Critically engage with this statement by discussing the implications of the Internet and the “digital revolution” for the future role and scope of media regulation

My article will be an analysis of the audiovisual contents in the Internet and through that I will also explain why it is impossible to extend any statutory broadcasting regulations to cover audiovisual media on it. I will demonstrate that the statutory framework applicable to traditional mass media is incompatible with the Internet because of its unique characteristics, which is a large, global, fast-moving, and complex medium. I will analyze these qualities and also the way the Internet changed our style in communication and our way of thinking about television. My position will be totally opposed to all forms of state blocking audiovisual material on the Internet. I believe that rating and filtering techniques are very imperfect and parents and teachers (not regulators) should protect children or other minorities. I will agree with the idea that the only way to have an adequate protection for the public from offensive or harmful material in the Internet and from unfair treatment or unwarranted infringements of privacy is more public awareness. Furthermore, the Internet users must also take on more personal responsibility upon themselves. Finally there is a possibility to solve certain problems of Internet content especially civil issues like crime, pornography, defamatory libel and copyright infringement that is to inform people and make it possible that they control the downloaded audiovisual material by themselves. Chapter 1. My Argument: Some Aspect to Consider In many countries, the same question is being asked: What is the proper legal framework for the Internet? In particular: should the Internet be regulated under the laws applicable to the mass media (radio, television or printed periodicals)?  If the Internet is not to be treated as a mass medium, does that mean it is unregulated?[1] I will examine some aspects of those questions and conclude that the statutory framework applicable to traditional mass media is not suitable to the Internet. Any country that tries to apply to the Internet any regulations designed for the traditional mass media will likely impede the development of the Internet and restrict the participation of its people in the information economy and other aspects of the information society. In particular, any kind of regulatory existent system is incompatible with the Internet because of its unique characteristics: open, global, not dependent on scarce spectrum, and presenting very low barriers to potential publishers.  This does not mean that content on the Internet is unregulated. However, many laws that relate to speech apply equally to traditional media (such as printed publications, television and radio) and to new media such as the Internet. Chapter 2 The line between Internet and broadcasting services: the EU Regulatory Framework for the Internet The emergence of the Internet as a major vehicle for cross-border communications, particularly of converged services, raises a number of complex legal issues. Indeed, the novelty and uniqueness of the phenomenon continues to challenge the application of existing laws in many areas. It has even been claimed that the evolving Internet faced a legal vacuum and that there was a need to urgently develop a new regulatory framework specifically for it. Although specific regulatory intervention is needed in certain respects, many of the legal questions raised by the use of the Internet may be solved, to a large extent, by the application of existing laws. For example laws applicable to defamation, pornography [2], copyright, and other subjects are applicable to the Internet just as they are to traditional media. A review of all legal questions is raising by the use of the Internet (e.g. liability on the internet, conflict of laws, rules of evidence, contractual issues and the application of criminal law) continues to fall largely within the ambit of national laws. The key arguments put forward by those who are in favour of extending regulation to online audiovisual media is that the aims of content regulation should not change simple because the technologies and devices used to access content change. In particular it has been said that the Internet (i) in same way, isn’t different from other electronic networks; (ii) there is harmful and offensive content on the Internet; (iii) there is criminal activity on the Internet; (iv) most users want some form of control or regulation; (v) laws applicable to defamation, child pornography, copyright, and other subjects are applicable to the Internet just as they are to traditional media. The Internet can now be used to distribute television or radio programmes, voice telephony and software, in competition with the traditional channels of distribution. In this way, the Internet has greatly contributed to bringing together the telecommunications, broadcasting and IT sectors, which were historically separate because they used different delivery vehicles [3]. In this context, the convergence brought about by the Internet has raised the question of whether the regulatory regimes applicable to traditional media (such as telecommunications and broadcasters) should be extended to internet-based services. The concept of Web is seen as leading to a paradigm shift in communications and social interaction in general. At its heart is the idea that users are not just browsing and consuming content in the traditional media fashion, but they participate, contribute, create, reuse, repurpose, rank, link, and share the content with other users, generally at a global scale [4]. The fast-growing popularity of online video portals, such as YouTube, and other services, which are characteristic of the Web phenomenon (such as social networking sites) [5] demonstrate the growing convergence between the Internet and traditional broadcasting services, but also point out the enormous differences among conventional mass media and the Internet. That raises the question of whether the strict licensing conditions and other regulatory restrictions applicable to the broadcasting sector (e.g. regarding licensing, programming, European content quotas and levels of advertising) apply to analogous internet-based services, or whether web-casting should be treated as an information society service for which prior authorisation is excluded by the E-Commerce Directive [6]. In the context of convergence, the status of web-casting straddles the line between internet and broadcasting services [7]. Although real-time video broadcasting is presently still limited to users with high-speed connections, it is expected that Internet technologies, such as IP multi-casting [8], will permit the widespread use of the Internet as a major means of transmitting audio and video. Most traditional broadcasters already offer a wide range of online services, which are complementary to their linear services (e.g. news services, catch up services, educational services.) [9]. What is the European approach to address the challenges brought about by the technological changes in the audiovisual sector? How is the EU devising a future model for the regulation of audiovisual content in the Internet? The European legislator has broadened the scope of the former Television Without Frontiers Directive [10] considerably, to include not only linear but also non-linear (on-demand) services [11]. However, taking account of the various constituent elements of audiovisual media services, it has become clear that not all media services that are currently offered via the Internet will fall within the scope of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive  (AVMS) Directive [12]. It is, for example, unlikely that online video portals, to which users can upload and share videos (user-generated content), will qualify as an audiovisual media service: even if the provider is carrying out an economic activity and, hence, is to be considered providing a service in the sense of Article 56 and 57, it is usually not exercising effective control both over the selection of the programmes and over their organisation and so does not have editorial responsibility for the service [13]. Media services offered online that fulfil all the criteria of an audiovisual media service will, depending on the format used, either be subject to the lighter rules applicable to on-demand services, or to the stricter rules applicable to linear services, given the system of graduated regulation in the AVMS Directive. Web-cast content that is transmitted simultaneously to multiple users who have not made an individual request [14] would qualify as a linear service and would thus also be subject to the additional tier of stricter provisions contained in the AVMS Directive. Web-cast content that is provided to users on demand [15] would qualify as non-linear services, and hence be subject to the basic tier of regulation in the AVMS Directive, as well as being subject to the E-Commerce Directive [16]. The European legislature has opted for a technologically neutral approach to broadcasting regulation, such that Internet broadcasting will be subject to regulation. It did so to create a level playing field between traditional and new media providers and to ensure an appropriate level of protection for certain essential public interests, such as cultural diversity and protection of minors. However, the extension of the scope of application of the regulatory regime laid down in the TWF Directive met fierce opposition during the legislative process for the AVMS Directive from new media providers in the online and mobile sectors [17]. Criticism was also voiced by some media scholars, expressing concerns about a possible negative impact on freedom of speech that would result from the AVMS Directive’s broadened – and in their view too vague – scope of application [18]. The AVMS Directive, however, does take into account the different nature and impact of online media services (which will often be on-demand services), by subjecting them to a lighter regime [19] and permitting the use of co- and self-regulatory measures [20]. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the AVMS Directive will result in disproportionate regulation being imposed on Internet broadcasters [21]. Moreover, it may even lead to more legal certainty for online media providers, who can now clearly benefit from the country of origin principle in relation to the content requirements covered by the AVMS Directive, as if they comply with the rules of the Member State in which they are established, they can freely offer their services throughout the EU [22]. Chapter 3 The incompatibility to the Internet of the traditional mass media regulations for the audiovisual The issue of Internet governance and regulation remains a subject of controversy and intense debate among the different actors within the Internet community [23]. Some take the position that the internet should not be regulated at any level, whether national or international, whilst others consider that a minimum degree of regulation is necessary to address certain issues that cannot be left exclusively to competitive forces and self-regulation [24]. Leaving behind the way EU is regulating all the audiovisual contents in the Internet [25], I would like to analyze the statement object of this article and conclude that it is right for the following reasons. The extension of statutory broadcasting regulation to cover audiovisual media on Internet is impractical because the Internet: (i) is different in kind and in operation from other communications networks; (ii) is open, global, not dependent on scarce spectrum, and presenting very low barriers to potential publishers (iii) and finally has changed the traditional way of watching television and moreover offers to broadcasters new and innovative ways to stream their videos. Also, the extension of statutory (broadcasting) regulation to cover audiovisual media on Internet is undesirable (iv) because freedom of expression should be an absolute right. (i) The Internet is different in kind and in operation from other communications networks The Internet is generally described as a “network of networks.” [26]. It is a medium, which gathers all the other media, an inter-medium composed by two milliards of screens [27]. It consists of a global network interconnecting computers around the world, through the use of an open protocol, the Internet Protocol (IP) [28]; it is a decentralised network without any central point of control or access; it is also a packet-switched network, which means that messages are broken down into small packets of data, each of which is transmitted separately through the system [29]. The Internet’s distinctive feature is its technical architecture. This has been a primary factor behind the process of convergence of telecommunications and broadcasting networks and IT systems. The use of an open protocol ensures network interconnectivity and, with any necessary technical adjustments, the provision of any type of information [30] on any type of network [31]. Internet-based services are, therefore, distinct from the underlying infrastructure on which they are transmitted. Accordingly, the Internet competes with traditional transmission networks (such as broadcasting, telecommunications and other data communications services) by providing an alternative means of distributing services and content. (ii) The Internet is open, global, not dependent on scarce spectrum, and presenting very low barriers to potential publishers The Internet is at once identified as immensely important everywhere and at the same time it is subject to no recognized international legal order. The Internet is not just one thing. It’s a collection of things-of numerous communications networks that all speak the same digital language [32]. The future management of the Internet should reflect the fact that it is already a global communications medium and the subject of valid international interest. Television has a bright future, just not the future it has known in the past. The 500-channel universe and the onset of the Internet have resulted in audience dilution and competition from new media platforms, which together represent “the end of appointment television.” Viewers still want content, they just want it when they want it, where they want it [33]. Video distribution over the Internet began to explode in 2005 with the launch of YouTube, later purchased by Google. In addition to the huge volume of amateur programs, individuals quickly began posting episodes of popular network broadcast programs, like Saturday Night Live, and anyone could watch them for free with no commercials. (iii) The Internet has changed the traditional way of watching television [34] Another reason why it is impracticable to extent the broadcasting regulation to cover audiovisual contents in the Internet is that television and the Internet are completely different in the way they communicate and enter in viewers’ lives. Television is a passive medium compare to the Internet, which is an interactive new technology. The time of the “broadcaster” is passed. Only the companies that combine distribution with content creation ill likely survive the inevitable shakeout. Internet television (IPTV, Internet Protocol television) is absolutely different from the traditional one. It is a new category of medium that is impossible to reduce to a category [35]. The Internet represents a major shift in how programming content is disseminated. Producer and consumer are dis-intermediated in the Internet delivery model. In an IPTV world anyone can be an aggregator. Everyone is his own programmer. IPTV is similar in many respects to Internet video, with a significant difference: viewers watch channels of streamed content rather than selecting from a collection of video files that can be played on-demand [36]. Another way of audiovisual content in the Internet is Internet Protocol Video on Demand (IPVoD) for professionally produced video-on-demand content that can play over a PC or an appliance (STB) connected to a television and the Internet. Many of these services are branded by a provider and carry advertising or are available through a subscription program. Some popular examples include Hulu.com [37] and the Watch instantly feature of Netflix.com which can be viewed online with PV/Web browser or on a television. How do you classify a service that is delivered a continuous stream over the Internet, is funded by advertising, and plays on a computer screen or a mobile device? How about a subscription-based service that enables viewers to watch films and network programs on a television connected to a set-top box that plays content on demand from the Internet. Neither of these examples can easily be placed into either of the traditional categories. The traditional business model for broadcasters, which has worked reasonably well for the past few decades, is starting to break down. Increasingly, consumers are demanding and starting to receive their video content in ways that were impractical even a few years ago. Today billions of videos are streamed every month and millions of subscribers have signed up for IPTV services, consisting in live television, time-shifted programming, and content (or video) on demand, around the world. Television has definitively moved to the web, but because of the characteristic of the Internet the IPTV is not the TV we are used to think about. IPTV is a new way to access television programming where the IP is a method of sending information over a secure network that results in a superior entertainment experience and IPTV allows the service provider to deliver only those channels that the consumer wants at any given time. Unlike traditional television broadcasting where every channel is delivered to every home on the network. Moreover through the Internet we are able to experiment new ways of broadcasting, using technologies that are in evolution. This is a completely new way of watching television and it point out all the huge differences between television and the Internet [38]. The Internet’s technology in distributing audiovisual contents is evolving and it is impossible to extend the same regulation that the television has because of the different way of how it works. Big broadcasters are trying new solutions through the Internet for reaching new audiences. It is time for the new peer-to-peer (P2P) distribution model.  The idea is to create the world’s best video service: from anywhere on earth, users can then use a standard protocol to pull up any video, at any time and on any screen. Next has its way, televisions, computers and mobile phones will all support a standardised P2P network for streaming content distribution in the future. Rather than complain about the conservatism of established forms of distribution broadcasters have simply create new, alternative ones. Entities such as The Pirate Bay can thus be said to have effectively had the ‘upper hand’ in the conflict over the future of copyright and digital distribution. They increasingly set the terms with regard to establishing not only technical protocols for distribution but also codes of behaviour and discursive norms. The entertainment industry is then forced to react to these terms [39]. One example of this new experimentation and behaviour comes from a Norway’s public broadcaster, NRK: it filmed a stunning seven-hour train ride between Bergen and Oslo, shot entirely in high-definition video. Over one million Norwegians watched the film on television. But the Norway’s broadcaster made a somewhat surprising choice: it turned to BitTorrent, a P2P internet service best known as a means of sharing pirated movies and music. Some at NRK worried that using a system associated with piracy would generate negative publicity [40]. Several other public-service broadcasters have also been experimenting with P2P distribution, probably because they are relatively insulated from commercial pressures [41]. Despite the hitches, P2P may yet be the right way to do this. Bandwidth may be cheap now, but many worry that the explosive growth of video, much of it in high-definition formats, could soon clog up the Internet [42]. Johan Pouwelse, P2P-Next’s scientific director, imagines a brave new world for broadcasters in which interconnected television sets with P2P sharing can give any television station global reach. Barriers to market entry will be low, ensuring healthy market competition. He says: “Satellite gave us hundreds of channels–internet television can give us all the free-to-air channels of the globe.” The business model that will support all this, however, is not yet clear. It is unlikely that broadcasters, even in the public sector, would give away for nothing on the Internet what they might otherwise sell through traditional routes. (iv) Freedom of expression should be an absolute right: empowering consumers without regulating the Internet Traditional broadcasters can’t compete with the surge of disruptive technology ahead. ‘The structure of the Internet is a social choice, not a technological necessity. The constraints and freedoms of the Internet are therefore also social choices.’ [43]. The possibilities for consumer empowerment arise from Internet’s open architecture, which allows consumers to freely interact with anyone around the globe. Everyone wants to be a producer. A wide range of users-generated video content continues to driver viewers to sites like youtube.com, which generated more than 176 million stream views per day in March 2009 [44]. The open Internet has opened markets beyond the traditional geographic limitations that have always been an impediment. Musicians and filmmakers, who never could have landed a contract with a major record label or a production company can now find an audience for their work. This is why ensuring that consumers can obtain and use the content they choose is so critical to unlocking the vast potential of the Internet. Broadband consumers enjoy such freedom. They can access and use the content of their choice. Conclusion Due to the explosive growth of the Internet and increasing demand for multimedia information on the web, streaming video over the Internet has received tremendous attention from academia and industry. Transmission of real-time video typically has bandwidth, delay, and loss requirements. Internet offers a new technology for broadcasters and guarantees a variety of videos. The Internet offers a new efficient and flexible way of watching the television and new ways of broadcasting programmes. This is the main reason why the extension of statutory broadcasting regulation to cover audiovisual media on the Internet is impractical. Thus, Internet streaming video poses many challenges and points out future research directions. Notes [1] See Mass Media Regulation and the Internet available at http://www.apdip.net/resources/policies-legislation/legislation/mass-media-regulation-internet/view [2] Pornography has been the most controversial topic arising from the use of the Internet in recent years. There have been many attempts to limit the availability of ‘pornographic content’ on the Internet by governments and law enforcement bodies all around the world. Its availability on the Internet has caused fear and a ‘moral panic’ among the government, law enforcement bodies such as the police, prosecutors and judges together with the media in general. [3] Werbach, para.3–001, n.1, 1–8. For an analysis of the impact of the internet on the telecommunications sector, see Gilhooly, “Towards the Global Internet Infrastructure” (1999) 3 International Journal of Communications and Policy 1. [4] See Ariño, Content Regulation and New Media: A Case Study of Online Video Portals (2007) 66 Communications and Strategies 115-135. [5] See note 4. [6] See Peggy Valcke, George Dimitrov, Maria Iglesias, Eva Lievens, Davide Parille, Tim van Emelen, Peter Vergote and Evi Werkers. Telecommunications, Broadcasting and the Internet: EU Competition Law and Regulation (2010), Chapter III. [7] Web-casting services consists of the provision of real-time radio or video services over the Internet. [8] IP multicasting is a method of forwarding IP data sets (“datagrams”) to a group of multiple receivers and is used for streaming media and Internet television applications. IP multicasting has been officially supported since IPv4 was first defined, but has not seen widespread use, due largely to lack of support for multicasting in many hardware devices. Interest in multicasting has increased in recent years, and support for multicasting was made a standard part of the next generation IPv6 protocol. [9] The most advanced broadcaster in this respect is probably the BBC, which offers its own “BBC iPlayer”, service allowing United Kingdom residents to view the radio and television programmes broadcast in the previous seven days; see http://www.bbc.co.uk and http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer. [10] Directive 89/552 of October 3, 1989 on the co-ordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, O.J. 1989 L 298/23 (Television Without Frontiers (TWF) Directive). [11] The new Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS) applies to all audiovisual media services, which are services in the sense of Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [ex 49 and 50 EC Treaty] which come under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider and the principal purpose of which is the provision of programmes in order to inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks, see also Directive 2007/65 of December 11, 2007 amending Directive 89/552, O.J. 2007 L 332/27 (AVMS Directive), Art.1(a). [12] See note 3. [13] AVMS Directive, para.3–028, n. 50, Art.1(c): see Chapter II, para.2-031. For a discussion of the legal status of video portals and audiovisual search tools, see Valcke, In Search of the Audiovisual Search Tools in the EU Regulatory Frameworks, in Nikoltchev (ed.), IRIS Special: Searching for Audiovisual Content, Strasbourg, European Audiovisual Observatory (European Audiovisual Observatory, 2008). [14] e.g. where the film, song, etc., is broadcast automatically at regular intervals, as in pay-per-view systems, or where a web-caster continually broadcasts a selection of content in the same way as a terrestrial radio station, involving the broadcasting of a pre-determined program schedule to the public. [15] i.e. where transmission is initiated upon the individual user’s request, such as with video-on-demand. [16] On-demand media services are also information society services (as they were before the adoption of the AVMS Directive) and, consequently, are still subject to the E-Commerce Directive, para.3–022, n. 30, recital 18. Art.3(8) of the AVMS Directive deals with the relationship between both directives, stating that the AVMS Directive will prevail in the event of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for. Therefore, the AVMS Directive has the character of a lex specialis vis-à-vis the E-Commerce Directive, which is a lex generalis. [17] as well as certain Member States, such as the United Kingdom, See Valcke and Lievens, Rethinking European broadcasting regulation: The Audiovisual Media Services Directive Unraveled at the Dawn of the Digital Public Sphere, in Pauwels, Kalimo, Donders and van Rompuy (eds.), Rethinking European Media and Communications Policies (2009). [18] For example the Budapest Declaration (2006): the extension of the scope of some rather burdensome part of the Television Directive to the Internet – as the draft new directive of the European Commission suggests in far too vague terms that would leave content providers and users uncertain about whether or not their various activities are regulated by this new directive – would be an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of information, available at http://www.edri.org/docs/BudapestDeclaration.pdf. See also van Eijk, “The modernisation of the European Television without Frontiers Directive: unnecessary regulation and the introduction of internet governance”, available at: http://www.ivir.nl/publications/vaneijk/Paper_twf_avms_its_2007.pdf. [19] Consisting of obligations which are often already imposed by other legislations: see Valcke, Stevens, Werkers and Lievens, Audiovisual Media Services in the EU: Next Generation Approach or Old Wine in New Barrels? (2008),71 Communications & Strategies 103-118. [20] Co-regulation is regarded by many as a means to achieve better regulation, to cope with the increasing risk of failure of traditional co-regulatory concepts and to hand back responsibility to society where it seems appropriate, see Hans-Bredow-Institut for Media Research at University of Hamburg, Executive Summary Study on Co-Regulation Measures in the Media Sector, Study for the European Commission, Directorate Information Society and Media Unit A1 Audiovisual and Media Policies Tender DG EAC 03/04, available at ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/…/final_sum_en.pdf [21] It has been argued that the rationale for strict broadcasting regulation (i.e. spectrum scarcity and general public access to broadcasts) does not necessarily apply to equivalent internet-based services. For instance, the technical architecture of the internet permits the implementation of filtering techniques that allow users, such as parents, to block access to certain sites, thereby achieving the objective of traditional rules on protection of minors that regulate the broadcasting sector: see Werbach, para.3–001, n.1, 44. To justify the imposition of lighter rules, the AVMS Directive explicitly refers, in recital 42, to the larger degree of choice and control the user can exercise in the case of on-demand services, and the lower impact they have on society. [22] Admittedly, due to the decentralised nature of the internet, media regulators in the European Union might still have limited abilities to enforce regulatory restrictions upon content providers that supply services over the internet from third countries. [23] See, for an earlier discussion, Issgon, Grewlich and Di Pietrantonio, “Competing Telecommunications and Cyber Regulation: Is there a Need for Transatlantic Regulatory Framework?” (1999) 3 International Journal of Communications Law and Policy 1. [24] See Kelleher, Generic Domain Names on the Internet (1998) 20(2) E.I.P.R. 62; and Mathiason and Kuhlman, International Public Regulation of the Internet: Who Will Give You Your Domain Name?, March 1998 in International Studies Associations Panel on Cyberhype or the Deterritorialization of Politics?, available at: www.intlmgt.com/domain.html. [25] See chapter 2. [26] On the technical aspects of the internet, see Werbach, Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy (1997) 3 OPP Working Paper Series, available at www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/OPP/working_papers/oppwp29pdf.html; Hance, Business and Law on the Internet (1997), 41; and Wilde, Wilde’s WWW: Technical Foundations of the Worldwide Web (1999). [27] From Il pensiero fluido, Kevin Kelly, journalist and co-founder of Wired (Internazionale, 2010); see also http://www.kk.org/ [28] The internet was initially developed at the end of the 1960s by the US military; it was subsequently adopted by universities in the 1970s and 1980s as a means to link the scientific community together and to provide easy and speedy access to information resources. It was during the second half of the 1990s that commercial use of the internet developed, as private businesses perceived its potential benefits. The use of an open protocol such as IP allows the interoperability of various types of networks and facilities (e.g. copper and fibre optic circuits, coaxial cable and wireless connections) and the provision of various types of services over the same network. [29] with the result that any “host” computer (i.e. server) can be accessed from any connected computer anywhere in the world, see Garzaniti L., Telecommunications, Broadcasting and the Internet: EU Competition Law and Regulation, III Edition (2010), in production. [30] i.e. voice, images and data. [31] e.g. cable, public telephone networks and wireless networks. [32] By Jim Clark. [33] See Paradise Lost: The End of Appointment Television, by Iain Grant, Amit Kaminer and Cynthia Lee. [34] Economist Monitor, The bigger picture (3/6/2010). [35] Technologies, particularly IP based technologie that liberate the viewer from the shackles of set programming schedules, have fragmented audiences and eroded the advertising-dependent business model that worked so well for decades, see note 26. [36] An example of this are NASA TV, which provides hours of live and prerecorded programming each day including live coverage of all space shuttle launches and landings); viewers can simple tune in whenever they want. Similarly with CNN.com live and Bloomberg live TV when viewers tune in they are simply connected to the real-time stream at whatever point it happens to be. To watch different content than what is currently playing, viewers need to switch to another channel. [37] Hulu has become one of the most- visited video sites in the US. According to comScore, US Internetusers viewed 14.5 billion on-line videos during April 2009. Hulu was third (behind Google and Hulu parent, Fox Interactive Media.) In the UK, the BBC has led the way with internet-based distribution with its iPlayer service (which alone accounted for as much as 5 percent of all UK internet traffic in 2008.) even from outside, we can easily assert that the only thing they have in common is a screen. [38] See Jonas Andersson, Culture Machine, Vol.10 2009, For the Good of the Net: The Pirate Bay as a strategic sovereign. [39] But BitTorrent itself is value neutral. It is a uniquely efficient distribution method that lets broadcasters “seed” the Internet with one or two copies of their massive media files. It then relies on end users (called peers) who request the file and receive different pieces of it. To assemble a complete version of the file, these peers then share their pieces with each other (hence “peer to peer”). It takes a while, but the broadcaster does not need expensive server farms or fat data pipes to deliver massive files to viewers anywhere in the world. [40] None of this has stopped the European Union from investing in P2P as a route to the remaking of broadcasting. In 2008 it put (euro) 14m ($19m) of funding into a four-year project called P2P-Next. It is an ambitious international undertaking backed by research institutes, companies and some broadcasters, including the BBC. In 2008, for instance, Canada’s CBC used BitTorrent to distribute a high quality, unprotected version of a prime-time reality show called Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister. The British experience, however, reveals that P2P distribution is no panacea. When the BBC rolled out iPlayer, its television catch-up service, in 2007, it initially relied on P2P techniques to offload the burden of supplying so many large files. At the time, the BBC’s Anthony Rose believed that P2P was the only way to provide the service. Yet one year later, the BBC had switched to streaming content directly from its own servers. [41] Traffic from legal online video sites like Hulu, iPlayer and YouTube has surged in recent years, increasing from 13% of all internet traffic in 2008 to 27% in 2009. [42] Sommer, Joseph., ‘Against Cyberlaw’ (2000) 15 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1145, at p. 1194, available on lexis-nexis.com. [43] See, Wes Simpson, Howard Greenfield, IPTV and Internet: Expanding the Reach of Television Broadcasting  (2009), pag.18. [44] See Michael K.Powell, Preserving Internet freedom: guiding principles for the industry, in 3 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 4 (2004-2005), Introduction: A Regulatory Regime for the Internet Age; Weiser, Philip J. Bibliography Chapter 1 My Argument: Some Aspect to Consider Almaguer, Aleiandro E. Baggott, Roland W. III, 13 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resolution, Shaping New Legal Frontiers: Dispute Resolution for the Internet (1997-1998), pag.711. Anderson C., The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More (2006), pag.58-98. Faith Cranor L. and Wildman S., Rethinking Rights and Regulations: Institutional Responses to New Communications Technologies (2003), pag.55-81. Delacourt, John T., 38 Harvard Int’l. L. J., The International Impact of Internet Regulation, (1997), pag.207. Garzaniti L., Telecommunications, Broadcasting and the Internet: EU Competition Law and Regulation, III Edition (2010), Chapters II and III. Gillmor D., We the media: grassroots journalism by the people, for the people (2004), pag.23, 174. Mass Media Regulation and the Internet available at http://www.apdip.net/resources/policies-legislation/legislation/mass-media-regulation-internet/view Shelanski, Howard A., 94 Cal. L. Rev. Antitrust Law as Mass Media Regulation: Can Merger Standards Protect the Public Interest, (2006), pag.371. • Waldman S., Harmful content on the internet: self-regulation is the best way forward, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2008/aug/01/post88 and also at http://www.simonwaldman.net/ Chapter 2 The line between Internet and broadcasting services: the EU Regulatory Framework for the Internet ACE, the Electoral Knowledge Network, available at http://aceproject.org/ Akdeniz, Y., Governance of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Global Internet: A Multi-Layered Approach, in eds Edwards, L., and Waelde, C., Law and the Internet: Regulating Cyberspace (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 1997) 223, at http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/governan.htm Ariño M., Content Regulation and New Media: A Case Study of Online Video Portals (2007), 66 Communications and Strategies 115-135. AVMS Directive, para.3–028, n.11, Art.1(c) also available at http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/avms/index_en.htm Directive 2007/65 of December 11, 2007 amending Directive 89/552, O.J. 2007 L 332/27 (“AVMS Directive”), Art.1(a). Directive 89/552 of October 3, 1989 on the co-ordination of certain provisions laid down by law. Eijk V., The modernisation of the European Television without Frontiers Directive: unnecessary regulation and the introduction of Internet governance, available at http://www.ivir.nl/publications/vaneijk/Paper_twf_avms_its_2007.pdf. Frieden, Rob 55 Fed. Comm. L.J., Adjusting the Horizontal and Vertical in Telecommunications Regulation: A Comparison of the Traditional and a New Layered Approach, (2002-2003), pag.224. Gilhooly, Towards the Global Internet Infrastructure (1999), 3 International Journal of Communications and Policy 1. Gillespie T., Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture (2007), pag.167. Goldsmith Jack & Wu Tim, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World, Oxford University Press (2006), pag.65-87. Kalathil Shanthi & Boas Taylor C. – Open Networks, Closed regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule (2003), pag.13-43, 70, 103. Koops B. et al., Should Self-Regulation be the Starting Point? in B. Koops et al. (eds), Starting Points for ICT Regulation: Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-Liners (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2006). Marsden Christopher T., Regulating the global information society (2000), pag.117. Media regulation in the Internet age, Published: 25 February 2009, available at http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/media-regulation-internet-age/article-179675 National Research Council Global Networks and Local Values: A Comparative Look at Germany and the United States, also available at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10033#toc Nenova B.M., The Reform of European Community Audiovisual Media Regulation: Television Without Cultural Diversity, World Trade Institute, University of Berne, Switzerland, available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=C4467EAB69B30DB1E8E1E7D88539F118.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1320912 Noam Eli M., Internet Television (European Institute for Media (EIM) Series), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. (2004), pag.81-104. Review of Media Ownership Rules, available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/media_owners/rulesreview/ Spinello R.A., Regulating Cyberspace: The Policies and Technologies of Control (2002), pag.21. Television Without Frontiers (TWF) Directive, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, O.J. 1989 L 298/23. Valcke P., In Search of the Audiovisual Search Tools in the EU Regulatory Frameworks, in Nikoltchev (ed.), IRIS Special: Searching for Audiovisual Content, Strasbourg, European Audiovisual Observatory (European Audiovisual Observatory, 2008). Valcke, Stevens, Werkers and Lievens, Audiovisual Media Services in the EU: Next Generation Approach or Old Wine in New Barrels? (2008), 71 Communications & Strategies, pag.103-118. Peggy V., Dimitrov G., Iglesias M., Lievens E., Parille D., Emelen T.V., Vergote P., Werkers E., Telecommunications, Broadcasting and the Internet: EU Competition Law and Regulation (2010), Chapter III, Werbach, para.3–001, n.1, 1–8. Zembek, Richard S., Jurisdiction and the Internet: Fundamental Fairness in the Networked World of Cyberspace, pag.343-348, available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/albnyst6&div=21&g_sent=1&collection=journals Chapter 3 The incompatibility to the Internet of the traditional mass media regulations for the audiovisual • Abelson H., Ledeen K., Lewis H.R., Blown to bits: your life, liberty, and happiness after the digital explosion (2008), pag.247-249, 253-258. • Akdeniz, Y., Case Analysis: Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, (1999) Journal of Civil Liberties, 4(2), 260-267 (July), also available at http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm • Anderson C., Free: The Future of a Radical Price (2009), pag.75. • Angel J., Why use Digital Signatures for Electronic Commerce?, 1999 (2) Journal of Information, Law and Technology at http://www.law.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/99-2/angel.html • Baron D., A Better Pencil: Readers, Writers, and the Digital Revolution, Oxford University Press (2009), pag.157. • Bell A., Joyce M., Rivers D., Advanced Level Media, 2nd Edition, Hodder & Stoughton (2005), pag.85. • Bessen J. & Meurer Michael J., Patent Failure: • How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Priceton University Press  (2008), Chapter 3: If you can’t tell the boundaries, then it ain’t property. • Boldrin M. & Levine David K., Against Intellectual Monopoly (2008), also available at http://www.againstmonopoly.org/ • Bollier D., Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of Their Own (2009), also available at http://www.viralspiral.cc/ • Bonnici Jeanne Pia Mifsud, Self-Regulation in Cyberspace (2008), pag.9-18,23-24. • Boyle J., The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, also available at http://www.thepublicdomain.org/ • Brynjolfsson E. & Saunders A., Wired for Innovation: How Information Technology is Reshaping the Economy, The Mit Press Cambridge Massachussetts London England (2010), pag.117-122. • Bruns A., Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Prodcution to Produsage (2005), pag.24-30. • Caddick A., associate, Olswang LLP, New Law Journal, 160 NLJ 211, An effective global remedy, 12 February 2010. • Carr N., The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google (2008), pag.63. • Castells M., Communication Power, Oxford University Press (2009), pag.54-135. • Castells M., The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society (2001), pag.36-64. • Castronova E., Synthetic worlds: the business and culture of online games, The University of Chicago Press (2005), pag.100-125, 161. • Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics, available at http://www.chillingeffects.org/. • Doctorow C., Content: Selezione di Saggi sulla tecnologia, la creativita’, il copyright, Apogeo (2008), also available at http://craphound.com/content/ • Dodd, Jeff C.; Hernandez, James A., Computer L. Rev. & Tech. J. 1 (1998) Contracting in Cyberspace, pag.39. • Fisher III W.W., Promises to Keep: Technology, Law and the Future of Entertainment, Stanford University Press (2004), pag.173-198 • Fraser M., Dutta S., Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World (2008), pag.111-126. • Freeman J., The Tyranny of E-mail: The Four-Thousand-Year Journey to Your Inbox, Scribner (2009), pag. 134 -159. • Friedman D., Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World, Cambridge University Press (2008), pag.66-83. • Garzaniti L., Telecommunications, Broadcasting and the Internet: EU Competition Law and Regulation, III Edition (2010). • Gilder g., Telecosm: How Infinite Bandwith Will Revolutionize Our World, Free Press (2000), pag.69-81. • Grant, Kaminer A. and Lee C., Paradise Lost: The End of Appointment Television. • Hance, Business and Law on the Internet (1997), 41; and Wilde, Wilde’s WWW: Technical Foundations of the Worldwide Web (1999). • Hart K., Memory Bank, Money in an unequal world, also available at http://thememorybank.co.uk/ • Heller M., The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives (2008), pag.165-187. • Issgon, Grewlich and Di Pietrantonio, Competing Telecommunications and Cyber Regulation: Is there a Need for Transatlantic Regulatory Framework? (1999), 3 International Journal of Communications Law and Policy 1. • Jenkins H., Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York University Press (2006), pag.1-25. • Kelleher, Generic Domain Names on the Internet (1998) 20(2) E.I.P.R. 62; and Mathiason and Kuhlman, International Public Regulation of the Internet: Who Will Give You Your Domain Name?, March 1998 in International Studies Associations Panel on Cyberhype or the Deterritorialization of Politics?, available at: www.intlmgt.com/domain.html. • Kelly K., journalist and co-founder of Wired (Internazionale, 2010), Il pensiero fluido; see also http://www.kk.org/ • Kelly K., What Technology Wants and What it Means in Our Life, The Technium, a book in progress, available at http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/index.php • Lance R., Netlaw: your rights in the online World (1995), pag.136-137. • Lessig L., The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, Vintage (2002), Chapter 8. • Lessig L.,Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, The Penguin Press (2004), pag.211. • Lessig L., Remix: Making Art and Commerce thrive in the hybrid Economy (2008), pag.117-162. • Levis M., Next: The Future Just Happened (2001), pag.13-24. • Mason M., Pirate’s Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism, Free Press (2008), pag.134-201. • Netanel N.W., Copyright’s Paradox, Oxford University Press (2008), pag.3-8. • Palfrey J., Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives (2008), pag.53-83. • Patry W., Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars, Oxford University Press (2009), pag.139. • Powell M.K., Preserving Internet freedom: guiding principles for the industry, in 3 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 4 (2004-2005), Introduction: A Regulatory Regime for the Internet Age; Weiser, Philip J. • Redish, Martin H, 38 Jurimetrics Of New Wine and Old Bottles: Personal Jurisdiction, the Internet, and the Nature of Constitutional Evolution, (1997-1998) pag.575. • Rheingold H., Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, Transforming Cultures and Communities in The Ages of Instant Access (2002), pag.113, 133, 183. • Rushkoff D., Media Virus also available at http://rushkoff.com/books/media-virus/ • Post D.G., In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace, Oxford University Press (2009), pag.21-30. • S.Frankel M., Ph.D. and Sanyin Siang Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program Directorate of Science and Policy Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science, A report of a workshop, June 10-11, 1999, Washington, DC, pag.3-4. • Siegel L., Against The Machine: Being Human in the Era of the Electronic Mob (2008), pag.157-172. • Solove D., Understanding Privacy (2008), pag.12-39. • Solove D., The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (2007), pag.125-161. • Sommer, Joseph, Against Cyberlaw’ (2000) 15 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1145, at p. 1194, available on lexis-nexis.com. • Special Report Free Speech on the net, The Internet is a friend of freedom, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/freespeech/0,2759,212402,00.html pag.89-104. Talbott S., Deices of the Soul: Battling for Our Selves in a age of machines (2006), pag.57-69. • Tapscott D., Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is changing your World (2008), pag.243-268. • Tapscott D., Anthony D. Williams, Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything (2008), pag.97-124. • Vaidhyanathan S., The Googlization of Everything, A book in progress, available at http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/ • Wallace, Jonathan, Green, Michael, 20 Seattle U. L. Rev. • Bridging the Analogy Gap: The Internet, the Printing Press and Freedom of Speech, (1996-1997), pag.711. • Werbach, Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy (1997), 3 OPP Working Paper Series, available at www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/OPP/working_papers/oppwp29pdf.html. • Wes Simpson, Howard Greenfield, IPTV and Internet: Expanding the Reach of Television Broadcasting  (2009), pag.18. • Zembek, Richard S, 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. • Jurisdiction and the Internet: Fundamental Fairness in the Networked World of Cyberspace; (1996) pag.339. • Zittrain J., The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it (2008), also available at http://futureoftheinternet.org/ • Zugelder Michael T., Theresa B. Flaherty, James P. Johnson, Legal issues associated with international Internet marketing, in International Marketing Review 17, 2000, pag.253 – 271.