|Title:||Is an EU publishers’ right a good idea? Final report on the AHRC project: Evaluating potential legal responses to threats to the production of news in a digital era|
|Citation:||Danbury, R. (2016). Is an EU publishers’ right a good idea? Final report on the AHRC project: Evaluating potential legal responses to threats to the production of news in a digital era, https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.law.cam.ac.uk/files/images/www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/documents/copyright_and_news/danbury_publishers_right_report.pdf|
|Link(s):||Definitive , Open Access|
|Key Related Studies:|
|Linked by:||Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (2016)|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||The dataset includes:
|Data Type:||Primary and Secondary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||Yes|
|Government or policy study?:||Yes|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
This is a discussion about commercial news production, and copyright-related laws in Europe. It is a response to the consultation opened by the European Commission in March 2016 about whether to create an EU-wide neighbouring right, in the copyright family of intellectual property rights, that will benefit publishers. It examines four arguments for a news publishers’ right. These are:
- it will provide a necessary incentive to the commercial production of news, an activity that is valuable to a democratic society.
- commercial news publishers are treated unequally by EU copyright law, and a publishers’ right will resolve this.
- online re-distributors of published news are free riding on the effort of commercial news publishers, and a publishers’ right can be expected to restrain this.
- commercial news publishers have a natural right to the news they publish, and such rights are being breached by online re-distributors of news: a publishers’ right can be expected to protect them.
Main Results of the Study
The main findings of this study are as follows:* On balance, the commercial news industry can be seen as contributing to a healthy democracy in a valuable way, and there is insufficient reason to expect it to be replaced by something as useful if it fails. If many commercial news operators go bankrupt or withdraw from expensive but democratically important activities, this is likely to significantly impair communication valuable to our democratic states. This leads to the conclusion that an intervention would be useful and beneficial.* If many commercial news operators go bankrupt or withdraw from expensive but democratically important activities, this is likely to significantly impair communication valuable to our democratic states. This leads to the conclusion that an intervention would be useful and beneficial.* Also significant are the concerns that a publishers’ right may harm or damage others. The risk of this should be weighed in the balance against any benefits a publishers’ right might be expected to deliver to society. At present, this is difficult because we have no text to consider.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The report makes the following conclusion:"On balance, intervention to benefit the commercial news industry is merited, but a publishers’ right has not been demonstrated to be an appropriate way to intervene to do so".
Coverage of Study
|Level of aggregation:||Copyright cases|
|Period of material under study:||2003-2013|
|Level of aggregation:||Individual|
|Period of material under study:||2015, 2016|