In the latest development on disputes between big tech companies and media organizations over payment for reusing news content, Facebook on Oct. 21 signed a multiyear agreement with a French publishers’ lobbying group to pay for news content shared by its users. The legal basis for such remuneration originated in EU digital copyright law reform in 2019, which extended “neighboring rights” to snippets released by publishers.
Google also reached similar deals with French news publishers earlier this year. In February, the Australian parliament passed the News Media Bargaining Code to force Google and Facebook to negotiate with news providers for the payment of shared content.
These movements have sparked enthusiastic discussion in Taiwan. Associations representating newspapers, publishers and other media are strongly urging the government to take remedial action. Legislators across party lines have called for the government to step in with the view, among others, that media and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of democracy.
The most critical problem for the government has always been which ministry or authority should be in charge of the matter.
Minister Without Portfolio Kuo Yau-hwang (郭耀煌) said that this is an issue requiring collaboration across multiple ministries, utilizing the expertise of different professions and disciplines. This author feels, however, that Taiwan has not yet decided to enact a new law, not even an outline of possible measures to respond to the matter, so even if a responsible authority is designated, the time for enacting such laws is uncertain.
Looking at the structuring of digital ads, Google and Facebook act as “regulators” on their platforms, where publishers sell space for advertisements. Publishers or advertisers interact according to models designed by Google or Facebook, including prices for buying and selling ads, but there is insufficient transparency on the rules for transactions.
Given that many aspects of how platforms function are not well understood, neither by academics nor government authorities, the imbalance between news publishers and the major gateways to the Internet would only worsen, particularly when accompanied by the extreme use of data collection by the incumbent tech giants.
Google and Facebook have an incredibly large impact on individuals, businesses and society, and this intrinsically unfair competition environment should be addressed.
Theoretically, clauses providing neighboring rights do not exist in the Copyright Act (著作權法); therefore the European model is not the optimal choice for Taiwan.
However, competition law can play a constructive role in the evolution of a digital economy. Even though competition law is not a proper tool for the purpose of facilitating negotiations on prices between specific parties, its enforcement could help create a healthier business environment in which all participants can act freely and fairly.
The Fair Trade Act (公平交易法) includes a provision that is not found in US or EU competition law, and could be seen as a reflection of Taiwanese values with its “catchall” function. Under Article 25 of the law, “no enterprise shall otherwise have any deceptive or obviously unfair conduct that is able to affect trading order” which is not otherwise provided by the act.
The Fair Trade Commission’s “Guidelines on the Application of Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act” include “exploiting the fruits of others’ work” as an example to indicate obviously unfair means when engaging in market competition or commercial transactions.
The free use of news by digital advertising platforms is no doubt a new category of problematic conduct on the digital landscape. Therefore, innovative thinking and new theories for enforcement must be considered. Article 25 of the Fair Trade Act is well-suited to be applied by the competition enforcer to examine if any unfair and illegal exploitative practices could possibly be implemented by Google and Facebook, which could consequently harm newspapers and media in Taiwan.
Wei Hsin-fang is a Fair Trade Commission commissioner. All the opinions expressed in this article are solely her own.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS