CANBERRA, Australia (AP) – The Australian law forcing Google and Facebook to pay for news is poised to go into effect, although the laws’ architect said it will take time for the digital giants to sign media deals.
Parliament passed the latest changes to the so-called News Media Bargaining Code on Thursday between treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday.
In exchange for the changes, Facebook agreed to lift a ban for Australians to access and share news.
Rod Sims, the competition regulator who drafted the code, said he was pleased that the amended legislation would address the market imbalance between Australian news outlets and the two gateways to the Internet.
“All signs are good,” said Sims.
“The purpose of the code is to address the market power that clearly Google and Facebook have. Google and Facebook need media, but they don’t need a specific media company, and that meant media companies couldn’t make commercial deals, ”added the chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The rest of the bill had previously been passed in parliament and can now be enforced.
Google has already made deals with major Australian news companies in recent weeks, including News Corp. and Seven West Media.
Frydenberg said he welcomed the progress of Google and more recently Facebook in making commercial deals with Australian news companies.
But Country Press Australia, which represents 161 regional newspapers across the country, has raised concerns that small publications outside of the big cities might go wrong.
Sims said he was not surprised that the platforms would make deals with the major city companies first.
“I don’t see any reason why anyone should doubt that all journalism benefits,” said Sims.
“Things need time there. Google and Facebook don’t have unlimited resources to talk to everyone. I think this has a long way to go, ”he added.
Chris Moos, a lecturer at Oxford University’s Business School, said the latest changes amounted to a “small win” for Zuckerberg.
Moos said the legislation would likely result in small payouts for most Australian news outlets. But Facebook could again block Australian news if negotiations failed.
The legislation was designed to curb Facebook and Google’s excessive bargaining power in their negotiations with Australian news providers. The digital giants would not be able to abuse their positions by paying news companies for their journalism. Instead, in the event of a stalemate, an arbitration panel would make a binding decision on a winning bid.
Frydenberg and Facebook confirmed that the two sides agreed to changes to the proposed legislation. The changes would give digital platforms one month’s notice before they are formally designated under the code. That would give those affected more time to reach agreements before being forced into binding arbitration arrangements.
Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice president of global affairs, said on Wednesday that Australian law, without this week’s changes, would have allowed media conglomerates to “demand a blank check.”
“Fortunately, after further discussion, the Australian government has agreed to changes that will encourage fair negotiations without the looming threat of heavy-handed and unpredictable arbitration,” Clegg, a former UK deputy prime minister, wrote in a Facebook post.
Facebook last week prevented Australians from sharing news, but also blocked access to pandemic, public health and emergency services.
The blockade was a response from the House of Representatives, which approved the code last week in a form Facebook deemed “unworkable.”
Clegg said Facebook was “mistaken about over-enforcement” and that “some content was accidentally blocked.”
Both Google and Facebook are pursuing Australian media deals under their own licensing models, Google News Showcase and Facebook News.
But media executives argue that such deals would not be possible without the threat of an arbitration panel making final decisions.
Frydenberg said his department will review the code within a year to “ensure it produces results consistent with the government’s policy intent.”