Keyword: frontpage

Should we worry about filter bubbles? external link

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Trilling, D., Trilling, D., Bodó, B., Vreese, C.H. de & Helberger, N.
Internet Policy Review, vol. 5, num: 1, 2016

Abstract

Some fear that personalised communication can lead to information cocoons or filter bubbles. For instance, a personalised news website could give more prominence to conservative or liberal media items, based on the (assumed) political interests of the user. As a result, users may encounter only a limited range of political ideas. We synthesise empirical research on the extent and effects of self-selected personalisation, where people actively choose which content they receive, and pre-selected personalisation, where algorithms personalise content for users without any deliberate user choice. We conclude that at present there is little empirical evidence that warrants any worries about filter bubbles.

behavioural targeting, Big data, frontpage, Personal data, profiling

Bibtex

Article{Borgesius2016, title = {Should we worry about filter bubbles?}, author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Trilling, D. and Bodó, B. and Vreese, C.H. de and Helberger, N.}, url = {http://policyreview.info/node/401/pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.1.401}, year = {0401}, date = {2016-04-01}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {5}, number = {1}, pages = {}, abstract = {Some fear that personalised communication can lead to information cocoons or filter bubbles. For instance, a personalised news website could give more prominence to conservative or liberal media items, based on the (assumed) political interests of the user. As a result, users may encounter only a limited range of political ideas. We synthesise empirical research on the extent and effects of self-selected personalisation, where people actively choose which content they receive, and pre-selected personalisation, where algorithms personalise content for users without any deliberate user choice. We conclude that at present there is little empirical evidence that warrants any worries about filter bubbles.}, keywords = {behavioural targeting, Big data, frontpage, Personal data, profiling}, }

Communication to a New Public? A Critical Analysis of the CJEU’s ‘New Public’ Criterion in European Copyright Law external link

Velze, S.C. van
2016

Auteursrecht, frontpage, Intellectuele eigendom

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {Communication to a New Public? A Critical Analysis of the CJEU’s ‘New Public’ Criterion in European Copyright Law}, author = {Velze, S.C. van}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1744.pdf}, year = {0324}, date = {2016-03-24}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, frontpage, Intellectuele eigendom}, }

Smart TV and data protection – Introduction external link

van Eijk, N., Irion, K. & McGonagle, T.
2016

Abstract

The structure of this study is built around the following questions:
- What is smart TV?
- How does smart TV compare with other forms of audiovisual media?
- What regulatory frameworks govern smart TV?
- What guidance can be found in selected country-specific case studies?
- What are the dangers associated with the collection, storage and processing of private user information by commercial parties?
- How are relevant regulatory frameworks likely to evolve? Samsung have warned owners of their smart TVs that the system’s voice recognition could actually be recording and sharing their private conversations. This “bad buzz” comes at a time when Brussels is in the process of adopting new legislation – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - aimed at protecting us from abuse and misuse of our private data and consumer behaviour big data collected by smart equipment such as television sets. The European Audiovisual Observatory, part of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, is keeping track of these developments and has published this IRIS Special report entitled "Smart TV and data protection".

This is a joint publication by the Observatory and partner institution, the Dutch Institute for Information Law (IViR in Amsterdam). It inspired an expert workshop organised in Strasbourg December 2015, which looked at “the grey areas between media regulation and data protection”.

frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {Smart TV and data protection – Introduction}, author = {van Eijk, N. and Irion, K. and McGonagle, T.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1742.pdf}, year = {0310}, date = {2016-03-10}, abstract = {The structure of this study is built around the following questions: - What is smart TV? - How does smart TV compare with other forms of audiovisual media? - What regulatory frameworks govern smart TV? - What guidance can be found in selected country-specific case studies? - What are the dangers associated with the collection, storage and processing of private user information by commercial parties? - How are relevant regulatory frameworks likely to evolve? Samsung have warned owners of their smart TVs that the system’s voice recognition could actually be recording and sharing their private conversations. This “bad buzz” comes at a time when Brussels is in the process of adopting new legislation – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - aimed at protecting us from abuse and misuse of our private data and consumer behaviour big data collected by smart equipment such as television sets. The European Audiovisual Observatory, part of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, is keeping track of these developments and has published this IRIS Special report entitled "Smart TV and data protection". This is a joint publication by the Observatory and partner institution, the Dutch Institute for Information Law (IViR in Amsterdam). It inspired an expert workshop organised in Strasbourg December 2015, which looked at “the grey areas between media regulation and data protection”.}, keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy}, }

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 22 januari 2015 (Allposters / Pictoright) external link

van Eechoud, M.
AMI, num: 6, pp: 169-173., 2016

Abstract

Overbrenging van de afbeelding van een beschermd werk van een papieren poster op canvas valt onder het distributierecht van art. 4 Auteursrechtrichtlijn 2001/29/EG. Poortvliet-doctrine. Geen sprake van uitputting als drager is vervangen. Beloning voor distributie moet in een redelijke verhouding staan tot de economische waarde van de exploitatie van het beschermde voorwerp. Auteursrechtrichtlijn harmoniseert niet het recht van bewerking.

frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 22 januari 2015 (Allposters / Pictoright)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1735.pdf}, year = {0225}, date = {2016-02-25}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, abstract = {Overbrenging van de afbeelding van een beschermd werk van een papieren poster op canvas valt onder het distributierecht van art. 4 Auteursrechtrichtlijn 2001/29/EG. Poortvliet-doctrine. Geen sprake van uitputting als drager is vervangen. Beloning voor distributie moet in een redelijke verhouding staan tot de economische waarde van de exploitatie van het beschermde voorwerp. Auteursrechtrichtlijn harmoniseert niet het recht van bewerking.}, keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy}, }

A special regard: The Court of Justice and the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection external link

Irion, K.
Nomos, 0225

Abstract

The frequency with which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules on the interpretations of the rights to privacy and data protection in European Union (EU) law is constantly accelerating. The increasing case-load can certainly be attributed to the contemporary relevance of these issues in a data-driven society which leads to more cases being referred to the CJEU. However, contrary to earlier case-law, which had a rather limited effect, the recent CJEU decisions have gained prominence for their principle contribution to EU law. In 2014, the Court issued a landmark ruling in the case <em>Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources</em> which catapulted EU citizens’ privacy and data protection rights from the margins of EU law to the center stage. Already in 2015, in the case <em>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</em>, the Court has had another occasion to review EU legislation for its compliance with the rights to privacy and data protection under the EU Charter. The invalidation of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour agreement by the Court has been stirring a global resonance in addition to receiving ample and arguably controversial coverage in international news. This contribution looks at how the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection are protected in the EU legal order. It primarily assesses the CJEU’s case-law’s trajectory in this field as well as the impact of its decision practice in EU law. Hereby I discuss whether the CJEU holds a particular regard for the rights to privacy and data protection since the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR) was accorded binding legal value in 2009.5 Particular focus is given to the discussion of the two judgments in 2014 and 2015 cited above with which the Court underscored its determination to effectively protect these fundamental rights in the scope of EU law.

frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey, title = {A special regard: The Court of Justice and the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection}, author = {Irion, K.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/irion_a-special-regard_chapterfinal/}, year = {0225}, date = {2016-02-25}, abstract = {The frequency with which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules on the interpretations of the rights to privacy and data protection in European Union (EU) law is constantly accelerating. The increasing case-load can certainly be attributed to the contemporary relevance of these issues in a data-driven society which leads to more cases being referred to the CJEU. However, contrary to earlier case-law, which had a rather limited effect, the recent CJEU decisions have gained prominence for their principle contribution to EU law. In 2014, the Court issued a landmark ruling in the case <em>Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources</em> which catapulted EU citizens’ privacy and data protection rights from the margins of EU law to the center stage. Already in 2015, in the case <em>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</em>, the Court has had another occasion to review EU legislation for its compliance with the rights to privacy and data protection under the EU Charter. The invalidation of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour agreement by the Court has been stirring a global resonance in addition to receiving ample and arguably controversial coverage in international news. This contribution looks at how the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection are protected in the EU legal order. It primarily assesses the CJEU’s case-law’s trajectory in this field as well as the impact of its decision practice in EU law. Hereby I discuss whether the CJEU holds a particular regard for the rights to privacy and data protection since the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR) was accorded binding legal value in 2009.5 Particular focus is given to the discussion of the two judgments in 2014 and 2015 cited above with which the Court underscored its determination to effectively protect these fundamental rights in the scope of EU law.}, keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy}, }

Digital fixation: the law and economics of a fixed e-book price external link

Poort, J. & van Eijk, N.
International Journal of Cultural Policy, vol. 23, num: 4, pp: 464-481, 2017

Abstract

Fifteen OECD countries, ten of which EU members, have regulation for fixing the price of printed books. At least eight of these have extended such regulation to e-books. This article investigates the cultural and economic arguments as well as the legal context concerning a fixed price for e-books and deals with the question of how the arguments for and against retail price maintenance for e-books should be weighted in the light of the evidence. It concludes that while the evidence in defence of a fixed price for printed books is slim at best, the case for a fixed price for e-books is weaker still while the legal acceptability within EU law is disputable. Against this background, introducing a fixed price for e-books is ill-advised.

agency pricing, e-books, fixed book price, frontpage, retail price maintenance, Technologie en recht, Technology and law

Bibtex

Article{Poort2017, title = {Digital fixation: the law and economics of a fixed e-book price}, author = {Poort, J. and van Eijk, N.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1586.pdf}, year = {0428}, date = {2017-04-28}, journal = {International Journal of Cultural Policy}, volume = {23}, number = {4}, pages = {464-481}, abstract = {Fifteen OECD countries, ten of which EU members, have regulation for fixing the price of printed books. At least eight of these have extended such regulation to e-books. This article investigates the cultural and economic arguments as well as the legal context concerning a fixed price for e-books and deals with the question of how the arguments for and against retail price maintenance for e-books should be weighted in the light of the evidence. It concludes that while the evidence in defence of a fixed price for printed books is slim at best, the case for a fixed price for e-books is weaker still while the legal acceptability within EU law is disputable. Against this background, introducing a fixed price for e-books is ill-advised.}, keywords = {agency pricing, e-books, fixed book price, frontpage, retail price maintenance, Technologie en recht, Technology and law}, }