Conclusion

Abstract

Navigating through the complex web of regimes of exclusivity applicable to different OMD uses is a challenging task. Accepting this challenge, Part I of this study dealt with the legal situation pertaining to this field from the international, European, German and U.S. perspectives in a comprehensive manner, taking a stand on numerous controversies in copyright scholarship and case law. Overall, a mixed picture emerged from the analysis in Part I. On the one hand, full exclusivity covers the economically most important uses of sound recordings/performances and phonograms by interactive services. On the other, the prominent role of statutory and compulsory licensing as well as of voluntary CRM, subject to comprehensive regulations, cannot be denied for the field of OMD. The regulatory disparity arising from the coexistence of radically different regulatory models deserves criticism—at the same time, it is exactly this regulatory disparity that enabled us to study the effects of these models where feasible, and gave rise to a more general analysis of the consistency of these models with the regulatory objectives in the context of OMD.