Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen


Australian Communications Minister Michelle Rowland and Assistant Treasurer and Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones called Meta’s decision a “dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media”. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/3/1/facebook-owner-meta-to-end-deals-funding-news-in-australia-germany-france #auslaw #auspol #socialmedia The Australian Government is weighing up its legal options under competition law, media and communications law, and investment law.

Matthew Rimmer hat dies geteilt

While the Australia Act and Code could be criticised in various ways, it is a categorical error to identify it as a copyright problem. The Australian Act is a combination of media and communications law, competition law, and treasury powers https://www.accc.gov.au/by-industry/digital-platforms-and-services/news-media-bargaining-code/news-media-bargaining-code The Act is not a copyright act. The Act specifically excludes trade secrets as well. The government is not relying on the IP power under the Constitution. #auslaw #auspol #competitionlaw #medialaw #treasurypowers Not #copyright
Another categorical error (often made by non-Australians) was to say that the Australia Act and Code was a tax. The legislation is not a tax. A tax bill under the Australian Constitution can deal only with the imposition of taxation https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter11/Taxation_bills If you read the legislation, its obviously not taxation legislation.
Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (9 Monate her)
There were also some empty threats by Facebook and others to bring a trade action against Australia under the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/us-claims-digital-code-breaks-free-trade-deal-20210120-p56vh8 This was very strange - given that the Agreement does not allow for investor-state disputes - only state vs state disputes.
Not sure who you are speaking about per se, but this non-Australian has consistently (and accurately) referred to it as what it is: a government-sanctioned shakedown designed by and for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch. A law that is not and never was about saving local news. How’d I do there? :)