital environment, with some emphasis on practical examples of problems.
Although there is no pre-requisite for this course, students may find it helpful to have studied the free movement of services or issues relating to media or Internet regulation (whether at post-graduate or undergraduate level).