Audiovisual media service

The Future European
Regulation of Internet, TV and
Audiovisual Media Services –
From linear to non-linear
to converged services
Associate Professor
Dr. Mark D. Cole
University of Luxembourg
From TwF to AVMS
TwFD of 1989
TwFD of 1997
AVMSD of 2007
AVMSD of 2010
(codified)
Corrigendum
of 2010
Transposition
• Deadline: 19 December 2009
– National execution measures
– www.medialaw.lu
• Continuous monitoring by Commission
– Fact-finding letters by Commission
– Infringement procedures
– Application reports and studies
– Green Paper of April 2013
Source: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm
Source: http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/about-kijkwijzer
Sources: http://www.sochi2014.com/en
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/index.html
http://www.wiener-staatsoper.at/Content.Node/home/opernball/Opernball-2013.de.php
Sources: http://csa.fr/
http://www.jamesbondlifestyle.com/product/aston-martin-dbs
Scope of application
• Audiovisual media service [Art. 1 (1) (a)]
– Cumulative Criteria [cf. recitals 21-29]
•
•
•
•
•
•
Service [Art. 56, 57 TFEU]
Editorial responsibility
Principal purpose: provision of programmes
To inform, entertain or educate
To the general public
By electronic communications networks
– Linear and non-linear services [Art. 1 (1) (e), (g)]
– Graduated approach to regulation
The linear/ non-linear distinction
• Linear (broadcasting) [Art. 1 (1) (e)]
– Simultaneous viewing of programmes
– Programme schedule
• Non-linear (on-demand) [Art. 1 (1) (g)]
– At the moment chosen by user
– At individual request of user
– Programme catalogue
• Graduated Regulation
Scope of application
• Excluded from scope:
– Principal purpose NOT provision of programmes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Private correspondence (emails),
Games of chance, betting, gambling
Online games,
Search engines,
Online versions of newspapers,
Radio services/audio transmission
• Television and „television-like“ services
• Technology-neutral
Transposition in Italy
Art. 1 (1) (a) AVMSD
Recital 22 AVMSD
Art. 2 (1) (a) of the Italian Decree […] […] Its scope should be limited to services as defined by the TFEU and therefore […] 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 […] on‐line games and search engines […]. Not included in the definition of “audiovisual media service” are: Services provided in the pursuit of 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 [...] Examples include: [...] b) on‐line games; c) search engines;
Recital 28 AVMSD
d) electronic versions of newspapers and magazines; The scope of this Directive should not cover [...]
electronic versions of newspapers and magazines.
Is the AVMSD applicable to ...
Source: http://www.ardmediathek.de/
C
A
T
C
H
–
U
P
T
V
?
VIDEO PLATFORMS
?
Source: http://www.youtube.com/channel/HC7Dr1BKwqctY
?
Source: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/showbiz
O
N
L
I
N
E
N
E
W
S
P
A
P
E
R
S
?
Case Sun Video (UK) [1]
• ATVOD Determination (11.2.2011)
– Sun Video = AVMS
•
•
•
•
Sun Video section = a service in its own right
No reference to newspaper offering
Form and content = TV programmes
Principle purpose = provide TV-like programmes
– Similar ATVOD Determinations
• The Sunday Times Video Library (02/2011)
• The Guardian YouTube Channel (06/2011)
• The Independent Video (07/2011)
Case Sun Video (UK) [2]
• Ofcom decision (21.12.2011)
– Sun Video ≠ AVMS
– Consider website as a whole
– Characteristics (principal purpose test)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Own homepage
Material is catalogued and accessed via separate section
Material is presented, styled, marketed as TV channel
Significant amount of AV material
No (few) access links b/w AV material and other content
No (few) content links b/w AV material and other content
AV material is most prominent
AV material is not integrated in another service
Source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/
O
N
L
I
N
E
N
E
W
S
P
A
P
E
R
S
?
INTERNET SITES
?
Source: http://www.playboy.com/
Case Playboy TV (UK)
• ATVOD Determinations (21.12.2010)
– Demand Adult/Climax 3 Uncut = AVMS
• Catalogue of on-demand content (grouping, presentation)
• Comparability test:
– Form and content comparable to ‚adult‘ TV programmes
– Form and content more explicit but comparable
• Other issues:
– Jurisdiction (editorial responsibility): playboy.com
• ATVOD Determination + Ofcom Decision
– Protection of minors (rule 11 ATVOD Guidance)
• ATVOD Determination + Ofcom Decision + Fine
Case Playboy TV (UK)
• Ofcom Decisions (05/2011)
– Climax 3 Uncut + Demand Adult = AVMS
• Comparability test:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Form and content is comparable (not identical) to TV programmes
Video content = self-contained items with titles
Video content = sustained duration
Video content arranged in schedules (specific running orders)
Video content arranged in ‚channels‘
Title and end sequences
Videos belong to series
Videos adopt plots
Content is comparable to adult sex material (rated 18 or R18) even if
stronger or more explicit
– Climax 3 Uncut no longer operational
Connected TV
• Convergence of services
• Commission Green Paper (24.4.2013)
– Public Consultation (due 31.8.2013)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Level-playing field?
Jurisdiction: providers established outside EU?
Interoperability + infrastructure
Regulatory framework: AVMSD/ECD
Media pluralism + freedom
Commercial Communication
Protection of minors
Accessibility of services
Source: http://smart-tv.samsung.de/smart-entertainen.html
Thank you!
Questions, ideas,
suggestions?
www.medialaw.lu
Ass. Prof. Dr. Mark D. Cole
[email protected]
Weicker building, C 205
(+352) 46 66 44 6824