Sectors
Jurisdictions
- Australia
- Brunei
- Cambodia
- China
- Hong Kong
- India
- Indonesia
- Japan
- Laos
- Macau
- Malaysia
- Mongolia
- Myanmar
- Nepal
- New Zealand
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Singapore
- South Korea
- Sri Lanka
- Taiwan
- Thailand
- Vietnam
- East Timor
- Bangladesh
- Azerbaijan
- Kazakhstan
- Tajikistan
- Egypt
- Cyprus
- Iran
- Israel
- Lebanon
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Jordan
- Bahrain
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Syria
- UAE
- Turkey
- Pacific Islands
- Russia
- France
- UK
- Canada
- USA
- Latin America
- Africa
MDA Changes Affect Mass Media Services Code
Issued: March 01 2010As part of its triennial review of Singapore’s Code of Practice For Market Conduct in the Provision of Mass Media Services, the Media Development Authority has brought several changes to the Code into effect effective March 12. Lawyers at Rajah & Tann, writing on the firm’s website, say the revised Code has added a Public Interest Obligation on regulated persons, which is primarily applicable to pay TV operators who provide pay TV services to consumers through set-top boxes.
“The new Public Interest Obligation has removed the possibility of pay TV operators entering into agreements with content owners for the exclusive rights to broadcast their content,” the Rajah & Tann lawyers said. “For example, the current practice in Singapore is that one pay TV operator will purchase the rights to broadcast certain content in Singapore on the condition that no other pay TV operator will be allowed to broadcast the same material. This means that TV programs and shows that are purchased by a particular operator can only be viewed by the consumers subscribing to that operator. It follows that if a consumer wanted to view a show that had been locked-in by an operator other than the one to which he had subscribed, he either needed to switch his operator or subscribe to multiple operators.”
This resulted, the law firm said, in content becoming “highly fragmented,” with available content exclusively divided between operators, and with operators charging higher prices.
“The Revised Code is aimed at putting an end to this practice by making cross-carriage of exclusive content mandatory,” they wrote. “This means that any content that is the subject of an exclusivity agreement between content owners and pay TV operators will have to be carried by another pay TV operator who is not a party of the exclusivity agreement.”
The requirement only applies to exclusivity agreements entered into or renewed after March 12. The MDA has postponed the requirement of crosscarriage until September 1.
Rajah & Tann lawyers warn that businesses should be “very cautious” when entering into agreements for cross-carriage of content or when discussing prices so as not to run afoul of Singapore’s competition law.
Related Articles
- Asia IP Awards Winners Revealed
The winners of the 2012 Asia IP Awards have been announced. Gregory Glass reports from Chiang Mai, where he catches up with the winners...
- A Tale of Two ADR Hubs
Singapore and Hong Kong have long been rivals in the business and financial sphere. Now, they’re squaring off to see which city can gra...
- DLA Piper Has Named Erwin Purba Special ...
- Criminal Enforcement of Trademark Rights...
At a time when legal costs are escalating, criminal enforcement measures in Singapore and Malaysia are remarkably easy and affordable. ...
- Singapore’s Ministry Of Law Defers Decis...
- Building Your Brand The 2011 Trademark S...
Trademark practitioners around Asia are adjusting to new laws, amendments and changes to local practice instituted by national legislat...
Law Firms
Most Read Articles
Magazine Issues
Tags
Baker & McKenzie USPTO WIPO DLA Piper Tilleke & Gibbins Anand and Anand TRIPS Delhi High Court Rouse IPOS Remfry & Sagar Hogan Lovells WTO PCT SIPO Spruson & Ferguson KIPO Bird & Bird Lex Orbis EPO Lall Lahiri & Salhotra Krishna & Saurastri Anaqua INTA IPAB JPO Davies Collison Cave patrick mirandah co King & Wood Mallesons AJ Park Kim & Chang Indian Patent Office Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Shearn Delamore & Co Deacons Madrid Protocol Tay & Partners Chang Tsi & Partners Pinsent Masons LLS Lee & Ko Khaitan & Co Blake Dawson USTR K&L Gates Drew & Napier TIPO Allen & Gledhill Griffith Hack Lee and Li