Advertisement

Control Mechanisms for CRM Systems and Competition Law

  • Reto M. HiltyEmail author
  • Tao Li
Chapter
Part of the MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law book series (MSIP, volume 27)

Abstract

There are basically two different mechanisms to control collective management organizations (CMOs), namely the general competition-law approach and the sector-specific regulation approach. This chapter explains the features of copyright management (CRM) systems in general and discusses up- and downsides of both approaches. In conclusion it suggests a primary focus on sector-specific regulation. This approach not only takes into account the particularities of two-sided markets in which CMOs act as intermediaries, but also allows the balancing of non-economic values and interests which are among the objectives of CMOs. Sector-specific regulation is further capable of addressing governance issues of CMOs; above all, it promotes transparency for both right holders and users by providing ex ante guidance. General competition law, in contrast, applies ex post and is particularly likely to become a last resort to control CMOs.

Keywords

Collective management organizations (CMOs) Copyright management (CRM) Collecting societies and competition law Sector-specific control mechanisms EU Directive 2014/26 

References

  1. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission April 6, 1995: available at: www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.htm
  2. Arezzo, E. (2015), Competition and Intellectual Property Protection in the Market for the Provision of Multi-Territorial Licensing of Online Rights in Musical Works – Lights and Shadows of the New European Directive, IIC, 534-565Google Scholar
  3. ASCAP Consent Decree: Second Amended Final Judgment entered in United States v. ASCAP (S.D.N.Y. 2001), available at: www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f6300/6396.htm
  4. Becker, J. (2008), Verwertungsgesellschaften als Träger öffentlicher und privater Aufgaben, in: R. Kreile, J. Becker, K. Riesenhuber (Eds.), Recht und Praxis der GEMA, Handbuch und Kommentar, 33-43, De GruyterGoogle Scholar
  5. Besen, S., Kirby, S., Salop, S. (1992), An Economic Analysis of Copyright Collectives, Virginia Law Rev., 383-411Google Scholar
  6. BT-Drucksache VI/ 271(1962): Entwurf eines Gesetzes über Verwertungsgesellschaften auf dem Gebiet des Urheberrechts (Verwertungsgesellschaftengesetz), available at: dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/04/002/0400271.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. Cave, M., Crowther, P. (2005), Pre-emptive Competition Policy Meets Regulatory Antitrust, ECLR, 481-490, Sweet and MaxwellGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, G. (1980), Blanket Licensing: The Clash Between Copyright Protection and the Sherman Act, 729-750, The Notre Dame LawyerGoogle Scholar
  9. Commission Recommendation of 18 May 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services, available at: eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2005.276.01.0054.01.ENG
  10. Dietz, A. (1978), Copyright Law in the European Community, 19-21, 212-241, Sijthoff & NoordhoffGoogle Scholar
  11. Drexl, J. (2007), Competition in the Field of Collective Management: Preferring ‘Creative Competition’ to Allocative Efficiency in European Copyright Law, in: P. Torremans (Eds.), Copyright Law. A Handbook of Contemporary Research, 255-282, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  12. Drexl, J. (2013), Copyright, Competition and Development (Report to the World Intellectual Property Organization), 1-284, available at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ip-competition/en/studies/copyright_competition_development.pdf
  13. Drexl, J. (2014), Collective Management of Copyrights and the EU Principle of Free Movement of Services after the OSA Judgment – In Favour of a More Balanced Approach, in: K. Purnhagen, P. Rott (Eds.), Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation – Liber Amicorum for Hans Micklitz, 459-487, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. Drexl, J., Nérisson, S., Trumpke, F., Hilty, R.M. (2013), Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market COM (2012) 372, IIC, 322-350Google Scholar
  15. Dunne, N. (2015), Competition Law and Economic Regulation, Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epstein, R. (2007), Antitrust consent decrees in theory and practice, 2007, 1-14, AEI PressGoogle Scholar
  17. European Affairs (2006), The Collective Management of Rights in Europe The Quest for Efficiency, available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/study-collective-management-rights-/study-collective-management-rights-en.pdf
  18. Evans, D. (2003), The Antitrust Economics of Multi-Sided Platform Markets, Yale J. on Reg. 2003, 325-381Google Scholar
  19. Evans, D. (2009), Two-Sided Market Definition, in: ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Market Definition in Antitrust: Theory and Case Studies, Forthcoming, Global Econ., available at: SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=1396751
  20. Fujitani, J. (1984), Controlling the Market Power of Performing Rights Societies: An Administrative Substitute for Antitrust Regulation, California Law Rev., 103-137Google Scholar
  21. Gerber, D. (1994), The Transformation of European Community Competition Law, Harvard Int. Law, 97-147Google Scholar
  22. Geradin, D., O’Donoghue, R. (2005), The concurrent application of competition law and regulation: the case of margin squeeze abuses in the telecommunications sector, J. Comp. Law & Econ., 355-425Google Scholar
  23. Gervais, D. (2010), Collective Management of Copyright: Theory and Practice in the Digital Age, in Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 1-28, Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  24. Gervais, D. (2011), Keynote: The Landscape of Collective Management Schemes, Columbia J. of Law & the Arts, 591-617Google Scholar
  25. Gilliéron, P. (2006), Collecting Societies and the Digital Environment, IIC, 939-969Google Scholar
  26. Hansen, G., Schmidt-Bischoffshausen, A. (2007), Ökonomische Funktionen von Verwertungsgesellschaften – Kollektive Wahrnehmung im Lichte von Transaktionskosten- und Informationsökonomik, GRUR Int., 461-481Google Scholar
  27. Heller, M. (1998), The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, Harvard Law Rev., 621-688Google Scholar
  28. Hellwig, M. (2009), Competition Policy and Sector-Specific Regulation for Network Industries, in: V. Xavier (Ed.), Competition Policy in the EU, 203-235, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Herschel, W. (1967), Staatsentlastende Artigkeit der Verwertungsgesellschaften, UFITA Bd. 1967, 22-32Google Scholar
  30. Hilty, R.M. (2010), Kollektive Rechtewahrnehmung und Vergütungsregelungen: Harmonisierungsbedarf und -möglichkeiten, in: M. Leistner (Eds.), Europäische Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums, 123-166, Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilty, R.M. (2012), Individual, Multiple and Collective Ownership – What Impact on Competition?, in: J. Rosén (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivization in Intellectual Property Law, 3-44, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  32. Hilty, R.M., Nérisson, S. (2013), Collective Copyright Management: The European Experience, in: R. Towse, C. Handke (Eds.): Handbook of the Digital Creative Economy, 222-234, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  33. Hovenkamp, H. (2005), The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution, Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Katz, A. (2005), The Potential Demise of Another Natural Monopoly: Rethinking the Collective Administration of Performing Rights, J. Comp. Law & Econ., 541-593Google Scholar
  35. Katzenberger, P., Nérisson, S. (2011), Kulturförderung, Solidarität und Verteilungsgerechtigkeit in Recht und Praxis urheberrechtlicher Verwertungsgesellschaften, GRUR Int., 283-295Google Scholar
  36. Kolstad, C., Ulen, T., Johnson, G. (1990), Ex Post Liability for Harm vs. Ex Ante Safety Regulation: Substitutes or Complements?, American Econ. Rev, 888-901Google Scholar
  37. Kretschmer, M. (2002), The Failure of Property Rules in Collective Administration: Rethinking Copyright Societies as Regulatory Instruments, European Intellectual Prop. Rev., 126-137Google Scholar
  38. Lamping, M. (2015), Refusal to License as an Abuse of Market Dominance – From Commercial Solvents to Microsoft, in: R.M. Hilty, K.-C. Liu (Eds.), Compulsory Licensing, Practical Experiences and Ways Forward, 121-145, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemley, M. (2004), Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justification for Intellectual Property, Univ. of Chicago Law Rev., 129-149Google Scholar
  40. von Lewinski, S. (2005), Gedanken zur kollektiven Rechtewahrnehmung, in: A. Ohly, T. Bodewig, T. Dreier, H.-P. Götting, M. Haedicke, M. Lehmann (Eds.): Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts, 401- 412, C.H. BeckGoogle Scholar
  41. Lichtenegger, M. (2014), Verwertungsgesellschaften, Kartellverbot und Neue Medien, Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindstrom, T., Tighe, K. (1974), Antitrust Consent Decrees, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  43. Lunney, G. (2010), Copyright Collectives and Collecting Societies: The United States Experience, in Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 311-345, Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  44. Merges, R. (1996), Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations, California Law Rev., 1293-1393Google Scholar
  45. NN (1978), Note CBS v. ASCAP: Performing Rights Societies and the Per Se Rule, Yale Law J. 1978, 783-803Google Scholar
  46. Nordemann, W. (1992), Mängel der Staatsaufsicht über die deutschen Verwertungsgesellschaften?, GRUR, 584-589Google Scholar
  47. Peifer, K.-N. (2015), Die Zukunft der kollektiven Rechtewahrnehmung, GRUR, 27-35Google Scholar
  48. Podszun, R. (2014), Die Kontrolle der Verwertungsgesellschaften, in: M. Grünberger, S. Leible (Eds.): Die Kollision von Urheberrecht und Nutzerverhalten im Informationszeitalter, 173-210, Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
  49. Searle, N., White, G. (2013), Business models, in: R. Towse, C. Handke (Eds.): Handbook of the Digital Creative Economy, 45-56, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  50. Schierholz, A. (2010), Collective Rights Management in Europe – Practice and Legal Framework, in: M.M. Walter, S. von Lewinski (Eds.), European copyright law. A commentary, 1145-1190, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Schovsbo, J. (2012), The necessity to collectivize copyright – and dangers thereof, in: J. Rosén (Eds.), Individualism and Collectiveness in Intellectual Property Law, 167-191, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  52. Snow, A., Watt, R. (2005), Risk Sharing and the Distribution of Copyright Collective Income, in: L. Takeyama, W. Gordon, R. Towse (Eds.), Developments in the Economics of Copyright: Research and Analysis, 23-36, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  53. Stewart, R. (1983), Regulation in a Liberal State: The Role of Non-Commodity Values, Yale Law J., 1537-1590Google Scholar
  54. The EU Commission notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (1997), OJ No. C 273Google Scholar
  55. Viscusi, K., Joseph, E., John, M. (2005), Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  56. Vázquez-Lopez, V. (2010), Collective and individual exercise of copyright in the digital environment: An international perspective focused on development, GRUR Int., 689-695Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Innovation and CompetitionMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations