Broadcasting Law

FSEK m. 25’de düzenlenen yayın hakkının, uygulamada ve öğretide diğer mali haklarla, özellikle dolaylı temsille karıştırıldığı, bu hakkın diğer mali haklarla farklılıklarının yeterince ortaya konmadığı gözlemlenmektedir. Bu konudaki diğer bir sorun ise radyo ve tv kuruluşlarının yapmış olduğu yayınların, diğer yayın kuruluşları tarafından (uydu/ dijital platform işleticileri, kablolu yayın yapan kuruluşlarca) umuma iletilmesi, yani yeniden yayınlanması halinde, eser ya da hak sahiplerini temsilen yetkili meslek birliklerinden yeniden izin alma zorunluluğu bulunup bulunmadığıdır. Bu çalışmada, uygulamada tereddütlere neden olan yeniden yayın – yeniden iletim kavramları üzerinde de durularak, yayın hakkının niteliği, diğer mali haklardan, özellikle temsil hakkı, yay- ma hakkı ve umuma erişilebilir kılma hakkı ile ilgili farklılıkları ortaya konulmaya çalışılacaktır.

The major source of law is Precedent which is following the doctrine of ‘Stare Decisis’. The meaning of this is that “the judges are obliged to stand by the precedents established by prior decisions”. The previous decisions are being followed by the Appellate Court. Statutory interpretation is passed by Parliament. There are four ways through which statutory interpretation is put. Literal rule is the first way through which statutory interpretation is put. Besides this it is very popular and easiest. In the case of Brock v DPP dispute was arose related to the types of dangerous dogs in dangerous dog’s act 1991 as pitbull was included in this act which had the characteristics of a normal dog. Golden rule is the second method. It is somewhat similar to the first rule itself. This rule can be applied in two was such as the wider application or narrow application. The third method is the mischief rule which gives the judge much more power over their decisions as the court will look at the actual issue ‘gap’ and try to ‘bridge’ that gap rather than just look at the words of the Act itself. The final, purposive approach is one step higher then the mischief rule.

This article presents a study of the implementation of new elements of media governance in the UK, Germany, and Norway. Seeking to amend the existing models, the three states have introduced different versions of so-called ''public value tests'' to assess the relevance, market impact, and cost/value of any new public service. The cases represent a meeting of national and supranational actors struggling to fit a staple of media policy into novel settings, developing new methods in the process. In discussing the development and organization of the tests, substantial differences are identified within a shared framework. Scrutinizing the specific implementations of the tests, it is argued that the actors involved, the measures, as well as the scopes vary across the cases.

The degree to which the SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation) as public broadcaster gives shape to its language policy and language mandate, against the background of an investigation of language rights, establishes the central problem statement of this research.

It is widely acknowledged that it is difficult to define the concept of language rights. Although the language-sociological literature associates this concept with minority and cultural rights, it can also be seen as individual rights. According to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, it is clear that language rights should be seen as individual rights that can be exercised within a particular community. Although this dissertation provides an extensive juridical and language sociological explanation of the concept of language rights, the description by Judge Albie Sachs will be used as a working definition for this research. His division between the following four fundamental language rights, viz.: (i) the right to use your language; (ii) the right to develop your language; (iii) the right to be understood and to understand other languages as well as (iv) the right not to be discriminated against because of your language, provides a useful investigation instrument with which the degree to which the SABC-TV acknowledges and protects language rights can be measured.

It is found that despite the policy documents on national and corporate level that has equal consideration and treatment of the diverse South African languages in mind, it still happens that the SABC-TV fails to give form to the language rights of individuals that belong to indigenous minority language groups in South Africa. Due to this, the research suggests that the extensive implementation of subtitles, as a form of screen translation that differs from lip synchronised dubbing, can make a significant contribution to the acknowledgement and protection of language rights by the SABC-TV.

In addition to a discussion on what subtitles entail, the technical nature and specific parameters thereof, a feasibility study is included within which the affordability of this project for the SABC-TV is indicated. It is found that this form of screen translation is ideal for the South African situation because it is cheaper than both lip synchronised dubbing and the creation of new television programmes, but also because it can effectively be employed in regional broadcasts. Furthermore, the use of bilingual subtitles and pivot subtitles are also alternatives that may be considered.

It is essential though that subtitles can indeed contribute to the way in which the SABC, as a public broadcaster, acknowledges and protects the fundamental language rights of the multitude of South Africans that belong to different language communities in South Africa.

The development of public broadcasters’ Internet services has compelled practitioners and researchers alike to ponder public service beyond broadcasting. Yet, for public service as a key cultural policy tool, rethinking is also needed on the level of regulatory definitions. Are we witnessing a policy transformation into a media-neutral public service concept? If so, what are the implications for the legitimacy of public service beyond broadcasting? Relating the current situation to a wider policy context, this article scrutinizes different regulatory approaches, tentatively characterized by (1) extending broadcasting, (2) adding to broadcasting and (3) demoting broadcasting. The approaches are illustrated with three cases: Norway, Germany and the UK. Assessing the different approaches, I discuss advantages and pitfalls, and the implications for the legitimacy of public service freed from broadcasting rationales. As policy actors strive to create stable conditions in an unstable situation, I argue, they should keep in mind both the risks of succumbing to details or pursuing exhaustive lists in basic definitions, and the linguistic and cultural characteristics of each polity.

Iklan merupakan bagian yang tak terpisahkan dalam meningkatkan daya beli masyarakat dari masa ke masa. Melalui iklan, produk dapat lebih mudah dikenal masyarakat dengan alur komunikasi dan pesan yang disampaikan ke masayarakat melalui jasa periklanan. Masalah iklan dalam dunia industri dewasa ini tidak mementingkan norma-norma dipatuhi masyarakat dan lebih menabrak batasan yang telah ditetapkan pemerintah melalui regulasi Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2002, karena semua itu demi ketatnya persaingan bisnis.Iklan yang ditayangkan atau ditampilkan sudah sepatutnya harus sesuai dengan fakta, termasuk kualitas dari produk, harus bersifat tidak boleh menyesatkan dari apa yang dipromosikan dan tidak boleh berbenturan pada norma kesusilaan ataupun kesopanan dimasyarakat serta tidak boleh mengandung unsur sara yang menyebabkan terjadinya perpecahan dimasyarakat atau runtuhnya persatuan dan kesatuan antar golongan.Etika bisnis memposisikan dalam ruang lingkup bisnis perikalanan suatu produk yang mana dalam mempromosikan suatu produk kepada masyarakat tetap mematuhi koridor yang ada sehingga tidak ada yang dirugikan dari suatu bentuk promosi dan tidak membuat perpecahan di masyarakat. Untuk itu, melalui suatu prinsip dalam kerangka teori etika bisnis dibangunlah kerangka kepatuhan untuk tetap dalam koridor yang sehat dan unggul untuk aktivitas periklanan, prinsip tersebut yakni prinsip otonomi, prinsip kejujuran, prinsip keadilan, prinsip saling menguntungkan (mutual benefit principle), dan prinsip integritas moral.Secara regulasi, pemerintah telah mengatur mengenai batasan-batasan dalam periklanan melalui Pasal 36 ayat 1,3,4,5,6, dan Pasal 46 ayat 3,4,5,6 Undang-Undang 32 Tahun 2002 Tentang Penyiaran. Untuk itu seluruh pelaku usaha dalam mengiklankan suatu produk wajib patuh dan taat pada regulasi tersebut. Selain itu dalam pencegahan dan penindakan terhadap pelanggaran dari ketentuan Undang-Undang 32 Tahun 2002 Tentang Penyiaran tersebut, Undang-Undang mengamatkan kepada Komisi Penyiaran Republik Indonesia untuk menindak tegas segala bentuk ancaman dan pelanggaran yang ada. Kata kunci: iklan, etika bisnis, hukum penyiaran.

My studieleier prof. Marlene Verhoef vir die leiding en hulp in die voltooiing van hierdie studie. + My medestudieleier dr. Jan-Louis Kruger vir die bydrae rondom veral onderslirifte en my hulpstudieleier Prof. Jan Swanepoel vir sy bydrae ten opsigte van taalregte. My voorgraadse dosente wat bygedra tot my vorming as mens en wetenskaplike navorser. In besonder: mev. G. Wybenga, dr. A. Nel en dr. I. Esterhuizen. Prof. Thapelo Selepe vir die Sesotho vertaling van die opsomming en gesprekke rondom harmonisering. Die personeel van die Ferdinand Posma Biblioteek Die Deense Demokrasiefonds vir die beurs vir my voorbereidende studies rondom onderskrifte in Denemarke. Veral ook dr. Cay Dolletup en dr. Henrik Gottlieb van die Universiteit van Kopenhagen asook die personeel van die Kongelge Bibtiotek in Kopenhagen. Tali for Deres direkte eller indirekte h j d p eller bidrag. My ouers vir al die ondersteuning, hulp en aanmoediging.

In this paper, I conduct an historical examination of the nature of local radio ownership and regulation in Aotearoa New Zealand. Currently much of local radio is mass-branded and privately owned by a foreign-owned corporate oligopoly of two major networks: Mediaworks and The Radio Network. Yet, local provincial radio has a diverse history of change through successive government policy and regulation. Radio began under private ownership. The state then took control and ownership of private radio. Private broadcasting licences were not allowed to be issued until the 1970s. Following the 1980s, deregulation and privatisation occured. By examining a history of provincial radio broadcasting in Aotearoa New Zealand, I uncover the various regulatory frameworks between the 1920s and 1990s that have contributed to the development of local radio where the majority of its ownership is represented today through homogeneous, networked brands.