Enforcing copyright through antitrust? The strange case of news publishers against digital platforms

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Antitrust Enforcement Pub Date : 2021-06-22 DOI:10.1093/jaenfo/jnab009
G. Colangelo
{"title":"Enforcing copyright through antitrust? The strange case of news publishers against digital platforms","authors":"G. Colangelo","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnab009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The emergence of the multi-sided platform business model has had a profound impact on the news publishing industry. By acting as gatekeepers to news traffic, large online platforms appear to be unavoidable trading partners for news businesses and may exert substantial bargaining power in their dealings. Concerns have been raised that this bargaining power imbalance may threaten the viability of publishers’ businesses. Notably, digital infomediaries are accused of capturing a huge share of the advertising revenue by free-riding on the investments made in producing news content. Moreover, by affecting the monetization of news, the dominance of some online platforms is deemed to have contributed to the decline of trustworthy sources of news. Against this background, governments have been urged to intervene in order to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. The EU has decided to address publishers’ concerns by introducing an additional layer of copyright as a means to encourage cooperation between press publishers and online services. And the French Competition Authority has recently accused Google of adopting a display policy aimed at frustrating the objective of the domestic law implementing the EU legislation, hence requiring Google to conduct negotiations in good faith with publishers and news agencies on the remuneration for the reuse of their protected content. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instead embraced a regulatory approach, developing a mandatory bargaining code. The aim of this article is to analyse the different solutions advanced in order to assess their economic and legal justifications as well as their effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnab009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The emergence of the multi-sided platform business model has had a profound impact on the news publishing industry. By acting as gatekeepers to news traffic, large online platforms appear to be unavoidable trading partners for news businesses and may exert substantial bargaining power in their dealings. Concerns have been raised that this bargaining power imbalance may threaten the viability of publishers’ businesses. Notably, digital infomediaries are accused of capturing a huge share of the advertising revenue by free-riding on the investments made in producing news content. Moreover, by affecting the monetization of news, the dominance of some online platforms is deemed to have contributed to the decline of trustworthy sources of news. Against this background, governments have been urged to intervene in order to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. The EU has decided to address publishers’ concerns by introducing an additional layer of copyright as a means to encourage cooperation between press publishers and online services. And the French Competition Authority has recently accused Google of adopting a display policy aimed at frustrating the objective of the domestic law implementing the EU legislation, hence requiring Google to conduct negotiations in good faith with publishers and news agencies on the remuneration for the reuse of their protected content. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instead embraced a regulatory approach, developing a mandatory bargaining code. The aim of this article is to analyse the different solutions advanced in order to assess their economic and legal justifications as well as their effectiveness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过反垄断来执行版权?新闻出版商对抗数字平台的奇怪案例
多平台商业模式的出现对新闻出版业产生了深远的影响。通过充当新闻流量的看门人,大型在线平台似乎是新闻业务不可避免的交易伙伴,并可能在交易中发挥巨大的议价能力。有人担心,这种议价能力的失衡可能会威胁到出版商业务的生存能力。值得注意的是,数字信息媒体被指控通过免费利用制作新闻内容的投资来获取广告收入的巨大份额。此外,通过影响新闻的货币化,一些在线平台的主导地位被认为是导致值得信赖的新闻来源减少的原因之一。在这种背景下,政府被敦促进行干预,以确保出版业的可持续性。欧盟决定通过引入额外的版权层来解决出版商的担忧,以此鼓励新闻出版商和在线服务之间的合作。法国竞争管理局(French Competition Authority)最近指责谷歌(Google)采取的显示政策旨在阻碍实施欧盟立法的国内法的目标,因此要求谷歌与出版商和新闻机构就重复使用其受保护内容的报酬进行真诚谈判。澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会(Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)转而采用监管方法,制定了强制性谈判准则。本文的目的是分析提出的不同解决方案,以评估其经济和法律依据以及有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal covers a wide range of enforcement related topics, including: public and private competition law enforcement, cooperation between competition agencies, the promotion of worldwide competition law enforcement, optimal design of enforcement policies, performance measurement, empirical analysis of enforcement policies, combination of functions in the competition agency mandate, and competition agency governance. Other topics include the role of the judiciary in competition enforcement, leniency, cartel prosecution, effective merger enforcement, competition enforcement and human rights, and the regulation of sectors.
期刊最新文献
Competition policy and the consumer welfare standard The evolution of EU competition law and policy in the pharmaceutical sector: long-lasting impacts of a pandemic From silence to vigilance: overcoming barriers in public reporting of bid-rigging and cartel violations Agency Insights: The first steps of the DMA adventure Why do people think price fixing is unfair? An empirical legal study on public attitudes in the USA
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1