Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Austrian Case C-347/14, New Media Online v. Bundeskommunikationssenat, of October 2015 gave the Court of Justice of the European Union the opportunity to clarify whether the video content of a newspaper website is covered by the European Union (EU) audiovisual media services directive (AVMSD). Advocate General Szpunar explained what was, in his view, the EU legislature’s alleged intention underlying the Directive’s definition of an audiovisual media service. The Court was not convinced by his argument and instead unambiguously concurred with the two Austrian regulatory authorities: not only films and broadcasts of long duration are governed by the AVMSD but also shorter forms of moving image material, even when these are part of a newspaper’s online offering. Assuming that this decision will significantly influence the European Commission’s plans for a ‘new’ Directive, what are the implications for a new media framework for the 21st century?

Keywords

Electronic mass media directive TV TV on demand TV-likeness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Advocate General Szpunar (2015) Opinion in Case C-347/14, New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat, 1 July, paras 37, 43, 46.

Contact Committee (2015) Minutes of the 42nd meeting. Available at: http://bit.ly/1SYXl3v, 4 December (accessed 5 January 2016).

Court of Justice of the EU (2015) Case C-347/14, New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat, 21 October, paras 22-24, 28–30.

BKS (Bundeskommunikationssenat) (2012) Decision 611.191/0005-BKS/2012, 13 December, para 8. Available at: http://bit.ly/1HylMx (accessed 15 July 2016).

Council of Europe (2011) Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 of the Committee of Ministers on a new notion of media, 21 September. Available at: http://bit.ly/1P2C5c3 (accessed 15 July 2016).

ENPA (2015) Issues upholding freedom of the press. Available at: http://bit.ly/1NZBASZ (accessed 15 July 2016)

European Commission (2015) Public Consultation on Directive 2010/13/EU – A media framework for the 21st century, pages 7 and 12. Available at: http://bit.ly/1S2hOmn (see also results of the public consultation at: http://bit.ly/1UtfLuh) (accessed 15 July 2016).

European Commission (2016) REFIT. Better regulation – Making EU Law better, simpler and less costly. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/index_en.htm (accessed 15 July 2016).

Kogler

(2014) Was sieht dem Fernsehen ähnlich. Journal für Rechtspolitik 4: 233–240.

10.

Kogler

(2015). Zu kurz für’s Fernsehen. Kommunikation & Recht 2: 90–94.

11.

Nelson

(2010) 11 amazing hybrid animals. Mother nature network, 21 April. Available at: http://bit.ly/1s13sWP (accessed 15 July 2016).

12.

New Statesman (2015) The story of Sam Pepper: How a British YouTuber incurred the wrath of the internet, 1 December. Available at: http://bit.ly/1Z7sW6P (accessed 15 July 2016).

13.

OFCOM (2011) “Channel Flip”, para 59. Available at: http://bit.ly/1IPU5XV (accessed 15 July 2016).

14.

OFCOM (2013) “Frankie and Friends”, para 62. Available at: http://bit.ly/1P2ebPW (accessed 15 July 2016).

15.

OFCOM (2014) “Urban Chick Supremacy” para 55. Available at: http://bit.ly/1O4Oy1M (accessed 15 July 2016).

Not everyone knows what a zebroid is

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References