Heald (2014c) 2

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Heald (2014c)
Title: How Notice-and-Takedown Regimes Create Markets for Music on YouTube: An Empirical Study
Author(s): Heald, P. J.
Year: 2014
Citation: Heald, P. J. (2014) How Notice-and-Takedown Regimes Create Markets for Music on YouTube: An Empirical Study. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2416519 (last accessed: 8 July 2020)
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The dataset consists of a list of 90 number one songs from the US, France and Brazil from 1930 - 1960. Thereafter, the study tracked the availability of each song on YouTube, collecting information on the identity of the uploader, date of upload, number of views, and whether the upload had been monetised.
The study then uses a different dataset of 385 popular US songs from 1919-1926 to determine whether older and more obscure songs are equally as available.
Data Type: Primary and Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • May 2013
Funder(s):

Abstract

“In theory, notice-and-takedown regimes can lower transaction costs by facilitating communication between users and copyright owners, especially where content filtering automates much of the process. This market study tests the transaction costs theory by tracking 90 songs on YouTube that reached number one on the U.S., French, and Brazilian pop charts from 1930 to 1960. The data collected includes the identity of the uploader, type of upload, number of views, date of upload, and monetization status. YouTube uploads of a sample of 385 popular songs from 1919-1926 are also charted. An analysis of the data demonstrates that the DMCA safe harbor system as applied to YouTube helps maintain public access to many old songs by allowing those possessing copies (primarily infringers) to communicate relatively costlessly with copyright owners to satisfy the market of potential listeners.”

Main Results of the Study

The study finds that 95% of songs surveyed on YouTube were uploaded were uploaded by non-owners/infringers.

Most infringing uploads of US songs have been monetised by the copyright owner (73%), and overall US artists appear to be more eager to monetise videos than their French and Brazilian counterparts.

Most monetised videos are simple sound recordings straight from vinyl or CDs with an accompanying picture of e.g. the album cover. Here, there is a differential between US artists, who more often monetise these videos, and French and Brazilian artists who are less likely to do so. This may be reflective of a higher demand for US songs, whereas monetisation of lesser-known French and Brazilian songs are less likely to be worth the effort of monetising. By contrast, most non-monetised videos are from TV or movie clips which include the song, possibly because of ownership issues between the owner of the song and the owner of the film.

Following an analysis of songs both within copyright and the public domain, the study concludes that copyright does not appear to impose an impediment to availability on YouTube. Copyrighted songs are in fact more available (77%) than public domain songs (70%).

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study concludes that the notice and takedown regime helps promote access to cultural goods by leaving the ultimate decision on their availability in the hands of rightsholders. As such, strict liability regimes for platforms like YouTube should be avoided, as this would likely make ‘disappearing works’ less available to the public.


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Green-tick.png
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)
Green-tick.png

Datasets

Sample size: 90
Level of aggregation: Songs
Period of material under study: 1930 - 1960


Sample size: 385
Level of aggregation: Songs
Period of material under study: 1919 - 1926