Content meets the cloud: What is the legality of cloud TV recorders?
Nov20

Content meets the cloud: What is the legality of cloud TV recorders?

The battle lines are clearly drawn. On the one hand are the service providers, who argue that cloud video recorders (or “cloud PVRs”) are in effect no different to in-home, hard drive-based set-top boxes, in that they simply enable the time-shifting and/or place-shifting by users of broadcast TV. On the other hand are the content owners, whose position has been that cloud PVR services operating without appropriate content licences amount to an infringement of their copyright. drawn. Broadcasters in the US recently petitioned the Supreme Court to block the Aereo service, whilst broadcasters in the UK were successful in getting an injunction in relation to the TV Catchup service. This Olswang report rounds up the case law from around the world to try to establish the state of play in the market, picking up on common issues emerging across jurisdictions and considering how these issues will shape the industry as content meets the cloud. Take a look at the “cloud PVR world map”, read the report on the Olswang...

Read More
Singapore upgrades its cyber-defences
Feb14

Singapore upgrades its cyber-defences

A recent amendment to Singapore’s Computer Misuse Act is designed to enable a “nimble and comprehensive response” to the threat of cyber-attacks. But some argue that the new Government powers are too broad and are open to abuse. We examine the key provisions of the new law and what it might mean for organisations in Singapore and beyond. “Sophisticated and malicious”. “A real and present danger”. “A broad spectrum of attacks and threats”. These are not sensationalist headlines but comments from the Singapore Government’s Second Reading Speech on the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill. The language used underlines the level of concern with which the Government views the threat of cyber-attacks. And the Singapore Government is not alone. With the recent high profile hack of the New York Times, and attacks like “Stuxnet” and “Flame” making the news and the World Economic Forum ranking cyber-attacks among the top five global risks, the issue is rapidly moving up the legislative agenda for governments around the world. As such, the new Singapore law could be a glimpse of things to come in other jurisdictions. So what are the key changes to the old legislation and what action might organisations be required to take? New teeth The headline provision of the new law is a broad right for the Singapore Government to compel action in the defence against cyber-attacks. Specifically, the Government can require any person or organisation to “take such measures or comply with such requirements as may be necessary to prevent, detect or counter any threat to a computer or computer service or any class of computers or computer services”. This power to compel a person or organisation to take action is the key change that the new law brings into effect. Under the previous legislation, the Government was only entitled to authorise a person or organisation to take action. The right to authorise was of course dependent on the relevant person or organisation actually electing to take the measures in question at its discretion. In short, the new law has teeth where the old law did not. But exactly what kinds of measures might organisations be required to take? Proactive and reactive The legislation is drafted broadly. The Government can require the taking of “measures” and compliance with “requirements”. The only condition is that the measures are “as may be necessary to prevent, detect or counter any threat to a computer or computer service or any class of computers or computer services”. The scope, therefore, is both proactive (to “prevent”) and reactive (to “detect” and “counter”) and could potentially cover both offensive (whether pre-emptive or retaliatory) and defensive actions. But...

Read More