Talk given at conference "Internet Governance: Actors - Technology - Content", October 10, 2014, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, Berlin

1. Golden Copyright Cages:
User Content on Private Platforms
Leonhard Dobusch
Freie Universität Berlin – School of Business & Economics
October 10, 2014

2. “
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

3. Do copyright experts know?

4. Regulatory Uncertainty: Questions
Online usage End-user Intermediary
watching/
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?
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

5. Regulatory Uncertainty: Case Law
Online usage End-user Intermediary
watching/
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)
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

6. Illegal in spite of substantial proportion
of non-infringing practices?
A&M Records v. Napster (2001) Arista v. Limewire (2010)

7. Legal in spite of substantial proportion
of infringing practices?
Viacom v. YouTube (2007)

8. Content ID System:
Combines Enforcement & Monetization

9. Source: Heald, P.J. (2013): How Copyright Keeps Works Disappeared,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2290181

10. Source: Heald, P.J. (2013): How Copyright Keeps Works Disappeared,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2290181

11. Source: http://apps.opendatacity.de/gema-vs-youtube/
USA

12. Source: http://apps.opendatacity.de/gema-vs-youtube/
Germany

13. Source: http://apps.opendatacity.de/gema-vs-youtube/
Austria

14. Source: http://apps.opendatacity.de/gema-vs-youtube/
South
Sudan

17. Platforms decide what
to consider as (il)legal

18. Conclusions
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

19. Contact details
E-Mail:
Leonhard.Dobusch@fu-berlin.de
"
Twitter:
@leonidobusch
"
Homepages:
wiwss.fu-berlin.de/dobusch
www.dobusch.net
"
Blog:
www.governancexborders.com