Since the rise – and subsequent fall – of peer-to-peer music sharing service , the recorded music industry has served as a canary in the coal mine for the digital economy and the disruptions stemming from emerging networked technologies. Napster provided previously unrealized access to the creative labour and cultural resources of the recording industry’s collective catalogue at a rock bottom price: nothing. The “free” nature of this service – which still required often costly Internet access and computers – , resulting in years of litigation as well as much-needed innovation in services offering legal distribution of music. Services, such as iTunes, and products, such as the iPod, moved into the uncharted terrain created by P2P services, redefining ways that fans can access content.

In the subsequent 15 years, record labels, music publishers, recording artists as well as other industries and actors in content distribution businesses sought to in order to receive compensation for their music and creative commodities to further the creative endeavours and economic livelihood of artists, producers, and creators. However, in recent years there has been that the economic fruits of creative endeavours have been disproportionately “captured” by the technology companies that facilitate digital distribution. Artists and creators have complained that major record labels and digital distributors receive the lion’s share of compensation for the works they create.

This trend towards “economic concentration” in the hands of technology companies distributing licensed content and facilitating transactions mirrors results of my own ongoing dissertation research, which examines how intellectual property law governs, incentivizes, and structures the emerging digital economy. For example, the so-called of the digital economy simultaneously enables new forms of capital accumulation for individuals – whether they are drivers offering rides through Uber or owners renting property through Airbnb – and the companies that facilitate, track, and leverage these transactions. However, these gains are largely concentrated at the top of the ecosystem with technologists, inventors, and investors receiving much larger compensation than the individual entrepreneurs on the ground. As my research argues, informational assets, such as trademarks, patents, and copyright supporting dominant brands, which allow companies in the technology industries to track and facilitate transactions, are becoming more lucrative than the copyright protected commodities themselves. The goods and services offered by creators and service providers feed into technological ecosystems designed and engineered to concentrate the bulk of economic gains for the benefit of the host companies. Individual “entrepreneurs” in the digital economy must, therefore, increasingly act in hyper-competitive relationships with each other without the financial or social safety nets that existed in earlier times of technological and economic disruption.

In an era of  that is arguably defined by increasingly higher levels of throughout society, this economic concentration emerging within the digital economy is an area in need of attention and concern. As it was with the emergence of P2P and the distribution services following in Napster’s wake, the music industry may once again be signalling some ways forward.

In early 2015, , rebranding the streaming service as Tidal. He with a glitzy, star-studded affair featuring other recording artists including, amongst others, his megastar wife Beyoncé, Canadian rock group Arcade Fire, and pop-luminary Madonna. These recording artists are also investors and “owners” of the service, positioning Tidal as an ostensibly artist-driven distributor seeking to challenge the dominance of the music industry’s existing economic and technological order. Tidal charges a larger monthly subscription fee (around $20 per month) than its rivals, stating that this extra money will flow more directly to the music’s creators and allow for better sound quality. The service has subsequently been criticized on a number of price-related, PR, and marketing grounds, obscuring the owners’ stated goals of giving back to the music creation community. During a Jay Z positioned Tidal in this way, criticizing the digital incumbents and specifically naming Spotify, Google, and Apple.

Two months later on 8 June 2015 Apple . Drawing from the vast library already on offer in its iTunes store, Apple Music will be launched and cost, at around $10 per month, half of Tidal’s fee but in line with Spotify’s. Apple  to its new service. However, Apple Music has already garnered criticisms and into whether or not Apple is using its dominant position in the digital economy to drive out competitors such as Spotify.

It should not be surprising that Apple is moving aggressively into the streaming music space. It was with music – – that the company’s resurgence began. What is surprising is that it has taken so long. Following the announcement of Apple Music, and now has 20 million paying subscribers and a total of 75 million active subscribes. As in other areas of the digital economy, a competitive position necessitates a large, active, and loyal customer base — which both Tidal and Apple Music will have to develop to compete with Spotify’s established status.

Streaming music services have come to be for the music industry. These services, as well as similar sectors in the digital economy, require licensed content in order to generate consumer uptake, however, how the licensing agreements and royalties are structured determines who are (and are not) the real "winners" of the digital economy. will be increasingly induced to negotiate agreements that serve their interests, while creators and smaller, independent labels will have to compete feverishly on the  digital economy. Rights and compensation for creators, labels, publishers, and digital distributors will continue to be contested as these services evolve.

The goals of Tidal and Apple Music demonstrate how the digital economy continues to evolve and the economic imperatives drive its transformation. If you take their word for it (as licensing documents or rates have not been made public), Tidal is presenting a somewhat different future, where creators themselves are able to receive larger and more direct compensation for their endeavours. Apple Music, meanwhile, is looking to compete with Spotify by using a similar business model: by leveraging Apple’s already established user base and its relationships with major record labels, it hopes to shift users towards a regular, monthly subscription model and become the industry's dominant player.

How users react to and adopt these services will help to determine whose IP rights are most valuable as well as how the broader digital economy will evolve in the years to come.

Joseph F. Turcotte is an IPilogue Editor and a PhD Candidate in the Communication & Culture Program (Politics & Policy) at 91��ɫ.

The post A Tidal Shift for the Digital Economy? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In last week, Berners-Lee was responding to recent revelations of state-based surveillance in the United States and elsewhere. The father of the web also contends that a ‘digital Magna Carta’ would need to address the often-conflicting rights of users and producers in online environments.

Calls for the calibration of competing rights are not new. At least since the early 2000s, legal scholars and social scientists such as , , and have articulated about reforming intellectual property (IP) laws for emerging realities. The proliferation of digital and networked technologies continues to facilitate social, economic, and political shifts. New transnational political economic arrangements are premised on the ability to employ information and communication technologies (ICTs) to coordinate global production chains. studying the impacts of the ICTs that decentralized, network technologies are transforming historic relations generated during industrial economic times. Advocates for the rights of creators point out how these changes are disrupting existing business models and threatening entire industries.

IP law regimes—most often in the forms of copyrights, patents, and trademarks—are used to incentivize creative endeavours and to protect the moral rights of creators. In doing so, these legal regimes help to convert knowledge—communicative and cultural resources that circulate within communities and contribute to their maintenance and growth—into marketable forms of rent-seeking information.

However, suggests that these systems have led to two contradictory outcomes: increasing returns for rights-holders and a “digital divide”, whereby there is increasing disparity between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ of contemporary capitalism. Scholars Tzen Wong, Graham Dutfield, and their contributors that IP law is regarded as playing various roles in the maintenance of this development disparity. From this perspective, the ‘digital divide’ is a symptom of the global political economy, within which growing inequality between and within states is exacerbated due to differing levels of access to and control over digital technologies and content.

Govindan Parayil, while knowledge-based economic activities generate growth and wealth for the owners of proprietary information; this also results in inequity for those with restricted or no access to this information and the ability to use existing knowledge in productive ways. A of transnational corporations conducted by Sean Starrs, a PhD Candidate at 91��ɫ, highlights how the contemporary political economy is marked by the concentration of wealth in developed states, particularly the United States.

Bridging the digital divide between and within states is becoming a key focus of international and domestic policy initiatives. Civil-society organizations as well as governmental and international organizations and forums have proposed ‘information-communication technologies for development’ (ICT4D) as a means of enabling greater connectivity for disadvantaged persons in post-industrial as well as industrializing states. ICT4D proposes that the proliferation of ICTs will alleviate poverty and inequality by providing new groups with the technological tools necessary to engage in capitalist activities. However, as Jan Nederveen Pieterse , this approach often fails to recognize that the digital divide is not entirely digital; instead, the digital divide entails socioeconomic considerations, including the ability to use ICTs as well as digital content for various purposes.

Human rights-based claims are becoming prominent in struggles to address economic inequality and bridge the digital divide. For example, Access to Knowledge (A2K) movements related to international intellectual property debates challenge the privileging of economic and proprietary rights over the rights of users, citizens, and consumers.

, Professor of Information Studies at Syracuse University, A2K movements focused on a number of areas—including life saving medicine, educational materials, biodiversity and the prevention of famine as well as knowledge circulation in digital contexts—have “become a master frame linking many formerly disparate elements of communication and information politics, business, policy, and law. As an intellectual and political movement, A2K is based on a reappraisal of the nature of property rights over information and networks” (p. 12).

As Internet governance and informational policies are adapted to meet contemporary realities, addressing and balancing these sets of rights will be important for bridging the digital divide and economic inequality.

Note: This post is based upon a paper that the author will present at the in Toronto, Canada and reflects the on-going work of his dissertation.

Joseph F. Turcotte is an IPilogue Editor, a PhD Candidate and SSHRC Doctoral Fellow in the Communication & Culture Program (Politics & Policy) at 91��ɫ, and a Nathanson Graduate Fellow at the Jack & Mae Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post The Future of Rights: Intellectual Property, Economic Inequality and the ‘Digital Divide’ appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In May of 2010, the Government of Canada launched a nation-wide consultation to gather ideas for moving Canada forward in the ever-evolving digital environment. It has now been over three years since this consultation and the implementation of these recommendations has yet to occur. As recently as 28 August 2012, then-Industry that he would “launch a Canadian-made digital economy strategy by the end of the year.”

As 2013 draws to a close Canadians as well as foreign investors interested in accessing and contributing to the Canadian market continue to wait.

Crafting a comprehensive strategy for capitalizing on the promises offered by digital technologies and network connectivity is a difficult task. This broad area overlaps a number of related and divergent areas including telecommunications, broadcasting, cultural heritage, international trade as well as various industry and economic concerns. However, a strategy for coordinating digital activities across these various areas is an important step for signalling to Canadians and the world that the country is looking and planning for the economic realities of the future.

Measuring and demonstrating direct causation between digital technologies and growth remains a . However, international organizations and market analysts are increasingly recognizing the importance of the Internet and digital media for economic and human development. The (OECD) has that we “should expect that in the long term, the development of the Internet boosts knowledge creation and enhances per capita income growth across the economy” (p. 23).

Similarly, in their 2011 “Internet matters: The Net's sweeping impact on growth, jobs, and prosperity”, the found that the Internet’s worldwide economic impact, in terms of gross domestic product (GDP), is (p. 2). The report finds that over the past five years the Internet has contributed to 21% of GDP in ‘mature’ countries and places Canada at the average level (10%) for domestic contributions to GDP (p. 16).

Countries, albeit those with larger overall economies, that have already developed strategies to benefit from digital activities — such as the United States and the United Kingdom (where the Internet contributes 15% and 23% to their GDPs, respectively) — are doing comparatively better at capturing growth advantages. However, the McKinsey Global Institute also noted that Canada has a great deal of Internet usage that can be leveraged to increase the country’s presence and benefits in the global supply ecosystem (p. 4). Formalizing a Canadian Digital Economy Strategy will assist in this respect.

Despite its absence from the recent Speech from the Throne, I think there is room for optimism about the future of Canada’s Digital Economy Strategy. This past summer and named the as the new Minister of Industry. Minister Moore is widely regarded as one of the Governments most effective communicators and skilled operatives at moving policy forward. In his previous position as the , Moore helped move the country’s long-awaited reforms to the forward.

Doing the same thing with the Digital Economy Strategy may prove just as challenging. The five areas during the consultation process—‘Capacity to Innovate Using Digital Technologies’, ‘Building a World-Class Digital Infrastructure’, ‘Growing the Information and Communications Technology Industry’, ‘Digital Media: Creating Canada's Digital Content Advantage’, ‘Building Digital Skills for Tomorrow’—are diverse and cut across a number of industries, policy areas and government departments.

Calibrating these economic, innovation, cultural, heritage, social, and intellectual property (IP) concerns will take political skill and the resolve to advance policy-oriented solutions. In my opinion, one of these areas will be comparatively easy, as Canada’s IP policies are largely set for the foreseeable future. The and Bill C-8 (previously known as Bill C-56),  the '', purportedly aims to align Canada’s laws and priorities with its international trading partners. (Past IPilogue coverage on Bill C-8/C-56 can be found and .) A Canadian Digital Economy Strategy will need to take these priorities into account and position the country’s industries and citizens to take advantage of digital opportunities.

The intersection of IP and technology law with a number of other policy areas requires a principled framework for fostering Canada’s digital advantage. Minister Moore and those involved in this process should work to ensure that such a strategy fosters access to digital technologies and content, the ability to use these resources in innovative ways, and that it provides legal mechanisms that entrench the security and privacy necessary to legally use, develop, and exploit digital resources for economic and human development.

In my opinion, successfully steering this ship to port will help define Moore's time as the Minister of Industry and may also set him up nicely for any future endeavours he undertakes.

Joseph F. Turcotte is an IPilogue Editor, a PhD Candidate and SSHRC Doctoral Fellow in the Communication & Culture Program (Politics & Policy) at 91��ɫ, and a Nathanson Graduate Fellow at the Jack & Mae Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post The Ever-Present Need for Canada’s ‘Digital Economy Strategy’ appeared first on IPOsgoode.