Apart from unwillingly handing over its revenue to transnational digital platforms, the journalism industry is also facing challenges from generative artificial intelligence (AI).
These AI tools generate content to replace news media after using a large amount of news content to conduct modularized training, and yet most AI companies do not pay for the rights to use the content they train their models on.
Facing such unfair treatment, news outlets from different countries have started to fight for their rights. Google was fined 250 million euros (US$268 million) in March by French regulators for breaching an agreement to pay media companies for reproducing their content online, and for training on content from publishers and news agencies without notifying them.
This is the latest action from France’s competition watchdog against Google for its disputes over payments to news agencies.
The New York Times has also sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed in a Manhattan federal district court, claims that the firms train AI chatbots using articles published by the paper without its permission.
The New York Times is reportedly claiming billions of dollars in damages. From the paper’s perspective, the companies seek to have a “free ride” on its investment in journalism.
US writers and comedians have also said AI companies use their work to generate content that imitates their style without compensating them despite making profit from it.
News agencies in our country have recently demanded transnational digital platforms pay for their content. They have also started reviewing to what extent their content is used to train AI tools, in what ways they should be compensated and what legal options they could resort to.
What we could learn from these international lawsuits is that individual news outlets should not be left alone when they negotiate with transnational digital platforms. State power should be exercised proportionately in this process to fight for a satisfactory result for news outlets in our country.
Despite having massive resources, transnational digital platforms provide little compensation to media companies. The government should not allow press agencies to be at the mercy of digital platforms.
The government should ensure news outlets are able to maintain sustainable and reasonable revenue by legislating for it — bargaining for their share of revenue should come first. This is the only way to support a democratic society and a healthy media industry.
Dino Wei works in the information technology industry.
Translated by Fion Khan
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS