DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenges Facing Sports Event Organisers in the Digital Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Challenges Facing Sports Event Organisers in the Digital Environment Challenges facing sports event organisers in the digital environment European added value assessment STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service European Added Value Unit PE 654.205 – December 2020 EN Challenges facing sports event organisers in the digital environment European added value assessment This European added value assessment (EAVA) investigates whether the current EU legal regime provides sports events organisers and their licensees with an adequate level of protection against the risk of online sports events piracy. It also attempts to measure the scale of the EU added value that could be achieved through a coordinated EU response. The failure of the EU to take action could result in additional burdens on economic operators. Moreover, not addressing these barriers and the associated legal uncertainties hamper the completion of the digital single market. The study underpinning this EAVA identifies gaps and barriers in the current legal framework and presents policy options – and their associated legislative tools – that could potentially tackle them. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service AUTHORS Lauro Panella, European Added Value Unit, DG EPRS with Matteo Firrito, trainee in the European Added Value Unit. The European Added Value Unit would like to thank its trainee Matteo Firrito for his work in providing the first draft of this report, later revised by Aleksandra Heflich and Lauro Panella. This paper has been drawn up by the European Added Value Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. The legal analysis that is annexed to this European added value assessment was written by Prof. Paolo Marzano, Gabriella Rubino and Francesca Cordova of Legance – Avvocati Associati and by Andrea Giulia Monteleone, assistant researcher at LUISS Guido Carli University, at the request of the European Added Value Unit (EPRS). To contact the authors, please email: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Manuscript completed in December 2020. DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. Brussels © European Union, 2020. PE 654.205 ISBN: 978-92-846-7550-0 DOI: 10.2861/047009 CAT: QA-03-20-849-EN-N [email protected] http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) http://epthinktank.eu (blog) Challenges facing sports event organisers in the digital environment Executive summary The main purpose of this European added value assessment (EAVA) is to quantify the European added value of an EU legislative initiative that addresses the challenges facing organisers of sports events in the digital environment, with particular attention to the phenomenon of online piracy. The study investigates whether the current EU legal regime provides sports events organisers and their licensees with an adequate level of protection against piracy of online sports events, or, rather, if higher standards of protection are needed. The main challenge posed for sports events is that, just like all other forms of 'premium' content, they have a highly perishable nature: their economic value is substantially exhausted by the end of the event (and its live coverage). Hence, the commercial value of intellectual property rights protection closely hinges on a prompt and effective enforcement system regulated by a harmonised legislative framework at EU level. The legal analysis underpinning this EAVA (see Annex I) identifies two main obstacles that hamper the ability to tackle online piracy. The first concerns the legal provisions system governing intellectual property rights (IPRs). In particular, there are multiple, non-harmonised layers of exclusive rights designed to protect sports events, but only a few can address the online piracy issue specifically. The second main obstacle concerns the obsolescence of the legal enforcement measures stemming from national implementation of the Enforcement Directive, 1 the e-Commerce Directive2 and the InfoSoc Directive; 3 these need to be updated in order to tackle technologically advanced forms of online piracy. The study presents a policy proposal aimed at removing both impediments from the legal framework governing IPRs. When it comes to the legal provisions system for IPRs and the need for its harmonisation, the first possible solution (Option 1) would be to provide an ad hoc EU neighbouring right in favour of sports event organisers as opposed to sports events per se; the second – and most effective – solution (Option 2) would be to provide for 'expansion' of the broadcasters' neighbouring right, with the introduction of a full communication right in favour of both audiovisual producers and broadcasters of sports events, coupled with the adoption of a 'standing to sue' in favour of sports organisers. These options fill the gap in the current legal framework for IPRs in terms both of substantive and remedial law, with different effects. As regards the obsolescence of the current legal enforcement system, a possible solution would be to implement a system of fast, dynamic and live blocking orders, harmonised at EU level through the use of 'dynamic blocking orders' and 'live injunctions'. Along with the latter, it is necessary to adopt a legal provision granting sports events organisers (and any other producers of 'premium' content) the right to remove illicit content directly – through technological means – from any streaming server used by pirates. 1 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. 2 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce'). 3 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. I EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service The policy proposal, which results from the simultaneous removal of the two sets of obstacles mentioned above, would be to apply either Option 1 or Option 2, combined with the use of 'dynamic blocking orders' and 'live injunctions'. On the legislative implementation side, the policy proposal can be implemented in different ways with different results. The first possible legislative tool (Option L.1) consists of institutional support from the legislator in favour of forms of cooperation between rightsholders of sports events and information society intermediaries. The second tool (Option L.2) would involve the adoption of a new directive, aimed at amending the e-Commerce Directive, the InfoSoc Directive and the Rental Rights Directive, in order to address all the flaws and legislative loopholes illustrated in the legal analysis (see Annex I). The third – and most effective – legislative tool (Option L.3) would involve adopting an EU anti-piracy act, in the form of a new EU regulation, providing for all the legal tools envisaged by the policy proposal. Building on the legal analysis, an economic investigation generated the following findings: in 2019, 7.6 million subscriptions were made to illegal broadcasting platforms in the EU. These subscriptions generated illicit revenues of an estimated €522 million leading to annual value added tax (VAT) avoidance of €113.5 million. If the same number of subscriptions were made legally, legal broadcasters' revenues could increase by €3.4 billion each year. In addition to these revenue losses, legal broadcasters also suffer impacts on employment due to online piracy. The most cautious estimate suggests that each year up to 16 000 potential new jobs are lost as a result of online piracy of broadcasts of sports events. II Challenges facing sports event organisers in the digital environment Table of contents 1. Background _________________________________________________________________ 1 2. State of play of legal provisions for IPRs ___________________________________________ 2 2.1. Legal barriers and limits _____________________________________________________ 2 3. State of play of the legal enforcement system.______________________________________ 4 3.1. Legal barriers and limitations _________________________________________________ 4 4. The policy proposal ___________________________________________________________ 6 4.1. Legislative proposals to implement the policy proposal ____________________________ 8 5. European added value _______________________________________________________ 11 III EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Table of figures Figure 1 – Illegal revenues from online piracy of sports events broadcast by Member State, 2019 in millions of euros ______________________________________________________________ 12 Table of tables Table 1 – National substantive law: limits of legal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 10 Years of Copyright Enforcement by Private Third Parties IDP
    IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política E-ISSN: 1699-8154 [email protected] Universitat Oberta de Catalunya España Wesselingh, Ellen Marja Website Blocking: Evolution or Revolution? 10 Years of Copyright Enforcement by Private Third Parties IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, núm. 19, octubre, 2014, pp. 35-47 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Barcelona, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=78835370004 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Universitat Oberta de Catalunya www.uoc.edu/idp ARTICLE Website Blocking: Evolution or Revolution? 10 Years of Copyright Enforcement by Private Third Parties* Ellen Marja Wesselingh The Hague University of Applied Sciences Published: October, 2014 Abstract Copyright enforcement by private third parties – does it work uniformly across the EU? Since the inception of Napster, home copying of digital files has taken flight. The first providers of software or infrastructure for the illegal exchange of files were held contributory or vicariously liable for copyright infringement. In response, they quickly diluted the chain of liability to such an extent that neither the software producers, nor the service providers could be held liable. Moving further down the communication chain, the rights holders are now requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provide access to end customers to help them with the enforcement of their rights. This article discusses case law regarding the enforcement of copyright by Internet Access Providers throughout Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Game of Streams
    Game of Streams A Comprehensive Study of Streaming Cyberlockers Benjamin Braun Rizwan Ahmad Department of Computer Science and Department of Computer Science and Engineering Engineering University of California, San Diego University of California, San Diego [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT this website by authorities showed a complex, intricate re- Streaming cyberlockers, third-party video streaming plat- lationship between the streaming portal, indexing sites, and forms which primarily consist of pirated content, have seen even advertising networks. However, since this raid, there incredible growth in recent years, but seem to avoid much have been very few studies into streaming cyberlockers, and scrutiny and thus have stayed outside the scope of most consequently very little new information about their opera- cyberlocker-centric studies. This project attempts to close tions. this gap in the literature by identifying central characteris- As such, given the growing popularity of these websites tics of streaming cyberlockers such as their traffic and rev- and the absence of studies that look into them, we sought to enue generation models, the physical location of the web- characterize and identify a few key parts of their infrastruc- sites, relationships between websites, and whether there are ture. Specifically, we wanted to understand the following: any feasible forms of external intervention capable of ex- • How they attract and maintain viewers and uploaders. ploiting faults in their operational model. We found that sites did tend to locate themselves in similar locations, and • What their main source of revenue is. that their revenue is generated primarily through advertis- ing, while an affiliate model drives traffic to the website by • Whether there are any prominent similarities or rela- attracting content uploaders, who in turn attract viewers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sizing the Piracy Universe
    rFlS Sizing the piracy universe David Price Director of Piracy Analysis, NetNames September 2013 NetNames Piracy Analysis: Sizing the piracy universe Page 2 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction This report draws data from a wide range of reliable sources to provide an estimate of the shape and size of the piracy universe. It is based upon an in-depth study of a range of ecosystems commonly used for the distribution of infringing content. Analysis demonstrates the number of unique internet users who employ each infringement method to obtain material as well as the overall proportion of internet bandwidth used by each ecosystem. In addition to original data collection by NetNames, the report draws on supplemental data from leading companies including Sandvine and Cisco. The report, which has been commissioned by NBCUniversal, was prepared by the Piracy Analysis team at NetNames, formerly known as Envisional. In January 2011, Envisional published the report An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet, an analysis focused on the use of internet bandwidth for the distribution of infringing content such as pirated films, television, music, and software.1 This new report includes an extended examination of bandwidth data that updates some of the findings from the 2011 publication. However, it takes a look at a broader range of considerations, including: a detailed examination of the number of users involved in a range of major internet ecosystems an evaluation of the level of infringement within each ecosystem an analysis of trends over time a look at business models and revenue generation used by sites that facilitate infringement a discussion of the rise of mobile and an analysis of the impact of enforcement efforts on infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • I Nternational I Ntellectual P Roperty a Lliance ®
    I NTERNATIONAL I NTELLECTUAL P R O P E R T Y A LLIANCE ® 1818 N STREET, NW, 8TH FLOOR ∙ WASHINGTON, DC 20036 ∙ TEL (202) 355-7900 ∙ FAX (202) 355-7899 ∙ WWW.IIPA.COM ∙ EMAIL: [email protected] February 6, 2015 Submitted via regulations.gov Docket No. USTR–2014–0025 Susan F. Wilson Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 600 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20508 Re: IIPA Written Submission Regarding 2015 Special 301 Review: Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974: Request for Public Comment and Announcement of Public Hearing, 79 Fed. Reg. 78133 (Dec. 24, 2014) Dear Ms. Wilson: The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) provides this response to the above-captioned Federal Register Notice requesting written submissions from the public concerning intellectual property protection and market access regimes in U.S. trading partners, in the “Special 301” review.1 The ultimate goal of Special 301 is not to catalogue trade barriers as such, but rather to enhance the ability of U.S. creators to reach foreign markets through legitimate channels in competitive and growing marketplaces, physical and online. Many of the changes needed in foreign markets in order to advance this goal – higher standards of copyright protection, efficient copyright enforcement, sound legal structures for licensing, and elimination of market access barriers – also help our trading partners to develop, nurture, and enjoy the benefits of their own local cultural and creative output. The real beneficiary is the consumer, who will have greater access, through more avenues than ever before, to increasingly diverse creative output – the literary works, music, movies and TV programming, video games, software, and other products and services that depend on or are protected by copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Blocking Global Best Practices サイト・ブロッキングの法制度 グローバル・ベスト・プラクティス ：シンガポールを例に Michael Schlesinger
    Site Blocking Global Best Practices サイト・ブロッキングの法制度 グローバル・ベスト・プラクティス ：シンガポールを例に Michael Schlesinger "Our country's content industry could be denied a future if manga artists and other creators are robbed of proceeds that should go to them.” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, April 2018 I. INTRODUCTION Recently, Japan has been inundated with a proliferation of overseas or domestic websites and services engaging in or facilitating online copyright infringement.1 In May 2018, the top 100 piracy sites (for motion pictures, not including anime (アニメ) or manga (漫画)) garnered over 2 Billion (with a “B”) monthly visits worldwide, while in Japan alone, such sites attracted over 50 million monthly visits and over 200 million monthly page views in May 2018 (SimilarWeb). These mainly foreign-based sites profit off valuable creative content – motion pictures, television programming, anime (アニメ), manga (漫画), music, games, software, and other copyright materials – stifling the legitimate creative marketplace for Japanese and foreign creators alike. Such sites are part of a larger trend of legitimate digital platforms being overrun by bad actors, and a recent study finds consumers want government leaders to take a more hands-on approach to combatting them.2 Governments recognize that the use of the Internet for illegal activities represents an increasing drain on the legitimate digital economy. For example, use of copyright infringing websites represents a shockingly large percentage of all Internet traffic – 23.8% of all Internet bandwidth in North America, Europe,
    [Show full text]
  • IIPA Files Written Submission Regarding 2013 Special 301 Out-Of
    I NTERNATIONAL I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY A LLIANCE® 1818 N STREET, NW, 8TH FLOOR · WASHINGTON, DC 20036 · TEL (202) 355-7924 · FAX (202) 355-7899 · WWW.IIPA.COM · EMAIL: [email protected] October 25, 2013 Filed via www.regulations.gov, Docket No. USTR–2013–0030 Stanford K. McCoy, Esq. Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Washington, DC 20508 Re: IIPA Written Submission Re: 2013 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets: Request for Public Comments, 78 Fed. Reg. 57924 (September 20, 2013), 78 Fed. Reg. 60367 (October 1, 2013) (Extending Deadline) Dear Mr. McCoy: In response to the September 20, 2013 Federal Register notice referenced above, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)1 provides the Special 301 Subcommittee with the following written comments to provide examples of Internet and physical “notorious markets” – those “where counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright products are prevalent to such a degree that the market exemplifies the problem of marketplaces that deal in infringing goods and help sustain global piracy and counterfeiting.” We hope our filing will assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in “identifying potential Internet and physical notorious markets that exist outside the United States and that may be included in the 2013 Notorious Markets List.” We commend USTR for publishing a notorious markets list as an “Out of Cycle Review” separately from the annual Special 301 Report. This list has successfully identified key online and physical marketplaces that are involved in intellectual property rights infringements, and has led to positive developments, including closures of some Internet websites whose businesses were built on illegal conduct; greater cooperation from some previously identified “notorious” and other suspect sites; and the facilitation of licensing agreements for legitimate distribution of creative materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Notorious Markets
    Table of Contents Overview of the Results of the 2017 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets ....................... 2 Positive Developments since the 2016 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets .................... 4 Issue Focus: Illicit Streaming Devices ........................................................................................... 8 Results of the 2017 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets Online Markets ............................................................................................................................. 11 Physical Markets ........................................................................................................................... 26 Public Information ........................................................................................................................ 34 2 Overview of the Results of the 2017 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets Commercial-scale copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting1 cause significant financial losses for U.S. right holders and legitimate businesses, undermine critical U.S. comparative advantages in innovation and creativity to the detriment of American workers, and can pose significant risks to consumer health and safety. The Notorious Markets List (List) highlights prominent and illustrative examples of online and physical marketplaces that reportedly engage in, facilitate, turn a blind eye to, or benefit from substantial piracy and counterfeiting. A goal of the List is to motivate appropriate action by owners, operators, and
    [Show full text]
  • OCI Report 2020
    Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Latest wave of research (March 2020) Overview and Key findings Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office Founded in July 2011, AudienceNet’s reputation for innovative, “real-time” ISBN: 978-1-910790-87-8 research grew steadily from its start-point in the music, entertainment and Online Copyright Infringement Tracker technology industries, through a wide range of both public and private sector Latest wave of research (March 2020) Overview and organisations, governments, NGOs and philanthropic organisations. Key findings. AudienceNet has built a reputation as one of the primary sources of Published by The Intellectual Property Office intelligence on music and entertainment. We conduct ad-hoc and (global) January 2021 tracking projects for industry bodies such as the IFPI, Entertainment Retail Association (ERA) and the BPI, as well as major record labels (Universal, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Warner and Sony) and platforms such as SoundCloud and Spotify. © Crown Copyright 2020 Report by: You may re-use this information (excluding logos) Sania Haq - Head of Research free of charge in any format or medium, under the Isaac Schling - Research Manager terms of the Open Government Licence. To view Laura-Jane Taylor - Senior Research Executive this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov. uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email: [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to: The Intellectual Property Office Concept House Cardiff Road Newport NP10 8QQ Tel: 0300 300 2000 Email: [email protected] This publication is available from our website at www.gov.uk/ipo Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]