數位平台之市場力與新聞多元性——以分潤規範為中心

Abstract

於數位化時代，數位平台取代新聞出版者成為消費者閱讀網路新聞的主要門戶，而新聞出版者面臨收入的困境並與數位平台之間呈現緊張的關係。新聞出版者主張數位平台不負擔生產新聞的時間與成本，卻因新聞內容的使用獲得更多廣告收入並將消費者留在自己的生態系統中，然而新聞出版者卻不能共享這份價值，要求數位平台付費的分潤議題因此而生。由於新聞多元性對民主社會的完善運作至關重要，使新聞出版者能收回投資以永續發展成了迫在眉睫的任務，而要求國家政策與法律介入的呼聲更是逐漸高漲。 相較於是否分潤的結果，數位平台提供新聞出版者大量的轉介流量使其成為後者不可避免的交易對象，因為平台的市場力而與新聞出版者之間呈現的重大談判力量不對等才是新聞出版者困境的核心。本文由此面向切入，以各國目前的立法動向為基礎，探討這些法規範本身目的與執行方式是否適合處理分潤議題，而以此構成要求數位平台付費的法律基礎，從而維持新聞業永續發展。 本文認為，於著作權法規範下創設新聞出版者的附屬權利似乎無法處理分潤議題，智慧財產權法促進創作誘因、降低交易成本的法規目的並非分潤議題的核心，新權利更可能破壞著作權制度的整體運作，而從德國、西班牙經驗來看是否能促使數位平台付費仍有疑問，法國競爭委員會兩次的競爭法執法，更證實了這是無法單靠智慧財產權法解決的議題。競爭法事後介入且個案性的執法手段對於分潤議題亦有其侷限性，雖然給予聯合行為的例外許可或是直接於法規範中制定安全港條款有助於緩解談判不對等，但其主要法規範目的亦非處理分潤之財富再分配議題。能夠廣泛處理權力不對等問題而具有公共政策目標導向的數位平台管制法規或許較為合適，惟其仍應以促進談判為主要目的，且不過度干預數位平台之商業營運與契約自由為原則。

In the digital era, digital platforms have replaced news publishers as the gateways for consumers to access online news, and news publishers are facing revenue difficulties and tensions with digital platforms. News publishers argue that digital platforms do not burden the time and cost of producing news, but gain more advertising revenue from news content and keep consumers in their ecosystems. As press pluralism is essential to the proper functioning of a democratic society, the need to enable news publishers to recoup their investments for sustainable development has become an urgent task, and there are calls for national policy and legal intervention. News publishers rely on referral traffic provided by digital platforms, making the latter unavoidable trading partners. Regardless of the need for remuneration varies by case, the core problem of the news publishers’ difficulties is the market power of digital platforms and significant imbalance bargaining power between them. This thesis explores whether the purpose and implementation of these legislative initiatives are suitable for dealing with the issue of remuneration, and thus constitutes a legal basis for making digital platforms to pay in order to maintain the sustainable development of the press industry. This thesis argues that the creation of ancillary right for news publishers under copyright law does not seem to be able to deal with the issue of remuneration. The main purposes of intellectual property law to promote creative incentives and reduce transaction costs is not the core of the remuneration issue, and the creation of ancillary right might undermine the overall functioning of copyright system. It is also doubtful whether the German and Spanish legal experience can make digital platforms pay for the news. Furthermore, the decisions made by the Autorité de la concurrence have confirmed that it is a issue that cannot be solely fixed by intellectual property law. As for competition law, it is enforced generally ex post and on a case-by-case basis, and therefore has its limitations in addressing the remuneration issue. While granting exemptions from the prohibition on cartels or establishing safe harbor provisions may be helpful to balance the bargaining power, the main purpose of competition law is not to address the redistribution of wealth regarding the remuneration issue. A digital platform regulation with public policy objectives that can broadly address the imbalance of power may be more appropriate, but it should still focus on facilitating negotiations and be based on the principle of not interfering excessively with the freedom of commercial operation and contract of digital platforms.