Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Copyright Holdout Problem and New Internet-Based Services

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Remuneration of Copyright Owners

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 27))

Abstract

This chapter examines the holdout problem involving a copyright holder’s refusal to license digital content to internet users or third-party intermediaries despite the possibilities of socially valuable uses. It begins with two case studies illustrating the classic holdout problem, which often arises when transaction costs are high or when parties have drastically different expectations. The first case study focuses on the developments concerning Google Books. The second case study examines YouTube and the emergent development of user-generated content. The chapter concludes with three sets of preemptive legal responses that can help address the internet-related copyright holdout problem: limitations and exceptions in copyright law, compulsory or statutory licensing arrangements, and exogenous constraints imposed by competition law.

John T. Cross is Grosscurth Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Technology Transfer at Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville.

Peter K. Yu is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Law and Intellectual Property at Texas A&M University School of Law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    All of the factual information in this section is taken from opinions of the trial and appellate courts.

  2. 2.

    Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

  3. 3.

    Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

  4. 4.

    Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015).

  5. 5.

    M. Strangelove (2015), 162.

  6. 6.

    A.R. Sorkin (2006).

  7. 7.

    P.K. Yu (2011), 895.

  8. 8.

    J.M. Balkin (2004), 4.

  9. 9.

    J.D. Lasica (2005), 95.

  10. 10.

    P.K. Yu (2011), 898.

  11. 11.

    J. Kim (2012), 54–55.

  12. 12.

    M.A. Lemley (2011), 134.

  13. 13.

    E. Lee (2008), 1487.

  14. 14.

    M. Helft / G. Fabrikantmarch (2007).

  15. 15.

    Associated Press (2007); M. Helft (2007).

  16. 16.

    Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

  17. 17.

    Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012).

  18. 18.

    Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

  19. 19.

    O. Gibson (2013); L. Kaufman (2014).

  20. 20.

    J. Kim (2012), 55.

  21. 21.

    Google, Inc. (2013), 3.

  22. 22.

    Google, Inc. (2016).

  23. 23.

    R. Tushnet (2014), 1464-1465.

  24. 24.

    E. Lee (2008), 1486-1488; T. Wu (2008), 619.

  25. 25.

    C. Thompson (2013).

  26. 26.

    Directive 2001/29 art. 5.

  27. 27.

    Commission of the European Communities (2013), 16-30.

  28. 28.

    Commission of the European Communities (2015).

  29. 29.

    P.K. Yu (2014, 2016).

  30. 30.

    Irish Copyright Review Committee (2013), 72-75.

  31. 31.

    Australian Law Reform Commission (2013), 123.

  32. 32.

    [1997] 78 C.P.R.3d 321 (Competition Tribunal).

  33. 33.

    Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 411 (2004); Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing, Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 611 n. 44 (1985).

  34. 34.

    Joined Cases C-241 & C-242/91 P, Radio Telefis Eireann v. Commission, E.C.R. I-743 (1995).

References

  • Associated Press (2007), Music Publishers to Join YouTube Suit, New York Times of 7 August 2007, C8

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission (2013), Copyright and the Digital Economy: Final Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Balkin, J.M. (2004), Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society, New York University Law Review, 79, 1–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities (2013), Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, available at: ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/consultation-document_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities (2015), Making EU Copyright Rules Fit for the Digital Age – Questions & Answers, available at: europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6262_en.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, O. (2013), Premier League Drops Copyright Infringement Case against YouTube, The Guardian of 11 November 2013, available at: www.theguardian.com/football/2013/nov/11/premier-league-copyright-case-youtube

  • Google, Inc. (2013), Comments: Department of Commerce Green Paper, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy, available at: www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/google_comments.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Google, Inc. (2016), How Content ID Works, available at: support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en-GB

    Google Scholar 

  • Helft, M. (2007), Contributors on YouTube May Share Advertising Revenue, New York Times of 5 May 2007, C3

    Google Scholar 

  • Helft, M. / Fabrikantmarch, G. (2007), Viacom Sues Google over Video Clips on Its Sharing Web Site, New York Times of 14 March 2007, C1

    Google Scholar 

  • Irish Copyright Review Committee (2013), Modernising Copyright

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, L. (2014), Viacom and YouTube Settle Suit over Copyright Violations, New York Times of 19 March 2014, B4

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (2012), The Institutionalization of YouTube: From User-Generated Content to Professionally Generated Content, Media, Culture & Society, 34, 53-67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasica, J.D. (2005), Darknet: Hollywood’s War against the Digital Generation, Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. (2008), Warming up to User-Generated Content, University of Illinois Law Review, 1459–1548

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M.A. (2011), Is the Sky Falling on the Content Industries?, J. on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 9, 125-135

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorkin, A.R. (2006), Dot-Com Boom Echoed in Deal to Buy YouTube, New York Times of 10 October 2006, A1

    Google Scholar 

  • Strangelove, M. (2015), Post-TV: Piracy, Cord-Cutting, and the Future of Television, University of Toronto Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. (2013), YouTube May Be Worth $20 Billion by 2020: Morgan Stanley, CNBC of 16 May 2013, available at: www.cnbc.com/id/100743171

  • Tushnet, R. (2014), All of This Has Happened Before and All of This Will Happen Again: Innovation in Copyright Licensing, Berkeley Technology Law J., 29, 1447-1487

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, T. (2008), Tolerated Use, Columbia J. Law and Arts, 31, 617-635

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P.K. (2011), Digital Copyright and Confuzzling Rhetoric, Vanderbilt J. Entertainment and Technology Law, 13, 881-939

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P.K. (2014), Can the Canadian UGC Exception Be Transplanted Abroad?, Intellectual Property J., 26, 175-203

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P.K. (2016), The Quest for a User-Friendly Copyright Regime in Hong Kong, American University International Law Review 2016, 31 (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

    John T. Cross

  2. School of Law, Texas A&M University, Fort Worth, TX, USA

    Peter K. Yu

Authors
  1. John T. Cross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter K. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John T. Cross .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Singapore Management University , Singapore, Singapore

    Kung-Chung Liu

  2. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Reto M. Hilty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cross, J.T., Yu, P.K. (2017). The Copyright Holdout Problem and New Internet-Based Services. In: Liu, KC., Hilty, R. (eds) Remuneration of Copyright Owners. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 27. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53809-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53809-8_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53808-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53809-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation