Skip to main content

INTRODUCTION

 

            REGULATIONS ON OTT AND DIGITAL CONTENT


INTRODUCTION 

The government brought OTT platforms, or digital video streaming service providers like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and others, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in the year 2020.



BACKGROUND:
The government had stated that these platforms needed to be monitored and that the platforms should establish a self-regulatory organization.

Eight video streaming services signed a self-regulatory code in January 2019 that established a set of guiding principles for content on these platforms, including the prohibition of five types of content:

  1.  Content that intentionally and maliciously mocks the national anthem or flag.

  2. . Any image or scenario that encourages children to engage in child pornography.

  3.  Any content that "intentionally" offends religious beliefs.

  4.  Content that supports or encourages terrorism "deliberately and maliciously."

 Any content that has been prohibited by law or a court from being exhibited or distributed. IAMAI is a not-for-profit industry body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Its mandate is to expand and enhance the online and mobile value-added services sectors

DCCC was launched by the Online Curated Content Providers (OCCP) in February 2020 to empower consumers to make informed choices on viewing content over OTT platforms and to also provide consumers with a complaints redressal mechanism.

It held that the model lacked independent third-party monitoring, did not have a well-defined code of ethics, and did not clearly enunciate prohibited content.



 LATEST REGULATION 


It covers "Digital/Online Media," which includes "online content providers' films and audiovisual programs" as well as "news and current affairs content on online platforms.

It will give the government control over these platforms, which have previously been uncontrolled due to the lack of law or independent body controlling digital material.

Online content producers are governed by the Information Technology Act of 2000, but they are not actively supervised by any Ministry, unlike print and broadcast media.

However, little information on how the government will regulate it is available. The Program Code of the Cable Television Network Regulation Act of 1995, which governs programming on television, might be used as a framework to create guidelines for online content.







REASONS BEHIND THE REGULATION :

The Ministry continues to receive complaints from the general public, highlighting the public's worries about uncontrolled content and the necessity to regulate it. On a petition to regulate OTT platforms, the Supreme Court gave notice to the Centre and the IAMAI in October 202

Because the Ministry currently regulates news and entertainment content on television and radio through statutory entities, it's critical that it also regulates digital content.

With the expansion of digital media and a considerable change in the audience from traditional media platforms to digital media, a proper monitoring framework for online news and content that is comparable to traditional media platforms is critical.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more