Weathering the Murphy storm: domestic IP litigation and industrial consolidation as pragmatic responses to the Court of Justice's decision?

ABSTRACT

This article explores the impact of the 2011 Murphy preliminary ruling on the dynamics of the sports broadcasting market and focuses on the actions of Sky plc (formerly BSkyB), which owns the rights to broadcast live matches involving several major English Premier League clubs. It is suggested that through its merger, post-Murphy, with its German and Italian arms, BSkyB appeared to act, albeit in the background, to protect its position in the industry and gain a foothold in very lucrative and still partly untapped pan-European markets. The article also explores the recent IP litigation initiated by the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) in English and Scottish courts designed to rein in landlords and tenants seeking to rely on the free movement rights confirmed in the 2011 judgment. It asks to what extent these various strategies can be read as an attempt by rights holders to ‘limit the damage’ to the value of their investments in expensive media content caused by Murphy.

KEYWORDS:

• EU
• media
• mergers
• competition
• free movement

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Arianna Andreangeli is Senior Lecturer in Competition Law at the University of Edinburgh. Heartfelt thanks are owed to Dr Rachael Craufurd Smith for her feedback and the usual disclaimer applies.

Notes

1 See Joined Cases C-403/98 and 429/98, Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd [2011] ECR I-9083 and, for commentary, A Robertson, ‘Murphy's Law’, in Eugène Buttigieg (ed), Rights and Remedies in a Liberalised and Competitive Internal Market (Gutenberg Press Ltd, 2012) 197; S Pibworth, ‘The Murphy Judgment: Not Quite Full Time For Football Broadcasting Rights’ (2012) 8(2) Competition Law Review 209; D Doukas, ‘The Sky is Not The (Only) Limit: Sports Broadcasting Without Frontiers and the Court of Justice’ (2012) 37(5) European Law Review 605; T Margoni, ‘The Protection of Sports Events in the EU’ (2016) 47(4) International Review of Intellectual property and Competition Law 386.

2 See Robertson (n 1) 203–205.

3 Ibid, 203–205, 206.

4 Ibid, 207; see also FAPL v NetMed and others [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch) [14]; see also [13].

5 Ibid, [55]–[56]; see also [39]–[40].

6 See Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access [1998] OJ L320/54.

7 Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 1666 (admin) [67] and ensuing Appendix; see also FAPL v NetMed (n 4) [369]–[375].

8 Joined Cases C-403/98 and 429/98, Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd [2011] ECR I-9083 [64].

9 Ibid, [66].

10 Ibid, [85]–[86].

11 Ibid, [93]–[95].

12 Ibid, [96]–[97]; see also [102]–[104].

13 Ibid, [107].

14 Ibid, [108].

15 Ibid, [110].

16 Ibid, [114].

17 Ibid, [115].

18 Ibid; see also [117].

19 Ibid, [119]–[120].

20 Ibid; see also [124].

21 Ibid, [137].

22 Ibid, [141]; see also [139]–[140].

23 Case 262/81, Coditel v Cine Vog (No 2) [1982] ECR 3381 (henceforth Coditel II) [15]–[16].

24 Murphy (n 1) [139], [142].

25 See Murphy (n 1) [141]–[143]; cf Coditel II (n 23) [9], [15].

26 Ibid, [154].

27 Ibid, [155]; see also [149].

28 Ibid; see also [156]–[157].

29 Ibid, [148]–[149], [158].

30 Ibid, [175].

31 Ibid, [177].

32 Ibid, [181]–[182].

33 See inter alia Robertson (n 1) 215–17; see also Pibworth (n 1) 214.

34 Doukas (n 1) 612–13.

35 Ibid; see also inter alia Pibworth (n 1) 212–13.

36 See e.g. case C-501/06, GSK Services and others v Commission [2009] ECR I-9291, esp [59]–[64].

37 See D Geradin, ‘Competition Law Problems Raised By the Entry of Incumbent Telecommunication Operators in the Media Content Delivery Market’ paper given at the University of Zurich, 7 December 2005 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=796066> accessed 15 September 2016, esp 6–8.

38 See e.g. mutatis mutandis case C–395/87, Ministere Public v Tournier [1989] ECR 2521; C-607/11, ITV v Catch Up TV, [2013] ECR I-147; for commentary see inter alia E Rosati, ‘Toward an EU-wide Copyright?’ (2013) IPQ 47.

39 See e.g. mutatis mutandis case C-5/08, Infopaq [2009] ECR I-6569; for commentary, inter alia Rosati (n 38) 52–54.

40 See Murphy (n 1) [99].

41 See Murphy (n 1) [149]–[150], [98]–[100]; see also (n 1) <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2652991> accessed 15 September 2016, 9–10.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid; see also Margoni (n 1) 7.

44 Margoni (n 1) 2–3; also Geradin (n 37) 71–72.

45 Murphy (n 1) [118]–[121]; see also [106], [122].

46 See inter alia K Donders and B Van Rompuy, ‘The EBU Eurovision System Governing the Joint Buying of Sports Broadcasting Rights’ (2013) 9(2) Competition Law Review 7, 22–23.

47 Case 62/79, Coditel v Cine-Vog (no 1) [1980] ECR 881 (hereinafter referred to as Coditel I) [12]–[13].

48 Ibid, [14].

49 Ibid.

50 Coditel II (n 23) [15]–[16].

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid, [17].

53 Ibid.

54 Murphy (n 1) [113]–[116].

55 Ibid, [120].

56 Ibid; see also [115]–[116]; see also Coditel II (n 23) [15]–[16].

57 Murphy (n 1) [115]–[116].

58 See e.g. mutatis mutandis, Geradin (n 37) 87–88.

59 Coditel II (n 23) [15]–[16].

60 Ibid, [15]–[16].

61 Ibid, [17]; see also [15]; for commentary inter alia McKnight, ‘Copyright and a Single Market in Broadcasting’ (1992) 14(10) EIPR 343, 347–48.

62 Centre for European Policy Studies, Report: Copyright in the EU Digital Single Market (2013) <https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Copyright%20in%20the%20EU%20Digital%20Single%20Market%20FINAL%20e–version.pdf> accessed 12 September 2016 (hereinafter ‘CEPS Report’) 53.

63 See inter alia, mutatis mutandis, European Commission Joint Research Centre, E Gomez and B Martens, Digital Economy Working Paper 2015–04: ‘Language, Copyright and Geographic Segmentation in the EU Digital Single Market for Music and Film’ (hereinafter ‘JRC Report’) <https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/JRC92236_Language_Copyright.pdf> accessed 12 September 2016, 18.

64 Ibid; see also, mutatis mutandis, M Burri Nenova, ‘The Reform of the Community Audiovisual Media Directive: Television Without Cultural Diversity’ (2007) 14(2) Common Market Law Review 169, 171–73.

65 Ibid.

66 See e.g. Proposal for a new Directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending Directive 2010/13/EC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services in view of changing market realities, adopted on 25 May 2016 {SWD(2016) 168 final} <http://eur–lex.europa.eu/legal–content/EN/TXT/?qid=1464618463840&uri=COM:2016:287:FIN> accessed 12 September 2016.

67 See CEPS Report (n 62) 56; see also, mutatis mutandis, C Stothers, ‘Copyright and the ECT Treaty: Movies, Films and Football’ (2009) 31(5) European Intellectual Property Review 272, 278–79.

68 See e.g. Coditel II (n 23) [16]–[17]; also Murphy (n 1) [104]–[108]; also [118]–[121].

69 See EU Commission, Communication of 14 September 2016 (2016) COM 592 final <http://eur–lex.europa.eu/legal–content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0592> accessed 12 September 2016.

70 Ibid, 2–3.

71 Ibid.

72 See inter alia, mutatis mutandis, JRC Report (n 63) 18.

73 Ibid; see also, mutatis mutandis, J Espantaleon, ‘Exhaustion Light in European Television’ (2010) 32(1) European Intellectual Property Review 29, 35.

74 See Donders and Van Rompuy (n 46) 21–22.

75 Study on Sports’ Organisers’ Rights in the EU, ASSER Institute (2014) <http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1353> accessed 12 September 2016 (hereinafter ‘Asser Report’) 71–72.

76 See inter alia Margoni (n 41) 15–16; also Espantaleon (n 73) 40–41.

77 id., 83–84.

78 Ibid.

79 Geradin (n 37) 70.

80 Murphy (n 1) see e.g. [97]–[99], [115]–[121], [126]–[132].

81 See Murphy (n 1) [112]; for commentary see e.g. Pibworth (n 1) 214–15.

82 See e.g. Robertson (n 1) 217–18; see also Doukas (n 1) 614.

83 Inter alia Doukas (n 1).

84 CEPS Report (n 62) 55.

85 Ibid, 57–58.

86 Ibid.

87 See e.g. Asser Report (n 75) 98.

88 Ibid, 100.

89 Ibid.

90 Ibid.

91 Asser Report (n 75) 100–101.

92 EU Commission, Communication (n 69) 3.

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid, [157]–[159].

95 Ibid, [158]–[159].

96 Ibid, [174]; see also [197]–[198], [204].

97 Ibid, [172].

98 Football Association Premier League v Luxton, [2014] EWHC 253. See also <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-25968200> accessed 12 September 2016.

99 Ibid, [30]–[32] (Rose J).

100 See inter alia C Giles, ‘Broadcasting Post-Murphy: The Territorial TV Licensing Changing Landscape’ (2014) 12(6) World Sports Law review <http://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2014/global/broadcasting-post-murphy-the-territorial-tv-sports-licensing-landscape> accessed 12 September 2016.

101 See e.g. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25849670> accessed 12 September 2016.

102 Football Association Premier League v Berry [2014] EWHC 726, [2] (Spearman QC, Deputy J).

103 Ibid, [25]–[28].

104 See <http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-city-centre-bar-fined-6832195> accessed 12 September 2016.

105 Ibid.

106 See Scottish Premier League v Lisini Pub Management Co Ltd [2013] CSOH 48, [10]–[15].

107 Ibid, esp [22]–[27].

108 Scottish Premier League v Lisini Pub Management Co Ltd [2013] CSIH 97, see esp [62]–[64], [76]–[82].

109 Ibid, [80]–[82].

110 See SPFL v Lisini [2014] CSIH 6. See also, inter alia, B Heaney, ‘European Law comes to Hamilton’ (2014) 115(6) Civil Practice Bulletin P B 6; also, mutatis mutandis, E Derclaye, ‘The Court of Justice Copyright Case Law: quo vadis?’ (2014) 36(10) European Intellectual Property Review 716, 717–18.

111 Robertson (n 1) 218.

112 See Pibworth (n 33) 214–15.

113 Robertson (n 1); see also Doukas (n 1) 621, 526.

114 See e.g. case C-73/95 P, Viho Europe v Commission, [1996] ECR I-5457; also case C–66/86, Ahmed Saeed v Commission, [1989] ECR I-803, [35.

115 Case 30/87, Bodson [1988] ECR 2479 [12].

116 ‘BSkyB to buy Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland for £4.9bn cash’, from Business Newsdesk, The Guardian. See e.g. 25 July 2014 <www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/25/bskyb-buy-sky-italia-deutschland-fox> accessed 9 November 2016.

117 K Holton and L Abboud, BSkyB to pay $9 billion to create Sky Europe. See <www.uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bskyb-europe-idUKKBN0FU0EC20140725> accessed 9 November 2016.

118 See See M Sweney, James Murdoch: We have Held Talks over Consolidating Sky in Europe, <www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/25/james-murdoch-sky-europe> accessed 9 November 2016.

119 Murdoch stringe la presa sulla pay tv: insieme le attività di Italia, Germania e Uk. See, mutatis mutandis, T-112-92, Viho Europe Ltd v Commission [1995] ECR II-17. For media commentary in individual member states, see e.g. for Italy the leader from the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, 24 July 2014 <http://www.repubblica.it/economia/2014/07/25/news/sky-92352319/?ref=HRER2-1> accessed 9 November 2016.

120 Case M7332, decision of 11 September 2014 [2015] OJ C58/01, esp [27]–[28].

121 Ibid; see also [30].

122 Ibid, [40].

123 Ibid, [42]–[43].

124 Ibid, [43].

125 Ibid, [40]; see also CEPS Report (n 62) 20–21.

126 Commission decision (n 120) [43].

127 Ibid, [41]–[42].

128 Ibid, [136]–[138].

129 Ibid, [137]–[138].

130 M Sweney, Sky Adds 127,000 Customers in UK in Third Quarter. See inter alia 21 April 2015 <http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/21/sky-adds-127000-customers-in-uk-in-third-quarter> accessed 9 November 2016.

131 Case T-102/92, Viho Europe Ltd v Commission [1995] ECR II-3 [47].

132 See e.g. mutatis mutandis case 27/76, United Brands Company v Commission, [1978] ECR 207, esp [157]–[160].

133 See H Mance, ‘Sky: All To Play For’ 2 December 2014 <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d83a8000-851a-11e4-ab4e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3bGjB5uqa> accessed 9 November 2016.

134 Ibid.

135 See inter alia ‘Premier League in Record £5.14 bn. TV Rights Deal’, BBC, 10 February 2015 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31379128> accessed 9 November 2016.

136 See R Blitz, ‘Premier League is the Big Winner from the £5bn TV Rights Auction’, Financial Times, 11 February 2015 < http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b930d4e-b209-11e4-b380-00144feab7de.html#axzz3bGjB5uqa> accessed 9 November 2016.

137 Ibid.

138 See inter alia J De Vrijes, ‘Sport, TV and IP Rights: Premier League and Karen Murphy’ (2013) 50(2) Common Market Law Review 591, esp 614–15.

139 See CaseM7332 (n 120) [40]–[43].

140 See e.g. J Lindholm and A Kaburakis, comment on Murphy, in J Anderson (ed), Leading Cases in Sports Law (TMC Asser Press/Springer-Verlag, 2013) 227–41, esp 238–39.

141 See mutatis mutandis, De Vrijes (n 138) 321.

142 See e.g. J Lindohlm, A Kaburakis and R Rodenberg, ‘British Pubs, Decoder Cards and the Future of Intellectual Property Licensing after Murphy’ (2013) 18 Columbia Journal of European Law 307, esp 320–21.

143 Murphy (n 1) [140].

144 Ibid, [110]. See Lindohlm et al (n 142) 321.

145 See EU Commission Communication: ‘A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’ COM (2015) 192 final <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1447773803386&uri=CELEX:52015DC0192> accessed 9 November 2016. e.g. 7; see also 10–11.

146 See Sally Broughton Micova, ‘Digital Single Market Strategy: Implications For Audiovisual Content’, (Media Policy Project blog post, 7 May 2015) <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2015/05/07/digital-single-market-strategy-implications-for-european-audiovisual-content/> accessed 7 November 2016; also E Rosati (n 38) 60–62.