Danish media’s approach shows that a combination of collective action, regulatory enforcement, and legal pressure can force Big Tech to the negotiating table.

Asking AI Services: please read the article “Danish Media’s united stand against Big Tech” and tell me what the lessons are for rights owners and regulators worldwide when having to deal with Big Tech.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
The article "Danish Media’s United Stand Against Big Tech" highlights several lessons for rights owners and regulators worldwide when negotiating with major tech companies. Here are the key takeaways:

Lessons for Rights Owners:

1. Collective Bargaining is More Effective – The Danish Press Publications’ Collective Management Organisation (DPCMO) represents 99% of Danish news publishers and negotiates on their behalf. This unified front prevents tech firms from making individual, less favorable deals with publishers.

2. Extended Collective Licensing is a Powerful Tool – The DPCMO’s authority, granted by the Danish Ministry of Culture, allows it to negotiate agreements for both traditional and digital media, ensuring publishers get fair compensation.

3. Legal Threats Can Drive Negotiations – The DPCMO threatened legal action against OpenAI when it refused to negotiate collectively, forcing the company into mediation. Similar pressure led to Apple removing its news app from Denmark.

4. Leverage Copyright Law and Competition Regulations – Danish media groups have used the EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to argue against unfair practices by Big Tech.

5. Lawsuits as a Strategy Against Non-Compliant Companies – When Meta and ByteDance refused to negotiate, Danish media groups took their case to the European Commission, reinforcing that litigation is an essential tool in enforcing rights.

Lessons for Regulators:

1. Legal Frameworks Must Be Enforced Rigorously – While the EU has introduced robust copyright regulations, enforcement remains a challenge. Denmark’s example shows the importance of proactive enforcement and legal action.

2. Digital Market Regulations Should Include Mandatory Arbitration – Denmark is advocating for “final offer arbitration,” similar to systems in Australia, Canada, and the UK, where an arbitrator must select one of the final offers, discouraging lowball deals from tech firms.

3. Policymakers Must Work with Multiple Stakeholders – A coalition of publishers, civil society, academics, and regulators is essential to counteract Big Tech’s power and influence over news distribution.

4. Tech Companies Can Be Held Accountable Through Competition Laws – The French Competition Authority found that Google’s dominance prevented fair negotiations with publishers. This precedent can be used in other jurisdictions to curb monopolistic behavior.

5. Public Engagement is Critical for Media Sustainability – The Danish initiative emphasizes that combating misinformation (such as deepfakes) and promoting media literacy should be central to policy discussions.

Overall Takeaway:

Danish media’s approach shows that a combination of collective action, regulatory enforcement, and legal pressure can force Big Tech to the negotiating table.Other rights holders and regulators worldwide can use this model to ensure fair compensation and prevent exploitation by dominant digital platforms.


Grok’s answer:
The article "Danish Media's united stand against Big Tech" provides several lessons for rights owners and regulators worldwide when dealing with Big Tech companies, particularly in the context of copyright and data usage for AI and content distribution:

1. Collective Action is Crucial:

   • Lesson: Rights owners should unite under collective management organizations. The Danish Press Publications' Collective Management Organisation (DPCMO) represents nearly all of Denmark's news providers, giving them a stronger collective voice when negotiating with tech giants. This unity prevents tech companies from employing a "divide and conquer" strategy, thereby enhancing the bargaining power of the media sector.

2. Legislative Frameworks are Essential:

   • Lesson: There needs to be robust legal frameworks to ensure fair compensation for content usage. The EU's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market and Australia's news media bargaining code are examples of legislative actions that can mandate or encourage tech platforms to compensate rights holders for content use.

3. Enforcement of Existing Laws:

   • Lesson: Effective enforcement mechanisms are necessary. The Danish example shows how legal action and regulatory pressure can lead to compliance or negotiation from tech companies like Google, Bing, or even push companies like Apple to remove services from markets where they cannot comply with local laws.

4. Negotiation and Mediation Over Litigation:

   • Lesson: While legal action is sometimes necessary, there's also value in negotiation and mediation. The DPCMO's approach to push for group deals rather than individual licenses with companies like OpenAI shows that a strategy of mediation can be more effective than immediate litigation, although the readiness to sue can strengthen negotiation positions.

5. Public Policy and International Influence:

   • Lesson: Countries can leverage their positions in international bodies like the EU Council to push for broader regulatory changes. With Denmark's upcoming EU presidency, there's an opportunity to influence EU-wide policy on Big Tech, particularly in strengthening copyright enforcement and addressing issues like misinformation.

6. Adaptation to Technological Changes:

   • Lesson: Rights owners must adapt to new technologies, especially AI, by expanding the scope of collective agreements to cover new uses like text and data mining. This adaptation ensures that rights holders are not left behind as technology evolves.

7. Global Coordination:

   • Lesson: There's a need for global coordination or at least awareness of actions taken in different countries. For instance, learning from France's regulatory approach with Google can inform strategies elsewhere, suggesting that sharing best practices can lead to more effective worldwide regulation of tech giants.

8. Public Advocacy and Education:

   • Lesson: Engaging the public through improved media literacy and advocacy can help build support for regulatory changes. This includes highlighting the importance of a free and pluralistic press and the role of Big Tech in the information ecosystem.

These lessons highlight that while Big Tech companies have significant power, a coordinated, proactive approach by rights owners and supportive policy from regulators can lead to a more balanced relationship, ensuring that content creators are fairly compensated and that the broader public interest in quality information is maintained.


Perplexity’s answer:
Okay, I have read the article "Danish Media's united stand against Big Tech" by Karen Rønde in The Sunday Times, Sri Lanka. Here are some key lessons for rights owners and regulators worldwide in dealing with Big Tech, based on the Danish experience:

• Collective Action is Powerful: The Danish Press Publications’ Collective Management Organisation (DPCMO), representing 99% of Danish news outlets, demonstrates the strength of a united front. This allows for more effective negotiation and legal action against tech giants than individual publishers could achieve alone.

• Copyright Law as a Framework: The EU's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market provides a crucial legal framework for regulating the relationship between the press and Big Tech. Rights owners and regulators should leverage and enforce these laws to ensure fair compensation for content use.

• Expand Mandates to Cover New Technologies: The DPCMO's expanded mandate to include text and data mining by AI firms shows the importance of adapting regulations to address new challenges posed by emerging technologies like AI.

• Be Prepared to Take Legal Action: The DPCMO's willingness to sue OpenAI and report Apple to the police highlights the necessity of being prepared to take legal action to defend copyright and enforce agreements.

• Mediation and Arbitration are Important Tools: While not always successful, the DPCMO's attempts to mediate with OpenAI, Meta, and ByteDance demonstrate the importance of utilizing mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes. The article suggests a "final offer arbitration" mechanism could be beneficial.

• Lobby for Government and EU-Level Action: The article emphasizes the need for government intervention and EU-wide efforts to improve enforcement of copyright directives. Denmark's upcoming presidency of the Council of the EU is presented as an opportunity to push for stronger regulations.

• Address Misinformation and Improve Media Literacy: The fight against Big Tech should also include efforts to counter misinformation, deep fakes, and improve media literacy among citizens.

• Involve Ordinary Citizens: EU policymakers should seek input from ordinary citizens, not just experts, when addressing misinformation and media literacy to rebuild trust in the media ecosystem.

• Maintain a Unified Voice: It is crucial for journalists, photographers, and publishers to speak with one voice to prevent tech firms from dividing and ruling them.

In essence, the Danish approach emphasizes a proactive, collective, and legally grounded strategy to ensure fair compensation and protect the future of high-quality information in the face of Big Tech's growing influence.


Claude’s answer:
Based on this article about Denmark's experience dealing with Big Tech companies over media rights, there are several important lessons for rights owners and regulators worldwide:

The Power of Collective Action

The Danish case demonstrates that unity among stakeholders is crucial. The Danish Press Publications' Collective Management Organisation (DPCMO) represents 99% of the Danish news industry, giving them significant negotiating power. This unified front prevents tech companies from dividing and conquering by making individual deals with separate publishers. The article explicitly states that "journalists, photographers, and publishers must speak with one voice" to be effective against large tech companies.

Legal Framework Matters

The European Union's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market provided the foundational legal basis for Denmark's actions. This shows that having robust copyright laws and regulatory frameworks at both national and supranational levels is essential. Countries looking to protect their media industries should ensure they have modern legal frameworks that specifically address digital platforms and AI technologies.

Multi-Pronged Enforcement Strategy

The DPCMO's approach shows the effectiveness of using multiple legal and regulatory tools simultaneously:

• Copyright law enforcement

• Competition law (as demonstrated by following France's example regarding Google's conduct)

• Digital market regulations

• Police complaints when necessary

• Mediation and arbitration processes

• International cooperation and complaints (such as their action with the European Commission)

Mandatory Arbitration Mechanisms

The article highlights the importance of having strong enforcement mechanisms. The suggestion to implement "final offer arbitration" (as used in Australia, Canada, and the UK) shows that voluntary negotiations alone may not be sufficient. This mechanism forces both parties to be reasonable in their demands since the arbitrator must choose one of the final offers presented.

Different Companies Require Different Approaches

The article shows that different tech companies respond to different strategies:

• Some companies (like search engines) were willing to negotiate collective agreements

• Others (like OpenAI) preferred individual licensing

• Some (like Apple) chose to withdraw services rather than comply

• Others (like Meta and ByteDance) contested the legal framework's applicability

Political Support is Essential

The involvement of the Danish Minister of Culture and Denmark's upcoming EU Council presidency shows the importance of political backing. Government support can provide additional leverage in negotiations and help strengthen enforcement mechanisms.

Future-Proofing Regulations

The expansion of the DPCMO's mandate in May 2024 to include AI text and data mining shows the importance of adaptable regulatory frameworks that can evolve with technology. Rights owners and regulators need to anticipate future technological developments and ensure their frameworks can accommodate them.

Building Broader Support

The article emphasizes the need for a wide coalition including policymakers, civil servants, NGOs, academics, collective management organizations, and youth activists. This broad support helps maintain pressure on tech companies and ensures regulations serve the public interest.

International Coordination

The Danish experience shows that coordinating across borders (in this case, through the EU) can be more effective than purely national approaches. This is particularly important given the global nature of tech companies' operations.

The core message is that successfully managing Big Tech requires a combination of legal frameworks, unified stakeholders, political support, and multiple enforcement mechanisms, all working together in a coordinated strategy. This comprehensive approach is more likely to succeed than isolated or piecemeal efforts.