保护欧洲的内容制作不受美国巨头的影响

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Media Law Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI:10.1080/17577632.2019.1579296
Sally Broughton Micova, Felix Hempel, Sabine Jacques
{"title":"保护欧洲的内容制作不受美国巨头的影响","authors":"Sally Broughton Micova, Felix Hempel, Sabine Jacques","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2019.1579296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article investigates and compares the changes to both the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Copyright Directive, through which European Union policymakers have sought to protect European content producers, mainly in the face of competition from US-based platforms. Contributing to debates about platform and content regulation, we examine the approaches taken with these two legislative changes and assess the potential for success of the most recent efforts. Ultimately, we argue that if revised as proposed the Copyright Directive runs the risk of further adding to the imbalance of power between press publishers and online platforms, and that the level playing field approach taken in the AVSMD revision is more likely to be at least somewhat effective in addressing that imbalance.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2019.1579296","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protecting Europe’s content production from US giants\",\"authors\":\"Sally Broughton Micova, Felix Hempel, Sabine Jacques\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17577632.2019.1579296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article investigates and compares the changes to both the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Copyright Directive, through which European Union policymakers have sought to protect European content producers, mainly in the face of competition from US-based platforms. Contributing to debates about platform and content regulation, we examine the approaches taken with these two legislative changes and assess the potential for success of the most recent efforts. Ultimately, we argue that if revised as proposed the Copyright Directive runs the risk of further adding to the imbalance of power between press publishers and online platforms, and that the level playing field approach taken in the AVSMD revision is more likely to be at least somewhat effective in addressing that imbalance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2019.1579296\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2019.1579296\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2019.1579296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

摘要本文调查并比较了《视听媒体服务指令》和《版权指令》的变化,欧盟政策制定者主要在面临来自美国平台的竞争时,通过这两项指令来保护欧洲内容生产者。在参与关于平台和内容监管的辩论时,我们研究了这两项立法改革所采取的方法,并评估了最近努力的成功潜力。最终,我们认为,如果按照提议进行修订,《版权指令》有可能进一步加剧新闻出版商和在线平台之间的权力失衡,而AVSMD修订中采取的公平竞争的方法更有可能至少在一定程度上有效地解决这种不平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Protecting Europe’s content production from US giants
ABSTRACT This article investigates and compares the changes to both the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Copyright Directive, through which European Union policymakers have sought to protect European content producers, mainly in the face of competition from US-based platforms. Contributing to debates about platform and content regulation, we examine the approaches taken with these two legislative changes and assess the potential for success of the most recent efforts. Ultimately, we argue that if revised as proposed the Copyright Directive runs the risk of further adding to the imbalance of power between press publishers and online platforms, and that the level playing field approach taken in the AVSMD revision is more likely to be at least somewhat effective in addressing that imbalance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Media Law
Journal of Media Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?
期刊最新文献
The Bypass Strategy: platforms, the Online Safety Act and future of online speech Freedom of expression after disinformation: Towards a new paradigm for the right to receive information The Digital Services Act’s red line: what the Commission can and cannot do about disinformation The regulation of disinformation: a critical appraisal The EU policy on disinformation: aims and legal basis
×
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