Will a denial of broadcasting service to digitally non-compliant households constitute a violation of the constitutional right to receive information and ideas?

 

Digital broadcasting has emerged as a globally accepted standard for next-generation mass media. It presents a method of relaying radio and television signals with various advantages from analogue broadcasting. It enables a more efficient use of bandwidth and the bundling of multiple channels in one frequency. Moreover, digitally broadcast images, video and audio have a higher quality than their analogue counterparts. The transition from digital to signal broadcasting is arguably the most significant technological cross-over for television and is only closely rivaled, if not slightly surpassed, by the invention of colour television.

 

At the stroke of midnight at the end of 17th June 2015, all nations will cease all analogue broadcasts of radio and television signals and switch over to the transmission of digital-only signals with the exception of

digital migration
digital migration

some developing countries for which the transition period will end on 17 June 2020. On that date, all analogue television sets for which the owners will not have installed a digital signal converter will go black.

In Kenya however, the communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) have new self-imposed datelines. They will carry out the analogue switch-off exercise in 3 phases to wit; Nairobi on 13th December, 2013; Mombasa, Malindi, Nyeri, Meru, Kisumu, Webuye, Kisii, Nakuru and Eldoret on 30th March, 2014 and the rest of the country on 30th June, 2014.

Consumers of analogue television services and members of the public in general through Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) have opposed the move by CCK to switch off analogue television frequency signals by 13th December 2013 or any other date before June 2014. They contend that this notice is too short and inappropriate considering that December is a festive season, immediately after which school re-opening calendar together with prevalent economic challenges facing Kenyans puts financial pressure on poor households not to forget the need for Kenyans to follow important national developments which include devolution and constitutional implementation processes, among others.

CCK’s decision, in the event that it is sustained, will lock out millions of Kenyans from following important national matters such as legislations, government policies, and matters of national interest, among others as envisaged under Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya. While they claim , that so far 500,000 set boxes have been sold in Nairobi, there is no similar evidence and goodwill to demonstrate that the over 3,500,000 remaining television owners will purchase the compulsory and prescribed gadgets

The consumers and general public right to information will be severely infringed because current free-to-air channels, some paid for by the taxpayer, are being forced into pay-TV bundles vide a set-top box which are not free of cost. The specific case in which consumers of television services cannot access NTV, Citizen TV and KTN on the StarTimes platform is one such discrimination, against Article 27(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, which is being perpetuated with untold impunity as CCK maintain their loud silence. It should be a requirement that all set-top boxes/integrated digital TVs must be able to receive all non-encrypted free to air TV. In Denmark, the Ministry of Research and Communication has determined (Danish Ministry of Research, departmental order no. 709 of 25 June 1996) that “Digital decoders must be constructed in a way that allows non-encrypted digital TV signals to pass transparently through them.”

Further, there has been no sufficient public information, education and communication campaign to raise awareness on digital migration to allow consumers the freedom of choice as envisaged in Article 46 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2012.

digital 2
The foregoing concerns are not the bitter pill of new technology that a society must take at a certain time in its development. Rather, once resolved, they will be the relish with which the consumer will find the transition to digital broadcasting more appetizing. The national digital broadcasting switchover programme will need to anticipate and resolve these concerns.

Don’t Throw Out The Baby With The Bathwater: Changing Laws, The “I Have A Dream” Speech, And Copyright Policy

The [Legal] Artist

url

This Wednesday is the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. If you’re like me, then you’ve probably seen snippets of that speech a hundred times, but never seen the full unedited version. That’s because the speech is protected under copyright law until 2038, and anyone who copies, distributes, shares, or posts a video of the speech online will be violating copyright law and will legally owe restitution to the video’s owner… Sony.* [Like when Sony ordered advocacy group Fight For The Future to remove the video from its website.]

Am I the only who thinks this is terrible? What kind of policy allows a major corporation to sue someone who wants to share with others THE ICONIC CIVIL RIGHTS MOMENT OF OUR TIME? Who is this policy protecting?

You may have noticed that I’m pretty vocal when I think changes should be made…

View original post 633 more words

What Constitutes a Trade Secret?

Brannon Sowers & Cracraft PC

Trade secrets are protected under a number of state, federal, and in some instances, international laws. They are a form of protection that exists largely as long as the information remains a secret.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a trade secret as “something (as a formula) which has economic value to a business because it is not generally known or easily discoverable by observation and for which efforts have been made to maintain secrecy.”

In practice, a trade secret could be any information used in a business that may represent a competitive advantage. Trade secrets could be the use of a certain method of producing a good or a method of providing a service, such as a recipe or a computer algorithm. Trade secrets are treated in such a way as to reasonably keep the public or competition from learning about them, unless they are improperly acquired, such as by means…

View original post 283 more words

Stealing is Stealing! Copyright Law Isn’t Different in Social Media

SoLoMo Law

You may think that social media and the internet have changed copyright rules.  That whatever you find is something you can use.  Let me first say that nothing has changed.  While some may hail the January decision regarding use of photos on Twitter as new social media law, they are missing the point.  Existing laws apply, folks.  The judge didn’t change copyright law just for the internet.  Why Agence France-Press thought it was ok to lift somebody’s copyrighted work without any legwork on getting permission amazes me.

Second, you need to understand this space, because copyright is where you are going to have your biggest intellectual property fail in social.

NOTE: This is a reprint of an earlier post.  I think it useful to look back and revisit it, given my last two posts about managing the risks in social.  If you are looking for more foundational information on…

View original post 936 more words

Can we depend on law enforcement to protect us from cyber crime?

digigeeek

The Home Affairs Select Committee of the UK Houses of Parliament has reported that the UK faces a losing battle against cyber crime and (in particular) with low-level financial crime.
http://blog.itgovernance.co.uk/can-we-depend-on-law-enforcement-to-protect-us-from-cyber-crime/

View original post

Barrister Suspended Over ‘Predatory’ Slur at 13 Year Old Victim

Blog, But Blog Ethically

CEBblog™

The following is a guest blog post by April E. Frisby of Frisby Law. April is a corporate and securities transactional lawyer and an adjunct law professor at Whittier Law School.

104229040Lawyers are often gun-shy when it comes to blogging, in part because of the ethical limits on advertising and solicitation by lawyers. But if you keep ethical considerations in mind, blogging can be a fun, cost-effective way to promote your practice.

View original post 598 more words

Twitter Trolls, Tribunal Online (Finally), Don’t go Home – The Human Rights Roundup

UK Human Rights Blog

TrollWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular menagerie of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here. Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Sarina Kidd.

This week, judicial review continued to take a beating, the Home Office backed down over their ‘Go Home’ campaign and the legal implications behind the twitter threat debacle were considered. And, finally, the immigration and asylum tribunal launched a useful online search service.

View original post 1,463 more words

Summer song lawsuit exposes the “Blurred Lines” of the US copyright system