Russian telecommunication companies proposed to cut internet traffic to certain web-sites. It seems they have proposed it on a case when network is overloaded. But which web-sites should receive priority for better bandwidth is not clear. Telecommunication companies have proposed to make “bandwidth priority” a law they develop.
Comments closedCategory: Internet
RuTracker has proposed its users to help web-resource to protect from Roskomnadzor and other Russian watchdogs and any restriction of access. Thanks to amendments to Russian law, it is possible to restrict access even to mirror of web-site, which was blocked in Russia, and sometimes even VPN is powerless to circumvent blocking. RuTracker’s idea is something similar to P2P principle – multiple domains would provide multiple accesses to main web-site.
Comments closedOption 2 would enhance the level of legal certainty for the benefit of a wide range of retransmission services – IPTV, OTT, satellite, DTT, mobile – and can be expected to both (i) contribute to a greater variety of such services and (ii) provide an incentive to the retransmission service providers to expand the range of TV / radio channels offered to their subscribers.
Comments closedIn the light of coming copyright reforms in EU the draft impact assessment concerns some important copyright issues. One of them is two rights for a single transmission.
Comments closed
Russian internet service providers (ISP) propose to provide them with authority to decide who deserves better bandwidth and when. It means Russian ISP could cut the traffic when they believe it is necessary and justified. Does it mean that they don’t have enough capacity to ensure net neutrality or they just endeavor to control the internet?
Comments closedOption 1 – Mandatory collective management of rights to retransmission of TV / radio broadcasts by means of IPTV and other retransmission services provided over “closed” electronic communications networks
Option 1 would enhance the level of legal certainty for the benefit of a specific category of retransmission services – those provided over “closed” electronic communications networks – and can be expected to contribute to a better offer of such services, depending on market situations in particular MS.
Comments closedIt was apparent from the documents before the Court that protected works, namely photographs, were made available to users of websites such as Filefactory.com and Imageshack.us without the consent of the copyright holders, but that infringement of copyright was not at issue in the main proceedings.
Comments closedIn this case plaintiffs, consisting of individuals and associational organizations, assert claims for copyright infringement for the alleged unauthorized reproduction and distribution of books owned by the Universities. Defendants have entered into agreements with Google, Inc. (“Google”), that allow Google to create digital copies of works in the Universities’ libraries in exchange for which Google provides digital copies to defendants (the “Mass Digitization Project” or “MDP”).
Comments closed
The legal uncertainty as to whether all rights relevant for the retransmission have been cleared faced by the retransmission service providers other than cable is expected to persist under the baseline option. As a result, those service providers can be expected to continue limiting their retransmission offers. Moreover, in view of the legal uncertainty, some market players might hesitate to launch innovative retransmission services or delay the launch in order to deal with licensing.
Comments closedNew draft paper takes an economic perspective on the neighbouring rights debate and tries to find an explanation for this market outcome. First of all, it examines the economic impact of news aggregation platforms on news publishers. The available empirical evidence shows that news aggregators have a positive impact on news publishers’ advertising revenue. That explains why publishers are eager to distribute their content through aggregators.
Comments closed