Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:10:36.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Search Engines as Gatekeepers of Public Communication: Analysis of the German framework applicable to internet search engines including media law and anti trust law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Wolfgang Schulz ,
Thorsten Held  and
Arne Laudien

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Several fundamental questions concerning internet law come to a head over search engines. There are trademark cases, issues about the protection of minors and questions of liability. However, as far as we know, the fundamental role that search engines play in public communication based on the World Wide Web has not yet been subjected to any legal analysis. This seems to leave a significant gap in our knowledge, given the fact that the market for search engines tends to be monopolistic.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 10: Special issue - Articles German Federalism: Theory and Recent Developments , 01 October 2005 , pp. 1419 - 1431
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Overview given by Türker, The Optimal Design of a Search Engine from an Agency Theory Perspective 9 (2004).Google Scholar

2 However, in June 2005 Yahoo! announced a search feature which is capable of crawling deep links, see http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/release1245.html.Google Scholar

3 See http://www.google.com (June 2005).Google Scholar

4 See Page/Brin/Motwani/Winogra, The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web (1999).Google Scholar

5 Developed by DirectHit, http://www.directhit.com.Google Scholar

6 Türker, supra note 1, at 17Google Scholar

7 See Baeza-Yates, Information retrieval in the Web, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 97 (2003).Google Scholar

8 Sullivan, Google Tops, But Yahoo! Switch Success So Far, Search Engine Watch, http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/34711_3334881.Google Scholar

9 See Eimeren/Gerhard/Frees, Internetverbreitung in Deutschland: Potential ausgeschöpft – ARD/ZDF-Online-Studie 2004, Mediaperspektiven, 350, 355 (2004).Google Scholar

10 Machill/Neuberger/Schweiner/Wirth, Navigating the Internet: A Study of German-Language Search Engines, 19 European Journal of Communication 321, 325 (September 2004).Google Scholar

11 Machill/Neuberger/Schweiner/Wirth, supra note 10, at 321, 330.Google Scholar

12 Introna/Nissenbaum, Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters, The Information Society 171 (2000).Google Scholar

13 For a brief overview see Schulz/Jürgens/Held/Dreyer: Regulation of Broadcasting and Internet Services in Germany – Working Papers of the Hans Bredow Institute, No. 13 -, available at http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/publikationen/apapiere/13mediaregulation.PDF 6.Google Scholar

14 Overview given by Schulz, § 2 margin number 40, in: Beck'scher Kommentar zum Rundfunkrecht (Hahn/Vesting eds., 2003).Google Scholar

15 See BVerfGE 12, 205 (260); 20, 162 (175); 57, 295 (320); (74, 297 (324); 83, 238 (272). For an English translation of these cases see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/german-cases/index.shtml?cases.Google Scholar

16 See BVerfGE 73, 118 (174).Google Scholar

17 See Schönbach/De Waal/Lauf, Research Note: Online and Print Newspapers: Their Impact on the Extent of the Perceived Public Agenda, European Journal of Communication, Vol. 20, p.245-248 (June 2005).Google Scholar

18 See Hoffmann-Riem/Engels/Schulz, in: 2 Fernsehwerbung und Kinder 339 (Charlton et. Al, eds., 1995).Google Scholar

19 See Schulz/Jürgens/ Held/Dreyer: supra note 13, 8. The German legislative intends to simplify the framework in 2005. In consequence, the distinction between Teledienste and Mediendienste will cease to exist or at least lose significance.Google Scholar

20 See Heidenhain/Satzky/Stadler, German Antitrust Law (3rd ed., 1999), para. 176.Google Scholar

21 BKartA BuV/E BKartA 2396 (2402) confirmed by KG Bremen 26.6.1991 WUW/E OLG 4811 (4825).Google Scholar

22 See Monopolkommission, XI. Hauptgutachten, Wettbewerbspolitik in Zeiten des Umbruchs (1996), paras. 240, 836.Google Scholar

23 Overview given by Heidenhain/Satzky/Stadler, supra note 20, paras. 186-190.Google Scholar

24 See Möschel, in: Immenga/Mestmäcker GWB (3rd ed., 2001), § 19 margin number 3.Google Scholar

25 The regulation of broadcasting, as far as the content side is concerned, falls within the competence of each German state (Bundesland). A common framework for services operating nationwide has been adopted in the form of the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting.Google Scholar

26 See Hess, Medienkonzentrationsrecht nach dem neuen Rundfunkstaatsvertrag – Teil 1: Materielles Medienkonzentrationsrecht, Archiv für Presserecht (AfP), 680, 683 (1997); Janik, Kapitulation vor der eingetretenen Konzentration: Die Sicherung der Meinungsvielfalt im privaten Rundfunk nach dem Sechsten Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag, Archiv für Presserecht (AfP) 111, 114 (2002); Kreile/Stumpf, Das neue “Medienkartellrecht”: Die Sicherung der Meinungsvielfalt im novellierten Rundfunkstaatsvertrag, Multimedia und Recht (MMR) 192, 194 (1998).Google Scholar

27 See Hasebrink, Zur Berücksichtigung medienrelevanter verwandter Märkte bei der Anwendung des Zuschaueranteilsmodells (§ 26 (2 cl. 2 RStV), http://www.kek-online.de/kek/information/publikation/bredow2003.pdf (2003).Google Scholar

28 See in general terms Rittner, Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrecht, § 5 margin number 36 (1995). Bender criticises the lack of rules on cross-media ownership in the light of constitutional requirements, CrossMedia-Ownership 33 (1999).Google Scholar

29 See also Leupold/Bräutigam/Pfeiffer, Von der Werbung zur kommerziellen Kommunikation: Die Vermarktung von Waren und Dienstleistungen im Internet, WRP 575, 590 (2000). The debate revolves around similar topics as in the United States, see the San Francisco Chronicle of 29 June 2002, Business section, p. B1, reporting that the Federal Trade Commission has issued letters to search engine providers commenting that the labels “featured listings”, “recommended sites”, “search partner”, “products and services” and “partner server results” are not deemed sufficient.Google Scholar

30 On this power see Schmidt, Wettbewerbspolitik und Kartellrecht 32 (6th ed., 1999).Google Scholar

31 On the concept of market failure in the media sector see Kops, German TV Programmes for China? 2000 http://rundfunkoek.uni-koeln.de/institut/pdfs/0200.pdf.Google Scholar

32 E.g. BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4088702.stm (14.6.2005).Google Scholar

33 See the discussion by Dernbach, Braucht die Multimedia-Gesellschaft Berufskommunikatioren, in: Publizistik im vernetzten Zeitalter 53, 56 (Dernbach/Rühl/Theis-Berglmaier eds., 1998). For information on journalistic rules see Weischenberg/Altmeppen/Löffelholz, Die Zukunft des Journalismus: technologische, ökonomische und redaktionelle Trends (1994).Google Scholar

34 See Lessig, Code and other Laws of Cyberspace (1999).Google Scholar

35 In Germany leading search engine providers agreed in spring 2005 on a code of conduct within the voluntary framework of the German self-regulatory body FSM (Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia), see http://www.fsm.de/inhalt.doc/Pressemitteilung_Selbstkontrolle_Suchmaschinen.pdf.Google Scholar