This note contrasts the approaches taken by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the UK Supreme Court in the high‐profile litigation which preceded the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland. The case of Scotch Whisky Association and others v The Lord Advocate and another hinged, ultimately, on the necessity of minimum pricing to achieve important public health goals. The notably differing viewpoints adopted by the domestic and Union courts, however, both illustrate the elusiveness of the proportionality criterion, and expose tensions between domestic and supranational control in the context of internal market regulation.
本说明对比了欧盟法院和英国最高法院在苏格兰引入最低酒精价格之前的高调诉讼中采取的方法。苏格兰威士忌协会(Scotch Whisky Association)等人诉The Lord Advocate和另一个案件，最终取决于最低定价对实现重要公共卫生目标的必要性。然而，国内法院和欧盟法院所采用的明显不同的观点都说明了比例标准的难以捉摸，并暴露了在内部市场监管背景下国内和超国家控制之间的紧张关系。
{"title":"Minimum Alcohol Pricing: Balancing the ‘Essentially Incomparable’ in Scotch Whisky","authors":"N. Dunne","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12368","url":null,"abstract":"This note contrasts the approaches taken by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the UK Supreme Court in the high‐profile litigation which preceded the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland. The case of Scotch Whisky Association and others v The Lord Advocate and another hinged, ultimately, on the necessity of minimum pricing to achieve important public health goals. The notably differing viewpoints adopted by the domestic and Union courts, however, both illustrate the elusiveness of the proportionality criterion, and expose tensions between domestic and supranational control in the context of internal market regulation.","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121363755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Canadian participation in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was called into question by Canada’s hold-up on signing the draft agreement among the remaining eleven negotiating parties following US withdrawal. This raised the possibility of the CPTPP going ahead as a 10-member agreement without Canada. We ran the numbers on the opportunity costs for Canada compared to the gains of participation. This note builds on our previous studies of the TPP which quantify the TPP12 and TPP11. This helps inform the discussion surrounding the announcement that the TPP11 will go ahead, with Canada’s participation. We report comparable figures for the TPP12, TPP11 (without the United States) and TPP10 (without Canada).
{"title":"The TPP 10, 11, 12","authors":"Dan Ciuriak, A. Dadkhah, Jingliang Xiao","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3108231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3108231","url":null,"abstract":"Canadian participation in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was called into question by Canada’s hold-up on signing the draft agreement among the remaining eleven negotiating parties following US withdrawal. This raised the possibility of the CPTPP going ahead as a 10-member agreement without Canada. We ran the numbers on the opportunity costs for Canada compared to the gains of participation. This note builds on our previous studies of the TPP which quantify the TPP12 and TPP11. This helps inform the discussion surrounding the announcement that the TPP11 will go ahead, with Canada’s participation. We report comparable figures for the TPP12, TPP11 (without the United States) and TPP10 (without Canada).","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128474964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The objective of this research is to analyze and evaluate the main trade felicitation factors that affect trade cost, total trade cost and manufactured trade cost in ECOWAS countries. To cope with these objectives, the methodology we adopt an econometric approach of gravity model. The data cover the ECOWAS with their main trade partners from 2010 to 2014. We use a methodology strategy based on gravity model and estimated by PPML regression. The main result is that total trade cost and manufactured trade cost are both influenced by traditional gravity model variables and Doing Business (DB) indicators. Most importantly, trade cost in ECOWAS countries are more impacted by customs environment .
{"title":"Determinants of Trade Costs: An Application of Gravity Model for ECOWAS Countries","authors":"K. O. Wonyra","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3090377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3090377","url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this research is to analyze and evaluate the main trade felicitation factors that affect trade cost, total trade cost and manufactured trade cost in ECOWAS countries. To cope with these objectives, the methodology we adopt an econometric approach of gravity model. The data cover the ECOWAS with their main trade partners from 2010 to 2014. We use a methodology strategy based on gravity model and estimated by PPML regression. The main result is that total trade cost and manufactured trade cost are both influenced by traditional gravity model variables and Doing Business (DB) indicators. Most importantly, trade cost in ECOWAS countries are more impacted by customs environment .","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121878399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Globalization is a prominent feature of modern society. However, a by-product of increased transnational business activities, especially foreign investments, is an increased number of disputes. Consequently, investment arbitration has, in recent decades, experienced rapid development and much attention as an effective means of dispute resolution and investment promotion. The first section of this paper describes the origin and development of international investment arbitration with a specific focus on the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Although international investment law and ICSID arbitration both play significant roles in dispute resolution, scholars often criticize them for their legitimacy deficits. In the second section, the current issues and challenges facing international investment law and ICSID arbitration are presented and discussed. These include the inconsistency of investment treaties and agreements, potential arbitrator bias, and conflicts between an investor’s private rights and the host state’s public interests. To meet the changing needs of both investors and the public, the field of international investment arbitration must continue to progress and evolve. The third and final section addresses the ongoing evolution of international investment arbitration by reviewing possible remedies and improvements to the current system and presenting future trends anticipated by institutions and scholars.
{"title":"International Investment Arbitration: Development, Controversies, and Future Outlook","authors":"Jianing Zhang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3068727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3068727","url":null,"abstract":"Globalization is a prominent feature of modern society. However, a by-product of increased transnational business activities, especially foreign investments, is an increased number of disputes. Consequently, investment arbitration has, in recent decades, experienced rapid development and much attention as an effective means of dispute resolution and investment promotion. The first section of this paper describes the origin and development of international investment arbitration with a specific focus on the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Although international investment law and ICSID arbitration both play significant roles in dispute resolution, scholars often criticize them for their legitimacy deficits. In the second section, the current issues and challenges facing international investment law and ICSID arbitration are presented and discussed. These include the inconsistency of investment treaties and agreements, potential arbitrator bias, and conflicts between an investor’s private rights and the host state’s public interests. To meet the changing needs of both investors and the public, the field of international investment arbitration must continue to progress and evolve. The third and final section addresses the ongoing evolution of international investment arbitration by reviewing possible remedies and improvements to the current system and presenting future trends anticipated by institutions and scholars.","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133732576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hearing on International Tax Reform Before the Senate Finance Committee. Lowering the corporate income tax rate and moving to a territorial system are important to maintain U.S. prosperity and improve growth prospects for our economy. The U.S. cannot stand apart from corporate tax competition in a globalized economy. To ensure that corporate income tax reform maximizes opportunity for well-paid employment for as many of our children and grandchildren as possible, the United States must also level the playing field between U.S. and foreign-headquartered MNCs. Leveling the playing field requires addressing the relative tax advantages available to foreign-owned U.S. corporations that represent one of the most senseless aspects of our current corporate tax code.
{"title":"International Tax Reform: Hearing Before the S. Comm. On Fin., 115th Cong., Oct. 3, 2017 (Statement of Itai Grinberg)","authors":"Itai Grinberg","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3051963","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3051963","url":null,"abstract":"Hearing on International Tax Reform Before the Senate Finance Committee. Lowering the corporate income tax rate and moving to a territorial system are important to maintain U.S. prosperity and improve growth prospects for our economy. The U.S. cannot stand apart from corporate tax competition in a globalized economy. To ensure that corporate income tax reform maximizes opportunity for well-paid employment for as many of our children and grandchildren as possible, the United States must also level the playing field between U.S. and foreign-headquartered MNCs. Leveling the playing field requires addressing the relative tax advantages available to foreign-owned U.S. corporations that represent one of the most senseless aspects of our current corporate tax code.","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123925572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Commission’s decisions in the State aid cases of Starbucks and Fiat are the first decisions in the series of the tax rulings investigations. These decisions have been criticised as excessively widening the scope of the concept of selectivity. This article, however, argues that the Commission did not overreach itself. The Commission applied a well-established methodology and integrated certain new elements into it, like the arm’s length principle, in order to respond to novel issues. This stance does not indicate a tendency towards widening the concept of selectivity; it rather signifies the Commission’s disposition to focus on the effects of the aid measures and to conduct its assessments with less formalism.
{"title":"The State Aid Cases of Starbucks and Fiat: New Routes for the Concept of Selectivity?","authors":"Theodoros G. Iliopoulos","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3425981","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3425981","url":null,"abstract":"The European Commission’s decisions in the State aid cases of Starbucks and Fiat are the first decisions in the series of the tax rulings investigations. These decisions have been criticised as excessively widening the scope of the concept of selectivity. This article, however, argues that the Commission did not overreach itself. The Commission applied a well-established methodology and integrated certain new elements into it, like the arm’s length principle, in order to respond to novel issues. This stance does not indicate a tendency towards widening the concept of selectivity; it rather signifies the Commission’s disposition to focus on the effects of the aid measures and to conduct its assessments with less formalism.<br>","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115748809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Eurasian Economic Union ( EAEU ) is a regional organization for economic integration in the post-Soviet space. Following the limited success of previous integration attempts, the organization aims to pursue deeper integration, borrowing features from the European Union. The EAEU has at its disposal a complex system of elements that make up a newly emerged legal order. This paper analyzes how these elements compare to those of the EU in order to determine how the legal changes that accompanied the creation of the EAEU affect its functioning and whether its legal order can be considered efficient compared to that of the EU . This article argues that the EAEU lags behind the EU both in terms of the autonomy of its legal order and in its ability to ensure the effective functioning of the organization. The EAEU ’s supranational features are limited, as it relies predominantly on intergovernmental elements with a view to preserving the interests of all of its member states.
{"title":"The Eurasian Economic Union: An EU-Inspired Legal Order and Its Limits","authors":"Maksim Karliuk","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3590678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3590678","url":null,"abstract":"The Eurasian Economic Union ( EAEU ) is a regional organization for economic integration in the post-Soviet space. Following the limited success of previous integration attempts, the organization aims to pursue deeper integration, borrowing features from the European Union. The EAEU has at its disposal a complex system of elements that make up a newly emerged legal order. This paper analyzes how these elements compare to those of the EU in order to determine how the legal changes that accompanied the creation of the EAEU affect its functioning and whether its legal order can be considered efficient compared to that of the EU . This article argues that the EAEU lags behind the EU both in terms of the autonomy of its legal order and in its ability to ensure the effective functioning of the organization. The EAEU ’s supranational features are limited, as it relies predominantly on intergovernmental elements with a view to preserving the interests of all of its member states.","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133776820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-02DOI: 10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-2-33-52
Maksim Karliuk
Eurasian integration has created a new legal order – the so-called “Union law” of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This legal order has its own narrative, principles, hierarchy of rules, and innovations such as the direct applicability of decisions of its regulatory body. Russian legal order is generally accommodating towards international law, which is equally applicable to Union law. However, the recent practice of the Russian Constitutional Court has claimed that Russia can set aside international obligations based on national constitution, which indirectly targets the viability of the EAEU legal order. This is further complicated by the Eurasian judiciary, which, as the main interpretative authority within the integration, has tried to take on an activist role, somewhat borrowing approaches from the European Union. In its turn, the Russian Constitutional Court has voiced its differences in certain approaches. This variability of practices and approaches clearly undermines the “unity” of the EAEU legal order and the interweaving of national and regional legal frameworks. This article analyses the relationship of the two legal orders to assess the possibilities for tensions between them. It points out the sources of such tensions, which lie in certain indeterminacies within the EAEU legal order, temptations to assert power, and recent far-reaching practices of the Russian Constitutional Court.
{"title":"Russian Legal Order and the Legal Order of the Eurasian Economic Union: An Uneasy Relationship","authors":"Maksim Karliuk","doi":"10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-2-33-52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-2-33-52","url":null,"abstract":"Eurasian integration has created a new legal order – the so-called “Union law” of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This legal order has its own narrative, principles, hierarchy of rules, and innovations such as the direct applicability of decisions of its regulatory body. Russian legal order is generally accommodating towards international law, which is equally applicable to Union law. However, the recent practice of the Russian Constitutional Court has claimed that Russia can set aside international obligations based on national constitution, which indirectly targets the viability of the EAEU legal order. This is further complicated by the Eurasian judiciary, which, as the main interpretative authority within the integration, has tried to take on an activist role, somewhat borrowing approaches from the European Union. In its turn, the Russian Constitutional Court has voiced its differences in certain approaches. This variability of practices and approaches clearly undermines the “unity” of the EAEU legal order and the interweaving of national and regional legal frameworks. This article analyses the relationship of the two legal orders to assess the possibilities for tensions between them. It points out the sources of such tensions, which lie in certain indeterminacies within the EAEU legal order, temptations to assert power, and recent far-reaching practices of the Russian Constitutional Court.","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"29 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120907095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-04-24DOI: 10.1142/9789811202308_0008
Yoram Z. Haftel
What role do Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) play in the global investment regime and what policies do they espouse? How can we account for similarities among and differences across these countries with respect to their approach to international investment agreements (IIAs) and investment arbitration? What are their implications for the future of this regime? This study addresses these questions by situating emerging market economies in the persistent North-South divide, that is endemic to the global politics of foreign direct investment (FDI). Surveying the policies of the five countries since the 1980s, it shows that all were initially motivated to provide foreign investors with protection against political risk in order to attract FDI. As their own position in the global economy has changed and the rules of the regime itself have evolved, the investment policies of the BRICS countries have transformed, albeit in distinct ways. China and, to a lesser extent, Russia appear broadly content with the current state of affairs. Brazil, India, and South Africa, on the other hand, seem to object to current rules, which they view as overly protective of foreign investors at the expense of host state regulatory space. I argue and show that two factors – the amount of FDI outflows and regime type – usefully account for the observed variation across BRICS' international investment policies, but that more research is needed to fully understand this matter. Regardless its sources, the diversity between the BRICS countries suggests that the prospects of them shaping the rules of the global investment regime, either individually or collectively, are rather bleak.
{"title":"BRICS and the Global Investment Regime","authors":"Yoram Z. Haftel","doi":"10.1142/9789811202308_0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811202308_0008","url":null,"abstract":"What role do Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) play in the global investment regime and what policies do they espouse? How can we account for similarities among and differences across these countries with respect to their approach to international investment agreements (IIAs) and investment arbitration? What are their implications for the future of this regime? This study addresses these questions by situating emerging market economies in the persistent North-South divide, that is endemic to the global politics of foreign direct investment (FDI). Surveying the policies of the five countries since the 1980s, it shows that all were initially motivated to provide foreign investors with protection against political risk in order to attract FDI. As their own position in the global economy has changed and the rules of the regime itself have evolved, the investment policies of the BRICS countries have transformed, albeit in distinct ways. China and, to a lesser extent, Russia appear broadly content with the current state of affairs. Brazil, India, and South Africa, on the other hand, seem to object to current rules, which they view as overly protective of foreign investors at the expense of host state regulatory space. I argue and show that two factors – the amount of FDI outflows and regime type – usefully account for the observed variation across BRICS' international investment policies, but that more research is needed to fully understand this matter. Regardless its sources, the diversity between the BRICS countries suggests that the prospects of them shaping the rules of the global investment regime, either individually or collectively, are rather bleak.","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130467913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Martin Senftleben, M. Kerk, Miriam C. Buiten, K. Heine
The disruptive effect of digital technology poses particular challenges to the publishing sector. Publishers react to these challenges by developing new business models that embrace digital technology and seek to seize opportunities for new ways of content distribution. Creating digital platforms for the distribution of content, publishers can establish a network that is attractive to contributors (authors) and customers alike. Substantial profit can be derived from the network if it attracts content providers because the database already has a large number of customers and, at the same time, attracts customers because of the large number of content providers. For a profitable digital business model in the publishing sector, it is decisive to trigger this self-reinforcing process of a growing network. To achieve this goal, the traditional focus on marketing decisions based on supply-side factors must be abandoned. It is no longer the successful pre-selection of content and clever bargaining with printers that guarantees a profit, but the creation of a content platform capable of generating the described network effect. Hence, the demand side becomes more important. For the growth of the network, it is indispensable to attract customers as well as content providers. The publisher must create a match between the two groups. As a result, new business models broaden the range of a publisher’s activities. Instead of focusing on the commercialization of individual publications, new business models require a strategy that uses publications strategically to build a user community around the offer of information products. This implies that publishers with new business models become media entrepreneurs with a broad spectrum of information offers and communication channels. The publication of a newspaper, magazine, journal or book no longer constitutes an end in itself. It is only the starting point for a broader offer of related products and services.Considering the initiatives taken by publishers to adapt their traditional business models to the digital environment, the question arises which amalgam of legal protection regimes should be applied to provide a sufficient incentive and reward for the transition to platform-based business models in the publishing sector. Insofar as new business models are not primarily based on the commercialization of individual content but on the exploitation of a publisher’s particular reputation or concept for an information database with added value, this question must not be confined to traditional copyright protection of individual literary and artistic works. By contrast, additional protection regimes in the field of intellectual property enter the picture, in particular trade mark protection and sui generis database rights.
{"title":"From Books to Content Platforms – New Business Models in the Dutch Publishing Sector","authors":"Martin Senftleben, M. Kerk, Miriam C. Buiten, K. Heine","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2904116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2904116","url":null,"abstract":"The disruptive effect of digital technology poses particular challenges to the publishing sector. Publishers react to these challenges by developing new business models that embrace digital technology and seek to seize opportunities for new ways of content distribution. Creating digital platforms for the distribution of content, publishers can establish a network that is attractive to contributors (authors) and customers alike. Substantial profit can be derived from the network if it attracts content providers because the database already has a large number of customers and, at the same time, attracts customers because of the large number of content providers. For a profitable digital business model in the publishing sector, it is decisive to trigger this self-reinforcing process of a growing network. To achieve this goal, the traditional focus on marketing decisions based on supply-side factors must be abandoned. It is no longer the successful pre-selection of content and clever bargaining with printers that guarantees a profit, but the creation of a content platform capable of generating the described network effect. Hence, the demand side becomes more important. For the growth of the network, it is indispensable to attract customers as well as content providers. The publisher must create a match between the two groups. As a result, new business models broaden the range of a publisher’s activities. Instead of focusing on the commercialization of individual publications, new business models require a strategy that uses publications strategically to build a user community around the offer of information products. This implies that publishers with new business models become media entrepreneurs with a broad spectrum of information offers and communication channels. The publication of a newspaper, magazine, journal or book no longer constitutes an end in itself. It is only the starting point for a broader offer of related products and services.Considering the initiatives taken by publishers to adapt their traditional business models to the digital environment, the question arises which amalgam of legal protection regimes should be applied to provide a sufficient incentive and reward for the transition to platform-based business models in the publishing sector. Insofar as new business models are not primarily based on the commercialization of individual content but on the exploitation of a publisher’s particular reputation or concept for an information database with added value, this question must not be confined to traditional copyright protection of individual literary and artistic works. By contrast, additional protection regimes in the field of intellectual property enter the picture, in particular trade mark protection and sui generis database rights.","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127236127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：