Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Media Freedom and Pluralism

 | 
Beata Klimkiewicz

Section 2: Content and service-related regulation

Chapter 4. New Media legislation

Methods of Implementing Rules Relating to On-Demand Services

Éva Simon

Texte intégral

1The European Parliament adopted the audiovisual Media services directive (AVMSD) in December 2007 (European Parliament and the Council, 2007). In this chapter I examine how the audiovisual Media services directive handles new technological innovations. After a brief examination of the text of the directive, I focus on the potential implementations of the rules concerning on-demand services. I examine the regulatory methods offered by the AVMSD from the viewpoint of east European M ember states.

4.1. Audiovisual Media services directive

  • 1 Until now, on-demand services have been regulated by directive 2000/31/ EC of the European Parliame (...)
  • 2 In AVMSD “television broadcasting” or “television broadcast” (i.e. a linear audiovisual media servi (...)
  • 3 In AVMSD “on-demand audiovisual media service” (i.e. a nonlinear audiovisual media service) means a (...)
  • 4 AVMSD article 3h, 3i (European Parliament and the Council, 2007).

2The AVMSD was adopted after a two-year debate, amending the Television without Frontiers directive (European Parliament and the Council, 1997) in December 2007. Member states had to implement the directive in their national regulatory regimes by the end of 2009. The AVMSD only sets up a regulatory framework; therefore each member state is obliged to formulate concrete media market regulations. To sum up the basis of the new regulatory framework: the EU created a common “minimum regulation”1 with regard to television broadcasting services2 and on-demand services.3 While stricter rules continue to apply for television broadcasting services, special on-demand service regulations4 also appear in the AVMSD. The other major reform is lighter regulation of advertising rules in broadcasting, providing more flexibility in light of new advertising techniques. In what follows I will focus on on-demand services.

4.2. Principles of media regulation

3When regulating media, regulators cannot disregard the fact that technology is rapidly changing. The objective of rules of law and legal systems is stability; consequently, they are only able to regulate, with due circumspection, circumstances that emerge en masse. Accordingly, there are two possible methods of regulation: legislators either try to regulate expected conditions in advance, through ex ante regulation, or wait for the processes to develop and regulate them afterwards, through ex post regulation. In the case of the media and information society, especially areas deeply affected by technology and innovations, ex ante regulation can stifle development. Conversely, due to the rapid change in technical solutions, ex ante regulation is possible only in a very limited sphere. Ex ante regulation is needed in asymmetric legal relations. For example, consumer protection is one of the main fields where ex ante regulation is necessary to protect consumers from inequitable situations vis-à-vis market players. While ex ante regulation creates a clear and transparent situation with all the drawbacks mentioned above, ex post regulation is reactive, with the legislator reacting to actual demands. As long as the market regulates itself properly, the legislator does not intervene. Ideally, even when it comes to intervention, the legislator intervenes only to the extent that is absolutely necessary.

  • 5 Joost is a system for distributing TV shows and other forms of video over the Web using peer-to-pee (...)

4Technological innovations and converging platforms are making it clear that regulation should be introduced independently from the various platforms: services provided by interactive television, IP TV, and Joost5represent frontiers where the various regulatory models overlap. The reality of converging services and platforms has led EU legislators onto a new path of regulation. Technology neutrality is one of the main goals of the common regulation of audiovisual media services. Nevertheless, technology neutrality is only one of several principles.

5Reconciliation of the principle of technological neutrality is needed “with the principle of regulation ‘in context,’ and might require a certain degree of discretion for the regulator depending on the platform that is used. More generally, the principle of technological neutrality should not be regarded as an absolute, but rather act as a guiding principle, since there are still differences in technologies that need to be recognized by regulators (for example, specific multiplex licensing, or the use of specific spectrum).” (Ariño, 2007)

6Applying the principle of technological neutrality does not take into consideration that, in the case of content regulation, not only the transmission but also the consumption of content is important. Consumption of content is different on different platforms. The technological neutrality principle leaves out of consideration the potential of the consumer’s active decision-making in choosing both the tools and the way they access content.

7Technological neutrality, although one of the main principles pursued by the AVMS directive, is one of several principles. Moreover, the directive does not see this principle as absolute but nuances it through the concept of graduated regulation (imposing lighter rules on non-linear services, where consumers are assumed to have greater control over content and access).

8As specified in the AVMSD, the aim in modernizing the Television without Frontiers directive was to create a consistent internal market framework for information society and media services. According to the preamble of the directive, the updated media regulation aims to “stimulate economic growth and investment […]. It is therefore (to avoid legal uncertainty) necessary, in order to avoid distortions of competition, to improve legal certainty, to help complete the internal market and to facilitate the emergence of a single information area” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007). The basic principles of the internal market named in the text—free competition and equal treatment—serve to ensure transparency and predictability in the market of audiovisual media services.

4.3. Reasons for regulation

9As stated above, one of the main reasons for regulating the media is the scarcity of resources. Therefore television broadcasting has always been subject to much closer regulation compared to print and online media. However, with the digital switchover fast approaching and the growth of on-demand digital cable and online services, EU policy makers decided to regulate on-demand services partly as television broadcasting. The explanation can be found in the preamble of the AVMS directive: “it is characteristic of on-demand audiovisual media services that they are ‘television-like,’ i.e., they compete for the same audience as television broadcasts, and the nature and the means of access to the service would lead the user reasonably to expect regulatory protection within the scope of this directive” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007).

10What conclusion can be drawn from this? It can be inferred that the EU considers on-demand services rivals to television broadcasting. Even if this becomes true in the near future, at the moment on-demand is a developing field of information society services, with different features and a much lower degree of access than television. The following charts show internet access and broadband internet access in EU countries. According to 2007 statistics, new Central and east European member countries are remarkably backward in internet usage compared to Western EU countries or in terms of EU averages.

Figure 4.1. Level of internet access—Households 2007 (population considered 16 to 74).

Figure 4.1. Level of internet access—Households 2007 (population considered 16 to 74).

11Source: Eurostat Graphics 2007 (© European Communities, 1995-2008) (Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.)

Figure 4.2. Internet access of households by broadband access 2007 (population considered 16 to 74).

Figure 4.2. Internet access of households by broadband access 2007 (population considered 16 to 74).

12Source: Eurostat Graphics 2007 (© European Communities, 1995-2008) (Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.)

13The second chart shows broadband access, which is especially significant since on-demand services can only be conveniently accessed through large bandwidth.

14E-Marketer research6in the United States points out that “there is no correlation between us internet users watching video online and a potential audience for television content delivered on the internet. [...] Most of the evidence available suggests that online video content is supplementing and complementing traditional TV content and viewing habits rather than replacing or supplanting them.” The Cable and Telecommunications association of Marketers7notes that broadband video currently makes up less than 3 percent of the total video watched per week in the united states.8

15Greater bandwidth and a higher percentage of households with internet access will have an impact on the number of on-demand services and the amount of video accessed online. But the changes will be due to consumers’ need to control the content they access. However, the notion of convergence seems to refer more to the distribution of content than forms of access or usage. As we have seen, there is little evidence of this, and therefore, for the time being, it is difficult to justify the EU’s position linking television and on-demand services.

16Diminishing resources and the day-by-day increase of new services could have led the EU to design a flexible and lighter regulatory framework. However, instead of deregulating the audiovisual media sector, the AVMSD extends the scope of regulation, bringing on-demand services under the same principle as television, with reference to “competition” and “rival services”—a questionable argument, as pointed out above.

4.4. Level of regulation

17The AVMSD covers television broadcasting services and on-demand services, defining both common and separate rules for the two types of media services. The directive sets out general rules and objectives, yet leaves the decision on how to implement the minimum standards to Member states. A close examination of the text suggests that the rules posed in the AVMSD can be classified into two main groups.

  • 9 I use the term “guidelines” further in the text to avoid confusion with the term “recommendation” u (...)

18The first group of rules can be considered normative rules, containing obligatory regulation. The second group of rules are to be seen as recommendations or guidelines.9The rules in the second group leave the form and the solution—whether to apply a code of laws, soft law solutions, or not to implement the guidelines at all—at the discretion of Member states. However, neither normative rules nor the guidelines exclude the opportunity for Member states to impose stricter rules under their jurisdiction, as long as the rules are consistent with the AVMSD and European Community law at large (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 32).

19Access to European works in on-demand services fall between the two groups. The preamble (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 48) states that on-demand services “should, where practicable, promote the production and distribution of European works.” This normative rule can be considered an empty rule. The word “practicable” and the obligation to “promote” put the solution in the hands of Member states to decide whether to apply quota regimes to on-demand services. Therefore quota requirements may be considered more as guidelines than as normative rules.

Table 4.1. Categories of rules under AVMSD

Table 4.1. Categories of rules under AVMSD
  • 10 According to the text of AVMSD, “co-regulation gives, in its minimal form, a legal link between sel (...)
  • 11 According to AVMSD “self-regulation constitutes a type of voluntary initiative which enables econom (...)

20How, according to the AVMSD, should Member states implement rules on on-demand services? The European Commission, pointing to the directive, emphasizes that any regulation to be introduced should be decided upon only after careful analysis: “in particular whether legislation is preferable for the relevant sector and problem, or whether alternatives such as co-regulation10 or self regulation11 should be considered. […] this directive encourages the use of co-regulation and self-regulation” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 36).

21The Council of Europe, the Commission, and the Parliament have demonstrated at the European level the need for greater regulatory flexibility in the converged world. Starting with the online world years ago, due to fast-evolving technology, co-and self-regulatory mechanism were considered an effective and flexible regulatory method in the field of media. Co- and self-regulatory regimes differ in EU states. Legislation and the attitude of market stakeholders towards state intervention are influenced by historical, political, and economical characteristics. According to research by the Hans-Bredow institut (2006), conducted in 25 EU Member states, the level of co- and self-regulation is far less developed in new east European Member states.

22There are several differences between self- and co-regulation. One of them is the initiation of the regulation. While self-regulation is based on market players’ or other non-governmental stakeholders’ own initiatives, co-regulation serves public policy goals, and therefore governmental organs take part in shaping co-regulatory systems and requirements from the beginning. There must be “some sort of connection between the non-state regulatory system and the state (though not necessarily a statutory one; contract will suffice), that some discretionary power is left to the non-state system, but that the state uses regulatory resources to guarantee the fulfilment of the regulatory goals” (Prosser 2008, p. 101). Co-regulation is typically initiated by the government, but allows for considerable industry autonomy under clearly defined parameters.

  • 12 There are several counter-arguments against the effectiveness and even the existence of self-regula (...)
  • 13 Available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/co-reg/promoting_effective_co-regulation/co_se (...)

23Self-regulation can only handle ethical questions under constitutional requirements across Europe. Fundamental rights and a set of non-negotiable standards must be ensured by legislation; however, these rights can be supported by complementary regulatory methods like co-and self-regulation. The scope of activities of self-regulatory bodies is limited, advertising and journalism being the two most self-regulated sectors in post-communist countries.12 Co-regulation is used mostly in the fields of protection of minors, advertising, and technical standards. However, the absence of co-regulatory mechanisms is manifest in the media sector of post-communist countries. Unless either the law or stakeholders instigate co-regulation, attempts to shape lighter regulatory methods will fail in these countries. While in Germany, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, there are often-cited working models for co-regulation, the lack of governmental initiatives in post-communist countries holds back the prospect of new regulatory mechanisms. The decrease of state-dominated regulatory prototypes can reshape media legislation. To this end, both market players and government intentions have to change. Co-regulatory systems would entail significant changes for the various players, including both lawmakers and market players. “resulting regulatory norms would be a fusion of the two old dispensations and their application would be invigorated on both sides on account of relevant expertise being channelled into the attainment Ofcommon objectives” (McGonagle, 2002, p. 20). The lack of confidence of stakeholders—professionals, state representatives, authorities, and members of the public—lead to the failure of co-regulatory efforts. Therefore the attitude of the stakeholders has to be changed to ensure effective alternative regulatory methods in post-communist countries. In countries where co-regulation is missing, emphasis should be placed on establishing conditions for acceptable co-regulatory systems. In Britain a consultation was held seeking views on the criteria that Ofcom (office Ofcommunications) should use in promoting effective co-and self-regulation. This resulted in the publication of a statement in 2004 setting out the criteria to be applied by ofcom.13 after four years, Ofcom launched a new consultation in March 2008 with the title “initial assessments of When to adopt self- or Co-regulation.”

24To make sure that post-communist countries can take the opportunity to apply lighter regulation, as offered by the AVMSD, they will have to elaborate the system, the requirements, and the implementation mechanism of co-regulation. Interaction among all interested parties, their equitable participation, operational autonomy, effective monitoring and compliance mechanisms, and flexible cooperation are safeguards for effective co-regulatory methods (McGonagle, 2002, p. 24). The implementation period is specified in two years, which is short. Therefore the implementation of the AVMSD is likely to be carried out using lighter regulatory methods where such methods already exist.

4.5. Relation between on-demand, television broadcasting, and information society services

  • 14 “For the purposes of this directive, the definition of an audiovisual media service should cover on (...)

25On-demand services are audiovisual media services. There are overlapping areas with television broadcasting on the one hand and information society services on the other. These lines need to be clarified by Member states. In the course of long debates, the definition of on-demand services has been clarified; however, precision is still lacking.14a number of strategically significant new media services potentially fall within the scope of the definition of the directive. During the implementation process, Member states will have to find exact measures for different services. In the age of convergence, both in the means of technology and services, one can see that different services can be provided on the same platform even by the same service provider. On Web sites one can find both edited content by the service provider and user-generated content. The differentiation between the types of services is far from obvious for the consumer.

26According to the AVMSD, on-demand services are services that are mass media and that could have a clear impact on a significant proportion of the general public. Such services are primarily commercial, fall under the editorial responsibility of the service provider, and have as their principal purpose the provision of programs in order to inform, entertain, or educate the general public. All of these criteria need to be considered cumulatively.

27There are several services named in the AVMSD as exceptions. These include e-mails sent to a limited number of recipients; electronic versions of newspapers and magazines; Web sites that contain audiovisual elements only in an ancillary manner, such as animated graphical elements, short advertising spots, or information related to a product or non-audiovisual service; games of chance involving a stake that represents a sum of money, including lotteries, betting and other forms of gambling services; and online games and search engines, but not broadcasts devoted to gambling or games of chance.

28But do Web sites full of advertising spots fall under the directive? How about a travelers’ guide with videos where an agency sells air tickets to Thailand? Does Joost compete for the same audience as the BBC? Can we consider Joost one service or a partly on-demand, partly information society service? What about new services appearing day by day on the internet? What does principal purpose mean? How do we differentiate between commercial and primarily non-commercial services? The lines between information society services and on-demand services need to be clarified as comprehensively as the line between linear and on-demand services, as there are overlaps both ways.

29All on-demand services are information society services (regulated by the e-Commerce directive), but not all on-demand services are audiovisual media services. For those on-demand services that are covered by both the AVMSD and the e-Commerce directive, primarily AVMSD shall be applicable. In the event of a conflict between a provision of the e-Commerce directive and the AVMSD, the provisions of the AVMSD shall prevail. At the national level, the regulation must take into account the already implemented e-commerce regulation to make sure that the overlapping rules are not in conflict.

30Given the overlap with existing directives, we should examine whether the AVMSD introduces regulation for policy areas that have not sought to affect the market before. Releasing certain information publicly to customers has been regulated by the e-Commerce directive for years and in more detail: it often forms part of general consumer-protection laws. Protection of minors and human dignity is already regulated by international treaties and the Council of Europe Convention on Human rights, as well as under decency rules and criminal and civil laws of Member states. Prohibition of incitement of hatred is regulated in different ways by Member states’ criminal laws. Copyright is one of the most harmonized legal areas. Promoting access to European works, as stated above can only be considered guidelines, since “the practical meaning of which will probably diverge widely throughout the Member states (in some Member states perhaps amounting to a zero-burden).” (Valcke et al. 2007).

31Requirements imposed on audiovisual commercial communications are regulated by the E-Commerce directive and in consumer protection rules. The country-of-origin principle is also regulated by the e-Commerce directive. However, the new limited possibility of derogation from the country-of-origin principle, as set in AVMSD, probably more effectively ensures the free flow of information and audiovisual programs in the internal market than do existing rules.

4.6. Impact of implementation on post-communist European media markets

32The AVMSD regulates television broadcasting and on-demand services according to the principle of technology neutrality. However, the type, usage, and economic effect of on-demand services are not clear yet. The market can react in different ways. Since the services can move easily within and outside the EU, the market and the technological developments will shape the applicability of the directive. If Member states fail to implement the AVMSD, considering the way the market develops and the requirements of technological innovation, media players are highly likely to migrate. If any of the Member states offers a market-friendly solution, service providers may easily switch countries in the EU or even migrate outside the EU, which would have a severely adverse impact on the European economy.

33Member states that decide to opt for flexible soft law regulation may come to play an important role in the media market of the EU. As we have seen, in post-communist countries soft law solutions are less well established than in other EU countries. in order to understand media policy in the eu and in Member states, one has to take into ac-count the development of the media market, civil society, political and economic interests, and the social structure, since all of these indicators have a great influence on the way media functions, and vice versa.

34This mutual relationship, together with the existing regulatory regimes in place, will help determine the different methods each Member state will use to implement the AVMSD. Nevertheless, there are considerable differences in the degree of state intervention. While intervention at EU level was prompted by competition issues, in post-communist countries the consideration of the media as a social institution is the underlying motive. Where the media is considered a tool to accomplish collective goals arising from political pluralism and the need to improve the quality of democratic life, and only secondarily as a private business, overregulation is a reality.

35On-demand services are less developed where services and the percentage of internet access are still low and co-regulatory methods are lacking. Therefore, ex ante regulation of on-demand services can distort the online media market in post-communist countries.

4.7. Questions relating to on-demand services

36Below I attempt to specify the most important questions and problem areas that have to be answered and defined before implementing the AVMSD:

  • Definition of on-demand services: overlapping services should be cleared up in order to ensure legal certainty.

  • European quota regime: Quota of European works concerning on-demand services is not an obligatory rule as stated above. Therefore, Member states can decide whether or not to apply quota for on-demand services.

  • Right to reply and protection of human dignity: Guidelines already elaborated in the recommendation on the protection of minors and human dignity and on the right to reply (European Parliament and the Council, 2006b) already includes appropriate guidelines for the implementation of measures in national law or practice, so as to ensure sufficiently the right to reply or equivalent remedies in relation to on-line media.

  • New systems of licensing: The Preamble of AVMS states that “no provision of this directive should require or encourage Member states to impose new systems of licensing or administrative authorisation on any type of audiovisual media service” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007).

  • Using Pin codes and filtering: These provisions are recommendations in the AVMSD. Member states have to elaborate adequate measures of child protection, either using technology or in some other way.

  • Deviation from country-of-origin principle concerning on-demand services.

  • Leaning on co- and self-regulation: Careful analysis of the appropriate regulatory approach is necessary, in particular, to establish whether legislation is preferable for the relevant sector and problem, or whether alternatives such as co-regulation or self-regulation should be considered. Furthermore, experience has shown that both co- and self-regulation instruments, implemented in accordance with the different legal traditions of the Member states, can play an important role in delivering a high level of consumer protection.

4.8. Conclusion

37As I have tried to show, the AVMSD has gone much further than the current stage of media market development in terms of converged services. On-demand services do not yet compete with television broadcasting, but they will soon. Therefore, the overregulation of a developing media service can impair the media market. The media market must be thoroughly analyzed before implementing the AVMSD. If legislators fail to implement the AVMSD in compliance with market needs, there is a high probability that market players will migrate to other countries, to the detriment of national and EU markets at large. Flexible soft-law solutions are preferable; however, post-communist countries lack co-regulatory regimes. The opportunity to use soft law has been ensured, but the specific requirements of co-regulation will have to be elaborated with the involvement of all stakeholders. There are other circumstances that might require specific responses by new Member states in Central and Eastern Europe. These include such aspects as a lower access and use of the broadband internet and new audiovisual services, as well as the perception of the media by political institutions and the society at large.

38As the analysis above highlights, the ambiguities in the categories, the scope of the audiovisual media regulation, and the lines between linear, on-demand, and information society services are not clear, and might never be clear if media services continue to evolve at current speeds. Regulators need to recognize the limits of traditional top-down regulation. a paradigm change is needed in regulators’ attitudes; only flexible regulatory methods can fulfill the requirements of legislation in the digital era.

Notes

1 Until now, on-demand services have been regulated by directive 2000/31/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 8, 2000, on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal Market E-Commerce directive, while television broadcasting has been regulated by Television Without Frontiers directive, besides general EC laws.

2 In AVMSD “television broadcasting” or “television broadcast” (i.e. a linear audiovisual media service) means an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for simultaneous viewing of programs on the basis of a program schedule (European Parliament and the Council, 2007).

3 In AVMSD “on-demand audiovisual media service” (i.e. a nonlinear audiovisual media service) means an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for viewing programs at a time chosen by the user and at his individual request on the basis of a catalogue of programs selected by the media service provider (European Parliament and the Council, 2007).

4 AVMSD article 3h, 3i (European Parliament and the Council, 2007).

5 Joost is a system for distributing TV shows and other forms of video over the Web using peer-to-peer TV technology. It turns a PC into an instant on demand TV without any need for additional set top box. News updates, discussion forums, show ratings, and multi-user chat are added to the service. Development started in 2006. By July 2007, there were more than a million beta-testers signed up. Joost was created by Niklas Zennstörm and Janus Friis, founders of Skype and Kazaa. Viacom, among others, entered into a deal with Joost to distribute content from its media properties, including MTV networks, BET, and Paramount Pictures. There are now more than 20,000 TV shows and more than 400 channels available. Joost launched a Web version of its video player in 2008.

6 http://www.emarketer.com/article.aspx?id=1006049&src=article_head_site-search; retrieved February 15, 2008.

7 http://www.ctamnetforum.com; retrieved February 20, 2008.

8 The exact amount varies depending on demographics, but the average respondent in a CTAM survey watched TV 31.4 hours per week and 0.9 hours Web video. Broadband video users watch slightly less (by eight percent) TV in total, and (by four percent) less prime-time content, compared to the total population.

9 I use the term “guidelines” further in the text to avoid confusion with the term “recommendation” under EC law.

10 According to the text of AVMSD, “co-regulation gives, in its minimal form, a legal link between self-regulation and the national legislator in accordance with the legal traditions of the Member states. Co-regulation should allow for the possibility of state intervention in the event of its objectives not being met” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 36).

11 According to AVMSD “self-regulation constitutes a type of voluntary initiative which enables economic operators, social partners, non-governmental organisations or associations to adopt common guidelines amongst themselves and for themselves” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 36).

12 There are several counter-arguments against the effectiveness and even the existence of self-regulation. See Prosser, 2008.

13 Available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/co-reg/promoting_effective_co-regulation/co_self_reg.pdf; retrieved February 23, 2008. Criteria are the following: Beneficial to consumers, Clear division of responsibilities, accessible to members of the public, adequate funding and staff, near-universal participation, effective and credible sanctions, auditing and review by Ofcom, Transparency and accountability, Consistency with similar regulation, independent appeals mechanism, divergence from the criteria.

14 “For the purposes of this directive, the definition of an audiovisual media service should cover only audiovisual media services, whether television broadcasting or on-demand, which are mass media, that is, which are intended for reception by, and which could have a clear impact on, a significant proportion of the general public. its scope should be limited to services as defined by the Treaty and therefore should cover any form of economic activity, including that of public service enterprises, but should not cover activities which are primarily non-economic and which are not in competition with television broadcasting, such as private websites and services consisting of the provision or distribution of audiovisual content generated by private users for the purposes of sharing and exchange within communities of interest” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 16). “For the purposes of this directive, the definition of an audiovisual media service should cover mass media in their function to inform, entertain and educate the general public, and should include audiovisual commercial communication but should exclude any form of private correspondence, such as e-mails sent to a limited number of recipients. That definition should exclude all services whose principal purpose is not the provision of programmes, i.e. where any audiovisual content is merely incidental to the service and not its principal purpose. Examples include websites that contain audiovisual elements only in an ancillary manner, such as animated graphical elements, short advertising spots or information related to a product or non-audiovisual service. For these reasons, games of chance involving a stake representing a sum of money, including lotteries, betting and other forms of gambling services, as well as on-line games and search engines, but not broadcasts devoted to gambling or games of chance, should also be excluded from the scope of this directive” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 18). “The scope of this directive should not cover electronic versions of newspapers and magazines” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 21). “While the principal purpose of an audiovisual media service is the provision of programmes, the definition of such a service should also cover text-based content which accompanies programmes, such as subtitling services and electronic programme guides” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 22). “in the context of television broadcasting, the notion of simultaneous viewing should also cover quasi-simultaneous viewing because of the variations in the short time lag which occurs between the transmission and the reception of the broadcast due to technical reasons inherent in the transmission process” (European Parliament and the Council, 2007, para. 24).

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 4.1. Level of internet access—Households 2007 (population considered 16 to 74).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ceup/docannexe/image/2165/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 156k
Titre Figure 4.2. Internet access of households by broadband access 2007 (population considered 16 to 74).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ceup/docannexe/image/2165/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 144k
Titre Table 4.1. Categories of rules under AVMSD
URL http://books.openedition.org/ceup/docannexe/image/2165/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 221k

Auteur

Éva Simon is a Hungarian lawyer working on internet related legal issues since 1999. Simon had worked in the business sphere before she joined the Technical university of Budapest in 2001 as a research fellow. She was a visiting scholar at Cardozo Law School in New York, USA in 2005. Simon was a Research Fellow at Center for Media and Communication Studies at Central European University 2005–2006 where she joined COST a30 project. She has been working as the legal advisor of the Hungarian association of Content Providers for the last 4 years. Her fields of interest are inter-net, media and data protection law both in academic research and business projects. E-mail: simon.eva@gmail.com

© Central European University Press, 2010

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540