This is my (personal) report on the Media and Communications subject section at the annual conference of the Society of Legal Scholars, held in Cambridge this week. For those not familiar: the SLS is the organisation for legal academics in the UK and Ireland, and this was its 102th annual conference. As well as plenary sessions and an AGM, the main business of the conference is a range of subject-specific parallel sessions, of which Media and Communications is one. A related area is Cyberlaw, but this year they ran at different times in the week (the conference is divided into groups A and B), which did appear to increase the attendance at both. During this year’s meeting, I was elected as the fourth convenor of the section, taking over from Mike Varney (and before him Tom Gibbons and before him Eric Barendt) – a quite daunting line of succession!

Session 1 had a focus on information – although in very different ways. Damien Carney (Portsmouth) opened up with ‘Truth and the unnamed source’, considering the importance of truth (and objectivity) in the law and ethics of the protection of sources. He looked at the recent decisions in National Post (Canada) and Financial Times v UK (the latest instalment in the Interbrew case), making particular points about the reassessment of who the privilege on the protection of sources ‘belongs’ to, with the Canadian and European courts heading towards an emphasis on the rights of the public to know (the truth?). Lawrence McNamara (Reading) followed with his paper on terrorism and disclosure obligations, considering section 38B Terrorism Act and the various laws that preceded it. Despite very few cases on the matter, the provision has an impact on the practices of media organisations, although there are differences between the thresholds applied within organisations and as apparently required by law. He also debated the rights and wrongs of a media exemption and how necessary it is to take a legal approach in any event. Finally, Neil Richards (Washington University, St. Louis) presented his theory of intellectual privacy. He distinguished between ‘tort privacy’ and ‘intellectual privacy’, particularly on the difference between the impact of each on freedom of expression, suggesting that the former might be confined to ‘truly shocking’ disclosures, but the latter was important because it protects the process of considering and forming ideas. Interestingly, there was a strong technological dimension here, given the role of search engines and of surveillance technologies. He proposed four key aspects of the right to intellectual privacy: thought and belief, the right to read, spatial privacy and confidentiality, and also considered the need for a horizontal approach rather than a negative constitutional doctrine alone.

Session 2 had a European theme, with papers from Irini Katsirea and myself. Irini’s presentation was about product placement, specifically the implementation of the new rules set out in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) in two jurisdictions, Germany and the UK. She highlighted some of the vaguer aspects of the Directive, such as the criticism (but not outright ban) of thematic placement, the conflict between provisions on surreptitious commercial communications, undue prominence, and limited scope for allowing product placement. The UK has excluded certain genres (above and beyond the Directive), but only for broadcasters under UK jurisdiction, again because of the Directive. Germany has required identification of PP in acquired programming, but without an offence of breach of this duty. The UK and Germany took different paths on thematic placement – unclear in the former, banned in the latter. The minimal requirements of the Directive on notifying viewers were also considered. In the discussion of the paper, we also wondered to what extent product placement was actually present in EU-origin programmes since the Directive. My own paper was on the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, a Council of Europe instrument dating from 1989 but currently in serious trouble after an aborted attempt to amend it. After explaining the history of the relationship between it and the EU’s media law directives, I discussed how the European Commission objected to the amendments that would have brought it up to date with the AVMSD, assessing the legal basis for this objection (external powers of the Union) and how this was debated in various fora. I also looked at the reaction of the UK, which had in the 1980s been a strong supporter of the Convention, but had some problems with the current amendments and mixed feelings about the Commission’s intervention. I concluded with a wider discussion on EU-Council relations and whether other areas (such as media pluralism and impartiality) might fare in future developments. [If readers will permit a further note: I have a draft paper on which comments would be appreciated, not available online but happy to supply copies if you are happy to offer your views: email me].

Session 3 was about recent developments, both with a European context and a British focus. Tom Gibbons (Manchester) looked at the relationship between reputation and privacy within Article 8 ECHR, and the differences between English law on defamation and on privacy. He was reluctant to describe what is happening in Strasbourg as a doctrine, given the inconsistent positions expressed by differently constituted courts, but discussed a number of defamation-type cases where the engagement of article 8 was taken for granted. Nonetheless in Karakó v Hungary there may have been a move away from this position, with some importance attached to internal and external notions (he considered, later, whether reputation is external and privacy is internal). English cases on injunctions (ZAM, Terry) have added comments on the importance of reputation, and the Supreme Court’s decision in the freezing orders discussion discussed ECHR decisions and the need for a serious threshold. Are we moving towards a Re S-style ultimate balancing exercise? Is the justification defence to defamation threatened by an article 8 approach? What about Reynolds? He also argued that the ability to evaluate others is important and subsuming reputation into article 8 may be difficult to reconcile with this. Following on, my UEA colleague Michael Harker presented his paper on vertical restraints in broadcasting, or why ‘content is king’. As well as a thorough explanation of the market structure of pay-TV in the UK, he focused on Ofcom’s intervention regarding sports channels, particularly the requirement on Sky to offer its channels to other platforms (e.g. digital terrestrial) at a regulated price. Michael explored the differences between ‘sectoral’ and ‘competition’ approaches, and the remedies available in both cases. The possible consequences of intervention were outlined, including the need to protect innovation and also the policy goals of (for example) promoting broadband uptake.

Finally, session 4 was a pair of case studies. Ewa Komorek (my former colleague as a doctoral student in Dublin) reported on the ups and downs of Polish media law. She looked at three particular issues: ‘Rwyingate’, politicisation of public service media and problems with press freedom and criminal law. The first was a major national scandal regarding the proposed takeover of a private television channel by a major media company, and the disclosure of an attempt to exchange ‘a law for a bribe’, as a national newspaper reported. This led to a major report on the activities of the ‘group in power’, the resignation of a government, and wider discussion of the adequacy of the legal framework on media concentration and mergers. The second is also about the relationship between politics and media, with Ewa explaining the structure of the public service broadcaster and recent changes that may (or may not) increase the independence (from political influence) of the broadcaster. Finally, she looked at a range of criminal provisions, including those about insulting the president (imprisonment up to three years and no defence of provocation!) and defamation itself, despite criticism from the ECHR on the impact of these provisions. She was followed by Eliza Varney (Keele), whose presentation was about disability and ICTs after recent changes to EU law, particularly the 2009 amendments to the electronic communications directives and EU equality law. Although some progress has been made through the updating of universal service provisions, she pointed to outstanding issues such as the consumer-driven approach to regulation, the focus on sensory disabilities (e.g. as compared with cognitive), and the weakness (after industry lobbying) of some provisions. Eliza argued for a universal design approach and considered whether a disability-specific provision of general equality law (particularly if the proposed directive on discrimination re access to goods & services does not proceed) might be of assistance.

I was off for two weeks earlier in August and came back to work on Monday 22nd. Normally I try to provide links to interesting stories in my field on Twitter (@macsithigh), but for that period I had a semi-detox in terms of using the Internet.

I did start checking out what I had missed when I got back , but that was quickly replaced by catching up with various things – finishing off reading lists for the new Masters modules, important bits of paperwork for the BA project, introducing a group of A-level students to celebrities and the law, typical first-week-back fare. Anyway, better late than never, here are some August links (no attempt at being comprehensive or even highlighting the most important, just a selection of things that caught my eye).

• ‘When Patents Attack‘ – an episode of one of my favourite radio programmes, This American Life on patent trolls and such things
• The brilliant report by Charles Raab & Benjamin Goold for the (UK) Equality and Human Rights Commission on privacy rights
• ‘Europe takes its own path on privacy rights‘ (New York Times 9 August 2011)
• John Battelle and Jonathan Zittrain return to the future of the Internet
• President of the TV channel Syfy (I still don’t like the name…) discusses the links between television and video games

Notable court decisions (some of which have gone straight into the reading lists)

• Tucows v Lojas Renner [2011] ONCA 548 (domain names)
• In re: Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation 2nd Circuit CA, 17 August 2011 (came to me via and thoroughly explained by James Grimmelmann
• Pulte Homes v Laborer’s Int’l Union (6th Circuit CA, 2 August 2011) – another scary interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, this time about an email-writing campaign during a trade dispute (see part II-B); found via Techdirt
• A pair of jurisdiction cases from the 9th Circuit discussed by Eric Goldman.

And finally, some new books:

• Garry Crawford, Video Gamers. I saw Garry present some of his work at the MeCCSA conference in Salford earlier this year, and he has an interesting take on the gaming world, drawing upon some of the theoretical spats over how to deal with gaming from an academic point of view, but paying particular attention to gamers themselves. Looks like the book does all this and more.
• Mark Kermode, The Good, the Bad and the Multiplex. I’m a long-time listener to Kermode’s radio show (with Simon Mayo) and I’m looking forward to reading this, particularly on the changes in the exhibition wing of the cinema industry; he’s speaking here in Norwich (as part of a national tour) later in the year although tickets aren’t cheap. The book’s on pre-order anyway.
• Robert Levine, Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. Widely reviewed during the month, I’m think of pairing this with Chris Anderson’s Free, although I need to read it for myself first..

Here’s a copy (PDF 152K) of the letter I sent to the Copyright Review Committee in Ireland (chaired by Dr. Eoin O’Dell), after a helpful extension to the deadline. It’s a short submission, although I hope to write something more detailed on the substantive issues when the Committee circulates its consultation paper this year.

Last month’s decision of the US Supreme Court in Brown v Entertainment Merchants’ Association (PDF) (formerly Schwarzenegger v VSDA) has attracted a lot of attention.  For some academic background on the story leading up to the case, see Rousse’s thorough ‘Electronic Games and the First Amendment’ (SSRN), or my own piece of last year, ‘The regulation of video games: past, present and future‘.  All the filings in the case are available via SCOTUSblog.  This blog post, written in honour of what was apparently Video Games Day in the US last Friday, brings you some comments of my own – bits of this have appeared previously in a nice piece by Ben Maxwell on Edge Magazine’s website, available here.  I’ve used the excellent coverage of press statements by various parties at GamePolitics.com for many of the added links.

The most significant thing about the decision to strike down California’s law on the sale of video games to under-18s was how clearly it was a First Amendment case;  the court was particularly firm in arguing that games were protected in full by the First Amendment.  Scalia (for it is he who writes the majority opinion) goes to great length to compare video games with other forms of expression (from comic books to movies), and even highlights the degree of gore found in the clearly-acceptable Snow White, Hansel and Gretel  and Cinderella, not to mention Homer’s Odyssey, Dante’s Divine Comedy and Golding’s Lord of the Files.  The interactivity of good fiction is used to dismiss the claim that interactive games deserve special legal attention.  To some extent Breyer’s dissenting opinion answers this (although see the Citizen Media Law Project’s blog’s puzzled face at how Breyer feels about the First Amendment), as does aspects of Alito’s concurrence (which reads more like a dissent, and anyway Scalia has four votes as well as his own (from the ‘liberal’ wing!) already, so a majority without the separate opinion).  (Thomas also writes a dissent, but it’s about the lack of constitutional rights of under 18s as a broader principle).

Not only does this confirm that games are being taken seriously at the highest legal levels, it also placed a heavy burden on California to justify the restriction.  With this in mind, the court was not persuaded in the slightest by the evidence put forward regarding a link between gaming and aggression, which must come as a disappointment to those who have been arguing these theories for some time.  The Empirical Legal Studies blog has a good piece on the evidential issues.  While the need to be aware of specific issues for under-18s was noted, even this was not enough to justify the intervention.  However, it’s interesting to consider whether there is a gap opening up between the approach of the court to sex and to violence (or indeed to language); the fact that the decision to hear Fox v FCC in 2011/12 (this time on First Amendment grounds alone; last time the focus was on administrative law) was announced on the same day does whet the appetite.

In the US, the decision means that the self-regulatory system (the ESRB) will continue to be the main form of video game regulation for some time, and other states that had considered following California’s lead will probably cease their efforts.  The ESRB pointed to the decision as an endorsement of its system, although there were some harsh words in concurrence and dissent regarding the effectiveness of the labelling system.  I was particularly interested to see the response of the State Senator who proposed the original legislation, Leyand Yee, who focused on the corporate power of the games industry being able to continue unchecked.  I don’t agree with a lot of Yee’s points in the press release, nor with separating video games from other forms of protected expression, but there is a point about accountability and indeed power when the anti-regulation industry is happy to support and fund regulation as long as it is the regulator.

Meanwhile in the UK, we already have a mixture of self-regulation and statutory control.  Most games are exempt, while some (either on the grounds of content – gross violence, etc – or format – significant video content) are presently classified by the BBFC under the Video Recordings Act.  Changes are on the way though (as discussed in my 2010 piece), with two simultaneous amendments to the VRA – the extension of statutory regulation to a wider range of games, and the possibility of designating a separate body for the classification of video games.  Taken togther, this will mean the use of the (existing and non-statutory) Europe-wide PEGI system for statutory classification in the UK, once the relevant orders (envisaged by the Digital Economy Act) are passed.

The High Court has already had one opportunity to consider video games, in a 2008 judicial review of the decision of the Video Appeals Committee (itself an appeal against a BBFC refusal to classify) regarding Manhunt 2, [2008] EWHC 203 (Admin).  On that occasion, the Court found that the VAC was not interpreting the ‘harm that may be caused to potential viewers’ provisions of the Video Recordings Act (as amended) correctly.  The ECHR’s concept of harm was mentioned, albeit briefly.  In future cases, one imagines that the detailed findings of the American courts may be useful (albeit of persuasive value only and subject to the usual concerns around the First Amendment in non-US courts).  The impact of a regulatory decision on the right to freedom of expression as contained in the Human Rights Act is clear.  Of course, the BBFC already states that it takes the HRA into account (alongside other statutory provisions) and one assumes that this will continue under the Video Standards Council for PEGI.  The VSC should declare, immediately on taking up its duties, that it will act as if the Human Rights Act applies to it (which it most likely does) and it should go about its business in a responsible fashion, including asking to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and publishing its decision-making and appeal procedures.

UK developers may be relieved that they do not have to deal with a California-only system as there are already a number of different systems in use around the world, although they will still need to be aware of differences between the ESRB (US) and PEGI (European) systems of classification.Of course, Germany remains outside PEGI, and Australia remains a major ‘market’ for games with a standalone system for classification, which – in essence – has a ‘top category’ of suitable for 15 and above, which means that games classified for over-18s in other jurisdictions may not be acceptable in Australia.  This has been under review for some time.

During 2011/12, I’ll be working (among other things) on a project on media content regulation in the UK, with a particular focus on complaints about broadcasting.  It’s funded by the British Academy Small Grants scheme, and I’ll share further information once it is up and running.  The project includes analysis of decisions (with the help of a research assistant), interviews, and historical/archive work.  Here’s the abstract:

Despite the changes brought about in relation to technological convergence, the proliferation of television channels and the availability of content on the Internet, content regulation remains an important issue for much of the UK media. The point of entry for legal scholarship in this area tends to be the overarching statutory controls (e.g. the passing of the Communications Act 2003) or human rights law (the consequences of licensing or prior scrutiny, the impact of controversial decisions on freedom of expression). This study is an attempt to consider, with a particular view to the apparent changes in the media industries and in audience behaviour, the real impact of content regulation in situations where it is more routine (and less dramatic) than the occasional but well-scrutinised times when Parliament assesses principles or a court reviews a particular determination. At a time when diverse laws are under review, this work would contribute, through analysis of decisions in particular, to a debate of wider public interest, informed by scholarship in media/cultural studies.