Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Golden Copyright Cages: User Content on Private Platforms
Leonhard Dobusch Freie Universität Berlin – School of Business & Economics
October 10, 2014
Forty-four per cent of all internet users aged 12+ claimed to be either ‘not particularly confident’ or ‘not at all’ confident in terms of what is legal and what isn’t online.
“”Online copyright infringement tracker
benchmark study, commissioned by the Office of Communications (Ofcom) UK, 2012
Do copyright experts know?
Online usage End-user Intermediarywatching/listening/reading
Is the source legal? Is watching/listening/reading from an illegal source legal?
Is providing tools for watching/listening/reading legal?
linking Is linking to (illegal) content legal?
Is providing the tools for linking to content legal?
storing/offering Is storing/offering the content legal?
Is providing tools for storing/offering (illegal) content legal?
interacting/creating online
Is interacting/creating with the content online legal?
Is providing tools for interacting/creating with online content legal?
Regulatory Uncertainty: Questions
Source: Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2012): Transnational Copyright: Misalignments between Regulation, Business Models and User Practice. Osgoode CLPE Research Paper Series, 8 (4), Research Paper No. 13, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2116334
Online usage End-user Intermediarywatching/listening/reading
- RIAA v. Diamond (“Rio case”, 1998)
linking Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (1999)Universal City Studios v. Corley (2001)
A&M Records v. Napster (2001)Arista v. Lime Wire (2010)
storing/offering e.g. Warner v. DeWitt (2007) or Interscope v. Rodriguez (2007)
Viacom v. YouTube (2007)GEMA v. RapidShare (2010)
interacting/creating online
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2008)Sapient v. Geller (2008)
Warner Bros. Entertainment et al. v. RDR Books et al. (2008)
Regulatory Uncertainty: Case Law
Source: Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2012): Transnational Copyright: Misalignments between Regulation, Business Models and User Practice. Osgoode CLPE Research Paper Series, 8 (4), Research Paper No. 13, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2116334
Illegal in spite of substantial proportion of non-infringing practices?
Arista v. Limewire (2010)A&M Records v. Napster (2001)
Legal in spite of substantial proportion of infringing practices?
Viacom v. YouTube (2007)
Content ID System:Combines Enforcement & Monetization
Source: Heald, P.J. (2013): How Copyright Keeps Works Disappeared, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2290181
Source: Heald, P.J. (2013): How Copyright Keeps Works Disappeared, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2290181
Source: http://apps.opendatacity.de/gema-vs-youtube/
USA
Source: http://apps.opendatacity.de/gema-vs-youtube/
Germany
Source: http://apps.opendatacity.de/gema-vs-youtube/
Austria
Source: http://apps.opendatacity.de/gema-vs-youtube/
SouthSudan
Platforms decide what to consider as (il)legal
Platform owners are able to mitigate regulatory uncertainty
Scope of protection and fair use is re-negotiated by non-state actors
Possibility to „legalize“ infringement strengthens market position
Conclusions
Contact details
E-Mail: [email protected] "Twitter: @leonidobusch "Homepages:wiwss.fu-berlin.de/dobusch www.dobusch.net "Blog:www.governancexborders.com
