通过反垄断来执行版权?跨大西洋视角的新闻出版商对抗数字平台的奇怪案例

IF 1.4 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW
G. Colangelo
{"title":"通过反垄断来执行版权?跨大西洋视角的新闻出版商对抗数字平台的奇怪案例","authors":"G. Colangelo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3719811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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 have become unavoidable trading partners for news businesses, and exert substantial bargaining power in their dealings. Concerns have been raised that the bargaining power imbalance between online platforms and content producers may threaten the viability of publishers’ businesses. Notably, digital infomediaries are accused of capturing a disproportionate share of advertising revenue relative to 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. \n \nAgainst 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 publishers and online content distributors. 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. This paper analyzes different solutions advanced to remedy these problems in order to assess their economic and legal justifications as well as their effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":48724,"journal":{"name":"Law Probability & Risk","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enforcing Copyright Through Antitrust? A Transatlantic View of the Strange Case of News Publishers Against Digital Platforms\",\"authors\":\"G. Colangelo\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3719811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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 have become unavoidable trading partners for news businesses, and exert substantial bargaining power in their dealings. Concerns have been raised that the bargaining power imbalance between online platforms and content producers may threaten the viability of publishers’ businesses. Notably, digital infomediaries are accused of capturing a disproportionate share of advertising revenue relative to 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. \\n \\nAgainst 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 publishers and online content distributors. 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. This paper analyzes different solutions advanced to remedy these problems in order to assess their economic and legal justifications as well as their effectiveness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law Probability & Risk\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law Probability & Risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3719811\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Probability & Risk","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3719811","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多方平台商业模式的出现,对新闻出版行业产生了深远的影响。通过充当新闻流量的看门人,大型在线平台已成为新闻企业不可避免的贸易伙伴,并在交易中发挥了相当大的议价能力。有人担心,在线平台和内容生产商之间的议价能力失衡,可能会威胁到出版商业务的生存能力。值得注意的是,数字信息中介被指控攫取了与新闻内容制作投资不成比例的广告收入份额。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可信新闻来源下降的原因之一。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,以鼓励出版商与在线内容分销商之间的合作。法国竞争管理局最近指控谷歌采取了一项显示政策,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用其受保护内容的报酬进行真诚的谈判。相反,澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会(Australian Competition and Consumer Commission)采取了一种监管方式,制定了一套强制性的议价准则。本文分析了为纠正这些问题而提出的不同解决方案,以评估其经济和法律依据及其有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Enforcing Copyright Through Antitrust? A Transatlantic View of the Strange Case of News Publishers Against Digital Platforms
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 have become unavoidable trading partners for news businesses, and exert substantial bargaining power in their dealings. Concerns have been raised that the bargaining power imbalance between online platforms and content producers may threaten the viability of publishers’ businesses. Notably, digital infomediaries are accused of capturing a disproportionate share of advertising revenue relative to 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 publishers and online content distributors. 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. This paper analyzes different solutions advanced to remedy these problems in order to assess their economic and legal justifications as well as their effectiveness.
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
Law Probability & Risk
Law Probability & Risk MATHEMATICSSTATISTICS & PROBABILITY&-STATISTICS & PROBABILITY
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
28.60%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Law, Probability & Risk is a fully refereed journal which publishes papers dealing with topics on the interface of law and probabilistic reasoning. These are interpreted broadly to include aspects relevant to the interpretation of scientific evidence, the assessment of uncertainty and the assessment of risk. The readership includes academic lawyers, mathematicians, statisticians and social scientists with interests in quantitative reasoning. The primary objective of the journal is to cover issues in law, which have a scientific element, with an emphasis on statistical and probabilistic issues and the assessment of risk. Examples of topics which may be covered include communications law, computers and the law, environmental law, law and medicine, regulatory law for science and technology, identification problems (such as DNA but including other materials), sampling issues (drugs, computer pornography, fraud), offender profiling, credit scoring, risk assessment, the role of statistics and probability in drafting legislation, the assessment of competing theories of evidence (possibly with a view to forming an optimal combination of them). In addition, a whole new area is emerging in the application of computers to medicine and other safety-critical areas. New legislation is required to define the responsibility of computer experts who develop software for tackling these safety-critical problems.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信