Automated Copyright Enforcement Online: From Blocking to Monetization of User-Generated Content

Global platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram or TikTok live on users ‘freely’ sharing content, in exchange for the data generated in the process. Many of these digital market actors nowadays employ automated copyright enforcement tools, allowing those who claim ownership to identify matching content uploaded by users. While most debates on state-sanctioned platform liability and automated private ordering by platforms has focused on the implications of user generated content being blocked, this paper places a spotlight on monetization. Using YouTube’s Content ID as principal example, I show how monetizing user content is by far the norm, and blocking the rare exception. This is not surprising, since both platforms and copyright owners significantly profit from monetization. However, contrasting complex automated enforcement tools such as Content ID against basic principles of copyright law, this paper shows how users loose out when their content is exploited. As aggravating factors, the paper points to far-reaching powers that platforms as ‘functional sovereigns’ wield within their respective domains; and to the fundamentally distinct nature of norms set by these sovereigns. The platform’s application and enforcement of its own rules is hard-coded, immediate and automated: embedded in its infrastructure and code, implemented through automation, and adjudicated in its own courts, platform rules constitute brute facts, directly shaping our reality – hence transforming the nature of law as institutional (that is, socially constructed) facts. The paper concludes by critically reviewing mechanisms to protect users, including those set out in Article 17 of the EU’s Digital Single Market Directive

From TRIPS to FTAs and Back: Re-Conceptualising the Role of a Multilateral IP Framework in a TRIPS-Plus World

International intellectual property (IP) protection is increasingly governed by a network of bilateral and regional treaties. Most of these contain obligations on the protection and enforcement of IP that set significantly higher standards than those of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), commonly referred to as ‘TRIPS-plus’. Human rights bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and academic commentators often criticise these standards for undermining flexibilities available under TRIPS. Such policy space, however, is critical to design national IP laws in accordance with domestic needs. This chapter makes a case for the continued relevance of the TRIPS Agreement as an overarching, multilateral framework. My argument is based on the role treaty law affords to the object and purpose expressed in Articles 7 and 8 TRIPS. They have not only been recognised as essential for promoting access to medicines in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. As integral objectives and principles of TRIPS, Articles 7 and 8 limit the ability of World Trade Organization (WTO) Members to modify their IP-related treaty obligations inter se. Based on their negotiation history and common understandings expressed by WTO Members, I argue for an enhanced role of TRIPS’ object and purpose as a loose constitutional frame for IP commitments in bilateral and regional treaties

Challenging Compliance with International Intellectual Property Norms in Investor–state Dispute Settlement

Enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights abroad is not easy – not least because international IP treaties do not create global rights that can invoked in national courts. International investment law offers potential routes for overcoming these hurdles. Whenever investment treaties include IP rights as an investment and allow for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), investors can challenge host state measures affecting their IP rights in ISDS proceedings. As this article will show, this in turn offers a unique opportunity for invoking the standards of protection under international investment agreements (IIAs) to challenge host state compliance with international IP treaties. While challenging national IP regimes is an attractive option for right holders, these challenges potentially amount to a sea-change for the international IP regime and cause serious concern for host states. I however argue that most of the routes pursued by right holders under IIAs are unlikely to be successful. Investment protection standards such as fair and equitable treatment, umbrella clauses and most-favored nation treatment should not be construed to allow invoking alleged breaches of international IP norms in ISDS. Some IIAs however contain clauses that subject expropriation claims against compulsory licenses and other IP limitations to a test of consistency with the international IP rules governing these limitations. As they offer the only feasible route for investors to challenge host state compliance with international IP treaties, I review the implications of these clauses, recent reform proposals and suggest alternative mechanisms for aligning international IP and investment protection based on general international law.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Oxford University Press via http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw00

Accurate proteome-wide protein quantification from high-resolution 15N mass spectra

In quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics, the metabolic incorporation of a single source of 15N-labeled nitrogen has many advantages over using stable isotope-labeled amino acids. However, the lack of a robust computational framework for analyzing the resulting spectra has impeded wide use of this approach. We have addressed this challenge by introducing a new computational methodology for analyzing 15N spectra in which quantification is integrated with identification. Application of this method to an Escherichia coli growth transition reveals significant improvement in quantification accuracy over previous methods

Supranational Banking Supervision in Europe: The Construction of a Credible Watchdog

Does the institutional design of the European Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and its first assessment of systemically important bank stability bolster the credibility of supranational banking supervision in Europe? One crucial measure of credibility with regard to the SSM and NCA supervision of less significant banks — the large majority of euro area headquartered bank not subject to direct ECB supervision — is the assurance of consistent supervision in the euro area. This involves some degree of convergence of NCA supervision in order to prevent national supervisory forebearance of struggling banks. This contribution thus examines whether or not the design of the SSM provides the foundation to build convergence in euro area supervision of less significant banks, despite very different national supervisory practices and institutional frameworks. The Principal-Agent approach is used to assess the credibility of the SSM design in terms of providing the foundation for consistent supervision. This contribution also examines the credibility of the ECB’s direct supervision of significant banks. The management of the ECB’s Comprehensive Assessment of signficant banks can be seen as the first step in demonstrating the capacity of the ECB to make difficult decisions with regard to the stability of the euro area’s banks

International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law

Funder: Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (IMPRS-CI, IP MPG) (2