治理線上影音串流服務—以歐盟《視聽媒體服務指令》修法為例

Abstract

當代OTT平台興起，少數跨國科技巨賈壟斷市場，衝擊全球在地視聽與內容產業，台灣也面臨OTT平台管制與本土內容缺乏問題，亟需相關管制立法。面對平台資本主義壟斷，歐盟在全球管制相對積極，延續其自1989年以來的管制邏輯，從《電視無疆界指令》到2018年修正之《視聽媒體服務指令》，共識是文化保護，具備管制共識。歐盟在新版指令中不只進一步納管線上影音分享平台，也強制隨選服務業者提供至少30%的歐洲內容，並允許會員國要求視聽服務業者投入財政捐助，支持歐洲作品生產。為思考台灣相關管制問題，本研究以傳播政治經濟學的理論視角，採用McQuail媒體政策政治過程分析架構，將歐盟指令修法中「線上影音分享平台管制」與「歐洲內容配額與財政捐助」兩大議題之政治和社會情境納入考量，分析各方利害關係人提出之政策主張與價值理念依據，希望能借鏡台灣參考討論。 整體而言，歐盟指令修法可分為支持與反對管制兩大立場，各有其在經濟與社會文化價值的主張論點。支持管制方主要為重視文化保護的國家、傳統廣電業者與內容創作者，反對方則為奉行新自由主義的國家、ISP與電信產業，以及平台等新進業者。政治過程中兩大主要競爭勢力為跨國科技平台和歐盟決策者，歐盟內部又以大國為主要改革驅力，其中法國尤其積極主張提升管制。歐盟小國態度則相對消極，但也並未抵制，體現歐洲長達三十年累積之管制歷史與共識，值得台灣學習借鏡。

With the rise of modern OTT platforms, a small number of transnational technology giants dominate the global market, having great impact on local audiovisual and content industries. And Taiwan is no exception. Faced with the problems of OTT platform regulation and the lack of local content, the need of relevant regulatory legislation is urgently needed. European Union acts proactively to cope with platform capitalism. From Television without Frontiers in 1989 to the latest amendment to Audiovisual Media Services Directive(AVMSD) in 2018, the consistent regulatory framework shows the social consensus of protecting European culture among the EU. The latest revision of AVMSD not only extends to cover video sharing platforms, but also increases obligations for on-demand services to have at least 30% share of European content in their catalogues. Also, member states are allowed to require media service providers to make financial contributions to the production of European works. This study is based on the theoretical perspective of political economy of communications, and addresses two main issues in the AVMSD reform: “the regulation of online video sharing platform” and “European content quota and financial contributions”. To have in-depth understandings of the claims and the hidden values supported by different stakeholders during the legislative process, the study adopts McQuail’s framework for identifying public interest claims in media policy assessment, while taking the political and social situation into account. On the whole, the stakeholders are divided into two positions, for or against regulation, and each of which has its own economic and social-cultural arguments. The stakeholders supporting regulation are mainly countries attaching great importance to culture, legacy media providers and content creators. Those who oppose regulation are countries upholding neo-liberalism, ISP and telecommunication industry, and new entrants, such as platforms. In the political process, the two main competitive forces are transnational technology platforms and the European Union decision makers. Within the EU, big member states, notably France, are the driving forces for strengthening regulation in the political process. As for small member states, the attitude towards regulation is less positive, but they have not boycotted the legislation. In conclusion, the EU reform has reflected the merit of EU’s 30-year history of regulation which Taiwan should learn from.