Free_Law_Journal-Vol.. - Free World Publishing Inc.

FREE LAW JOURNAL - VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 (18 JULY 2005)
licenses (Channel 3) and at the same time to hold interests up to % 20 in other companies. According to
the cross-ownership rules, newspaper owners were capable to own, though to a limited extent, shares in
broadcasting companies 11 . It was argued that the Act was, in some ways, in favour of already existing
cross-ownership interests of media giants such as Murdoch 12 .
The 1996 Broadcasting Act, replacing the 1990 Act, brought relaxations regarding media ownership. The
new multi-ownership rules introduced a new way of measuring the market power of companies. The aim
was to limit the audience share of broadcasters to % 15, instead of restricting simply the number of
licenses to be hold. On the other hand, cross-ownership provisions permitted national newspapers having
less than % 20 market share to own a broadcaster 13 .
The Communications Act of 2003 14 represents the final step of deregulation in British broadcasting. The
Act radically relaxed the ownership rules which were in effect since 1996. The rule, for example, that
imposed a limit of % 15 on broadcaster’s audience share has been removed. The rules preventing joint
ownership of licenses has been revoked 15 .
1.2. Germany
In Germany, major matters of broadcasting are regulated in the interstate treaties (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag)
which have been prepared to harmonize the legislation of different federal states. These treaties faced
changes several times, recently in 2005.
Under the multi-ownership rules of 1991 Interstate Broadcasting Treaty the companies were permitted to
operate maximum two nationwide television stations and two radio stations. There was also a limit of
%50 for the share to be hold by an owner in a broadcaster. The cross-ownership rules were from the outset
rare and weak in the country, e.g. cross-ownership between press and broadcasting at national level was
not prohibited 16 .
The rules have been liberalised in 1996. The Treaty which entered into force on 1 January 1997 did not
impose a limit on the number of channels, but it brought a treshold with regard to the annual audience
share 17 . According to this rule, companies were allowed to broadcast nationwide in the country an
11 Barendt, Hitchens, op.cit., p. 248; Hofmann-Riem, op.cit, pp. 104-105.
12 T. Gibbons, “Aspiring to Pluralism: The Constraints of Public Broadcasting Values on the De-regulation of British Media
Ownership”, Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 16, 1998, p. 489 (also extracted at Barendt, Hitchens, op.cit., p.
250); see Alison Harcourt, Stefaan Verhulst, “Support for Regulation and Transparency of Media Ownership and
Concentration – Russia, Study of European Approaches to Media Ownership”,
http://www.medialaw.ru/e_pages/laws/ero_union/e-conc.htm
13 Barendt, Hitchens, op.cit., pp. 252-256; Media Diversity in Europe, supra note 2, p.11; Stefaan Verhulst, “The United
Kingdom”, Goldberg, Prosser, Verhulst (eds), op.cit, p. 126; David Levy, Europe’s Digital Revolution, Routledge, London /
New York, 1999, p. 35; Harcourt, Verhulst, Ibid.
14 http://www.communicationsbill.gov.uk
15 David Ward, A Mapping Study of Media Concentration and Ownership in Ten European Countries, Netherlands Media
Authority, Hilversum, 2004, p. 215; for a summary of important changes see
http://www.freshfieldsbruckhausderinger.com/practice/corporate/publications/pdfs/6193.pdf
16 Hoffmann-Riem, op.cit, p. 135; Levy, op.cit., p. 114; Harcourt, Verhulst, supra note 12. The consolidation in German media
owes its growth to this absence of prohibition, see Hoffmann-Riem, op.cit., p. 136.
17 Wolfgang Kleinwächter, “Germany” in Goldberg, Prosser, Verhulst (eds), op.cit., p. 54; Media Diversity in Europe, supra
note 2, p. 11.
129
DR. SAIM UYE - PLURALITY OF OPINION VERSUS CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP : RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TURKISH MEDIA LAW