Access for All? The promise and problems of universalism.

In what follows, I explore why the question of ‘access for all’ is both important and difficult. Beginning by treating it as a contested claim, I will consider some of its political, institutional and professional implications. What do I mean by saying that access for all is a contested claim? First of all, it is a claim – a demand that access for all needs to be created. It is a claim about change. To demand ‘access for all’ is to speak about, and speak against, social conditions that are unjust, unequal or excluding. At its simplest, then, to claim ‘access for all’ is to address social arrangements in which all people do not have access. Secondly, it is a claim made by – or on behalf of – specific social groups against their experience of exclusion, marginalization or subordination. I have added these other terms because I think that ‘exclusion’ is too simple, and too problematic, a term to capture all the aspects of unjust social arrangements that produce claims for ‘access’.1 Access is a demand to be treated equitably in relation to a range of valued social resources, conditions and relationships. It is a claim to be a member: of the society, the polity or the nation. It is a claim to be a citizen: to possess rights and the capacity to make legitimate demands on the state. It is a claim on the apparatuses and agencies that sustain social citizenship: citizenship brings with it access to benefits, services and rights of ‘fair dealing’ or ‘fair treatment’. As this last point suggests, it is a claim about equality: the expectation that all citizens will be dealt with by public agencies in ways that are not discriminatory or oppressive.

Under One Umbrella: Problems of Internet Retransmissions of Broadcasts and Implications for New Audiovisual Content Services

The development of broadband Internet connections has fostered new audiovisual media services and opened new possibilities for accessing broadcasts. The Internet retransmission case of TVCatchup before the CJEU was the first case concerning new technologies in the light of Art. 3.1. of the Information Society Directive. On the other side of the Atlantic the Aereo case reached the U.S. Supreme Court and challenged the interpretation of public performance rights. In both cases the recipients of the services could receive broadcast programs in a way alternative to traditional broadcasting channels including terrestrial broadcasting or cable transmission. The Aereo case raised the debate on the possible impact of the interpretation of copyright law in the context of the development of new technologies, particularly cloud based services. It is interesting to see whether any similar problems occur in the EU. The „umbrella” in the title refers to Art. 8 WCT, which covers digital and Internet transmission and constitutes the backrgound for the EU and the U.S. legal solutions. The article argues that no international standard for qualification of the discussed services exists.