[Ecommerce] EC regulation 'could stifle' net

[James Heald]

Note that the TVWF directive is quite a different thing to the 'casters
treaty; (though it does shed an interesting sidelight on some of the
"convergence" issues and arguments).


TVWF is basically about imposing EU-wide rules on the /content/ of
broadcasts (and potentially webcasters).

These could include:
-  "Protection of minors and human dignity" (ie restrictions on violence
and pornography)
-  Restrictions on advertising / requirements to identify advertiser content
-  Rules for statutory "Right of reply"
-  Requirements for in-signal identifiers of the broadcaster.

TVWF is /supposed/ to be about establishing a minimum standands, beyond
which material should be accessible anywhere in the EU.  But in
practice, member states have been pretty resistant to any easing up of
their existing standards, making TVWF look like an additional layer of
regulation.

Rather than giving the 'casters more rights therefore, TVWF is about
imposing obligations on them -- hence their negative reaction; and a
certain amount of weaselling about the implications of 'convergence'.

(Though on the other hand, there are some quite challenging examples of
what should and what should be "broad"casting on page 3 of
http://www.broadbanduk.org/reports/Directives/Revision_of_EU_TVWF_Directive_BSG_responseFinal.pdf
)

Note also that the people protesting here against TVWF (especially
Intellect) are many of them the same people most actively trying
(especially through EICTA) to push a "DRM with everything" agenda, and
an end to the 'droit du copie'/blank media levies.


As a side-note, one other interesting question the EU is thinking about
in the TVWF directive process is whether to mandate "fair use" access
for news organisations to broadcasts.

Is this just the sort of regulation that might be /forbidden/ by the
'casting treaty?

I confess I haven't actually read the 'casters treaty drafts -- do they
allow signatory states to establish exceptions as they wish (eg for news
broadcast access; or for personal use / time-shifting / format-shifting
/ interoperability), subject to eg the usual Berne limitations -- or are
such loopholes completely forbidden ?


All best,

    James.



Manon Ress wrote:

> QUOTE:
> While acknowledging that the TV Without Frontiers directive, drawn up
> in 1989, needs updating for the modern age, both Intellect and the
> BSG are calling for the European Commission to go back to the drawing
> board with its plans.
>
> The lobby groups are calling for a fuller consultation with all the
> industries that will be affected.
>
> "The broadcasting world is entering a period of rapid change and the
> regulatory framework will need to be amended," Philip Graf, chairman
> of the BSG, told delegates at the i2010 European Broadcast Conference.
>
> "But this blanket regulatory approach is absolutely not the way to do
> it," he said.
> END of QUOTE
>
> EC regulation 'could stifle' net
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4264558.stm
>
> Tech lobby groups in the UK have warned that proposed changes to
> European TV regulation could stifle net content.
> The European Commission wants to update its TV Without Frontiers
> directive to take account of new developments such as video-on-
> demand, broadcasting via broadband and podcasting.
>
> The Broadband Stakeholder Group and trade body Intellect have branded
> the planned changes unworkable.
>
> It could be an attempt to regulate the net by the backdoor, they said.
>
> Premature and unworkable
>
> The European Commission is planning to extend the regulation of
> traditional broadcasting to cover all audio-visual content.
>
> The BSG and Intellect are worried that the definitions the Commission
> has come up with to distinguish traditional and new methods of
> broadcast are already out of date.
>
> They also believe the proposed changes could extend to areas such as
> online newspapers which currently fall outside of the EC's regulatory
> remit.
>
> "Our members are seriously concerned that the European Commission's
> proposals will inhibit growth of the content and new media market in
> Europe," said Antony Walker, Director of the Knowledge Economy at
> Intellect.
>
> "New audio-visual content services, made possible through innovation
> in digital technology and the internet, should be given time to
> evolve and develop rather than being shackled by premature and
> unnecessary regulation intervention by the EU," he added.
>
> The two organisations believe the proposals are premature,
> unjustified, inappropriate and unworkable.
>
> In this view, they seem to have the support of the telecoms,
> publishing and new media industries.
>
> A straw poll, conducted by the BSG, found that the majority of senior
> executives of affected industries, wanted the directive put on hold.
>
> Over 80% felt that the legislation could open the door for wider net
> regulation and 77% felt the proposals could inhibit the emerging new
> media market.
>
> TV delivered via broadband will be a reality within a decade,
> according to a recent report from Lovelace Consulting and informitv.
>
> TV is likely to become more web-like with millions of shows to
> download as the worlds of digital TV and the net increasingly
> converge, the report found.
>
> Blanket regulation
>
> While acknowledging that the TV Without Frontiers directive, drawn up
> in 1989, needs updating for the modern age, both Intellect and the
> BSG are calling for the European Commission to go back to the drawing
> board with its plans.
>
> The lobby groups are calling for a fuller consultation with all the
> industries that will be affected.
>
> "The broadcasting world is entering a period of rapid change and the
> regulatory framework will need to be amended," Philip Graf, chairman
> of the BSG, told delegates at the i2010 European Broadcast Conference.
>
> "But this blanket regulatory approach is absolutely not the way to do
> it," he said.
>
> FRAME
> INTELLECT AND BSG SURVEY
> 80% agreed reform of broadcast regulation is necessary in the light
> of new methods of content delivery
> 77% thought current proposals were 'inappropriate'
> 82% thought it set a precedent for wider regulation of the internet
> 82% agreed that current proposals did not take account of the pace of
> change within technology, content and media markets
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************
> Manon Ress
> manon.ress@cptech.org
> www.cptech.org
>
> Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC USA
> Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>
> Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
> 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727
>
> Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent,
> London, N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386
> 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
>
>
>