Browse by title
In this chapter, we discuss the issue of market power in the online video field, which is arguably the most troubling aspect of this emerging online video system. We analyze the options of dealing with market power of online video platforms. They include the delegation of regulation to the industry; regulation as a public utility; provision by a public enterprise; licensing and registration; ownership restrictions; limits to foreign ownership and provision; antitrust breakup, functional separations, and unbundling; and interconnection. We concluded with a recommended “Open Video System” based on access rights to infrastructure and platform elements, where significant media market power (SMMP) exist. Such access would be accomplished through API software interfaces that must be offered by such platforms. (APIs), a way to let software by other parties interoperate with the platform’s software. Conditions of access would be governed by the non-discriminatory principle of “most favored nation,” subject to arbitration by a self-administrative process. A key role would be played by the personal information management curators. They would engage, in the consumer’s behalf, in the finding, selecting, and screening of appropriate content and infrastructure, as well as in the protection of personal data, They would be able to supply their own algorithms. Such an Open Video System does not solve all policy problems, and it needs to be limited when it comes to content or data. But it reduces the problem of market power of the platforms and its global extension. It will create, without breakups, a more competitive video cloud market. In doing so it reduces the need for detailed governmental control and oversight.
This chapter summarizes several of the analyses and empirical findings from other chapters: economic and technological drivers of change, new types of content, the emergence of video cloud providers, their market power, and their impact on other media industries and on society. This leads to a number of business and policy strategies, and to a recommended access arrangement.
China has long been the World's Walmart of counterfeits, and the remedies in counterfeiting cases have always been criticized as too small to compensate trademark owners. In the year 2013, China revised its trademark law, which increased the cap of statutory damages and incorporated secondary liability clauses into the law. Does the change of law bring any changes to the remedies granted in counterfeiting civil cases? What are the factors affecting court decisions? Relying on more than 800 civil cases in trademark counterfeiting, this article empirically studies the case characteristics and court decisions to understand the case outcomes and litigation scenario. It reveals the characteristics of civil litigation and factors affecting court decisions on trademark counterfeiting in China. Though there is some literature on remedies in trademark cases, very few analyses focus on courts' legal reasonings or the changes in civil remedies after the law revision. This article tries to fill in this gap, looking through the lens of the law on the books – the law revisions – and the law in practice – the court decisions.
Christopher P Evans
It has been 50 years since the adoption of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which established the obligation upon all States Parties to work towards nuclear disarmament under Article VI. Yet, despite extensive reductions in nuclear weapons stockpiles since the Cold War peaks, nuclear arms control and disarmament efforts are currently in disarray. After the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was terminated in 2019, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty remains as the only bilateral limitation on United States (US) and Russian nuclear forces in operation and is due to expire in February 2021. The US has justified its limited nuclear disarmament progress on the premise that the current international security environment is not conducive to further nuclear disarmament. Instead, the US has recently promoted a new initiative called Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament (CEND). The initiative aims to provide a platform for all States to engage in constructive dialogue to identify ways to improve the international security environment, which make nuclear deterrence necessary while addressing the hurdles that currently impede progress towards nuclear disarmament. Significantly, the US regards CEND as an ‘effective measure’ and an illustration of its commitment towards disarmament under Article VI. This article seeks to address the US claim that CEND represents a good faith, effective measure towards nuclear disarmament pursuant to Article VI. This will revisit existing doctrinal interpretative debates concerning the obligation under Article VI, particularly the requirements that negotiations and measures be adopted in good faith, and what constitutes an effective measure towards nuclear disarmament. The discussion will then determine whether the CEND initiative itself can be considered a good faith, effective measure towards nuclear disarmament, by considering its purpose, origins and implementation, and actions of the US.
Anne Peters, Heike Krieger and Leonhard Kreuzer
As a standard bridging law and other spheres of normativity, due diligence is pervasive across numerous areas of international law. This paper defines the features and functions of due diligence, illustrating how the concept's development reflects structural changes in the international legal order. Concerning their content, due diligence obligations can be separated into two overlapping types: procedural obligations and obligations relating to States' institutional capacity. Thus, due diligence serves to manage risks, compensate for States' freedoms being circumscribed through legalisation, expand State accountability and possibly stabilise the international order through ‘proceduralisation’. However, it is argued that due diligence cannot be characterised as a general principle of international law due to its diverse content in different fields of international law and its dependence on accompanying primary rules. Finally, it is contended that due diligence introduces certain risks, particularly by diluting States' substantive obligations and contributing to the rise of ‘informal’ international law.