‘Regulation without Frontiers…’

James Gubb, 22 November 2006

One thing should be made clear from the outset about the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which now looks set to be passed by the EP in December and enter into EU law. The directive does not seek to regulate ‘linear’ audiovisual content, such as video clips and animations in news and press websites, blogs, video podcasts, picture telephony and other ‘non-commercial’ content. And thank heavens it doesn’t. For one it would simply be impossible, and cost some ridiculous amount – perhaps even more than the colossus that is CAP! But more importantly, it would be an atrocious affront on freedom of speech and thought.
Anyway, this isn’t happening, but the latter point is still very relevant on what it does seek to cover. The directive extends the scope of the previous 1989 Directive (89/552/EEC) to include some commercial services on the internet providing ‘on-demand’ content – hence it being renamed the rather boring ‘Audiovisual Media Services Directive’ instead of the Bond-film ‘esc ‘Television without Frontiers’. What exactly counts as ‘on-demand’ content is more than a bit hazy. According to the Commission’s report this is defined as “a service as defined by Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty the principal purpose of which is the provision of moving pictures with or without sound, in order to inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks”. Good, very clear. But yes, this would almost certainly include 18 Doughty Street. Conforming to the regulation in the Directive may not force this innovation to close, but it will inevitably have a cost.
And it is not just financial. The internet has been the one field that, as yet, has escaped the regulatory capture and atmosphere of political correctness that is plaguing debate is this country. There are disgusting aspects to it – child pornography is a case in point – and this is the proper subject of law. But not the internet media in general. The internet provides such a wealth of information on pretty much anything precisely because it is self-regulated. This should remain so, and not be meddled with by the EU of all institutions.
Incidentally, for those who are not convinced, it is interesting that the same Directive also seeks to reserve a quota of airtime for EU programmes, details rules of the content of television advertising and ensure free general access to events ‘of major importance to society’. This smacks of a similar grain of authoritarianism.
I guess we can only be grateful that whilst discussing ‘product placement’, the Commission is good enough to leave this decision to Member States. It also seeks to invoke a ‘country of origin’ principle, which makes national regulators responsible for broadcasters operating from within their borders. This perhaps leaves a glimmer of hope that Member State governments can find avenues to squirm out of the rest of it. But it is just a glimmer.