#content regulation

[mgeist]

The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 134: Monica Auer on CRTC Governance, Content Regulation and the Radio-Canada Decision

The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 134: Monica Auer on CRTC Governance, Content Regulation and the Radio-Canada Decision

Over the past couple of weeks, there has been mounting outrage over a CRTC decision involving Radio-Canada and a broadcast segment from 2020 in which the N-word was used multiple times as part of a discussion of a book that contains the word in its title. That decision has sparked cries of censorship and concerns about the CRTC. Given that Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez and the…

View On WordPress

[alliwalk]

We conducted a survey of 907 Reddit users, asking them to reflect on their post removal a few hours after it happened. Examining the qualitative and quantitative responses from this survey, we present users’ perceptions of the platform’s moderation processes. We find that although roughly a fifth (18%) of the participants accepted that their post removal was appropriate, a majority of the participants did not — over a third (37%) of the participants did not understand why their post was removed, and further, 29% of the participants expressed some level of frustration about the removal. We focus on factors that shape users’ attitudes about fairness in moderation and posting again in the community. Our results indicate that users who read community guidelines or receive explanations for removal are more likely to perceive the removal as fair and post again in the future. We discuss implications for moderation practices and policies. Our findings suggest that the extra effort required to establish community guidelines and educate users with helpful feedback is worthwhile, leading to better user attitudes about fairness and propensity to post again.

[nancysamayoa-blog]

Week 7: Fair to Share?

The issues surrounding copyright and fair use laws discussed by Terry Flew in this week's lecture and reading show the complexity around original works and appropriating work for other interests.

Most of the week's readings base their arguments around the idea that current ways of regulating content are unable to cope with the ways in which new media change the modes of distribution and the ways content is encountered. Many of the traditional modes of regulation fail to successfully protect the parties involved in creation and use of digital content. As suggested in the Kirby(2012) video Everything is a remix, American copyright and I.P. law are being exploited by patent and sample trolls - a fact which costs businesses and inhibits the creative nature originally intended by these laws. Neither the original creator or the public good benefit from this environment. Lessig further explores the extremes of a culture where creativity can be harshly punished by regulators, and advocates a return to focus on innovation for the greater public good.

In recent years, my internet service provider - Iinet - have been in the news for winning a four year legal battle over whether it was responsible for its users' illegal downloads. This highlights the complexities over a geographical/infrastructure-based approach to internet regulation. The current Australian Federal government is considering an approach that will push for website-blocking and pressuring the ISPs to shoulder more responsibility. As suggested by Flew(2014, p.184), this type of approach can become costly and time-consuming, with pirates adopting new ways to circumvent restrictions. Methods such as "Virtual Private Networks" or even apps, such as the "FreeWeibo" app in development that aims to circumvent China's restrictive "Great Firewall", restrictions are rarely all-powerful.

We are in a transitionary phase of content regulation. While Flew's vertically layered form of media regulation shows the issue with current approaches to convergent media, traditional media still exists to some degree. As the lobbying of companies like Disney for the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 1998" shows and the rise of companies like Apple into the distribution market (Flew, 2012 p.192), a change in regulation equals a shift in power structures and those in power (the distributors, the patent holders etc.) don't want to lose out to the myriad of content creators.

References:

 Flew, Terry. 2014. “Ch 11: Internet Law, Policy and Governance.” In New Media. 4th ed, 178 – 197.Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Ferguson, Kirby. 2012. “Everything is a Remix.” (video, 15:26). Available at: http://vimeo.com/36881035

[woodvavb027-blog]

Mobile Communication and the Protection of Children (Lup Meijersreeks)

Mobile Communication and the Protection of Children (Lup Meijersreeks) Mobile phones and other smart connected devices have fundamentally changed contemporary life. Globally, we see an unprecedented explosion of new generation mobile phones. More precisely, mobile communication is nowadays really pervasive in social life. For instance, children and young persons are emerging as active players in the wonderful world of ringing and being ringed. Many of them are attracted by intriguing ring tones. However, the rapid mobile diffusion among children and young people raises a number of crucial questions. In what way do mobile phones pose a threat to children and young people in terms of content, contact, and commercialism? What impact does the use of mobile communication technology have on children and young people? To what extent does the current regulatory framework protect children and young people from harm and abuse? How might we seek to address the inadequacies in the existing regulatory framework with regards to the protection of this social group? The purpose of our investigations is to compare the regulatory measures as adopted in Hong Kong with regulatory practices and arrangements of other jurisdictions. The main idea is to develop via comparison a viable regulatory strategy in mobile content regulation that is applicable in Hong Kong as well as worldwide. This is a volume in the series of the Graduate School of Legal Studies of Leiden University. This study is part of the Law Schools' research programme on Securing the rule of law in a world of multilevel jurisdiction. Take αсt¡οn ìmmedíatёly!!0_ Donot ωαit αny morе.