Online Piracy of Live Sport Events: EU parliament’s New Regime

Recently, in May 2021, the European Parliament adopted a new regime to combat online piracy of sports-related events. The increased online piracy was due to the development in digital technology as well as the rapid increase of digital content to sports fans across the world. The report by the Synamedia and Ampere Analysis found that streaming services and sporting event right holders lost nearly 28.3 billion dollars due to online piracy in the year 2020. Further, the report of the European Parliamentary Research Service found out that in the year 2019, around 6 million subscriptions to unlicensed broadcasting sites were made. Such subscriptions had brought around 522 million euros of illegal revenue. If such subscriptions were made legitimately, the earnings of the authorized broadcasters would have grown by approximately 3.4 billion euros each year.

Online Piracy of Live Sport Events

The new regime includes the option to block the illegal broadcasts within 30 minutes of it being broadcasted illegally as the EU Parliament stated, “illegal streams are most harmful in the first 30 minutes of their appearance online, the text calls for such streams to be removed or disabled immediately and no later than 30 minutes following a notification by rights holders or a certified trusted flagger”. The lawmakers of the EU had called the EU’s executive branch, the European Commission for amending the legislation regarding intellectual property rights for sporting events broadcasted live. The new regime had 479 votes in favor, 171 votes against, and 40 abstentions. The EU Parliament also stated that more than 80% of the revenue of the owners of the broadcast rights are from online broadcast however the live broadcast is transmitted online in an illegal manner.

According to Geoffroy Didier, the online piracy of sporting events serves as a severe consequence for sports federations and clubs as he said that “For the French football industry, for example, this means a loss of nearly 500 million euros ($610 million) each year for our amateur clubs. We must stop these illegal activities”. Given that illicit streams are most detrimental in the first thirty minutes after they appear online, the text requires that such streams be deleted or disabled immediately and no later than thirty minutes after rights holders or a certified “trusted flagger” have been notified.

The position of sporting events and copyright was observed in the joint cases of Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services and Football Association Premier League v. QC Leisure where the Court of Justice of the EU stated that “sports events such as football matches cannot be considered intellectual creations or works and so cannot be protected by copyright”.

In practice, the approach has taken a shift and this has been the standard procedure: the sports organizer will first secure a clean location, after which he or she would impose conditions on the media and others in exchange for permission to attend. Regardless of whether the sporting event itself is a copyrightable work, a broadcast or transmission of content from the venue will become a copyrighted work upon recording or transmission. For archival and anti-piracy purposes, the sports rights owner will normally acquire an assignment of the copyright in the signal from the media firm, therefore the sports organizer will end up owning IP rights.

While the threat of piracy to the sports sector in today’s digital world will persist, the EU Parliament’s suggestions look to be a step in the right way. While several EU member states have implemented dynamic injunctions, their technical execution has yet to be standardized. It is pertinent to note that the UK has been at the forefront of implementing such legislation to combat online piracy. The English High Court issued the first live blocking injunction in 2017 to combat the unauthorized streaming of the Premier League in the case of Football Association Premier League Ltd v. BT. Similarly, an order was made to prevent the streaming servers from distributing infringing streams of Matchroom boxing fights in the case of Matchroom Boxing Ltd and Others v. British Telecommunications Plc.

Piracy of live sporting events is a significant concern for event organizers. The issue with present measures is that they are implemented too late. The new regime urges the Commission to clarify and modify current rules, including the potential of issuing injunctions requiring the blocking or removal of unauthorized internet information in real-time.

Author:  Arush Mittal, a student of BA LLB (Hons.) from  Hidayatullah National Law University (Raipur), currently an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at sudhanshu@khuranaandkhurana.com.

 

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010