Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The Australian government recently raised the alarm after noticing an , particularly driven by traffic to websites offering Japanese manga. The issue of most notably made headlines back in 2021 — manga piracy had surged by over 26 times, resulting in a in the same year. In Australia, unlicensed television shows, films, and music have seen a general decline since 2017, causing some to wonder why manga could be an exception. According to intellectual property experts, consumer convenience is likely driving these trends.

The recent explosion of streaming services has enabled widespread access to shows, films and music, whereas there appears to be an ongoing lack of legal access to manga. Even though streaming services come with a cost, many offer a wide range of plans at reasonable rates, and some even offer free trials. Moreover, more individuals appear to be willing to pay the fee rather than potentially expose their devices to malware — consumers who engage in private downloads were found to be 28 times more with malware. Blocked piracy sites were also found to be an effective deterrent to some of the less persistent individuals trying to access unlicensed content. The Australian government is currently in response to the need for an effective copyright system that takes into account shifting technological landscapes.

However, declining piracy trends in Australia may be unique. According to , a data company that measures global piracy to drive content protection, . With 17.4 billion visits, the United States had the most visits to pirate sites per country, followed by Russia and India. While Canada was not listed in the top ten, it may be too soon to breathe a sigh of relief, as developments in the streaming market may create conditions that will predictably lead to an uptick in demand for unlicensed content. Streaming services implementing new , increasing costs, or tightening the grip on may seem like a huge inconvenience to many, which can result in some consumers feeling like the legal avenues for accessing content are no longer worth it.

Moreover, the fragmentation of streaming services has been frustrating consumers. With over 50 video streaming services in North America alone, consumers find themselves subscribing to multiples services in order to watch their desired content. , the average streamer uses approximately 4 subscription services and desire “managed and consolidated services” to streamline their streaming experiences.

Overall, it is beneficial to investigate piracy trends, especially as we see significant changes in how we consume content. The rising demand for unlicensed manga suggests that there is a need to assess consumer access to legal content in order to prevent a slew of other piracy issues in the future.

The post Increase in Manga Piracy - Considering Lawful Avenues for Content Access appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

What did your look like this year? As music streaming services grow in popularity, more people have included them as part of their daily lives. On November 29th, The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) released its of its market study into music and music streaming. According to the report, streaming services are the primary method of music distribution for labels and artists, with 39 million active users and over 138 billion streams in the UK in 2021. Moreover, competition between music streaming services and the digitization of the market improved consumer outcomes greatly, though creators still had concerns about their earnings from streaming.

Falling subscription fees, benefits for emerging artists

Music streaming services have evolved to significantly benefit consumers in today's market. These services offer consumers access to an enormous catalogue of music, better audio quality, and new features, without the price tag. In fact, the report reveals that the price of music streaming plans dropped more than 20% between 2009 and 2021 because they did not keep up with inflation.

The music streaming market is also showing some positive results for creators, especially new artists. First, virtually anyone can share their music. Although the market is highly competitive, it has never been easier to create and record music and share it on streaming services. Secondly, deal options for creators are improving. Although creators do not necessarily need a label to share their music on streaming services, many of them are finding that they have more options in what type of deal they would prefer (for example, DIY distribution, A&L services, traditional record deals). Moreover, artists find that having an existing prominent following online helps them while negotiating a record deal. Major contracts with new artists for multi-track deals revealed more favourable terms for creators — an increase in average gross royalty rates, shorter minimum commitment periods and a reduction in the proportion of recordings owned by labels.

Average UK artist yearly streaming earnings from majors and average UK royalty rates. Source: CMA analysis of data from the majors.

Challenges call for broader policy debate, not competition intervention

Digitization has also presented some challenges. Market digitization has primarily limited competition to already popular artists — although streaming services offer a wide selection of music, consumer tastes tend to favour a small number of successful artists. Moreover, streaming allows both new and old music to reach new audiences, increasing competition as new music competes with older music for a share of streaming revenue.

Ultimately, the report concludes that these outcomes are not primarily caused by market competition and therefore, a competition intervention probably would not increase revenues for artists. Rather, the report calls for a broader policy debate, encouraging the government to consider further legislative and policy reforms for creator compensation in collaboration with DCMS Select Committee recommendations.

Labels are urged to provide more transparency to their artists about how streaming service earnings are calculated and how existing deals with streaming services will impact their current and future earnings. In addition, government and policymakers should examine options available to incentivize songwriting, such as determining a fair split between publishing and recording shares and exploring the licensing rates for music streaming. Future conversations revolving around these issues are critical, as the sustainability of the music streaming market depends on consumers and creators alike.

The post CMA Releases Report on Music Streaming Market appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In a recent installment in the series of intellectual property disputes in the music industry, electronic artist Four Tet, also known as Kieran Hebden, has against his independent British record label, Domino Record Label, over how much he is paid every time one of his songs is downloaded or streamed. Four Tet had ; a time where CDs were still popular and long before the invention and popularization of music streaming. In this contract, it was stipulated that for licences, he would be paid a royalty rate of but for a sale, such as the sale of a CD, he would be paid a royalty

Sales vs Licences

When Four Tet’s contract was signed in 2001, these standard licensing terms were for the music industry. For music sales, such as selling music via CDs, vinyl, and cassettes, overhead costs for record labels were much higher due to manufacturing and distribution expenses. Thus, in order to cover the overhead costs, record labels would pay their artists a lower royalty rate compared to the royalty rate for licences. For licences, it was understood that the third party licensing the music, such as for a movie, television show, or advertisement, would take on the extra costs, allowing for an artist to receive a higher royalty rate from the record label.

However, with advancements in technology for music consumption, the landscape of the music industry changed. Record labels no longer had high overhead expenses due to no longer having to manufacture and distribute CDs, vinyl or cassettes. Yet record labels continue to ��argue that music downloads and streams should be considered as sales as this is a new technology format. Artists have typically disagreed with this and insist that this type of royalty model is unfair. For example, in 2011, against Eminem’s record company, Universal Music Group for unpaid royalties, due to the producers arguing that streamed and downloaded music should be considered akin to licencing of music and not sales.

The Case at Hand

In 2020, Four Tet against Domino for unpaid royalties. Similar to the Eminem case, Four Tet argued that he should be paid a royalty rate of 50% for streams and downloads of his music, not the 18% that the record label had been paying him. Four Tet reasoned that streams and downloads of music are like licences; not sales. In response to the lawsuit, Domino removed three of Four Tet’s four albums produced with the record label, without Four Tet’s consent, from all streaming services and online stores in November, 2021, which ” Four Tet. Four Tet responded by adding a claim for breach of contract, resulting in Domino threatening to take the case to the High Court.

The case, which took place in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, ultimately and Domino agreed to pay the requested royalty rate of 50% on streams and downloads as they are now considered to be licences. Domino also paid Four Tet £56,921.08 to account for the difference in income owed as a result of the difference between the royalty rates of 18% and 50% and simple interest calculated at a rate of 5% per year during the accounting period commencing July 1, 2017.

Future Impacts

The settlement may significantly impact the way the music industry values streaming and downloading and thus may impact royalty rates. This is particularly important as the music industry seems to be undergoing a reform regarding royalty payments. , a committee of UK MPs published a report advocating for a 50/50 royalty split between the record label and the artist. Similarly, the US Copyright Royalty Board has to increase streaming royalty rates to 15.1% for songwriters/publishers. ��These decisions, including Four Tet’s successful settlement, indicate that the music industry is changing and artists will start gaining fairer deals when it comes to royalties from streaming and downloading.

The post Four Tet’s Successful Royalty Battle: Are Changes Coming in the Music Industry for Royalty Payment? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by capri23auto ()

Meena Alnajar is an��IPilogue��Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow,��and a 2L JD Candidate at��Osgoode��Hall Law School

��

Turning Red, a animated movie set in Toronto and directed by Canadian filmmaker was initially set to be released in theatres on . However, due to the surge of COVID-19 cases, Disney has moved the film’s release online to their streaming service . Streaming services have provided a platform for safely watching films from the comfort of your own home. Yet financially, films released via streaming sites can generate starkly different revenues than releases in theatres. In July 2021, Disney encountered legal issues when Marvel moved the film release to Disney+. The leading actress, Scarlett Johansson, felt that her contract did not the film’s streaming site release. Her legal team claimed that this release changed the actress’ . However, with the rise in streaming and general reluctance to go to in-person theatres, are streaming services the best profit mechanism for filmmakers? What could be lost when films are released on home screens?

Is the theatre dead?

In Canada, movie theatre chain Cineplex has suffered extreme losses due to constant closure from the COVID-19 pandemic. Cineplex recently chose not to renew its lease for its large theatre in . Many people were upset not only at the loss of a family outing, but also at the loss of potential Canadian often presented in Cineplex theatres. Although streaming sites deliver movies instantly for viewers, these sites may further detriment movie theatres in your hometown.

Implications for studios and directors

The decline in movie theatre releases affects many local businesses and takes away community activity. On a practical note, however, these streaming service releases may be the only way for big studios to justify a big budget. For instance, Universal Studios was one of the first to try a streaming service release instead of theatre. In , Universal released “Trolls World Tour” as an on-demand purchase at $19.99. The film earned over $100 million in the US within . In contrast, the first “Trolls” film released in theatres in earned only $120 million over a five-month theatrical run.

Disney would certainly factor in this rapid profit-making capability for streaming services after witnessing a 75% spike in after Hamilton was released on . Disney not only makes a quick profit, but streaming releases also promote Disney’s platform, allowing the company to earn additional revenue from Disney+ memberships. If Disney’s primary goal is revenue for every film release, streaming service releases seem to be the more profitable in a pandemic. ��

Domee Shi sets the film Turning Red in as an homage to her hometown. She explicitly wanted to highlight her life in Canada and Toronto’s diverse culture and scenery . As Canadian VP of Walt Disney Studios notes, “Turning Red is truly a love letter to Toronto and Canada.” With Korean-Canadian Hollywood Star as a lead voice actor in the film, Turning Red is intended to showcase all Canada has to offer in the arts. Unfortunately, the movie will not be released in any local Toronto theatres. The celebration of the film’s release and Toronto’s vibrant culture will be contained to our home screens.

The post Turning Red Turns to the Home Screen appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Screenshot from

Natalie Bravo is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

Anita Baker is a legendary soul and R&B singer-songwriter who rose to fame in the 1980s. The iconic singer has won and various notable awards for her popular and timeless ballads. Earlier this year during Grammy season, Baker requested that fans not . Through Twitter, she expressed that she had outlived all her recording contracts and that her master recordings should legally belong to her. On September 3, Baker in her masters fight and gave fans the go-ahead to listen to her music once more.

Baker’s tweets and subsequent support from fans come as no surprise. In recent years, popular artists have spoken out about compensation from and Ownership of masters within the music industry has become a contentious and popular matter, particularly after Taylor Swift’s legal battle resulted in This case is a bit different as it likely relies on a lesser-known section of U.S. copyright law. When Baker described outliving her contracts, she was referring to her , which lets her reclaim her copyright after 35 years. states that authors or their survivors are entitled to “terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made on or after January 1, 1978 when certain conditions have been met.” It is not clear what the conditions were in this case besides length of time, however Baker advocated for ownership effectively and succeeded.��

Baker was not only upset that she did not own her masters, but also that the current recordings available were of inferior quality. Baker that the songs currently available lacked the original instrumentation, the recordings were sped up, and the vinyl sold today are not from analog masters, but rather re-processed digital copies. She believes her fans deserve better. Fans encouraged her in a dedicated fashion, with some stating that they just so they could enjoy her music without having to stream it.

Between March and September, Baker frequently provided legal updates through short tweets. Notably, she shared that with Warner Music Group (formerly WEA Records) began in May 2021 and that she was making progress. Finally, on September 3, she published a photo of her catalog and announced that all . Her advocacy on Twitter garnered tremendous support from her fellow musicians. Fun fact: Taylor Swift and tweeted following Baker’s success.

In the words of Anita Baker, “.”

The post Legendary: Anita Baker Reclaims Masters appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by on

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

American actress Scarlett Johansson, known for playing the Black Widow in Disney & Marvel’s The Avengers franchise, took action against Disney on July 30, 2021 for an alleged breach of contract involving the recent Black Widow film’s distribution. According to , Johansson’s contract read that Black Widow would be guaranteed a ‘wide release’, meaning that “the film would be shown .” The caveat here in the streaming service age is the term ‘screens.’ Johansson’s legal team argues that ‘screens’ means movie theatre screens exclusively. This implies a theatrical release, where a . Disney countered the argument, stating that Black Widow received a theatrical release, but that this release does not imply an exclusive release to theatres only. As such, Disney was within their rights to simultaneously launch the film on their streaming service, Disney Plus.

Experts argue that this may be a case of ambiguity with the phrase ‘wide release.’ In contract law, ambiguity is addressed in several ways. Absent fraud or misrepresentation, the court may choose to examine —verbal agreements made between parties, usually in the negotiation stage. Johansson’s legal team stated that they between them and Marvel’s Chief Counsel, Dave Galluzzi. In the email, the studio attorney promised a release “like our other pictures” and that if plans should change, they would be “discussed with [Johansson’s legal team].” Further, even without the email, courts generally resolve ambiguity , which in this case is . Therefore, Johansson is likely to win in court.

On August 21, 2021 Disney responded to Johansson’s suit with a motion to move the suit to . Arbitration is a method of whereby parties choose a sole arbitrator and venue of arbitration to settle a dispute. The arbitrator’s ruling is . Hollywood dispute lawyer would make this move back in July. Moving this issue to arbitration helps and contract drafting out of the public eye and protects their public image from damage. But Disney’s representatives counter this view, stating that they simply wish that was agreed upon between both parties to the contract. Disney also argues that the company made good on its contract by displaying the movie on .

Additionally, instead of coming after Marvel, as the party involved in the contract, Johansson’s team is pushing for a public suit against the parent company Disney. Disney suggests that Johansson is participating in “gamesmanship” by making Johansson’s compensation Disney’s responsibility, rather than carrying out the dispute in arbitration with Marvel. is a dubious technique where lawyers create additional expense or agitate the other side to put them in a tough position where they must either settle or abandon the case. Since arbitration is often dispute resolution than a public lawsuit, Johansson’s team may indeed be partaking in gamesmanship with the constant push for a public lawsuit.

Whether the parties decide to settle the dispute confidentially or publicly, this contractual disagreement emphasizes the new contractual landscape for actors and production companies. With the rise in streaming services and decline of theatre capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, movie production companies should work to be more explicit in their compensation plans and in their definition of ‘wide release.’ 30,000 movie theatre screens versus 30,000 users on Disney Plus can make millions of dollars of a difference.

The post Scarlett Johansson v Disney Black Widow: What is a Theatrical Release in the Age of Streaming Services? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by (

Natalie Bravo is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at��Osgoode��Hall Law School.��

��

is a 1994 (RPG) released in North America on the . It is the second entry in Nintendo’s series and the first to be translated and released outside of Japan. The game is satirical, featuring many zany characters and subversive content that mostly provides commentary and homage to Western culture. The soundtrack is just as strange, featuring , despite the of . The game’s 8-bit songs are inspired by genres ranging from to . Everything about the game defies what you would expect from a typical RPG, especially one from 27 years ago.

It also happens to be my all-time favourite game. ; the game has established itself as a . videos (LP) are a YouTube staple and popular games will have many LP series. Earthbound is no exception,

History of Earthbound

Though mass-marketed in a , Earthbound failed replicate its Japanese success in North America. Copies of the game along with a gamer’s guide packaged in special extra-large cardboard boxes sat unsold on shelves for months. Due to low sales ( sold in North America), the game remained a hidden gem for years until Earthbound’s main character appeared in the popular 1999 fighting game for the (and ), sparking a newfound interest in the forgotten series.

As popularity increased throughout the years, . Since many did not originally own or buy Earthbound, dwindling supply allowed the cartridges’ price to far beyond that of a regular SNES game. , software meant to emulate a game system, instead of shelling out over $100 USD to purchase the game. Thankfully, after endless lobbying from thousands of dedicated fans, Nintendo eventually re-released Earthbound for the Nintendo and for the in 2016—a move that finally allowed fans legal and affordable access to the game. The re-releases have also enabled many to broadcast their playthroughs with greater ease than previously possible. As it’s not on the yet, many who don’t own the older consoles may still enjoy watching others play online.

Let’s Plays & YouTube
Gamers and streamers often upload their gaming content onto sites like YouTube hoping to share their experiences with viewers. This type of video documentation is called “Let’s Play”. Legally publishing videogame footage largely depends on who the developers are and what they allow.

In late 2018, Nintendo discontinued the and implemented the . Nintendo “will not object to your use of gameplay footage and/or screenshots captured from games for which Nintendo owns the copyright (‘Nintendo Game Content’) in the content you create for appropriate video and image sharing sites,” as long as the guidelines are followed. The rules allow streamers to via “methods separately specified by Nintendo.” Nintendo further mandates “creative input and commentary” and explicitly disallows videos lacking such commentary. The remaining guidelines detail Nintendo’s reserved rights, Nintendo’s non-affiliation with YouTubers utilizing their intellectual property, and a FAQ section.

Copyright Claims
Earthbound content and music have remained mostly unscathed on YouTube for many years. Unfortunately, in recent months, many Earthbound players who uploaded their Let’s Plays have been struck with , effectively demonetizing the videos or, in some cases, outright removing them. One YouTuber, recently lost their Earthbound LPs’ ad revenue and their videos were removed. The YouTuber , with many fans responding with similar experiences and concerns.

How Does Sony Fit into This?

Nintendo owns the game’s brand and composed its music, but licensed the first two Earthbound series soundtracks to Sony for . Many fans were unaware of Sony’s Earthbound connection. Even though Nintendo allows LP videos, Sony can take down LPs and related content to protect its rights in the music. Users have attempted to dispute copyright claims, only to allegedly be hit by counterclaims from Sony. Google’s likely automatically detected Earthbound music and subsequently initiated the claims. , leading game developers to introduce “copyright-free” and . Earthbound is an old game though, and nobody seemingly knew Sony’s music license for the Japanese album even existed, until these claims arose.

The entire situation is noticeably disheartening for fans of a game where the music is integral to the plot and experience. Even though it is likely an algorithmic flagging issue, and Sony is entitled to defend their IP, the issue seems to indicate a larger problem. YouTube gaming is many users’ livelihood and/or dedicated hobby. Even if Sony eventually allows videos to return, unexpected copyright issues like these make the gaming process unnecessarily burdensome and financially detrimental. Suspended video publication interrupts potential ad revenue; while this may not have consequences for most, it can trouble users with millions of viewers. While potentially disingenuous to the experience, muting or changing the audio might be the easiest workaround to continue publishing LPs.

The post Copyright Confusion: Sony Upsetting Nintendo YouTubers appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo Credit: (

Claire Wortsman is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

In music copyright news, producer and DJ iMarkkeyz informed that his management is in talks with Cardi B’s in the wake of the success of his song, . The song features audio taken from one of Cardi B’s Instagram posts. Personally, when it comes to pandemic-inspired music, I am partial to Lawrence’s and Fred again… and The Blessed Madonna’s . While the former romanticizes the quarantine period of living in sweatpants, microwaving Pad Thai, and playing board games, the latter reminds lovers of concerts, music festivals, and dancing in general of what they have lost and will hopefully regain in the not-so-distant future. Many live music listeners are feeling the same way as Lacey Novinka, who revealed to the that she misses, “being with all these people, jumping up and down yelling, getting sweaty.”��

What Have Musicians Lost? ��

While concert-goers have temporarily lost an experience that brings them joy, a recent detailing a brilliant jazz pianist’s departure from the music industry has brought to the forefront of my mind the losses suffered for those on stage. Ron Davis had spent over five decades in music and released 13 albums, but due to COVID-19, he lost the ability to play gigs and had to turn to his fallback career: law. Fortunately for Davis, his fallback plan doesn’t sound so bad. As he works on interesting cases and earns a steady pay cheque, he seems at peace with his shift away from the stage and towards the courtroom.

Unfortunately, not many musicians have fallbacks that offer the same level of fulfillment and financial security. Singer-songwriter Chris Luedecke took up work harvesting scallops, a job he as invigorating but not something he could see himself doing long-term as his desire to play again grows. Fiddler Ashley MacIsaac told that after gigs, which make up 95% of his gross income, were cancelled, he had to resort to selling the rights to his catalogue of recordings as well as two of his three best violins.

Many musicians need to tour and sell merchandise to earn a liveable wage. Royalties from digital streaming services, which the reports average half a cent per listen, are often not enough on their own. Kevin Erickson, the director of artist-advocacy non-profit group Future of Music, wants more than a return to the pre-virus status quo. He that the pandemic be viewed as “an opportunity to reflect on the precariousness that so many creative workers face, and to take bold action to remedy that problem.” ��

In conversation with Andrew Oliver, who fans may know as or as lead guitarist and bassist of , I learned that the entire music ecosystem feels the pandemic’s impact – from musicians to venue owners to promoters to sound and lighting-technicians. Oliver recounted the loss of many small and medium sized venues that “either closed down or were bought up by larger corporations. Many owners operate their venues as a labour of love, and it is terrible to see them be forced to sell their prized spaces.”

Oliver describes the last couple years as devastating for the industry and personally challenging as his band’s first European tour was cancelled. However, Oliver also left me with some hope for the future: “Many musicians, including my band mates… cycle between two modes: writing/recording and touring. When our tours got cancelled, we decided to take the opportunity to record as much music as we could… One big silver lining of the pandemic is the massive amount of music that is waiting to be released around the world.”

The Changing Copyright Landscape

After losing the ability to tour, musicians found creative ways to earn money and deliver music to and engage with their fans, including and , to name a couple. Oliver also mentioned TikTok, Discord, Twitch, Instagram live chats, and interactive YouTube premiers. Each of these platforms, and their associated copyright landscapes, present unique challenges and opportunities for both creators and users.

As the pandemic has pushed life online, live-event producers have moved into the digital sphere and must adapt to its more complicated and potentially more expensive IP licensing process. Writing for the , law professor Edward Klaris warns that as more businesses enter the rights clearance game, people may look for shortcuts. Like Erickson, however, Klaris also views the pandemic as an opportunity. For him, it is an opportunity “to avoid the chaos of the past, [and to urge] organizations across the board – whether individual performers, arts platforms, small businesses or major corporations – to start thinking and behaving like the multimedia companies they have abruptly become.”

The post A Challenge, An Opportunity: The Music Industry and COVID appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Junghi Woo is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

The pandemic has not only confined many of us to our own homes, but has undoubtedly led many of us to rely on one main source of entertainment: the Internet. Gone are live shows, concerts, and plays. Live streaming of musical performances existed before the pandemic; now they are no longer a mere alternative, but the only option for viewers.

Although live streaming of E-sports and entertainment gaming were popular pre-covid, the sector within the first two months of the pandemic. This popularity increased revenue and attracted many questions regarding the risks that streamers face regarding their intellectual property. For example, it was estimated that yearly solely from his activity on

Infringing Background Music

While gaming streamers gain followers and viewers (and profits) based on their entertaining personalities, recently, their recorded content has been taken down due to In the U.S., copyright protection flows from the . depend on the rules created by any given platform and its existing licenses. Despite how society historically viewed online gaming, some gamers’ whole livelihoods undisputedly depend on playing video games and streaming it. With every takedown, users get a “copyright strike” from Twitch. After three strikes,

The Gameplay

According to Canadian copyright law, when a streamer live streams their gameplay, they are technically exercising their “performing in public” right pursuant to section 3 of the Copyright Act. The video game contains codes and text elements that would be considered literary works, and graphics that would be considered artistic works, both of which are copyright-protected subject matters. In live streaming their gameplay, the user would be communicating the graphics, text, and the audio of the game, all done without the copyright owner’s consent. Therefore, a case for copyright infringement could be established.

But Live Streams Still Exist?

There is no settled case law on issues of live streaming yet; however, gaming live streams may legally continue in one of two ways: as copyrightable work, or through the defence of fair dealing.

Though the actual video game has many copyrightable components, the user’s actual live stream may also be as a dramatic work. What the user says and how they play the game can be seen as original work. The streamer’s ideas are expressed through words and gameplay and the content itself is fixed in a video/audio recording format.

Alternatively. However, the streamers’ commercial benefit may prevent their use of the fair dealing exception.

Furthermore, game publishers purposely may not pursue action because of Such benefits would also depend on the type of game users play: story-based games may instead see economic losses caused by live-streamed spoilers.

What’s Next?

Although much of the action seems to be from our neighbours in the south, Canada is no different. Canada is home to many Twitch streamers and the community seems to be growing. If users and game publishers continue to “co-operate”, this issue may never be addressed at law in any country. Music publishers may feel differently, as users are starting to get fed up with constant takedowns following their use of copyright-protected music. Only time will tell whether legislative intervention is needed, but for now, all we can do is like, comment and subscribe.

The post Live Streaming: Playing the Game Right appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Since its conception Netflix has restricted users’ access to regional shows from other locations. However, due to pressure from content providers, the streaming service has become more aggressive with reinforcing the ban. While much of the popular content on Netflix today is original programming, it still has a lot of content that is only available in certain countries.

To stream this content, Netflix has to pay to license the programming, much of which is only available in certain countries. Subscription payments do not account for users in other regions attempting to view the content using a VPN to disguise their locations. This creates a massive issue for content creators who seek to protect their work, as well as the profits derived from the programming.

To combat this issue, Netflix is working with studios on global licensing for the programming it offers. Currently, securing licensing agreements with networks and other content owners is the . The company spent nearly $13 billion in 2018 on content licensing, which increased to $15.3 billion the following year.

A global strategy could extend Netflix beyond the regionally determined parameters. When addressing the matter of how people use VPN services to get around geographic content restrictions, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings the solution is for the company to offer the same content to everyone, irrespective of where they are in the world.

This move to provide international content would undoubtedly be good for business, as it helps to reduce the licensing agreement costs, while also ensuring users have a more interesting selection of programming, potentially increasing the number of users. While the prospect of a global content library is promising, getting around regional licensing restrictions presents a tricky hurdle.

Additionally, privacy concerns also spring to the forefront with any restrictions on VPN use. The ban fails to account for users who rely on VPN services to protect their data while using Wi-Fi. These users pay for local access and use Netflix without violating the terms of service, and as such, should not be unduly restricted, nor forced to abandon their privacy safeguards.

These issues need to be resolved quickly as indicate that Netflix’s revenues are not growing fast enough to cover its rising licensing expenses, which are projected to be on pace for . Ultimately, the more reliant the company is on licensed content, the more money they will have to spend to remain competitive in the coming years with companies like Hulu and Disney Plus on the rise.

Written by Jason Clarke, a third year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Jason is also a Clinic Fellow at the Osgoode Innovation Clinic.

The post Netflix Managing VPN Use’s amid Plans for Global Programming appeared first on IPOsgoode.