Comments for Media law and ethics

Comment on What’s libel got to do with it? Looking at the Royal Charter’s Arbitration process proposals by Launch of new survey on the legal experiences and views of journalists and online publishers – Judith Townend | Inforrm's Blog

Tue, 14 May 2013 12:16:30 +0000

[…] the heart of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations, and different versions are included in the the government’s draft Royal Charter and the industry’s own proposals […]

Comment on What’s libel got to do with it? Looking at the Royal Charter’s Arbitration process proposals by Announcement: Launch of new survey on the legal experiences and views of journalists and online publishers | Media law and ethics

Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:16 +0000

[…] heart of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations, and different versions are included in the the government’s draft Royal Charter and the industry’s own proposals […]

Comment on Law and Media Round Up – 29 April 2013 by jtownend

jtownend — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:40:35 +0000

Not at all – I found the posts fascinating. Interesting times ahead.

Comment on Law and Media Round Up – 29 April 2013 by Robert

Robert — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:30:58 +0000

Thanks for the link.

Comment on The legal relevance of being a ‘blog’: a ‘pretty straightforward’ definition? by Nick Holmes (@nickholmes)

Nick Holmes (@nickholmes) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:12:47 +0000

I agree that singling out bloggers for special treatment is unnecessary and just complicates matters. The question comes down to whether news is your business or part your large business. http://www.binarylaw.co.uk/2013/04/24/we-are-all-micro-publishers-now/

Comment on The legal relevance of being a ‘blog’: a ‘pretty straightforward’ definition? by End of the day round-up | Legal Cheek

End of the day round-up | Legal Cheek — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:56:02 +0000

[...] The legal relevance of being a "blog": a "pretty straightforward" definition? [Meeja Law] [...]

Comment on The legal relevance of being a ‘blog’: a ‘pretty straightforward’ definition? by jtownend

jtownend — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:02:27 +0000

Thank you for this!

Comment on The legal relevance of being a ‘blog’: a ‘pretty straightforward’ definition? by Patrick Smith (@psmith)

Patrick Smith (@psmith) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:07:12 +0000

DMCS is effectively redefining what a microbusiness is: http://www.themediabriefing.com/article/2013-04-22/UK-press-regulation-exempts-blogs-fails-understand–digital-landscape#comment-873196806

Rather than use the widely accepted EU threshold of £578k in annual revenue, they’ve chosen – from out of the blue – £2 million a year. It’s very hard to describe a business as micro if they are earning £1.99 million in sales every 12 months.

Comment on The legal relevance of being a ‘blog’: a ‘pretty straightforward’ definition? by jtownend

jtownend — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:14:27 +0000

I don’t think it’s supposed to capture blogging academic researchers, although it could be reassuring to have access to the arbitration service (depending on the set-up of the new regulator – eg. joining fee). Until now, I didn’t really see the point of trying to define a ‘blog’ anymore than I find it very useful to define ‘citizen journalism’, and thought the term would be become increasingly redundant. But it’s no longer just a question for academic conferences about the future of journalism!

Comment on The legal relevance of being a ‘blog’: a ‘pretty straightforward’ definition? by Lucy Series

Lucy Series — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:57:05 +0000

Hmmm… up until ‘do you have 10 employees or more’ I could definitely answer yes to each of these…’Probably not’ isn’t terribly reassuring.