TV Signal Delivery to Cable Operators and DTH Platform Operators

The paper discusses new business models of transmission of television programs in the context of definitions of broadcasting and retransmission. Typically the whole process of supplying content to the end user has two stages: a media service provider supplies a signal assigned to a given TV channel to the cable operators and satellite DTH platform operators (dedicated transmission), and cable operators and satellite DTH platform operators transmit this signal to end users. In each stage the signals are encoded and are not available for the general public without the intervention of cable/platform operators. The services relating to the supply and transmission of the content are operated by different business entities: each earns money separately and each uses the content protected by copyright. We should determine how to define the actions of the entity supplying the signal with the TV program directly to the cable/digital platform operator and the actions of the entity providing the end user with the signal. The author criticizes the approach presented in the Chellomedia and Norma rulings, arguing that they lead to a significant level of legal uncertainty, and poses the basic questions concerning the notion of “public” in copyright.

The Implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by National Regulatory Authorities National Responses to Regulatory Challenges

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) which regulates broadcasting and on-demand audiovisual media services is at the nexus of current discussions about the convergence of media. The Green Paper of the Commission of April 2013 reflects the struggle of the European Union to come to terms with the phenomenon of convergence and highlights current legal uncertainties. The (theoretical) quest for an appropriate and future-oriented regulatory framework at the European level may be contrasted to the practice of national regulatory authorities. When faced with new media services and new business models, national regulators will inevitably have to make decisions and choices that take into account providers’ interests to offer their services as well as viewers’ interests to receive information. This balancing act performed by national regulators may tip towards the former or latter depending on the national legal framework; social, political and economic considerations; as well as cultural perceptions. This paper thus examines how certain rules contained in the AVMSD are applied by national regulators. It focuses first on the definition of an on-demand audiovisual media service and its scope. Second, it analyses the measures adopted with a view to protection minors in on-demand services and third discusses national approaches towards the promotion of European works in on-demand services. It aims at underlining the significance of national regulatory authorities and the guidelines these adopt to clarify the rules of a key EU Directive of the “media law acquis”.

Platform Privacy: The Missing Piece of Data Protection Legislation

After years of deliberation, the EU commission sped up the reform process of a common EU digital policy considerably in 2015 by launching the EU digital single market strategy. In particular, two core initiatives of the strategy were agreed upon: General Data Protection Regulation and the Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive law texts. A new initiative was additionally launched addressing the role of online platforms. This paper focuses on the platform privacy rationale behind the data protection legislation, primarily based on the proposal for a new EU wide General Data Protection Regulation. We analyse the legislation rationale from an Information System perspective to understand the role user data plays in creating platforms that we identify as “processing silos”. Generative digital infrastructure theories are used to explain the innovative mechanisms that are thought to govern the notion of digitalization and successful business models that are affected by digitalization. We foresee continued judicial data protection challenges with the now proposed Regulation as the adoption of the “Internet of Things” continues. The findings of this paper illustrate that many of the existing issues can be addressed through legislation from a platform perspective. We conclude by proposing three modifications to the governing rationale, which would not only improve platform privacy for the data subject, but also entrepreneurial efforts in developing intelligent service platforms. The first modification is aimed at improving service differentiation on platforms by lessening the ability of incumbent global actors to lock-in the user base to their service/platform. The second modification posits limiting the current unwanted tracking ability of syndicates, by separation of authentication and data store services from any processing entity. Thirdly, we propose a change in terms of how security and data protection policies are reviewed, suggesting a third party auditing procedure.

Global Standards: Recent Developments betweend the Poles of Privacy and Cloud Computing

The development of the Internet has made it possible to transfer data ‘around the globe at the click of a mouse’. Especially fresh business models such as cloud computing, the newest driver to illustrate the speed and breadth of the online environment, allow this data to be processed across national borders on a routine basis. A number of factors cause the Internet to blur the lines between public and private space: Firstly, globalization and the outsourcing of economic actors entrain an ever-growing exchange of personal data. Secondly, the security pressure in the name of the legitimate fight against terrorism opens the access to a significant amount of data for an increasing number of public authorities.And finally,the tools of the digital society accompany everyone at each stage of life by leaving permanent individual and borderless traces in both space and time. Therefore, calls from both the public and private sectors for an international legal framework for privacy and data protection have become louder. Companies such as Google and Facebook have also come under continuous pressure from governments and citizens to reform the use of data. Thus, Google was not alone in calling for the creation of ‘global privacystandards’. Efforts are underway to review established privacy foundation documents. There are similar efforts to look at standards in global approaches to privacy and data protection. The last remarkable steps were the Montreux Declaration, in which the privacycommissioners appealed to the United Nations ‘to prepare a binding legal instrument which clearly sets out in detail the rights to data protection and privacy as enforceable human rights’. This appeal was repeated in 2008 at the 30thinternational conference held in Strasbourg, at the 31stconference 2009 in Madrid and in 2010 at the 32ndconference in Jerusalem. In a globalized world, free data flow has become an everyday need. Thus, the aim of global harmonization should be that it doesn’t make any difference for data users or data subjects whether data processing takes place in one or in several countries. Concern has been expressed that data users might seek to avoid privacy controls by moving their operations to countries which have lower standards in their privacy laws or no such laws at all. To control that risk, some countries have implemented special controls into their domestic law. Again, such controls may interfere with the need for free international data flow. A formula has to be found to make sure that privacy at the international level does not prejudice this principle.