CC BY
9Legal Issues in the Digital Age. 2024. Vol. 5. No. 2.
Вопросы права в цифровую эпоху. 2024. Том 5. № 2.
IT, Industries, Law: Media
Research article
УДК: 342
DOI:10.17323/2713-2749.2024.2.97.112
Regulating Digital Era: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Perspectives on Media Entertainment
Sal Reeta Sony A.L.1, Shruti Chopra* 2
1, 2 Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India,
2 [email protected], https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3642-3326
М=|м| Abstract
The rapid proliferation of digital media platforms has democratized content creation and distribution, enabling a vast spectrum of voices to be heard. It has brought about a significant shift in media entertainment landscapes worldwide, with India being a prominent case study due to its vast and diverse content consumption patterns. The massive content on the Internet has also raised concerns regarding misinformation, copyright infringement, and cultural sensitivity. Therefore, in the context of media entertainment, the regulation of the digital era presents a vast complex array of challenges for policymakers. Thereby, it analyzes the regulatory challenges and policy perspectives; addressing how India is navigating the complexities introduced by digital technologies. The study outlines India's current regulatory framework including legislative measures. Apart from this, the paper contains exploration of challenges of balancing free speech with societal norms in a country characterized by its cultural pluralism. The authors of the article argue that rational regulation is able to help to prevent the spread of misinformation, protect national security, and ensure privacy. It can play a pivotal role in promoting national integration by fostering unity, preventing communal tensions, and ensuring equal representation. To achieve the objectives, the paper analyzes three case studies — Swami Ramdev v. Facebook, Inc.*
© Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra, 2024
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en
97
IT, Industries, Law: Media
(2019), the Tandav Controversy (2021), and the Tiktok ban for privacy and security concerns (2020). In the later section, the authors analyze and compare the regulatory framework of different states including India, the United States, European countries, Australia, and China. In the end, the paper summarizes the need for changes in the regulatory framework and also recommends policy measures that may be implemented to safeguard the consumers' interest, preserve cultural values, and ensure the integrity of content.
freedom of speech and expression; media consolidation; over-the-top services; consumption; digital media; regulatory framework.
For citation: Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra (2024) Regulating Digital Era: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Perspectives on Media Entertainment. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 97-112. DOI:10.17323/2713-2749.2024.2.97.112
Introduction
The history of media has evolved significantly from one-way dissemination of information to a dynamic two-way communication channel, and with the emergence of the Internet, it has undergone radical transformation. The shift from the traditional form of media (radio or television) to newest media has remarkably transformed the milieu of media entertainment globally. The Internet is incorporated into the lives of humankind similar to the radio and television before. Broadly defining, the media can refer to tools, platforms, and channels that can be used to create, produce, and share knowledge among society. However, digital media may be defined as the digitized content (text, graphics, audio, and video) that can be transmitted over Internet or computer networks. Digital media is considered as part of the convergence between interactive media, online networks, and existing media forms [Flanagan A.J., Metzger M.J., 2008]. In today's world, digital media has given access to society not only to consume content on different platforms but also to produce and disseminate the content extensively. It has opened up new avenues for content development, consumption, and delivery. The Internet users as “produsers”, that is, those who are both users and producers of digital media, and coined the term “produsage” to describe this blend of production and usage in digital media environments [Bruns A., 2007]. And, in a country like India, with its vast population, this
98
Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra. Regulating Digital Era
transformation to new forms of media is even more pronounced because of its rich cultural tapestry.
Having known that Internet subscriber base in India has overstepped 900 million comprising wireless subscriptions amounting to approximately 1143.93 million persons involved is transforming present-day India into of the largest online markets globally.1 Due to the growing Internet penetration and the proliferation of smartphones, the growth in media consumption patterns has also seen a rapid increase. In India, digital platforms are the predominant medium for entertainment, news, and social interaction. Therefore, the unprecedented growth of digital media has presented unique challenges and opportunities for regulatory frameworks. The increase in digital media consumption patterns, encompassing streaming services, social media, watching television, listening to music and so on and so forth are be analyzed in Figure 1 given below.
It may be said that digital platforms have not only transformed consumer behavior but also posed significant regulatory challenges. Issues such as data breaches, misinformation, digital monopolies, and the need for content moderation have become increasingly prominent, necessitating a robust regulatory response [Pickard V., 2019]. The Government of India has responded by implementing a range of policies aimed at overseeing these digital landscapes. These policies seek to balance the dual imperatives of promoting technological innovation and ensuring consumer protection, data privacy, and national security.
In the stated context, the study presented examines the state of media regulation in India during the digital era, with an emphasis on the interaction between legislative frameworks and technological improvements. It looks at the efficiency of the laws that are currently in place, the challenges posed by digital media, and the potential paths forward to ensure that the growth of digital platforms contribute positively to societal, cultural, and economic dimensions. By analyzing policies, legal frameworks, and industry practices, this study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of India's approach to regulating the digital media sector.
Figure 1 illustrates a survey on media consumption behaviors, displaying both the percentage of respondents who reported increased consump-
1 Statista 2024. 29 April. Change in media consumption in India 2022 by activity.
Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/128061/india-change-in-media-con-sumption-by-activity (accessed: 16.05.2024)
99
IT, Industries, Law: Media
tion over the past twelve months and those who intend to increase their consumption in the next twelve months. The figure depicts the dominance of digital media in India. Music and video streaming services like Spotify, Pandora, Netflix, and Amazon Prime are experiencing a surge. Around half of the respondents have increased their consumption of these services, and similar numbers intend to continue doing so. This trend underscores the shift away from traditional media formats towards on-demand digital content. In a nutshell, it may be concluded that the data suggests a strong consumer pivot towards on-demand, customizable media consumption facilitated by digital platforms. Traditional forms, while still holding significant sections of the market, show less dynamic growth, pointing to a potential area of concern for industries reliant on these formats.
Visiting websites and apps
Interacting with social media
Streaming music (e.g., Sportifi, Pandora, Amazon music, etc.)
Streaming video (e.g., Netflix, Amazon, Prime, Disney+, etc.)
Reading a newspaper or magazine in print or online
Watching live TV (watching programs at the time 1
that they are actually broadcast i.e., not streaming) —44
Watching non-live TV
(catch up/video-on-demand)
Watching movies at the movie theater
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
□ Increased consumption in past 12 month
□ Intend to increase consumption in next 12 month
Fig. 1. Digital Media Consumption Patterns 2022 in India by Activity. Source: Statista.com2
On the one hand, the digital revolution in India paves the way for remarkable opportunities in media and entertainment; on the other, it intro-
2 Statista 2024. 29 April. Change in media consumption in India 2022 by activity.
Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/128061/india-change-in-media-con-sumption-by-activity (accessed: 16.05.2024)
100
Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra. Regulating Digital Era
duces a spectrum of challenges that demand robust regulatory responses. The establishment of regulatory frameworks in the digital age is critically dependent on the complex array of opportunities and problems presented by India's media and entertainment industry's digital transformation. With the speed technology is developing, the Indian government is putting efforts to address critical issues like data privacy, content regulation, and the digital divide while leveraging the potential of digital media for innovation and economic progress. This section explores these challenges and opportunities, providing insights into how effective regulation can also increase the positive effects of digital media on society.
The rapid advancement in technology renders the need for regulating the digital era in India's media and entertainment sector. Regulations frequently find it difficult to keep up with the rapid evolution of digital technology, which may induce gaps in monitoring and enforcement. This is particularly relevant in fields like machine learning and artificial intelligence, where emerging technologies can surpass current laws. Ensuring data security and privacy in an environment where personal data is constantly shared puts forth a major challenge. Even though India is making progress with new regulations such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 20233, the implementation and enforcement of these rules are still fragmented and inadequate, leaving customers open to fraud and security breaches.
1. Review of Literature
The digital era has significantly transformed the media entertainment landscape, necessitating a robust regulatory framework to address new challenges and opportunities. The need for regulations on digital media entertainment is extensively documented by various scholars reflecting the complexities and challenges of this rapidly evolving landscape. Some of the issues that have drawn attention and emphasized the importance of regulatory framework include: data privacy, content moderation, and the influence of digital platforms on public discourse.
The exponential growth of digital platforms and their massive usage by people around the world has heightened concerns about data privacy and the protection of personal information. The General Data Protection
3 India.Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Available at: https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digi-tal%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf (accessed: 10.05.2024).
101
IT, Industries, Law: Media
Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union serves as a landmark example, setting stringent standards for data collection, processing, and storage. The GDPR is crucial for ensuring that digital platforms adhere to high standards of user privacy and data security [Voigt P., von dem Bussche A., 2017].
On the other hand, content regulation and moderation have also become pivotal in the digital age, as online platforms gain influence over public discourse and societal norms. Three regulatory approaches are normally observed — Self Regulation and Platform Policies, Government Regulation and Legal Frameworks, and Hybrid Models. Many digital platforms rely on self-regulation, establishing internal policies and algorithms to manage content. The platforms like Facebook4 and YouTube develop community standards and use automated systems to identify and remove harmful content [Gillespie T., 2018]. These mechanisms are essential for managing vast amounts of user-generated content but also raise concerns about transparency and accountability. Some countries adopt varying levels of government intervention in content regulation. The European Union's Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) provides a harmonized legal framework that ensures content moderation across member states, protecting minors and preventing hate speech. Similarly, the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) mandates social media platforms to swiftly remove illegal content, imposing fines for non-compliance [Tworek H., Leerssen P., 2019]. The Hybrid model combines self-regulation with government oversight. Australia's Enhancing Online Safety Act exemplifies this approach, where the private regulators have the powers to require platforms to remove content ensuring content standards while providing a government-led mechanism for addressing severe cases of online harm [Flew T., Martin F.R., 2022]. Content moderation also leads to various challenges like maintaining a free speech balance with the need to prevent harm. It is argued that platforms must curb harmful content, overly stringent regulations can stifle free expression [Garton Ash T., 2016]. This tension is evident in the varied global responses to content moderation, where cultural and political contexts significantly influence regulatory frameworks. The second challenge is algorithmic moderation and bias. Automated content moderation systems are prone to biases and errors [Noble S.U., 2018]. The algorithmic biases can disproportionately target marginalized communities, exacerbating existing social inequalities. This underscores the need for
4 Meta Platforms Inc. is recognized in Russia as an extremist organization and banned. The social networks Facebook and Instagram belonging to it are banned in Russia.
102
Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra. Regulating Digital Era
transparent and accountable moderation practices that consider the ethical implications of algorithmic decision-making. The third and most prevalent challenge is the global platforms and the local norms. The global nature of digital platforms poses a challenge for content regulation, as local norms and laws vary widely. The platforms navigate these complexities, often leading to inconsistent enforcement of content standards [Suzor N., 2019]. This variability can undermine the rationality of content moderation policies and erode user trust.
The monopolization of media ownership by a few powerful moguls also poses significant challenges to market competition, content diversity, and cultural influence [Baker C.E., 2001]. Some of the most prominent media conglomerates, own major assets across various segments of the entertainment industry. The key players include Disney, Comcast, and Warner Bros. Discovery. Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox in 2019 has significantly expanded its media empire, including film studios, television networks, and streaming services like Hulu and Disney+ [Vogel H. L., 2020]. This acquisition has positioned Disney as a dominant player in the media and entertainment sector, influencing both content production and distribution [Lotz A.D., 2021]. Similarly, Comcast's extensive holdings include television networks, film studios, and the streaming service Peacock. Its vertical integration, combining content creation and distribution, exemplifies the monopolistic tendencies in the media industry [Napoli P.M., 2001]. Discovery manages a portfolio that includes HBO Max, Discovery+, and numerous television networks and film studios.
Such consolidation practices have significant implications on market control and competition, indeed. It further reduces competition and increases the influence of a few large players in the media market by creating high barriers to entry for smaller players [McChesney R.W., 2015]. This control allows media moguls to dictate terms in content licensing, advertising rates, and consumer pricing, often leading to higher costs for consumers and reduced market dynamism (Bagdikian B.H., 2004]; [Noam E.M., 2015]. It may also have a significant impact on content diversity. The consolidation by media moguls often leads to homogenization of content, where diverse and independent voices are marginalized. The focus on profit maximization drives these conglomerates to produce content that appeals to the broadest audience, often at the expense of niche or culturally specific content. This homogenization undermines the diversity of viewpoints and cultural representation in media [McChesney R.W., 2008]; [Doyle G.,
103
IT, Industries, Law: Media
2002]. Another important implication is cultural influence, the extensive reach and influence of media moguls enable them to shape public discourse and cultural norms. By controlling major news outlets, film studios, and television networks, these conglomerates can influence public opinion and political agendas. This concentration of power raises concerns about media pluralism and the role of media in a democratic society [Curran J., 2011]; [Zuboff S., 2019].
The literature on regulating digital media entertainment reveals significant variations across different regions, highlighting diverse approaches and challenges. The European Union's robust framework, including the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), emphasizes user protection and accountability of digital platforms. In contrast, the United States maintain a more liberal stance, prioritizing freedom of expression with sector-specific regulations like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) addressing privacy concerns. China's stringent regulatory environment is characterized by heavy state control through laws such as the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and strict content censorship managed by the Cyberspace Administration of China [Priya V.B.A., 2023]. India and Australia have selected a balanced approach, implementing moderate to high regulation levels with acts like the Digital India Act 2023 and the Online Safety Act 2021 to ensure user privacy and content accountability [Narayanan R., 2024]. These varying regulatory frameworks reflect the complexities and evolving nature of digital media governance globally. A comparative analysis has been made in the later section of the study.
2. Need for Digital Media Regulation
Digital media has become the primary source of information these days. Therefore, the need for digital media regulation is crucial for several reasons, particularly in balancing the growth of digital media platforms aligning with societal norms, privacy, and security. It may be said that digital media can significantly influence public opinion, societal norms, and cultural values. Thus, the non-regulated media content may spread hatred and violence and become a source of misinformation, affecting societal norms and values. On the contrary, the regulations may facilitate the constructive discourse and exchange of cultures and values. Another concern that is seeking importance in the context of the need for digital media regulation is privacy and protection from unauthorized access and misuse. The Internet is a vast pool of information and users on the Internet enter their personal
104
Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra. Regulating Digital Era
information on various websites. Thus, securing the personal information of the users becomes a paramount concern while addressing privacy issues. The regulations may enforce companies to strictly adhere to privacy laws by implementing stringent data protection measures. Moreover, misleading advertisements, fraud, and other deceptive practices often harm customers. Thus, considering the need to protect the customers and users on the digital platform, it becomes essential to introduce the practice of responsible innovations that should respect user rights, privacy, and ethical considerations. At the same time, the regulatory regime should also maintain the balance between the freedom of speech and expression and harmful content on digital platforms.
Societal Norms Need: Public Safety, Societal Harmony Risk: Hate Speech, Violence, Misinformation
Privacy Protection Need: Stringent Data Protection Measures Risk: Misuse of Personal Data Information
Security Measures Need: Protection of Digital Infrastructure and Sensitive Information Risk: Hacking, Phishing, Malicious Activities
Responsible Innovation Need: Innovation that Respects User Rights, Privacy, and Ethical Considerations Risk: Unethical Activies
Consumer Protection Need: Protect Consumers by Ensuring that Digital Services & Products Meet Certain Quality and Safety Standards Risk: Misleading Advertisements, Fraud, and Other Deceptive Practices
A Balance Between the Free Speech and Harmful Content Need: Balance the Right to Free Speech & to Prevent the Dissemination of Harmful or Illegal Content Risk: Conduits of Harmfid Activities
Fig. 2. Need for Regulation on Digital Media5
The successful regulatory framework can not only mitigate risks but also enhance the benefits of digital media for society. By striking the right balance between regulation and freedom, India can harness the power of digital media for the greater good of society and national cohesion. It has been
5 Compiled by the Author using data from Flew and Martin (2022) for societal norms, Belli and Zingales (2019) for data protection, Gillespie (2018) for hate speech and harmony; Anand and Brass (2021) for responsible innovation; and author's own analysis for the balance between free speech and harmful content.
105
IT, Industries, Law: Media
very well argued that media plays an important role in preventing the spread of inflammatory content and misinformation, which can fuel communal tensions and violence. Furthermore, regulating digital platforms may ensure the protection of diverse cultural expressions and equitable representation of various communities, fostering a sense of inclusion and unity. The role of regulation in promoting educational and informative content, it can also enhance digital literacy and civic engagement, strengthening national identity and solidarity. The strategic implementation of digital media regulation is essential for safeguarding national security and fostering an integrated, cohesive society.
3. Cases
The study presented discusses three cases broadly classified under the three major issues: regulatory issues regarding content regulation in India; technological issues regarding national security; cross-border regulatory issues regarding content moderation. Based on this classification, the Tandav Controversy of 2021 highlights the regulatory concerns that are needed to be addressed in terms of content regulation in India, the TikTok Ban in India (2020) highlights the technological issues concerning the threat to the national security, and Swami Ramdev v. Facebook Inc.* (2019). These cases triggered the need to rethink the current regulatory framework in India.
3.1. The Tandav Controversy
The Tandav controversy emerged in January 2021, following the release of the political drama series on Amazon Prime Video. The show, directed by Ali Abbas Zafar and starring Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia, and Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, was criticized for allegedly hurting Hindu religious sentiments. The controversy centered around two specific scenes: one involving a college play where Ayyub's character, Shiva, depicted the Hindu god Mahadeva in a manner deemed offensive by some viewers, and another where caste-related dialogue was perceived as derogatory6. The backlash led to multiple FIRs being filed across several states, accusing the show's creators of promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds and insulting religious beliefs. The uproar prompted widespread
6 India Today. 2021. January 22. The Tandav controversy. Available at: https:// www.indiatoday.innewsmo/video/tantav-controversy-what-sparked-it-and-where-it-is-at-1761855-2021-o1-28 (accessed: 16.10.2023)
106
Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra. Regulating Digital Era
calls for a boycott of the series, protests, and legal actions. The show's creators issued an unconditional apology, asserting that there was no intent to offend any community or religious sentiments. They also made changes to the controversial scenes following consultations with India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Amazon Prime Video also issued a public apology, expressing regret for any hurt caused and emphasizing its commitment to respecting the diverse cultural and religious sentiments of its audience. Despite these measures, the controversy highlighted the sensitive nature of religious and cultural depictions in Indian media and the significant influence of social media in mobilizing public opinion and political reactions.
3.2. The Swami Ramdev vs. Facebook, Inc.*
The case is a significant example of the complexities and challenges in digital media regulation. In this case of 20197, Swami Ramdev sought an injunction against these platforms to remove globally defamatory content that summarized a book banned in India for defamation. The Delhi High Court has ruled that social media platforms must take down the defamatory content globally, not just within India, if it was uploaded from Indian IP addresses. The ruling was based on the interpretation of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 79(3)(b), and the Information Technological Rules, 2011, that mandates intermediaries to remove content once they have actual knowledge of its illegality through a court order. The Court has rejected the platforms' arguments for geo-blocking, citing the ease with which such blocks could be bypassed and the need for comprehensive removal to uphold the law's intent [Mendiratta R., Barata J., 2019].
The decision has sparked considerable debate about the jurisdictional reach of Indian courts and the balance between national regulatory needs and global free speech norms. Critics argue that such global injunctions could lead to conflicts of laws and excessive censorship, as different countries have varied standards for what constitutes defamatory or illegal content. This case underscores the tension between enforcing local laws on global digital platforms and maintaining the open and free nature of the Internet.
7 India Today. 2019. Available at: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-hc-facebook-google-twitter-ramdev-1612313-2019-10-23 (accessed: 25.01.2014)
107
IT, Industries, Law: Media
3.3. TikTok Ban for Privacy and Security Concerns
India's ban on TikTok in June 2020 was primarily driven by concerns over national security and data privacy, following heightened tensions between India and China. The Indian government cited Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000; it allows the government to block access to content that threatens the sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, and public order. Along with TikTok, 58 other Chinese apps were also banned during this period. The decision was influenced by the fear that data collected by TikTok could be accessed by the Chinese government, given that Byte Dance, TikTok's parent company, is based in China. TikTok collects extensive user data, including geolocation, browsing histories, and behavioral patterns, raising concerns about potential espionage and data misuse.8
4. A Comparative Analysis
The comparative analysis containing in Fig. 3 below presents a detailed overview of digital media and entertainment regulation across five regions: India, the United States, the European Union, China, and Australia. In India, the regulatory framework is marked as moderate to high, driven by the Digital India Act 2023, prioritizing citizen interests, with privacy protected under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and content regulated by the Central Board of Film Certification. The United States features a low regulatory framework focused on freedom, with privacy governed by sectorspecific laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and general laws against illegal content, relying on platform policies for moderation.
The European Union approves a balanced approach with moderate to high regulatory frameworks such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the Media Freedom Act. Privacy and data protection are robust under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and content is regulated by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). China enforces a high regulatory framework dominated by state interests via the Cyberspace Administration of China, stringent privacy laws under the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) and Data Security Law (DSL), and strict censorship and content control measures.
8 Euronews. 2024. Which countries have banned TikTok? Cybersecurity, data privacy, espionage fears. Euronews, March 24. Available at: https://www.euronews.com/ next/2024/03/14/which-countries-have-banned-tiktok-cybersecurity-data-privacy-espionage-fears (accessed: 10.04.2024)
108
Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra. Regulating Digital Era
Countries Regulatory Framework Privacy ans Data Protection Content Regulation
India Citizen’s interest prevails Digital India Act 2023 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 Digital India Act 2023 Central Board of Film Certification
United States Regulation centred on principle of freedom Sector-specific privacy laws and state-level regulations like the California Consuner Privacy Act (CCPA) General laws against illegal content, with reliance on platforms’ own policies for content moderation
European Union The Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) Media Freedom Act Central Data Protection Regulation (CDPR) Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)
China State Interest Prevails Cyberspace Administration of China The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) & the Data Security Law (DSL) Restrictive, with stringent censorship and content measures
Australia Citizen’s interest prevails Online Safety Act 2021 The Privacy Act 1988 Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) The News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code
□ Low □ Moderate □ Moderate to High □ High
Fig. 3. A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Framework9
Australia, similar to India, maintains a moderate to high regulatory stance with the Online Safety Act passed in 2021 and prioritizing citizen interests. Privacy is regulated by the Privacy Act of 1988 and content is overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) along with the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code. This comparative analysis depicts the diverse regulatory regimes, varying from minimal regulation in the United States to stringent controls
9 Compiled by Author from MeitY for The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023), Digital India Act (2023) and Central Board of Film Certification; Federal Communications Commission for USA regulatory principles, California legislative information for CCPA, Electronic Frontier Foundation for General laws against illegal content; European Commission for DSA, DMA, European Protection Data Board for GDPR; NPC Observer for PIPL and DSL, China Media Project for Restrictive Content Control Measures; eSafety Commissioner for Online Safety Act 2021, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner for The Privacy Act 1998, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code.
109
IT, Industries, Law: Media
in China, highlighting the different priorities and approaches to managing digital media and entertainment globally.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the digital era demands robust and flexible regulatory frameworks to address the multifaceted challenges of media entertainment. These frameworks must protect user rights, promote ethical content practices, and support a dynamic and inclusive digital ecosystem. Continued collaboration among policymakers, digital platforms, and civil society is essential to achieve these goals and ensure that the media serves the public interest. The study highlights various challenges including the monopolization of media ownership by powerful conglomerates like Disney, Comcast, and Warner Bros. Discovery poses significant challenges to market competition, content diversity, and cultural representation. This concentration of ownership leads to the homogenization of content, reducing the plurality of voices in media and impacting public discourse and democratic processes. The other significant challenges include privacy, data protection, consumer protection, and also maintaining the balance between the freedom of speech and expression and the prevention of harmful content. Effective regulation in the digital age requires a nuanced approach that balances free speech with harm prevention, ensures transparency and accountability in content moderation, and accommodates diverse cultural norms and legal frameworks. Regulatory bodies must enforce antitrust laws and promote policies that support independent media outlets and public service broadcasting to maintain a pluralistic media environment. In the later section, a comparative analysis of media entertainment regulation across different regions reveals the diverse approaches and challenges faced by policymakers in the digital era. The European Union's robust regulatory framework, exemplified by the General Data Protection Regulation and the Digital Services Act, underscores a strong commitment to user privacy and platform accountability, setting high standards for global data practices.). In contrast, the United States prioritizes freedom of expression, relying on sector-specific regulations like the California Consumer Privacy Act to address privacy issues while maintaining a liberal market environment. Similarly, China's stringent regulatory environment, characterized by the Personal Information Protection Law and extensive content censorship, prioritizes state control and political stability, often at the expense of individual freedoms. Meanwhile, India and Australia strike a balance
110
Reeta Sony A.L., Shruti Chopra. Regulating Digital Era
between regulation and innovation, with frameworks like the Digital India Act 2023 and the Online Safety Act 2021 aimed at protecting user interests and ensuring content accountability.
1^1=1 References
1. Anand N., Brass I. (2021) Responsible innovation for digital identity systems. Data & Policy, 3, e35. doi:10.1017/dap.2021.35
2. Bagdikian B.H. (2004) The New Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press, 299 p.
3. Baker C.E. (2009) Media, Markets, and Democracy. Cambridge: University Press, 216 p.
4. Belli L., Zingales N. (2019) Platform values: Conflicting rights, artificial intelligence and tax avoidance by digital platforms. Internet Governance Forum. Available at: https://www.intgovforum.org/system/files/filedepot/57/special_is-sue_platform_values_igf_consolidated_.pdf (accessed: 20.04.2022)
5. Bruns A. (2007) Produsage: Towards a broader framework for user-led content creation. In: Creativity & Cognition: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition, pp. 99-106. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1145/1254960.1254975 (accessed: 16.11.2023)
6. Curran J. (2011) The Media and Democracy. New York-Oxford: Routledge, 255 p.
7. Doyle G. (2002) Media Ownership: The Economics and Politics of Convergence and Concentration in the UK and European Media. London: SAGE Publications, 192 p.
8. Flanagan A.J., Metzger M.J. (2008) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 202 p.
9. Flew T., Martin F.R. (eds.) (2022) Digital Platform Regulation. London: Palgrave, 263 p.
10. Garton Ash T. (2016) Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World. New Haven (Conn.)-London: Yale University Press, 491 p.
11. Gillespie T. (2018) Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. New Haven (Conn.)-Lon-don: Yale University Press, 297 p.
12. Lotz A.D. (2021) Media Disrupted: Surviving Pirates, Cannibals, and Streaming Wars. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 200 p.
13. McChesney R.W. (2008) Free Press: The Political Economy of Media. New York: Monthly Review Press Publishers, 589 p.
14. McChesney R.W. (2015) Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. New York: New Press, 496 p.
15. Mendiratta R., Barata J. (2019) Ramdev v. Facebook, Inc.* Available at: https://wilmap.stanford.edu/entries/ramdev-v-facebook-inc-2019 (accessed: 16.10.2022)
111
IT, Industries, Law: Media
16. Metzger M.J., Flanagan A.J. (2008) Digital Media and Youth: Unparalleled Opportunity and Unprecedented Responsibility. Journal of Communications, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 333-341.
17. Napoli P.M. (2001) Foundations of Communications Policy: Principles and Process in the Regulation of Electronic Media. New York-Springfield: Hampton Press, 344 p.
18. Narayanan R. (2024) Legal compliance for OTT platforms in India: Understanding the regulatory landscape. Available at: https://www.khuranaandkhura-na.com/2024/04/03/legal-compliance-for-ott-platforms-in-india-understand-ing-the-regulatory-landscape/ (accessed: 19.06.2024)
19. Noam E.M. (2016) Who Owns the World's Media? Media Concentration and Ownership around the World. Oxford: University Press, 440 p.
20. Noble S.U. (2018) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: New York University Press, 248 p.
21. Pickard V. (2019) Democracy without Journalism? Confronting the Misinformation Society. Oxford: University Press, 264 p.
22. Priya V.B.A. (2023) Overview of over-the-top (OTT) platforms in India: analysis of IT Rules 2021, judicial battles, balancing act of artistic freedom of speech and expression, and challenges for regulation in India. Available at: https:// legalresearchandanalysis.com/overview-of-over-the-top-ott-platforms-in-india-analysis-of-it-rules-2021-judicial-battles-the-balancing-act-of-artistic-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-and-challenges-for-regulation-in-india/ (accessed: 21.04.2024)
23. Suzor N. (2019) Lawless: The Secret Rules that Govern our Digital Lives. Cambridge: University Press, 218 p.
24. Tworek H., Leersseen P. (2019) An Analysis of Germany's NetzDG Law. Available at: annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org. (accessed: 24.05.2023)
25. Vogel H.L. (2020) Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis. Cambridge: University Press, 680 p.
26. Voigt P., von dem Bussche A. (2017) The EU General Data Protection Regulation: a practical guide. Berlin: Springer International Publishing, 122 p.
27. Zuboff S. (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Public Affairs Publishing, 704 p.
Information about the authors:
Reeta Sony A.L. — PhD, Associate Professor.
Shruti Chopra — PhD, Research Associate.
The article was submitted to editorial office 03.06.2024; approved after reviewing 28.06.2024; accepted for publication 28.06.2024.
