• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

The Disappearing Tail: A Clue to the challenges facing Copyright

October 19, 2009 by Virgil Cojocaru (IPilogue Editor)

Virgil Cojocaru is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

‘The Long Tail’, written by Chris Anderson refers to the alleged effect of online stores such as Netflix appealing to smaller niches. Individually these niches do not yield a large profit, but collectively (hence the long part) they can provide a handsome reward. Some academics, such as Sergui Netessine at the University of Pennsylvania have risen to challenge this theory. They argue that niche title consumption is not expanding as fast as its availability is increasing online. Yet big title consumption is skyrocketing. Chris Castle’s post on IP Osgoode elaborates on this finding in greater detail.

Anderson’s argument that his analysis is based on absolute numbers rather than relative numbers might be moot. Critics argue trends are set by relative numbers. In terms of percentage niche rentals are declining. On the other hand, Netflix’s 20% top movies account for an increasing percentage of rentals. This pattern points to the inevitable consolidation of the online titles towards the most popular. It appears the tail did not expand far enough, and stayed rather flat. I will explain what I mean by the former characterization in the following paragraphs, and why I think the former is linked to the latter.

What challenges does this pose for IP and copyright?

First, there are only a few titles which make big profits for rights holders. If their consumption has skyrocketed on legal distributions sites such as Netflix, imagine the traffic on P2P sites. This is infringement under s. 27(1) of the Canadian Copyright Act, for overstepping the rights of the owner outlined in s. 3. However, it is hard to see how much money is lost, because after all P2P sites are part of a black market. This is another challenge for copyright in general. Rights holders are bleeding out; however, it is hard to tell just how fast.

This brings forward a unique challenge for copyright—a balancing act of sorts. Too much control on the Net would stifle transactions and undermine the whole purpose of the IP regime to encourage the creation of new works. Bill C61 tried to address the balance between rights holders and users, taking into account new technologies. Please see sections 29.21 and 29.22.

Perhaps the only way is to compete with P2P. Legal sites might have niche titles available, but perhaps they do not have enough of them. There are certain publishing barriers in terms of cost. This is not a problem for P2P. The black market might have niche titles which could not pass the publishing barrier, as well as looked after classics which are not worth republishing. Anderson might have gotten part of his point right. So far, this data shows that people are not willing to forget about big titles any time soon, so they will not switch only to niche titles. This does not mean that they are not also looking for niche titles. Perhaps the reason why niche consumption on legal sites is not growing reflects a lack of variety when compared with P2P. Competition is all about relativity.

If this is the case, it promises to be a serious problem for the copyright regime, both in terms of relevance and the protection of economic rights. Due to today’s digital and communication technologies more people are creating. To be able to capitalize on your economic rights as a creator you have to find a publisher who is willing to sell it on the market. However, if such creators cannot get past the publishing barrier, the only other way to get such exposure is on P2P. This means that the author might not receive compensation for their work. At the same time, the copyright act becomes less relevant.

How might this be overcome? Through the Internet and digital storage technology. If a ‘niche’ title is forecast to make less money, have different levels of publishing. Make it only available online to save publishing costs. In order for the IP system to stay relevant it has to keep attracting new talent. Today’s niche titles could be tomorrow’s hits. This has to be complemented by a reformed legislative framework which sets specific structures for dealing with today’s technologies, giving rights owners the security they might need to explore new applications on the Net. Both the law and our way of applying copyright have to change.

Posted in Contracts, Copyright, Digital Downloads, IP, Infringement, Internet, Internet Sharing, Movies, Technology, copyright reform

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Pooling patents for HIV drugs: A paradigm shift | Event Review: Bill Patry Talks Metaphors, Moral Panics and Folk Devils »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • USPTO Issues Post-Bilski Guidelines for Patent Examiners
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (46)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (650)
    • Copyright (308)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (17)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736