A Viking Funeral for the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill
Support for the Demise of the Bill from Gavin Ellis
Over the next few weeks I will be publishing three pieces in which I examine a paper by media expert Gavin Ellis entitled “If Not Journalists, Who?” The paper is a deep dive into the problems besetting mainstream media (MSM) and it suggests some solutions.
Readers will be aware of my opposition to the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. The premises behind the Bill were that large internet platforms like Google and Facebook were attracting the advertising that had previously benefitting MSM, were also free-riding on news media content and were thereby contributing to the problems faced by MSM. The remedy – a regulator would approve arrangements for MSM compensation or would impose a regime for MSM compensation where the funds would flow from the platforms to MSM. Thus the platforms would subsidise MSM and allow them to continue with their presently unprofitable business model.
I was delighted to read Mr. Ellis’ blog “The Knightly Views” where he comments on the future of the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. He says:
“The Fair Digital New Bargaining Bill should be placed on a figurative Viking funeral ship, pushed out into the water, and set on fire.”
Mr. Ellis sets out his reasons for suggesting that the Bill should go no further.
“The first, and most obvious, is that similar legislation in Australia and Canada is not working. After a Married At First Sight honeymoon, the Australian system fell victim to Meta’s arrogant capriciousness. It simply refused to renew its commercial agreements with Australian news media. In Canada, it stopped carrying the country’s news altogether. What makes anyone think New Zealand would be treated more favourably?
Our major media support the bill, largely on the basis that Google has been a more responsible corporate citizen and has entered into agreements on news content, even if the tactics it has employed minimises the amount it spends. Yet how long is Google likely to continue to pay while Meta plays hardball, pays nothing, and at the same time extracts large amounts of revenue from New Zealand? How long will Google dominate the search engine field in an age of artificial intelligence? And where do the likes of Chinese-owned Tik Tok sit in all of this?
Those questions, and more, plague the concept of bargaining with tech giants and trying to use domestic legislation to level a playing field that those platforms have created for themselves in an unregulated environment and which they ferociously defend.”
The answer lies in the area of tax. Mr. Ellis sets out two models in his article which would address the imbalance and distortion of the tax system that allows the Platforms to siphon significant amounts of their locally based revenue to more friendly (low tax) havens. He suggests of one model:
“Extending the provisions of the Digital Services Tax Bill provides a far better chance of funding the vital ongoing role of journalism than does a flawed and fragile bargaining scheme. It gives the platforms no choice but to pay up and puts some certainty into how much they will have to pay.”
Mr. Ellis concludes with some remarks about how the Select Committee dealt with Artificial Intelligence. He suggests:
Yes, there is an urgent need in New Zealand and in other jurisdictions for laws to control artificial intelligence. However, that need should not be dealt with in the piecemeal fashion that the bill would suggest. It requires a coordinated cross-ministry approach and a broadly based legislative initiative. The Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Judith Collins has a firm grip on AI policy development. The place of news media in that arena should be part of wider deliberations than the bill provides.
Overall, the bill’s many wounds and contusions are not survivable. It would be best to torch the remains and board another longship.
As far as “regulating” AI is concerned – good luck with that.