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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS