IPTango: broadcasting right

Showing posts with label broadcasting right. Show all posts

Tuesday, 17 September 2019

Illegal Streams: shutting down in Ecuador

Patricia Covarrubia September 17, 2019 No comments:

The Ecuadorian Institute of Intellectual Property (IEPI) currently named SENADI (National Intellectual Rights Service) is the state entity that regulates and controls the application of IP. The Organic Code of the Social Economy of Knowledge, Creativity, and Innovation is the IP legislation applicable.

SENADI has different divisions, one of them is the Órgano Colegiado de Derechos Intelectuales, which is the office in ‘charge of attending all administrative resources and cancellation actions that are presented before it’.

The latest measure by SENADI is seen as a ‘milestone’, but why?

Background: in August 2019, DIRECTV Ecuador C. Ltda., and the National League of Professional Football, LALIGA, presented an administrative action against MEGAPLAY and LIKETV in Ecuador. SENADI carried out an inspection of a property in which supposedly there was equipment that allows access to TV signals without authorization.
How did it work? MEGAPLAY and LIKETV were retransmitting unauthorized audio and video signals to their clients. The clients paid an amount to watch the programs as well as having a device called TV Box, that received the retransmitted signals.
The result: SENADI ordered the blocking of Internet Protocols (IP) that allow access to internet television MEGAPLAY and LIKETV in Ecuador.

This is not, however, the first time SENADI blocks illegal sites. Back in June 2019, SENADI blocked 5 sites belonging to ROJA DIRECTA which also specializes in streaming sports. Ecuador follows other countries in the region. In Argentina, the video streaming Cuevana.tv site (12 million monthly users) was blocked in 2011. In 2017, the Mexican national IPO suspended SPORTFLIX (the NETFLIX of sports ) due to copyright infringement. Just because is a new way to communicate and distribute TV programs, it does not mean that they are outside the IP legislation – watch out.

Media law in Venezuela: If you cannot show (or say) something nice, do NOT broadcast!

Patricia Covarrubia October 28, 2011 No comments:

Thanks go to my Venezuelan friends for sending me this news regarding the situation of Globovision, a TV channel from Venezuela.

Broadcasting, Media Law and Venezuela
While broadcasting organizations are protected all over the world, countries have different legal traditions on how to provide protection. Indeed, everyone has the right to freedom of expression but this does not prevent a State from requiring to have a license for broadcasting and so, it establishes certain regulations and code of conducts. This area is controversial however; especially if you are in a country where Human Rights appear not to have much of a value – just law but not in fact [I am not finger pointing any country in particular].

In 2004 Venezuela adopted the Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television (Ley de Responsabilidad Social en Radio y Televisión, known as Ley Resorte). Its purpose was to establish a legal framework for the social responsibility of radio and television broadcasters. Its aim is to strike a democratic balance between duties and rights and promoting social justice – taking into consideration values. At the time, the law received opposition and criticism for those that go up against President Chavez believing that the Law was once more another way for the Government to have control over the media.

In 2009, there was a post in this blog regarding the latest tendency of several Latin American countries concerning media and giving examples including Venezuela (at that time President Chavez had closed several radio stations; one TV station; and blocking in a ‘Book Fair’ the showing of a book for containing political views contrary to the President’s belief– all of these applying the Ley Resorte).

Are the rights of authors and owners stoppable?
There is no doubt that not only the law and code of practice must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material. Moreover, it is also desirable that factual matters must not materially mislead the audience. However in the other side of the coin we need also to consider that there are situations in which material which are violent needs to be shown – it is justified.

Having more or less this background I proceed to the news.
Last week, the National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) of Venezuela fined the equivalent of about US$ 2.1 million to Globovision (a private television channel) by the treatment given to a prison crisis in June - a riot in which 20 people were killed. Tensions rose during Globovision coverage of the dispute in the jail, which showed security forces against armed prisoners – the riot lasted 27 days.

The CONATEL Official claimed that Globovision incurred in a "defence to crime" by encouraging ”public nuisance" and giving “anxiety to citizens" and promoting "hatred and intolerance for political reasons". In other words it appears that Globovision was condoning and glamorizing violent and seriously antisocial behaviour – likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour (they based its arguments in Articles 7, 27, and 29). The broadcasting also transmitted interviews with prisoners’ family members during the riot. Because of these fact Conatel argued that when the channel reported that the National Guard was "massacring" inmates it was promoting hatred and by airing the prisoners' mothers statements they created 'unrest'.

According to CONATEL the images and interviews were showed around 300 times [I guess that I do not have to be a mathematician to see that is the riot lasted 27 days, the images were produced at least 10 times per day which seems feasible bearing in mind that Globovision is a ‘News Channel’].

The vice president of Globovision, Maria Fernanda Flores, said that Marcos Hernandez, board member and president of Conatel called to ask for more balance in coverage of the riot. Flores requested access to the information and also to be allowed to go inside the prison – this was permitted to the Government TV station only [this is balance in a democratic society like Venezuela].

The International Association of Broadcasting has said that this fine and action against Globovision represents "a step toward total government hegemony".

The Human Rights Watch asked the Government to stop the harassment of the TV station and finalised its report by making the following declarative: "The decision to open an investigation and the application of sanctions for infractions of broadcasting laws are the responsibility of CONATEL, a body attached to the Ministry of Communication and Information. While defined in law as an autonomous body, CONATEL’s four-person board of directors and its director general are all appointed by the president of Venezuela and can be dismissed at his discretion."

The New Herald mentions that Globovision last year became the only opposition channel to President Chavez after another television station, RCTV, was forced to withdraw both cable TV and satellite. Other private TV channels have reduced their criticism of the President in recent years. Therefore I leave you with this last statement so you can draw your own conclusions – is Venezuela IP friendly?

Get me some popcorns please!

Patricia Covarrubia October 28, 2011 No comments:

Who doesn’t like a good film? Moreover, who doesn’t like a happy ending especially if it is real life? I am afraid I was stuffing myself with popcorn when this news came because I did miss it!!

I guess you are familiar with the expression ‘innocent until presume guilty’. However, this common phrase appears not to exist in Mexico judiciary practice. Today’s topic is the Mexican film named ‘Presumed Guilty’ which recently won an Emmy in Los Angeles. This documentary is an independent film about a man wrongly convicted of murder. While this blog does not cover this area of law here you can check more about the criminal process run by the Mexican judiciary.

Two lawyers, Roberto Hernandez and Layda Negrete, became involved in Mr Zuniga's case and filmed their attempts to win his freedom. To make the story short, there was eventually a retrial, during which a prosecution witnesses admitted he did not see Mr Zuniga fire a gun. The judge nevertheless upheld the sentence, which was only finally overturned when Mr Zuniga's legal team appealed to higher judicial authorities.

Going back to the topic on this blog – the film

The documentary received a step back went on March 2nd a a Mexico City Judge banned the film after the directors were sued for filming one person without permission - privacy grounds. The person that brought the case was the prosecution witness in the documentary who argued that he had been filmed without permission and alleged his right to privacy had been violated. Yet, cinemas kept showing the film until being served with a formal demand.

Outcry: the judge's ruling provoked a storm of protest and complaints about censorship.

Happy ending: not only Mr Zuniga is free but on March 8th a different court ordered the ban lifted on public-interest grounds.

The Right to broadcast and inform – any author’ right: the difficulty in this case was the questioning of how far confidential information can be kept or how far I can claim that my privacy is worth of protection. Indeed, I believe that the case managed to weight the situations and finally agreeing that the right to show the truth was worthy of protection.

The documentary has won a string of awards and I invite you to sit comfy in your coach this weekend and watch a true and sad (with happy ending) story bearing in mind that this is still the reality of the Mexican people – Presumed Guilty!

More info here and here.

Rio 2016: broadcasting rights were sold months ago

Jeremy October 19, 2009 No comments:

According to the official Rio 2016 website, it was as long ago as 27 August that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the broadcast rights for the 2014 (Winter Olympics) and the 2016 Games to a consortium of three prominent media organizations in Brazil led by TV Globo. The agreement, valued at over US$210 million [US$170 million rights fee and a further US$40 million minimum promotional media package commitment] is "said to have established a new benchmark in rights valuation and confirms the robust and diverse nature of the Brazilian economy while also making Brazil the third largest broadcast market for the IOC". The website adds:

"The IOC tendered the broadest media rights package ever offered to the Brazilian market combining broadcast – both free and pay – broadband, internet and mobile. The combination of offers from Globo, who won the main tender, and Bandeirantes and Record led to a 12-fold increase in rights fees for the Brazilian market since 2008 – a validation of the strength of the Brazilian advertising and sponsorship market. In addition, the proposals from the broadcasters will mean a quantum jump in coverage and broadcast hours for the Olympic Movement in Brazil, a testament to the widespread enthusiasm felt across the nation for the Games".

Are the sums in question too high? The consortium which has secured the rights must have done its homework in terms of calculating likely licensing and advertising income, but the big unknown is the extent to which the technology in 2014-2016 will enable the bidders to control their rights.