(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)

European media scholars criticized a European Commission proposal for a new EU Directive on Audiovisual Media Services for its vague regulatory concept of 'non-linear audiovisual services' that would also affect the Internet. The criticism was expressed in the "Budapest Declaration for Freedom of the Internet" drafted by Peter Molnar, PhD, Senior research fellow at the Center for Media and Communication Studies at the Central European University. The Declaration is open for further signatures by media scholars.

"The unjustifiable restrictions suggested in the draft proposal of the European Commission would put freedom of speech and freedom of information at risk especially in Central-, and East-European countries where arbitrary

(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)

On 20 June, Rikke Frank Joergensen (Digital Rights Denmark) and Meryem Marzouki (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire, IRIS - France) participated as EDRI observers to the 5th Council of Europe meeting of the Group of Specialists on Human Rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS). Among the many points on the agenda, the following news are worth reporting at this step.

The draft Recommendation on empowering children in the new information and communications environment has been submitted to the CoE Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC), where some member states (France, Germany, Russia) expressed their willing to make further comments before having it adopted.

(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)

During the workshop "The Rising Power of Search-Engines on the Internet: Impacts on Users, Media Policy, and Media Business" that took place in Berlin on 26-27 June 2006, the experts expressed the opinion that the search engines should be more regulated.

Marcel Machill, a lecturer in journalism at Germany's Leipzig and Dortmund universities stated that Google along with Yahoo and MSN were the main source of information searches for 90% of the Germans, Google alone accounting for 70%. He expressed serious concern related to the power of the search engines that would be unconceivable in the classic media. Machill as well as other experts considers Google should have the same responsibility

(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)

With its newly adopted Communication on a 'comprehensive EU strategy to promote and safeguard the rights of the child', the Commission intends to pursue its global action on children's rights. One may however wonder whether the strategy for fighting child porn on the Internet, which mostly relies on private hotlines, is really efficient and compliant with the rule of law.

These were the main issues raised at the afternoon session of the EC Safer Internet Forum 2006, held in Luxembourg on 21 June, on 'Illegal Content: Blocking access to child sexual abuse images'. Following the invitation of the organizers, Rikke Frank Joergensen (Digital Rights Denmark) and Meryem Marzouki (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire, IRIS - France) represented

(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)

TACD (Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogues) organized a conference under the title "New Relationships Between Creative Communities and Consumers" in Paris on 19-20 June 2006. Participants represented a wide range of interests, including both artists' and consumers' organizations, but also WIPO and the European Commission.

Several panels explored problems and possibilities in creators' and users' rights in fields as various as gene research, drug development, software production, entertainment industry, documentary films and scholarly publishing. The breadth of discussion and ideas presented was impressive.

One recurring theme was that creators and users of intellectual works are

A previous ruling of the Hamburg court that made moderators of internet forums liable for content posted on their sites is now contradicted by the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Dusseldorf which has ruled that forum operators are obligated to delete illegal comments made by their users only in case they know about them.

The ruling of the German Supreme Court of 2004 obliged the forum operators to prevent illegal content posted by their users but did not bind them to review all comments before being placed online. However, in the Heise Zeitschriften Verlag case, the Hamburg court ruled against Heise, asking from the publisher to monitor the content before it appeared online.

The Hamburg court had required the operator to "either increase its funding or limit ... its operations" in order to review all postings before

At the end of May, the Swedish Police raided the location where the PirateBay.org website was located and shut down the site seizing several servers. However, after less than 1 month, the site, which is considered the world's biggest BitTorrent tracker being visited by 10 million to 15 million daily users, resumes its activity from Sweden.

The Motion Picture Association of America quickly reacted after the Police raid considering that: "The actions today taken in Sweden serve as a reminder to pirates all over the world that there are no safe harbours for Internet copyright thieves."

After just a couple of days from the raid, PirateBay.org was back online, hosted somewhere in Netherlands. The operators of the website fought back considering that their actions were not illegal as The Pirate Bay only

The Californian appeal court decided on 26 May that online journalists and bloggers have the same right to protect their sources as all other journalists. The case was brought to court by Apple Computer demanding from a number of news website operators to reveal the source of confidential information posted about some of its products.

Initially the trial court had ruled in favour of Apple but the appeal court changed this decision stating that the defendants were protected by California's reporter's shield law, as well as the constitutional privilege against disclosure of confidential sources.

A major point in the case was whether the writers involved deserved the protection of the First Amendment and the sites involved could be considered a "newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication" as it is expressed