Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impacts of Competition Law: Monolithic Copyright, Market Power and Market Definition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Remuneration of Copyright Owners

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

Abstract

A monolith can be described as a geological feature “consisting of a single massive stone or rock, such as some mountains.” In architecture, it may refer to “a single large piece of rock placed as, or within, a monument or building.” (Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith) A literary or artistic work may constitute a monolith in its own right. As a single large piece of information, it may stand out from works of the same category. Similarly, collections of works may become so dense that they resemble a single massive information monolith. In both cases, the market power resulting from copyright ownership may be considerable. Hence, the question arises whether competition law can serve as a vehicle to ensure reasonable access conditions and prevent an artificial supply shortfall.

Martin R.F. Senftleben is Professor of Intellectual Property and Director of the Kooijmans Institute for Law and Governance at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Of Counsel at Bird & Bird.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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.

    As to the room available for the introduction of exceptions and limitations, see C. Geiger / D. Gervais / M.R.F. Senftleben (2014), 581; D. Gervais (2009–2010), 510–511; A. Kur (2009), 307–308; C. Geiger / J. Griffiths / R.M. Hilty (2008), 707; M.R.F. Senftleben (2004), 243–244.

  2. 2.

    C. Geiger (2004), 391–412; T. Dreier (2001a), 295–316.

  3. 3.

    C. Geiger (2006), 371; A. Strowel / F. Tulkens / D. Voorhoof (2006); P.B. Hugenholtz (2002), 239; S. Macciacchini (2000); Y. Benkler (1999), 355; N.W. Netanel (1996), 283.

  4. 4.

    Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, 10).

  5. 5.

    Court of Justice, 1 December 2011, Painer, C-145/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798, para. 132–133.

  6. 6.

    Court of Justice, id., para. 134.

  7. 7.

    Court of Justice, 3 September 2014, Deckmyn, C-201/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132, para. 22–23.

  8. 8.

    Court of Justice, id., para. 25–27.

  9. 9.

    M.R.F. Senftleben (2012), 395–398.

  10. 10.

    Court of Justice, 1 December 2011, Painer, C-145/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:798, para. 132; 3 September 2014, Deckmyn, C-201/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132, para. 26.

  11. 11.

    R.M. Hilty / M.R.F. Senftleben (2015), 326–330; C. Geiger (2010), 532–533.

  12. 12.

    Court of Justice, 11 September 2014, Technische Universität Darmstadt, C-117/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2196, para. 43.

  13. 13.

    M.R.F. Senftleben / L. Anemaet (2015), 6.

  14. 14.

    P. Bourdieu (1992/1999), 385.

  15. 15.

    In this sense also J.E. Cohen (2006), 154–155.

  16. 16.

    As to a potential combination of human rights and competition considerations, see T. Mylly (2013), 115–117.

  17. 17.

    Court of Justice, 13 February 1979, Hoffmann-La Roche, C-85/76, 1979 ECR 461, para. 38.

  18. 18.

    European Commission (1997), para. 7.

  19. 19.

    European Commission (1997), para. 13.

  20. 20.

    European Commission (1997), para. 20.

  21. 21.

    European Commission, 29 July 2003, COMP/M.3197, Candover/Cinven/Bertelsmann-Springer, para. 14–15; European Commission, 15 February 1999, IV/M.1377, Bertelsmann/Wissenschaftsverlag Springer, para. 9–12.

  22. 22.

    European Commission (1997), para. 20.

  23. 23.

    R.M. Hilty (2009), 639.

  24. 24.

    J. Drexl (2013), 75.

  25. 25.

    European Commission (1997), para. 41.

  26. 26.

    See the analysis of research on the social psychology of creativity by J.E. Cohen (2006), 154–155.

  27. 27.

    Use by one actor does not restrict the ability of another actor to benefit as well.

  28. 28.

    Unauthorized parties (“free riders”) cannot be prevented from use.

  29. 29.

    W.W. Fisher (1988), 1700; W.M. Landes / R.A. Posner (1989), 326; N.W. Netanel (2008), 84–85. The grant of property rights is only one strategy for providing these incentives. A system of public subsidies could solve the problem as well. Cf. R.A. Posner (2005), 58–59; S.P. Calandrillo (1998), 301.

  30. 30.

    R.A. Posner (2005), 57; G. Pessach (2003), 1077; Y. Benkler (1999), 392–393.

  31. 31.

    G. Pessach (2003), 1077.

  32. 32.

    L.L. Weinreb (1998), 1231; S.P. Calandrillo (1998), 304. See in respect of the ‘deadweight loss’ that results from the grant of exclusive rights W.W. Fisher (1988), 1700–1702.

  33. 33.

    J. Drexl (2013), 75.

  34. 34.

    P. Bourdieu (1992/1999), 370.

  35. 35.

    P. Bourdieu (1992/1999), 372 and 379–380.

  36. 36.

    For examples in the field of literature and music, see P. Bourdieu (1992/1999), 379–384.

  37. 37.

    Reference to “single source” situation, as described by Hilty.

  38. 38.

    European Commission, 29 July 2003, COMP/M.3197, Candover/Cinven/Bertelsmann-Springer, para. 13.

  39. 39.

    European Commission, 29 July 2003, COMP/M.3197, Candover/Cinven/Bertelsmann-Springer, para. 14.

  40. 40.

    European Commission, 29 July 2003, COMP/M.3197, Candover/Cinven/Bertelsmann-Springer, para. 14–15; European Commission, 15 February 1999, IV/M.1377, Bertelsmann/Wissenschaftsverlag Springer, para. 9–12.

  41. 41.

    M. Lamping (2015), 133; B. Conde Gallego (2006), 27–28; J. Drexl (2004), 806–807.

  42. 42.

    J. Drexl (2013), 42; R.M. Hilty (2009), 639.

  43. 43.

    Court of Justice, 29 April 2004, IMS Health, C-418/01, [2004] ECR I-05039, para. 34–35.

  44. 44.

    Court of Justice, 29 April 2004, IMS Health, C-418/01, [2004] ECR I-05039, para. 38 and operative part.

  45. 45.

    M.R.F. Senftleben (2013), 85–91.

  46. 46.

    Court of Justice, 6 April 1995, “Magill”, C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P, [1995] ECR I-743, para. 7.

  47. 47.

    Court of Justice, 6 April 1995, “Magill”, C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P, [1995] ECR I-743, para. 91.

  48. 48.

    Court of Justice, 29 April 2004, IMS Health, C-418/01, [2004] ECR I-05039, para. 38.

  49. 49.

    M. Lamping (2015), 139.

  50. 50.

    Court of Justice, 19 December 2013, C-202/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:850, para. 8–14.

  51. 51.

    Court of Justice, 19 December 2013, C-202/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:850, para. 41.

  52. 52.

    Court of Justice, 29 April 2004, IMS Health, C-418/01, [2004] ECR I-05039, para. 38 and operative part.

  53. 53.

    M. Lamping (2015), 133–134; K.-N. Peifer (2006), 7; T. Dreier (2001b), 53, 60, 70–71.

  54. 54.

    B. Conde Gallego (2006), 20; T. Höppner (2005), 462–463.

  55. 55.

    A. Heinemann (2006), 713; B. Conde Gallego (2006), 25–26.

  56. 56.

    M. Lamping (2015), 135–136; J. Drexl (2013), 122.

  57. 57.

    M. Lamping (2015), 135–136; T. Höppner (2005), 463–464.

  58. 58.

    B. Conde Gallego (2006), 27.

  59. 59.

    B. Conde Gallego (2006), 28.

  60. 60.

    With regard to this particular form of compulsory licensing, see R.M. Hilty / M.R.F. Senftleben (2015), 330–337.

  61. 61.

    For an in-depth analysis of a potential interplay of human rights and competition law, see T. Mylly (2009).

References

  • Benkler, Y. (1999), Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain, New York University Law Review 74, 355-446

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1992/1999), Die Regeln der Kunst. Genese und Struktur des literarischen Feldes, Suhrkamp 1999 (French original: Bourdieu, P., Les règles de l’art. Genèse et structure du champ littéraire, Éditions du Seuil 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Calandrillo, S.P. (1998), An Economic Analysis of Property Rights in Information: Justifications and Problems of Exclusive Rights, Incentives to Generate Information, and the Alternative of a Government-Run Reward System, Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal 9, 301-359

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.E. (2006), Copyright, Commodification, and Culture: Locating the Public Domain, in: L. Guibault / P.B. Hugenholtz (Eds.), The Future of the Public Domain – Identifying the Commons in Information Law, 121-166, Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Conde Gallego, B. (2006), Die Anwendung des kartellrechtlichen Missbrauchsverbots auf „unerlässliche“Immaterialgüterrechte im Lichte der IMS Health- und Standard-Spundfass-Urteile, GRUR Int., 16-28

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier, T. (2001a), Balancing Proprietary and Public Domain Interests: Inside or Outside of Proprietary Rights?, in: R. Dreyfuss / D. Leenheer-Zimmerman / H. First (Eds.), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property – Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Economy, 295-316, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier, T. (2001b), Primär- und Folgemärkte, in: G. Schricker / T. Dreier / A. Kur (Eds.), Geistiges Eigentum im Dienste der Innovation, 51-81, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl, J. (2004), Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law: IMS Health and Trinko – Antitrust Placebo for Consumers Instead of Sound Economics in Refusal-To-Deal Cases, IIC 35, 788-808

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl, J. (2013), Copyright, Competition and Development, Report by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich, December 2013, available at: http://www.wipo.int/ip-competition/en/

  • European Commission (1997), Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law, Official Journal No. C 372, p. 5-13, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.1997.372.01.0005.01.ENG

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W.W. (1988), Reconstructing the Fair Use Doctrine, Harvard Law Review 101, 1659-1795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C. (2004), Droit d’auteur et droit de public à l’information, Litec

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C. (2006), “Constitutionalising” Intellectual Property Law? The Influence of Fundamental Rights on Intellectual Property in the European Union, IIC 37, 371-406

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C. (2010), Promoting Creativity through Copyright Limitations: Reflections on the Concept of Exclusivity in Copyright Law, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 12, 515-548

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C. / Gervais, D. / Senftleben, M.R.F. (2014), The Three-Step Test Revisited: How to Use the Test’s Flexibility in National Copyright Law, American University International Law Review 29, 581-626

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C. / Griffiths, J. / Hilty, R.M. (2008), Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law, IIC 39, 707-713

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, D. (2009-2010), Fair Use, Fair Dealing, Fair Principles: Efforts to Conceptualize Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright, Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 57, 499-520

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, A. (2006), Gefährdung von Rechten des geistigen Eigentums durch Kartellrecht? Der Fall “Microsoft” und die Rechtsprechung des EuGH, GRUR, 705-713

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R.M. (2009), Renaissance der Zwangslizenzen im Urheberrecht? – Gedanken zu Ungereimtheiten auf der urheberrechtlichen Wertschöpfungskette, GRUR, 633-644

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R.M. / Senftleben, M.R.F. (2015), Rückschnitt durch Differenzierung? Wege zur Reduktion dysfunktionaler Effekte des Urheberrechts auf Kreativ- und Angebotsmärkte, in: T. Dreier / R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Vom Magnettonband zu Social Media – Festschrift 50 Jahre Urheberrechtsgesetz, 317-338, C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Höppner, T. (2005), Missbräuchliche Verhinderung “neuer” Produkte durch Immaterialgüterrechte – Zur Anwendung von Art. 82 EG auf Lizenzverweigerungen, GRUR Int., 457-464

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholtz, P.B. (2002), Copyright and Freedom of Expression in Europe, in: N. Elkin-Koren / N.W. Netanel (Eds.), The Commodification of Information, 239-263, Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur, A. (2009), Of Oceans, Islands, and Inland Water – How Much Room for Exceptions and Limitations Under the Three-Step Test?, Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business 8, 287-350

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamping, M. (2015), Refusal to Licence as an Abuse of Market Dominance – From Commercial Solvents to Microsoft, in: R.M. Hilty / K.-C. Liu (Eds.), Compulsory Licensing – Practical Experiences and Ways Forward, 121-145, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W.M. / Posner, R.A. (1989), An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, Journal of Legal Studies 18, 325-363

    Google Scholar 

  • Macciacchini, S. (2000), Urheberrecht und Meinungsfreiheit, Stämpfli

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylly, T. (2009), Intellectual Property and European Economic Constitutional Law – The Trouble with Private Informational Power, IPR University Centre

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylly, T. (2013), Intellectual Property and Competition Law in the Information Society, in: C. Geiger (Ed.), Constructing European Intellectual Property – Achievements and New Perspectives, 94-122, Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Netanel, N.W. (1996), Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society, Yale Law Journal 106, 283-387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netanel, N.W. (2008), Copyright’s Paradox, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Peifer, K.-N. (2006), Das Territorialitätsprinzip im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht vor dem Hintergrund der technischen Entwicklungen, ZUM, 1-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessach, G. (2003), Copyright Law as a Silencing Restriction on Noninfringing Materials: Unveiling the Scope of Copyright’s Diversity Externalities, Southern California Law Review 76, 1067-1104

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R.A. (2005), Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach, Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, 57-73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben, M.R.F. (2004), Copyright, Limitations and the Three-Step Test – An Analysis of the Three-Step Test in International and EC Copyright Law, Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben, M.R.F. (2012), Quotations, Parody and Fair Use, in: P.B. Hugenholtz / A.A. Quaedvlieg / D.J.G. Visser (Eds.), A Century of Dutch Copyright Law – Auteurswet 1912-2012, 359-398, deLex

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben, M.R.F. (2013), Internet Search Results – A Permissible Quotation?, Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur (RIDA) 235, 3-111

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben, M.R.F. / Anemaet, L. (2015), Het verleidelijke gezang van een Griekse Sirene – Auteursrecht in het licht van Bourdieus sociologische analyse van het literaire en artistieke veld, Tijdschrift voor auteurs-, media- en informatierecht 2015, 1-8, deLex

    Google Scholar 

  • Strowel, A. / Tulkens, F. / Voorhoof, D. (2006) (Eds.), Droit d’auteur et liberté d’expression, Editions Larcier

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinreb, L.L. (1998), Copyright for Functional Expression, Harvard Law Review 111, 1150-1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Martin R. F. Senftleben

Authors
  1. Martin R. F. Senftleben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin R. F. Senftleben .

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

Senftleben, M.R.F. (2017). Impacts of Competition Law: Monolithic Copyright, Market Power and Market Definition. 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_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53809-8_15

  • 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