Entertainment Industry

There are countless industries and social domains that are gaining their shares in the mobile app market. Media and entertainment stand no exception to that. While radio, telly channels, newspaper, magazines, etc. have always been an inseparable part of people’s lives, mobile apps made everything possible, from reading news to enjoying movies at the tips of their fingers.

Market research revealed that people spent more than half of their time in a day on mobile, that include digital media too. There are very few aspects of media that remained uncovered by apps today. From watching sports live to reading an eBook, there are apps available for all, offering amusements to the mobile users anywhere and anytime. This leaves no doubt that mobile apps gave rise to new avenues to the players in the entertainment or media industry and ushered them to a fully mobile-centric world. Here’s an overview of how mobile applications became a prominent new media and are providing top-grade entertainment to the users.

Fun-filled Gaming experience

The advanced and sophisticated features of the smartphones or iPhones offer an immersive gaming experience to the users when they engage with a game-play application. Apps brought significant transformation in the gamer profile and gaming experiences are no more confined to kids and teenagers, but to all age groups with such apps.

Live music stations

Mobile apps opened up great opportunities for the music industry, helping them to target more people, provide enriching audio content/albums and retain their loyal audience by continuously engaging them. Many apps are offering the facility to the music lovers to listen latest album releases, concerts recordings or any radio stations live. Thus, they provided the music companies with a vibrant push environment to relay their albums to their audiences at the utmost convenience.

Movies and Live Videos streaming

The movie industry too managed to make some significant mark on the mobile apps space with applications that telecast movies, TV series and other shows on-demand. Amazon Video or Netflix are the two most prominent examples of apps that are making the rounds by offering bundles of latest and old movies, streaming episodes of TV shows and live sports. In other words, mobile apps emerged as a great enhancement for the TV and movie industry and helped them to engage their audience through latest shows, upcoming teasers, new movie releases, reminder alerts, social sharing options and channel subscriptions and so forth.

Latest news and updates on the go

Media channels are resorting to the apps to broadcast news, weather forecasts, or match updates on the go. In today’s fast-paced life, people hardly get any free time from their tight schedules to know what’s happening around, or how their country is scoring in an ongoing sports tournament. Apps brought a huge sigh of relief for them with real-time news, match scores and other relevant updates at their fingertips.

eBook for online reading experience

Mobile applications came as a great tool for book lovers offering enriched reading experiences. eBook apps are like online libraries enabling the avid readers to search, buy, download, read e-books, magazines or articles from countless options, just with some taps of their fingertips.

As the market for mobile apps is expanding, with its footprints on every domain of the business world, media and entertainment are deploying the app technology to provide recreation and amusement to the users on the go.

Media & Entertainment Law

The cases of The British Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another [2007] and R (on the application of) The British Broadcasting Corporation v The Information Tribunal and Others [2007] concerned the Freedom of Information Act 2000 – a number of pieces of legislation should be mentioned to assist in the interpretation of these cases.

The appellant in the case, the British Broadcasting Corporation (“BBC”), asked B to provide advice on the coverage by the BBC of Middle Eastern matters. During 2004, B, who was an experienced journalist, produced an internal written report on the subject. The report was placed for consideration by the journalism board of the BBC. Then, in 2005 a panel was appointed to provide an external independent review of BBC reporting of Middle East affairs. This second report was never published.

The respondent, S, wished to see the second report. He was of the opinion that he was entitled to see it under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “2000 Act”). He therefore made a written request to the BBC, the response to which was that the report directly impacted on the BBC’s reporting of crucial world events and so the 2000 Act did not apply to it. S was dissatisfied with that answer and so subsequently complained to the Information Commissioner.

The commissioner corresponded fairly extensively with S and, separately, with the BBC. In a detailed letter, the commissioner set out his provisional view that the report was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature, and that in such circumstances the BBC was not deemed a public authority under the 2000 Act in respect of S’s request, and was therefore not obliged to release the contents of the report.

S did not wish to submit any further comments to the commissioner, who confirmed his final decision that the report was non-disclosable, and so informed S of his right to seek a judicial review of the decision. S appealed to the Information Tribunal on the grounds of the provisions in s.50 of the 2000 Act. The position of the commissioner and the BBC at the time was as follows:

§ That S had no right of appeal under s.50;

§ The commissioner had not served a decision notice which could be appealed against; and

§ That the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal.

The tribunal was of the opinion that it did indeed have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The commissioner discontinued the dispute as regards jurisdiction. The tribunal ruled that it did have jurisdiction to hear S’s appeal and so proceeded to hear it. It held that at the time of S’s request for a copy of the report, the report was held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature.

Subsequently, the BBC appealed on the jurisdiction decision and the journalism decision and, to meet any point that a lack of jurisdiction was asserted, the BBC sought to challenge the decisions of the tribunal by concurrent judicial review proceedings.

S, in due course, issued his own judicial review proceedings challenging the original decision of the commissioner. It was submitted that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the purported appeal and that S’s remedy had laid in seeking judicial review of the commissioner’s original decision. In addition to this, it was submitted that despite the initial impression one otherwise could get from s.3(1) and Schedule 1 of the 2000 Act, s.7(1) showed that it was concerned with the application of Parts I to V to information, rather than purporting to define the circumstances in which a body was or was not to be treated as a ‘public authority’.

§ Section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides, so far as is material:

(1) In this Act “public authority” means:

(a) subject to section 4(4), any body which, any other person who, or the holder of any office which:

(i) is listed in Schedule 1, or

(ii) is designated by order under section 5, or

(b) a publicly-owned company as defined by section 6.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, information is held by a public authority if:

(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person, or

(b) it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

§ Section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides, so far as is material:

(1) Where a public authority is listed in Schedule 1 only in relation to information of a specified description, nothing in Parts I to V of this Act applies to any other information held by the authority.

(2) An order under section 4(1) may, in adding an entry to Schedule 1, list the public authority only in relation to information of a specified description.

§ Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides, so far as is material:

(1) Any person (“the Complainant”) may apply to the Commissioner for a decision whether, in any specified respect, a request for information made by the complainant to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part I.

(2) On receiving an application under this section, the Commissioner shall make a decision unless it appears to him:

(a) that the complainant has not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority in conformity with the code of practice under section 45,

(b) that there has been undue delay in making the application,

(c) that the application is frivolous or vexatious, or

(d) that the application has been withdrawn or abandoned.

(3) Where the Commissioner has received an application under this section, he shall either:

(a) notify the complainant that he has not made any decision under this section as a result of the application and of his grounds for not doing so, or

(b) serve notice of his decision (“Decision Notice”) on the complainant and the public authority.

§ Section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides, so far as is material:

(1) Where a decision notice has been served, the complainant or the public authority may appeal to the Tribunal against the notice.

(2) A public authority on which an information notice or an enforcement notice has been served by the Commissioner may appeal to the Tribunal against the notice.

(3) In relation to a decision notice or enforcement notice which relates:

(a) to information to which section 66 applies, and

(b) to a matter which by virtue of subsection (3) or (4) of that section falls to be determined by the responsible authority instead of the appropriate records authority, subsections (1) and (2) shall have effect as if the reference to the public authority were a reference to the public authority or the responsible authority.

In Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 a list of public bodies can be found. Most of those listed in Part VI of Schedule 1 are designated by name, however a few are not, and one such body is the BBC. The BBC’s entry in Part VI of Schedule 1 reads:

‘The British Broadcasting Corporation, in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature’.

The appeal was allowed for the following reasons:

§ With regard to the requirements of Parts I to V of the 2000 Act, the BBC was deemed a public authority only in respect of information that it held otherwise than for purposes of journalism, art or literature. The applicable sections of the 2000 Act, in particular s.3(1) and s.7(1), taken with Schedule 1 were different. Those sections specify which bodies have to be treated as public authorities in respect of certain types of information. The sections do not state that the BBC was a public authority for all purposes under the 2000 Act in relation to all information held by them.

§ The structure of the 2000 Act is such as to preclude certain decisions of the commissioner from appeal to the tribunal. It could be discerned from the language and structure of the 2000 Act that any intent to appeal lay with the tribunal where it had been decided by the commissioner whether or not the requirements of Part I had been complied with by a public authority and where a decision notice had been served. If the commissioner had decided that the circumstances under s.7(1) to the 2000 Act subsisted, then there would be no decision notice under s.50(3)(b) which the commissioner could serve. As a consequence of this there could be nothing which could be appealed to the tribunal. The remedy was by way of proceedings for judicial review. By looking at the words of s.3, s.7 and Schedule 1 of the 2000 Act, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

§ Whether a piece of information had been or had not been ‘held for purposes other than journalism’ ultimately involved a matter of judgment on the part of the commissioner by reference to the circumstances of each particular case. The re-affirmation of his decision had not been challengeable by way of judicial review. It was held that journalism extended to activity as well as product, and it extended to the process of collecting, analysing, editing and communicating news. The decision of the commissioner would have had the effect of establishing whether or not there had been jurisdiction to determine substantively on S’s complaint and to therefore serve a decision notice.

In this case, it was held that the final decisions of the commissioner had not been challengeable by way of judicial review. The decision of the commissioner had been lawful, rational, and properly open to him. The decisions had simply been the commissioner restating and justifying, in the context of the appeal to the tribunal, the position that the he had earlier adopted in his decision letter. As a result, S’s claim for judicial review failed and was subsequently dismissed.

Serving Up the Best of Media Entertainment

A lot of buzz was created when iPod Touch 3G was launched into the market. Great reviews greeted the new product and that didn’t stop there. Thanks to the ever-growing apps, iPod Touch 3G is more solid now than ever before. There are a lot of programs to fill up your iPod that you will drain your pocket even before you run out of storage space.

This version of iPod Touch is probably a heaven sent for hard-core gamers since this is its forte. You might encounter problems with other apps but when it comes to gaming, iPod 3G will play it all. There is just no limit for game lovers from popular arcade games to more hard core video games the App Store has it all. What’s more, you will never be disappointed with its responsive screen.

It would be safe to say that you don’t have to carry another gaming gadget during your travel if you have an iPod Touch 3G. Because with this portable media player, you can entertain yourself for long hours, just like you would with other gaming handheld. If you are not a gamer, there’s still more than enough reason for you to adore this gadget.

You can play all the songs you want and while it doesn’t posses the best sound quality, it makes up for its user interface. By using the different functions like portrait mode, landscape mode, and the Shake to Shuffle which gives you the ability to access your music while the other keys and buttons are locked, you would never have to think of buying another music player. And if you get your videos from iTunes then you are definitely in the right place since Apple has an online store that dishes up TVs and films with the right format.

Mobile Media Entertainment

Technology re-identified is the attempt to coalesce tools into one mini gadget. We can say that technology is an evolution in a hurry. I wouldn’t agree that laziness fathered invention. Humans are just a convenience-hungry creature.

It’s really tricky to tell which among the latest gadgets is the newest, as new gadgets swarm the markets in an almost daily basis. We can say that the entertainment value of each concept-created gadget dominates pragmatic reasons. Or, that the primary rationale of most gadgets that is communication has been redefined to make communication more fun.

It is amazing to trace how man has improved his means of communication. He started scribbling in cave walls, has learned to use figures and icons to convey a message and he has later learned to send those messages using trained pigeons. And because man is ever hungry to leave a more expedient life, he never ceased to advance. And man has worked arduously to develop his communication equipment. But besides man’s ingenuity and being convenience-hungry is man’s love for fun. And man’s love for pleasure dates back from the prehistoric era when people go to coliseums to watch feisty gladiators, to these days when south and North Pole can easily converge. Maybe because enjoyment is tantamount to convenience.

And we are man!

We seek entertainment ubiquitously. We enjoy a cab ride and a coffee break when a good song is played on the background, we enjoy a bus ride if it has a television that makes us oblivious of the congested traffic, and on our rest days we would never miss movie marathons or the never ending political ruckus featured in news and current affairs programs. And of course, we would never fail to send text messages to friends, chat with them or talk with them on webcam. It’s always fun to exchange greetings with friends after a week-long killer work, don’t you agree?

It is staggering that technology has become both a necessity and a source of entertainment.

We are now living the touch screen age, a fast-paced lifestyle. We have become busier people and time has become priceless times three. The things in our must-do list can no longer be accommodated by the 24 hours in one day, and stress has become the most common malady. But as always, technology has provided an answer.

Technology has boosted the doodads that most of us are already accustomed to. Let’s take the cell phone as an example. The cell phone that was once a plain SMS and call gizmo has improved to become a multi-media capable device. Such enhancements are much appreciated by company executives and other white collar personnel, but let’s not care about what they do with Bluetooth, infrared, video files and WI-FI. Not many of us understand the stock market and banking and finance. But we all know how to pose in front of camera. And we are all addicted to uploading our pictures in friend-finding sites. And we can’t stop downloading the latest music video of our favorite boy band or the song of that sexy sultry singer whose face you first saw in the JPEG file that an acquaintance has sent you in MMS.

It will be time-consuming if we need to be seated in one place to do our technical stuffs. Thus, it is only proper to commend technology for coming up with mobile services, special mention to mobile entertainment. Now, we may not be seated in front of a webcam because 3G allows us to make video calls, we can already chat on our cell phones and even surf the internet. We don’t have to be at home, in front of our TVs to watch a much-talked boxing match [because the same thing can also be done on our cell phones]. We can forget about our bulky Walkmans or Discmans and just stuck in our ears our mp4’s earpiece. Wouldn’t you want you be encouraged to lose weight if your jogging shoes have a built-in mp4? And hey, the last time I checked on a tech’s must-buy list is an mp4 with a camera. If there is anything more chic than it, I wouldn’t wonder.