In the context of the work of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), national Data Protection Authorities (DPA) presented their positions concerning the practice of cookie banners. While there does not seem to be a common European approach on all matters, all bodies agree that the wording ‘continue without accepting’ or ‘refuse’ does not constitute a valid alternative to granting consent, when it is the only other option and in the absence of sufficient visual support to draw the user to this choice. These positions do not prejudge DPAs’ decisions on each complaint regarding each websites.
CULT MEPs drafted their amendments to the European Parliament’s own initiative AVMSD implementation report. Among other interesting suggestions, amendments 43, 44 and 52 express the need for more regulatory symmetry between TV channels and VOD services, and video-sharing platforms when it comes to rules pertaining to advertising, while amendment 147 includes a call to the European Commission to act upon influencer marketing. The vote in this committee will not take place before the month of March 2023.
On 21 December 2022, Amendment to Act No. 121/2000 Coll., on Copyright and Related Rights and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended (the “Copyright Act” and the “Amendment”) was published in the Collection of Laws. The Amendment implements Directive (EU) 2019/789 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes (the “OSC Directive”) and Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the “DSM Directive”).
The Amendment reflects the wording of the first amendment to the Copyright Act prepared by the Ministry of Culture in November 2020. While the OSC and DSM Directives have already been partially implemented in our current legislation, the remaining new rules will be incorporated by the Amendment. Apart from major innovations, such as new types of statutory licences or stricter rules and liability for online platform providers, the Amendment also brings some controversies and vague solutions to some copyright issues and situations.
The following article specifies how the protection of the rights of publishers of press publications is being extended, what the new stricter rules and responsibilities for providers of certain online platforms are, or what new statutory licences should be taken into consideration.
Use of copyright-protected content to share content online
One of the significant changes is the tightening of rules for providers of online content sharing services. The providers have additional obligations and conditions to govern their liability for unauthorised communication of work to the public, i.e. liability for content illegally uploaded by users to their servers. These are providers of certain online platforms used to store and publish a wide range of content where the provider arranges and promotes such user-uploaded content for profit (such as Ulož.to and similar servers). These providers (as defined in the amended wording of Section 46 of the Copyright Act) will have to make their best efforts to obtain the relevant licence for the protected content, and also to immediately prevent access to the work or remove it from their websites upon reasonable notice from the author of the content, and to make their best efforts to prevent its re-upload. Simply put, the provider must not only delete the content reported in this way but also ensure that it is not re-uploaded in the future. The Amendment further specifies these obligations and determines the factors that will be taken into account when assessing whether or not a provider has complied with their obligations.
Minor providers offering these services for less than 3 years and having an annual turnover of less than EUR 10,000,000 are not subject to these new obligations in full: they will not have to deal with preventing the re-uploading of the work in the future but will only have to delete it after notification.
Greater protection of publishers’ rights
Another significant novelty, and a closely monitored change, is the establishment of new rights of publishers of press publications, representing the implementation of somewhat problematic Article 15 of the DSM Directive into the provisions of Section 87b of the Copyright Act. Pursuant to this Section, online service providers are obliged to maintain a fair, equitable and non-discriminatory approach towards the publisher of the press publication when negotiating the granting of the authorisation to exercise the right to use the press publication and to pay a reasonable remuneration to the publisher for the granting of the authorisation to exercise the right to use the press publication.
The existing legislation has encouraged unfair behaviour and practices on the part of large providers, especially multinational companies such as Google, Facebook or Apple, that could in fact legally parasitize the copyright-protected content of media houses and publishers. For example, providers displayed previews of protected publications on their servers, accompanied by advertising from which they benefited but without providing any remuneration to the publishers of the content. This practice will no longer be possible from the effective date of the Amendment, and providers will have to agree with copyright holders (or a collective manager) on the legal treatment of the remuneration and the licence under which they will publish even previews of protected content. Copyright protection under the Amendment will last for two years from the date on which the relevant publication is published.
It is no secret that the operators of large digital platforms are generally unwilling to negotiate licensing agreements, trying to circumvent the rights of publishers in every possible way. An example from abroad, namely France – one of the first Member States to impose this new obligation on providers – may serve as an illustration. Google tried to get around this obligation by giving the publisher a choice: either it would license Google to publish the articles for free, or Google would not offer the publisher’s articles in its search at all. The Antitrust Authority found this to be an abuse of dominance and ordered Google to agree a remuneration with the publishers. Nevertheless, the outcome of the agreement between Google and the publishers’ representatives was not exactly favourable for the publishers, according to many opinions.
Problematic concepts
The Amendment (unfortunately copying the DSM Directive in this respect) contains rather problematic and vague wording. Under Section 87b (8) of the amended Copyright Act (see above) “the right to use a press publication shall not apply to the use of single words or very short extracts from a press publication and to the insertion of hyperlinks”. Unfortunately, neither the Amendment nor the DSM Directive specify what constitutes “a short extract”. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this concept will be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, in line with the ethos of the DSM Directive, which seems rather problematic, especially in the context of potential litigation before the court, and not conducive to the legal certainty that all legislative efforts should aim for. In this respect, the DSM Directive has not fulfilled its purpose of unifying the legislation of the Member States, more or less delegating to them the responsibility to ensure at least a minimum level of legal certainty for the right holders and service providers as well as for the users. Unfortunately, unlike France or Germany, Czech legislation has not responded to this issue, failing to provide any specification of the vague terminology.
Another rather fundamental deficiency of the Amendment is the so-called extended collective management (provisions of Section 97e et seq. of the amended Copyright Act), which will operate in an opt-out mode where the collective manager will represent all right holders unless they explicitly opt out. The above shortcomings open up a very wide scope of issues for potential litigation.
New statutory licences
On the other hand, there are several benefits that the Amendment brings, comprising a number of new statutory licences allowing, inter alia, easier access to otherwise copyright-protected content for educational and cultural purposes:
Licences for automated text or data analysis – data mining
Automated analysis of texts or data occurs during data mining (the process of extracting data from a digital master). This process subsequently provides information about the interrelationships and correlations within the data. This information is usually further used not only for scientific but especially for commercial purposes. These analyses are also conducted for copyright-protected works (because it is an automated activity). The Amendment is intended to strengthen legal certainty for authors and copyright holders, as well as for miners, who until now have been operating in a “legal fog” without clear definitions and boundaries. The new licence to reproduce a work for the purpose of automated analysis of texts or data provided for in Section 39c of the Copyright Act aims to clearly define these boundaries and to strengthen legal certainty for all stakeholders.
The Amendment also stipulates special licences for scientific institutions, e.g. universities conducting scientific research as part of their activities, certain legal entities that meet the statutory conditions, and cultural heritage institutions (specified in more detail in Section 39d of the amended Copyright Act). If they make a reproduction of the work specifically for text and data mining for the purposes of scientific research, these institutions will not interfere with copyright under the circumstances.
Licence for the use of a work not available on the market
According to the conditions set out in the amended provision of Section 37b of the Copyright Act, an institution of cultural heritage (such as a museum, archive, etc.) will be able to communicate to the public or reproduce a work unavailable on the market that is in the institution’s collection for non-commercial purposes without infringing copyright. The institution will have to provide the name of the author, if known, as well as the title of the work and the source. The author of the work will be able to object to such disclosure or reproduction (even in advance).
Licence for digital learning
Another improvement is the possibility for schools and other educational institutions to use works that are otherwise protected by copyright for illustrative purposes in teaching free of charge under the conditions set out in the amended provision of Section 31a of the Copyright Act. This should not apply to works that are primarily intended for educational purposes and to sheet music or musical and musical-dramatic works.
Licence for pastiche
The Amendment also modified the provision of Section 38g of the Copyright Act (licence for caricature and parody), according to which the copyright will not be interfered with by those who use the work for the purposes of pastiche, i.e. an artistic work that creatively imitates the style or elements of the work, or the work of another artist or artists.
Like any exception to copyright protection, the new statutory licence for pastiches is subject to the test specified in Section 29 of the Copyright Act (i.e. even in this case there must be no conflict with the normal use of the work or unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author).
Ancillary online broadcaster services
The Copyright Act newly regulates the so-called ancillary online services of the broadcaster (see Section 21a of the Copyright Act). These services will include simultaneous (parallel) broadcasting, catch-up viewing options and other supplementary broadcasting materials, such as trailers or reviews of the broadcast show. The country of origin principle will apply between broadcasters and copyright holders (or the collective manager, as these services are covered by the newly introduced extended collective management – see above); unless otherwise agreed, the use of the work will be deemed to take place in the territory of the EU/EEA Member State in which the broadcaster’s headquarters are located.
Conclusion
The DSM Directive and the subsequent Amendment to the Copyright Act were adopted to extend and strengthen the rights of copyright holders, to limit the exploitation of loopholes by large internet companies, and to improve the accessibility of copyright-protected works for meritorious purposes such as education and scientific work. One of the primary objectives was to provide better and fairer legal treatment of the issue of remuneration and protection of authors’ and publishers’ rights in the online environment. Innovative institutes and procedures are being introduced in an effort to straighten out the current internet environment and make it more predictable and fair, as it is an area that is constantly expanding in both its content and its reach, and in general, the agenda relating to the internet and internet platforms is becoming more and more complicated.
However, the Amendment was rather unfortunate in addressing some of the newly introduced institutes and concepts, failing to provide sufficiently clear definitions and frameworks of obligations; as such, in addition to the warm welcome from, for example, publishers, the Amendment raises quite justified concerns, especially from internet service providers. It remains to be seen how these controversies (in particular insufficient, vague or even absent definitions) will be addressed in practice. However, we can optimistically summarise that the changes introduced in this form and the move towards a comprehensive and coherent EU-wide copyright protection system are a step in the right direction.
Mgr. Tereza Dvořáková,
attorney-at-law
JUDr. Tadeáš Petr,
partner
PEYTON legal advokátní kancelář s.r.o.
Futurama Business Park
Sokolovská 668/136d
186 00 Praha 8 – Karlín
Tel.: +420 227 629 700
e-mail: info@plegal.cz
Source: epravo.cz
Prima will bet on the prediction of election results this year, too, the invitation for Andrej Babiš still stands. CNN Prima News also wants to use the projection of the election results before the final count in this year’s presidential elections. Its editor-in-chief Pavel Štrunc considers it a factor that makes the broadcast more attractive and distinguishes it from the competition.
Just like in the 2021 parliamentary elections, CNN Prima News wants to use predictions of the election results in this year’s presidential elections to provide viewers with determinative information before the competition. In an interview, CNN Prima News editor-in-chief Pavel Štrunc explains why this move is important for the Prima Group.
So far, CNN Prima News has broadcast the first of the main presidential debates, inviting six presidential candidates who are in fourth to ninth place in terms of preference. The debate was also broadcast on the main TV Prima channel. It will repeat the same model for the second of the debates, which is scheduled for Wednesday 11 January. It is reserved for the three leading candidates, but apparently only two of them will make it. Andrej Babiš has so far only confirmed his participation in the debate on TV Nova. „Our invitation to Andrej Babiš still stands. But if he does not come, I believe that the debate between the two candidates will be very interesting,“ Pavel Štrunc estimates. He considers mastering a TV debate to be a key media skill that can indicate a lot to voters. „Standing in front of a live audience in the light of ramps is not easy. Today, voters have a number of options where they can bump into candidates, but the televised debate is still the most important test,“ he adds.
CNN’s Prima News and Prima aired the first of the presidential candidates’ debates on Wednesday, January 4. It pitted the candidates who are now polling in fourth to ninth place. Right at the beginning, one of the candidates, Pavel Fischer, complained that the division of the candidates into two groups creates two categories of candidates. How did you select the candidates for the debates?
We are strictly based on data and we stick to public opinion polls. They clearly show a lead for the top three candidates and then the next group of candidates comes out of that. That’s why we decided to give space in our first debate to all candidates outside the leading three. As a commercial broadcaster, we could have easily invited only three candidates to the first debate, which we did not do. We gave space to all of them, both in prime time on CNN Prima News and on the main Prima channel. All the candidates knew the concept of our broadcast long in advance and no one opposed it.
Were you prepared to bring other candidates into the debate if there were more than nine candidates in total?
We were really responsible, we were waiting for the Supreme Administrative Court to decide and we were ready to have these candidates in the studio. If it turned out that the differences in the candidates’ preferences were smaller than what the current data shows, we would address that in cooperation with STEM analysts. We were prepared to take the court’s decision into account on the day of the debate. Similarly, we are currently prepared for the possibility that Andrej Babiš may appear on Wednesday’s Superdebate.
So your concept of the election broadcast is based on research from the STEM and Stem/Mark agencies?
We have election models primarily from these two agencies. The sample of respondents exceeds two thousand, which is an above-average number. Even one of the surveys had over two and a half thousand respondents. It was not cheap to get these surveys, but we wanted to invest in them so that we could rely on the data. In addition, we take into account results from other agencies.
What did the first debate show you? Is there anything you would like to change in the second debate, which will be broadcast on Wednesday 11 January and to which the leading three are invited according to their current preferences?
We’re happy with the results of the first debate, it’s the first presidential election for CNN Prima News. In the 2018 presidential election, the Prima debate was only broadcast before the second round, and on the main channel, because at that time CNN Prima News was not yet broadcasting. We haven’t had a presidential election to that extent yet. On the other hand, we have already had experience from the parliamentary and local elections, which we did differently, and I dare say that we passed this test as well. When we broadcast our first debate on Wednesday 4 January, we had a lot of competition from other TV stations in the form of the film Bábovky, and especially in the semi-final match between the Czech junior hockey team and Sweden. The total viewership on both channels of over half a million viewers is decent from our point of view and perhaps more importantly, the viewership grew during the debate.
We were prepared to take the court’s decision into account on the day of the debate. Similarly, we are currently prepared for the possibility that Andrej Babiš may appear on Wednesday’s Superdebate.
Will you change the dramaturgy for the second debate?
We will not change anything, the dramaturgy and production will remain the same. However, there will definitely be more space for the presidential candidates to react to each other so that it is really a debate and not just a series of monologues. Again, we are trying to be data-driven, and that’s why the connection with STEM is important to us, not only for the electoral models, but also for describing the social trends that we open the debate with. That’s why a part of the programme is based on the presentation of data and facts and we want to stick to that.
Based on Andrej Babiš’s statement last week, it looks like he will not be joining your debate. Do you think you will welcome a pair or a trio of candidates in the studio this week?
Our invitation to Andrej Babiš still stands. I consider the debate between the three candidates to be sufficiently dignified, data-driven and interesting. If Andrej Babiš does not arrive, I also see the debate between the two candidates as very worthwhile. It is a contest for the highest constitutional post. After all, President Zeman has also spoken about the importance of the presidential television debates. I also hear from colleagues who have come to us from the print or online media that the reaction in live television broadcasts is the most demanding test of the candidates. It would be a shame, in my view, if viewers were deprived of that experience.
If there are only two candidates in the studio, it could be a test before the second round, where a pair of candidates also clash.
I don’t want to completely reveal the second round, because we’re going to have something extra for the second round that will give the audience a hint of how the candidates are able to respond. I’m not going to give it away just yet, but I can say that it’s definitely not going to be a test of school encyclopedic knowledge.
Why do you see televised debates as the most important of media outlets?
It is a live broadcast with a large audience in front of the screens and also in front of a live audience in the studio. It’s different from the various interviews on the internet, social media, although I’m a big fan of them too and rate some of these formats as great. However, in terms of the demands that are placed on the candidates during the interviews, the televised debate is the highest because the candidates have to withstand a lot of pressure within a couple of seconds.
In terms of the demands that are made on the candidates in the interviews, the televised debate is the best because the candidates have to withstand a lot of pressure within a couple of seconds.
How do you select the studio audience? For some candidates, their supporters were more vocal in the first debate. Doesn’t that affect the overall dramaturgy and tone of the debate?
The number of seats in the studio is strictly divided between the candidates and their supporters. Each candidate can bring a certain number of supporters, so it is all about the candidates’ cooperation with them. We are prepared to ask the audience to quieten down if necessary, but there was no reason to do so in the first debate.
This year Prima is also giving the audience the opportunity to express their sympathy by sending in their votes for the candidates. How many voters took part in the first debate?
It was about 25,000 voters, and it is important to add that each voter must first register and then can vote. They only have the option of one vote, just like in the case of texting. It is strictly controlled. If we left the voting open without registration, the interest would be many times greater, but we do not want to remove the registration requirement.
What do you expect the viewership to be? Could it be more than double compared to the first debate? The main candidates will compete this time…
The important thing has been said, the main candidates, who have not met each other much in debates so far, will compete. That is why I believe that the ratings will be very good. I don’t want to make any more predictions.
Will Wednesday’s result be affected by the Czech Television debate, which was broadcast on Sunday 8 January?
I believe that it will only increase interest in our next pre-election debate, especially in the two main candidates. There is still a lot of time before Saturday, when the polls close, and the candidates are becoming more and more defined against each other. I’m glad we have the opportunity to be as up-to-date as possible in the debate.
The big debates on CNN Prima News and TV Prima are accompanied by a studio audience. Have you considered changing that approach for the presidential election?
It is a characteristic feature for us to have viewers as close to our broadcast as possible, so we want to invite them to our studio. We haven’t considered changing that.
But this time the audience did not ask questions in the studio. Will that remain the case for future presidential debates?
Normally we give our audience that opportunity, but for the presidential election we decided that only our host Terezie Tománková would ask questions.
You are the only TV station that works with predicting the election results in your broadcasts. You said you want to use them in this year’s presidential election as well…
Our cooperation with STEM and Stem/Mark is working well and the predictions we published in the parliamentary election came out perfectly. When about 60% of the votes were counted and ANO was still in the lead, STEM and Stem/Mark analysts were already pointing to an upward trend for ANO and saying that it would win the election. We would like to repeat something like this in the presidential election. Predictions are based on data and we take it responsibly. It opens up more possibilities for our election coverage. The moment we know which candidate will advance or become president, we can adjust our broadcasts accordingly.
I wouldn’t compare this year’s presidential broadcast to 2018. On Prima today, the debates are prepared by a completely different team and the concept of the broadcast is also different.
Isn’t the use of predictions risky?
We take a lot of inspiration from the American CNN, where they work with the phenomenon of !swing states” (states with balanced support for both candidates, ed.). The state in which a candidate wins can be used to infer whether he or she will become president. In cooperation with STEM, we have also selected cities and regions that, if a candidate dominates, are very likely to become president. You might argue that we don’t have a 200-year tradition of presidential elections, but we have gone through a lot of data with a research agency, not only from presidential elections but also from parliamentary elections, to determine this. We will be broadcasting from the studio all day on Saturday, January 14 and Saturday, January 28, and our goal is to convey information to viewers as clearly and comprehensibly as possible, so we are not planning any outside broadcasts. Of course, we are trying to reach audiences across the entire television spectrum, including viewers of Czech Television. We are interested in every viewer and we believe we have something to offer them because we will show something different again. And that’s not a platitude.
Alongside the election result predictions, this year you will also use an interactive technological aid, known as the “Prima Pencil”, which the presenter uses to present the data and show it on a map.
We are trying to incorporate it more into our regular broadcasts as well, as it helps us to better illustrate the course of events and their context. The presenter Petr Suchoň will use this technology to convey information to the audience and his role will be the same as in the local elections. He will focus on interesting details and look into the history of elections in individual towns or villages. We will bring interviews and analysis from all the election staffs, supplemented by information from social networks.
During the last presidential election, CNN Prima News was not yet on the air, but the debate between Miloš Zeman and Jiří Drahoš before the second round of the election was watched by 2.3 million viewers on TV Prima’s main channel, making it the most watched programme in TV Prima’s history. Some commentators have described it as a “debate with a lot of shouting”, will it be different this year?
I wouldn’t compare this year’s presidential broadcast to 2018. On Prima today, the debates are prepared by a completely different team and the concept of the broadcast is also different.
PAVEL ŠTRUNC, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, CNN PRIMA NEWS: He has been the editor-in-chief of CNN Prima News since September 2020 and has worked for Prima TV news since 2012. He has also gained experience at ČT24 and Z1 news TV. He hosted his own show Štrunc! on the Info.cz website.
Source: mediaguru.cz
The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has proposed an amendment to the Act on Advertising Regulation (Act No. 40/1995 Coll., as amended) to regulate the advertising of nicotine sachets. The main objective is to protect children and adolescents from the effects of the use of nicotine sachets, in particular by reducing their attractiveness by regulating the content and location of advertising.
The amendment is also intended to level the playing field for the sale of nicotine-containing products intended for normal use. Since nicotine sachets are a relatively new product with addictive potential on the market, advertising of these products has not been regulated to date. The aim of the amendment is to introduce effective regulation of advertising, particularly with regard to the impact of advertising on children and adolescents.
Last year, czech TV stations delivered a comparable volume of advertising GRPs as the year before.
Domestic TV stations delivered a comparable number of GRPs in the advertising TV market in 2022 as in 2021 (-0.7%). Media Club and Nova Group remain the strongest business networks in terms of delivered GRPs, Atmedia achieved the highest year-on-year increases at the level of percentage units last year. This is shown by Nielsen Admopshere monitoring data.
Investments in TV advertising grew again last year, according to raw data from Ad Intel monitoring, and most TV stations dealt with the filling of advertising space. The monitored data for the year 2022 is not yet closed, but by the end of last November, i.e. for eleven months of the year, the year-on-year dynamics exceeded the level of 10%.
Nova and Prima stations delivered the most GRP last year, followed by Prima Max, Prima Krimi, Nova Cinema, Prima Cool and Nova Fun. In addition to the new stations where the year-on-year increase in GRP is essentially high (Prima Star, Prima Show and Nova Lady), the year-on-year increase in the volume of delivered GRPs was the most on CNN Prima News and Televizi Seznam.
Share of business networks in delivered GRPs in 2022
In terms of viewership, Czech Television is among the two strongest commercial entities. In its case, the volume of advertising is significantly limited by law, therefore its share in delivered GRPs is low.
Media Club (stations of the Prima, Barrandov, Óčko group and some thematic stations) became the strongest entity in all-day and evening viewership in the target group 15+ and in all-day viewership 15-69. Nova group stations were strongest in the 15-54 category (valid for all day and prime-time) and in prime-time 15-69. Given that Media Club also represents Atmedia stations, its share increases when calculating Atmedia’s share of the highest values in all-day and evening viewership in 15+ and 15-69. The Nova group is strongest in all-day and evening viewership 15-54.
Source: mediaguru.cz
Amendment to the Copyright Act introduces the “notice & stay down” principle for online content-sharing service providers.
On 5 January 2023, an amendment to the Copyright Act (Act No. 121/2000 Coll., on Copyright and Related Rights and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended) came into force. It was published in the Collection of Laws on 21 December 2022 under No. 429/2022. The amendment was prepared under the charges of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic. It implemented the not yet adopted provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/789 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes, and Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the “DSM Directive”).
In addition to the Copyright Act, related legislation was amended, in particular the relevant provisions of the Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012 Coll., as amended). The new legislation therefore introduced into the Czech legal system a new EU regulation of copyright and rights related to copyright, which had not been included in the national legislation at all or only partially. The amendment thus introduced, among other things, new statutory licences, new obligations for online content-sharing service providers, licence fees for commercial use of articles, regulation of collective management and, last but not least, regulation of licences, including new reporting obligations.
The significant changes introduced by the amendment comprise the new obligations imposed on online content-sharing service providers in connection with the communication of works to the public (with exceptions stipulated by law for small providers), i.e. the transition from the “notice & take down” regime to the “notice & stay down” regime. In principle, prior to the amendment, platforms and repositories, i.e. online content-sharing service providers, were not liable for the presence of a copyright-protected work on their platforms and repositories without the author’s consent until the author brought the defect to their attention. After that, the work had to be removed in order for the provider to be exempt from liability.
However, this principle has fundamentally changed with the amendment, as these providers must now make their best efforts to obtain a licence for legally protected content. Similarly, providers are obliged to make the work inaccessible or remove it from their websites immediately after receiving a sufficiently substantiated notification from the author of the unauthorised communication of the work to the public. Only if they meet the obligation, they are not liable for unauthorised communication of the work to the public. The “notice & stay down” principle should thus strengthen the protection of the legitimate interests of copyright holders.
The current EU audiovisual media services directive significantly modifies the legal limits for conventional advertising on commercial stations. Martin Procházka, research analysts from Knowlimits agency, outlines how the news will affect broadcasting.
The original limit was 12 minutes (20 %) for each broadcast hour separately. The new regulation is still based on the 20 % limit, but sets it cumulatively for all defined bands. This means that for the 06:00-18:00 period the limit is 144 minutes and for the 18:00-24:00 period it is 72 minutes. The 00:00-06:00 band is completely unregulated – there is no aggregate or sub-hourly limit at all. As a result of this change in the law, the values within individual hours and also in aggregate for the whole day 06:00-06:00 may be above 100% under the original regulation. Now it is legally obligatory not to exceed the limit in aggregate only in the 2 bands 06:00-18:00 and 18:00-24:00.
Initial analyses suggest that both commercial groups are so far cautiously expanding blocks in primetime, which generates the highest volume of advertising GRPs due to its highest viewership. Whereas the former usual practice involved two blocks of 6 minutes each per hour, stations are now trying to broadcast blocks of around 7 minutes each, particularly in the 20:00-23:00 time slot. In the 23:00-00:00 band, on the other hand, they are cutting back (especially Prima Group stations). Stations have to consider how much they can afford to extend the advertising block and at the same time not lose viewers who may leave the station during longer commercials, thus lowering the block’s rating. In effect, the station could even have fewer total GRPs.
The 00:00-06:00 nighttime band is unrestricted, so there may be more blocks than the previously usual two – up to three or four, for example. Currently, stations in this band prefer an extended ad block length of 7 minutes rather than increasing the number of blocks. It is likely that stations will make heavy use of the night band for make-up spots.
For the above reasons, it is no longer practically meaningful to monitor the sell-out of TV stations within individual hours and throughout the day. A direct comparison of individual stations in terms of sell-out can only be made for the two ‘legally limited’ bands – in aggregate, i.e. for 06:00-00:00 or for each band separately.
Source: blog.knowlimits.cz
Europe’s population using illegal IPTV is increasing, costing the audiovisual sector billions of euros a year, a new report shows.
Television piracy is not only a problem in Central and Eastern Europe. As a recent report by the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA) shows, pay-TV in Europe lost €3.21 billion to illegal IPTV last year alone. According to the AAPA, 17.1 million people (4.5%) commit piracy, which is roughly the population of the entire Netherlands.
The figures are alarming because these are users of all ages, i.e. between 16 and 74 years old. The largest group by far is the Netflix generation aged 16 to 24. They alone account for 5.9 million of the total. Just to give you an idea, that’s the population of Finland. They access content through illegal IPTV services. They have earned 1.06 billion euros.
What is perhaps most surprising is that, according to the report, most piracy is committed in the aforementioned Netherlands (8.2 percent of the population) and the least in Romania (0.8 percent). Overall, 4.5 percent of citizens in the EU-27 use illegal IPTV services. The report estimates that illegal IPTV brought losses of €22.4 million (or more than CZK 0.5 billion) to the Czech market in 2021 alone and quantified the monthly harm at €1.9 million. More than 350,000 Czechs, or 4.4% of the population aged 16-74, are expected to access content via illegal IPTV. The absolute highest losses are registered in the UK, German, French and Spanish markets.
The report also points out that websites providing illegal IPTV services are not the only way to access pirated content. For example, social media platforms and applications provide relatively easy unauthorised access to content. Unauthorised providers also profit from advertising and malware. This means that pirates’ revenues and potential losses
industry are greater than the estimates in the AAPA report, the alliance adds. It also notes that it will take much more effort and stricter laws, as well as more education across the market, to stem the growing trend of piracy.
Source: mediaguru.cz
Daniel Grunt will be CEO of TV Nova from January. Here is an interview he gave for the print edition of Lupa 3.0
Daniel Grunt is behind the development of Nova TV’s digital activities, including the Voyo app. The experienced media manager had already led the internet division at the Barrandov headquarters of the commercial station but then he left for the competitor Prima where he spent almost eight years. He returned to Nova in 2021 after it was taken over by PPF. This financial group required the management to wake up the somewhat sleepy, inertia-driven TV station. Grunt is not only responsible for Nova’s internet strategy but also manages the digital strategy of CME, Nova’s parent media group. He is therefore in regular contact with colleagues in other countries where CME owns TV stations. As of January 2023, he will move to a new position: he will be CEO of TV Nova.
What are the pillars of Nova TV’s digital activities?
There are three key ones. The first, which we pay the most attention and investment to, is the paid service Voyo. It is the backbone of CME’s digital transformation in all the countries where we operate. It is incorporated in the structure of TV stations and almost all teams. It automatically transforms the entire company. Another pillar is the ad-supported video archive, which was split between Nova.cz and Novaplus.cz in the past. This summer, we have merged them back together and now there is just Nova.cz. And the third pillar is news on TN.cz.
What about other stations in the CME group?
Voyo is the biggest priority in the whole CME. The paid video service is complemented by a free ad-supported video archive. This is the case in all stations except Slovenia. In Slovenia and Romania, there are historically more magazine services. During the first period I was working in Nova, these services made sense from a business perspective. But nowadays such sites are dependent on display advertising the value of which is steadily going down, so it does not make sense anymore. We have only kept magazines that still generate significant sums of money. Plus online news. In all countries, we are starting to focus more on sports. With the sports rights acquisitions, we have a lot of content that we can use.
What will be on Nova’s website?
We will focus on content related to our shows, faces and topics we promote on TV. We are not going to make microsites for every show. Rather, it will be a section dedicated to that show, with an archive of full episodes, and accompanying bonus material that the team collects during the course of filming. Extensive content does very well for reality shows such as Survivor. You can work with it for a long time and it still works well. It is not disposable content that you post on the networks and nobody comes back to. It is good for search engines.
Will you direct people from there to Voyo to pay for watching more content?
We make TV content available to Voyo subscribers seven days in advance and without ads. Then it goes to TV from where it continues to the archive on Nova.cz. There, people can watch shows for two weeks with ads. And finally, we put them back into the paid archive on Voyo. We play with and monetise value added. You pay to watch the show earlier, in higher quality and without ads. If you do not want to pay a monthly subscription, you watch it with a time-shift, but with ads.
But you also place bonus content of your shows to other platforms, such as Stream.cz. How does this fit into the described strategy?
The short content has three main functions. The first one is monetisation: we want to use it for video advertising, which largely feeds digital services. But the second and third reason we have it is to support Voyo and linear TV. So it is important for us to have maximum reach so that as many people as possible can access the content and make some kind of attachment to it. Then they will watch it on Voyo or on linear TV.
Voyo is an international brand. Can your colleagues abroad use it at their discretion?
In Slovenia, for example, they are pretty much independent because they have been developing Voyo throughout its existence. They monetise all the shows through it. It may be a small market with two million inhabitants but they have developed the service. In all the other markets, Voyo’s curve has been flat for a long time, it has not moved for maybe ten years. When I joined Nova, we decided to focus on the Czech Republic and Slovakia rather than pursuing everything at once. We will find out what works and once we learn that we will start with the other countries. We have had a very successful start in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We will focus more on Romania later this year. Then it is just Croatia and Bulgaria, which will be next year’s business.
What about promotion?
The definition of brand and product is central. Individual states have a free hand in soft brand extension and communication. Each nation has its own specifics, this is also seen in the content strategy. The more you are in the south-east, the more soap operas and sports you have. We seek to control the core, i.e. what Voyo is, what it looks like and how it is profiled, but the demographic targeting and content policy may differ slightly. In any market, Voyo logically has to fit somewhere where there is room for growth.
Where does it fit in the Czech Republic, especially compared to global platforms?
Voyo is the strongest source of local content. In every country where CME operates it is supposed to be the strongest first-choice service when you want to see quality local movies, TV series, reality shows, and anything else. We have no ambition to compete with Netflix or Disney+ because we will never have their budgets. We are the number one local service in every country, except Bulgaria, where we are number two.
You stress that the content should be of high quality. What do you mean by that?
We push for premium services. Voyo, as we now define it and as it has started to develop in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, has a high production value. The content we shoot for Voyo Originály is more expensive than the content we shoot for prime time TV Nova. It also has to do with the choice of topics. It is the premium product in the entire portfolio of the media house.
The world’s film studios are gradually launching their own services where they exclusively host their production. Does this make it more difficult to get content for Voyo?
This applies not only to VOD services but also to licensing films for local TV. Getting content from groups such as Disney is becoming increasingly difficult. They have decided to keep the content only with themselves. It only encourages us to emphasise the local aspect. I am not saying that we do not have high quality acquisitions but we have other sources than the American film studios. Scandinavian crime films, for example, work very well for us. We have quite a lot of interesting UK series from the BBC and ITV.
Who typically subscribes to Voyo?
Households and individuals from young people in their thirties to older 40-somethings. Most of the people watching Voyo are women, for example, women with children. A lot of users use the account to its full potential, all five devices, often watching simultaneously. That is why I say households rather than families because these can be childless households or multiple people watching together. On average, they watch over 12 hours of content per week. According to various research studies we have had done, Voyo has the highest proportion of people who watch daily or multiple times a week compared to other services in the market. And logically, because you have to pay for the service, Voyo also has a higher socio-economic category of viewers compared to TV. Their education is primarily high school and university.
What is the biggest success and how do you define it?
We track the number of views but it is not a key metric for me. The most important one is the number of paying accounts, and we set annual goals for each team based on that. Right after that, the time watched weekly is important to me. That tells me whether people are happy with the service or not. If it starts to drop, we start to address it and we get nervous. There is a proportion that the less you use the service, the more likely you are to leave it. All Voyo Originály work extremely well for us. And the series Ordinace v růžové zahradě. It helped us that we had the courage to move it from linear TV to Voyo in the autumn of 2021 where it still had from 900 thousand to a million viewers on a single broadcast day. It showed the market that we were serious. The quality, length or cast has not declined, the series is still the same. Rather, it has got a second wind. Another thing that works is the previews of the key shows that work well on the main Nova channel. Some viewers are more sophisticated, they pay extra to see the content earlier and without ads. And there is also the big mix of the library that works well, we have clearly the most Czech films on the market, about 750.
It has been repeatedly discussed whether domestic TV stations should join forces and create something like Czechflix. Is it passé now that each group has announced its own solution?
Theoretically, it is possible that in the medium term this can happen. But I am sceptical. There is the question of how to implement such a Czechflix. How do you do it practically? Whose platform will it be? Who will have what shares? How will the revenue be distributed? And how will the share that each TV station has to contribute be determined? How will you calculate the value of the content? These practical aspects are very important to get something like this off the ground. You must also not forget that on a single platform you are bringing together entities that are competitors and proudly compete in all other areas. And suddenly they have to come to an agreement in one place. Nowhere in the world, be it Britbox, Joyn or Salto, does this work properly. There is always a grand announcement and a budget, the plan looks great from the outside and from afar, but then each of the companies involved still have their own platform anyway. And none of them have the courage to discontinue theirs and fully focus on the common one.
Source: lupa.cz
The management of CME and TV Nova announce significant changes in the organisational structure of both companies. These changes are intended to further support not only the rapid growth of the group as a whole, but also its digital transformation.
The new CEO of TV Nova will be Daniel Grunt from 1 January, who will focus on further consolidating TV Nova’s position as a market leader, its innovative approach to programming and digital transformation, with an emphasis on continuing Voyo’s growth. Daniel will also remain Head of Digital within CME for the time being until his successor is appointed.
As of the same date, Dusan Švalek becomes Deputy CEO at CME and will develop his leadership competencies across the following CME markets: Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria.
Dušan Švalek; Source: TV Nova
CME management will be strengthened by the current CEOs of TV Nova, Klára Brachtlová and Jan Vlček. Klára Brachtlová will become CME Chief External Affairs and Jan Vlček CME Group Revenue Officer, both reporting directly to Dušan Švalek.
Klára Brachtlová, Jan Vlček; Source: TV Nova
Klára Brachtlová will cover activities related to strategic partnerships and the development of relationships within the industry, and together with Dušan will oversee CME’s operational agenda. Jan Vlček will continue to support TV Nova’s business growth and work on strategic initiatives such as targetable advertising, which will be gradually implemented across all CME markets.
The Czech Television is the strongest TV group in November in the universal audience over 15 years of age in terms of all-day viewership. The position of the commercial groups Prima and Nova is balanced in this audience category.
The Czech Television stations remained the strongest TV group in November in terms of all-day viewership in the over-15 age group. The aggregate share reached almost 30 % (29.96 %). The position of the Prima and Nova groups is balanced in this audience group, according to official ATO-Nielsen Admosphere data.
In the 15-54 and 15-69 audience groups, Nova remains the most watched group and has the highest share in prime-time.
Compared to last November, TV groups performed differently by airtime and target group. Czech Television managed to increase its share year-on-year, especially in prime time. The Nova group also fared better in evening than in all-day viewing, and slightly increased its share in the universal 15+ group in prime-time. Conversely, the Prima group fared better year-on-year in all-day than in prime-time, where its share fell by 1.5 percentage points year-on-year.
The representation of thematic stations Atmedia improved year-on-year on all parameters. The Barrandov group achieved comparable results to last year.
The start of the football World Cup in Qatar was reflected in the fact that compared to last November, CT Sport (up 4.54%, 15+) and Nova Action (up 1.71% in v1 5+ and 2.16% in 15-54), as well as Prima Krimi (up 3.63%, 15+) grew the most.
Of the other stations, Nova Gold, Nova Lady, CNN Prima News, Prima Star and Prima Show continue to grow. Conversely, all of the top three stations’ main channels were lower this November than in the same month last year.
Source: mediaguru.cz
