Death of a Convention: Competition between the Council of Europe and EC in broadcasting law

ingentaconnect Death of a Convention: Competition between the Council of Europe ...: "This article considers a dispute between the European Union and Council of Europe regarding their respective roles in the broadcasting field, so as to explain and assess its relevance for the development at the international level of media law and policy. The dispute is a long-running one and dates back to the adoption of the first EEC Directive and Council Convention on this subject in 1989. It is argued that the expansion of the scope of EU broadcasting law and the consolidation of the European Commission's role in external affairs left little room for the Council to continue to exercise influence over the regulation of the electronic media in the way it has done for some time. The exact nature of the dispute between the institutions, and the response of a vocal member state, is ascertained through consideration of published minutes and internal correspondence, set in the context of doctrinal and political developments. The article concludes with analysis of possible future actions for the Council."

'via Blog this'

The death of the Transfrontier Television Directive

"In a letter to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Ms Neelie Kroes, vice-President of the European Commission, recently confirmed the position of the European Commission with regard to the draft second amended protocol to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. The letter underlines that the European Union has exclusive competence for the issues covered by the draft revised Convention and that EU member States are not allowed to become party to the Convention on their own. The letter furthermore indicates that the EU does not intend to become a party to the Convention as this would constrain the speed and scope of any future policy response in the areas covered.
For its part, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe endorsed proposals by the Secretary General for priorities in 2011 which included, in particular, to discontinue work on trans-frontier television following the termination of the negotiations of the Convention. This was confirmed by the Committee of Ministers when adopting the Programme of Activities and budget for 2011." 'via Blog this'

Playboy fined £100,000 for failing to protect children

Ofcom | Playboy fined £100,000 for failing to protect children: "Ofcom has today fined Playboy £100,000 for failing to protect children from potentially harmful pornographic material.
Two websites owned by Playboy (Playboy TV and Demand Adult) allowed users to access hardcore videos and images without having acceptable controls in place to check that users were aged 18 or over.
Unlike other pornographic websites, these websites are regulated by Ofcom and its concurrent regulator, the Authority for Video On Demand (ATVOD). This is because they provide access to videos in a similar way to adult services broadcast on television – and fall within UK jurisdiction.
Ofcom concluded that Playboy’s failure to protect children from potentially accessing these sites was serious, repeated and reckless." 'via Blog this'

Andrew O’Hagan · BBC governance and ethics

Andrew O’Hagan · Light Entertainment · LRB 27 October 2012: " The BBC isn’t the Catholic Church, but it has its own ideals and traditions, which cause people to pause before naming the unwise acts that have been performed on its premises. Perhaps more than any church, the BBC continues to be a powerhouse of virtue, of intelligence and tolerance, but it is now suffering a kind of ecclesiastical terror at its own fallibility." 'via Blog this'

US jails man over Hezbollah channel distribution

US jails man over Hezbollah channel - Americas - Al Jazeera English: "Javed Iqbal was sentenced to more than five and a half years in prison for broadcasting Al Manar channel, run by Hezbollah, an armed Lebanese group branded a terrorist organisation by the US.
"I did not make a profit of broadcasting Al Manar and it cost me my life," Iqbal's lawyer, Joshua Dratel, read from a prepared statement on behalf of his client.
Iqbal had pleaded guilty to the charges in December.
The US treasury labelled Al Manar a terrorist organisation in March 2006, saying it supported Hezbollah's fund-raising and recruitment activities.
Prosecutors said Iqbal, who moved to the US more than 26 years ago, provided transmission services to the Beirut-based channel in return for payment in 2005 and 2006 and sold the channel to US customers through his company, HDTV Ltd."
'via Blog this'

2012: First AVMS Implementation report due

Pursuant to Article 33 of Directive 2010/13/EU, the Commission has the obligation to report on the application of the Directive and, if necessary, make further proposals in the light of recent technological developments. The Commission presented a number of issues that will be covered by the report: for instance audiovisual commercial communication and the concepts of sponsorship, advertising spot and self-promotion

AVMS Directive - Contact Committee

EU audiovisual and media policies - AVMS Directive - Contact Committee | Europa: "Dir 97/36/EC established the Contact Committee (now Article 29 AVMSD), to monitor the implementation of the Directive and the developments in the sector and as a forum for the exchange of views. It deals not only with the existing audiovisual policy but also with the relevant developments arising in this sector... special attention to technical developments in the audiovisual sector."
'via Blog this'

EU audiovisual and media policies - case law

EU audiovisual and media policies - case law: "Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)) - (Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08)" Greek decoders and Sky Sports.
'via Blog this'

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

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?

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

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

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

The official consolidated text is now available here.

Turkey lifts YouTube ban after 2.5 years

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

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

An interesting set of data charts.

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

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

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

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

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.