According to Izvestia, three accredited collecting societies (Russian Authors Society (RAO), Russian Union of Right holders (RSP) and All-Russian Organisation of Intellectual Property (VOIS)) have…
Geo-blocking refers to practices used for commercial reasons by online service providers that result in the denial of access to websites based in other Member States or, where the consumer is able to access the website, they are still not able to purchase products or services from it. Sometimes the consumer will be re-routed to a local website with different prices or a different product or service. In other such cases, where the sale is not denied, geo-localising practices – where differing pricing structures are automatically applied based on geographic location – are often used to apply differentiated prices to consumers. Geo-blocking is one of several tools used by companies to segment markets along national borders (territorial restrictions). By limiting consumer opportunities and choice, geo-blocking constitutes a significant cause of consumer frustration and of fragmentation of the Internal Market.
An exception or limitation under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 may be regarded as a form of interference with the exclusive reproduction right of the rightholder which is permitted by Community law, although in such a case that provision of the directive mandatorily requires compensation for the author. Where a Member State transposes that provision into its national legal system, the making of a private copy by a natural person must be regarded as the specific act of interference which, subject to further criteria to be laid down by statute, triggers the rightholder’s entitlement to financial compensation. In that respect, there is certainly a linkage between the making of a private copy and the payment which is owed. That applies regardless of how the respective Member State’s system of collection for compensation for private copying is organised in detail and whether it is financed, for instance, by means of a levy. On the other hand, the requirements in relation to that link should not be raised so high that ultimately the actual use of the relevant devices for the purposes of private copying would have to be required. Rather, even potential use would have to be regarded as sufficient.
The EU needs better tools to protect EU intellectual property in third countries, say MEPs in a resolution voted on Tuesday. They ask the EU…
Adequate remuneration of authors and performers
This option would consist in determining and harmonising the mechanisms required to help achieve adequate remuneration of authors and performers throughout the EU. This could include, for example, harmonised rules as regards contractual clauses between authors and performers on the one hand and producers/publishers on the other (e.g. some types of clauses could be blacklisted) as well as modalities relating to the transfer of rights, possibly per sector (e.g. presumption of transfer of rights could be established).
Making the Single Market fit for a digital age requires rapid actions to remove the major differences between the online and offline worlds i.e. breaking down barriers to cross-border online activity. This is the first pillar of actions for the Strategy. Secondly, since all digital services, applications and content depend on the availability throughout Europe of high-speed, secure and trustworthy infrastructures, we need action to create the right regulatory conditions for investment, stimulate competition and ensure a level playing field between market players. Thirdly, breaking down barriers to the Digital Single Market is not enough if businesses in Europe are not in a position to be able to adopt digital technologies. The Strategy supports increased digitalisation of the EU economy, including investment in ICT infrastructures. The Digital Single Market Strategy will therefore be built on the three pillars:
Russian government has directed Russian ministry of economic development to form permanent working group, which should consist of persons from different authorities and companies to improve collection of non-tax payments including, what most important is, royalty payment collected by Russian Authors Society (RAO) and Russian Union of Right holders (RSP).
‘Fair compensation’ within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 is not aimed at compensating the rightholder for illegal actions in connection with the unauthorised reproduction of works and other subject‑matter. There is only a claim to compensation in connection with private copying, provided that such copying is permitted according to the copyright laws of the Member States. The fact that – for instance on the internet via so-called ‘P2P’ (peer-to-peer) file sharing – widespread infringement of the essentially comprehensive reproduction rights of the author may be observed is not relevant in connection with that provision of the directive, and neither can it be regarded as a factor for the purpose of ensuring a balance between the interests of the rightholder and of the user. Copies which are made illegally in that way in fact mostly serve commercial purposes. In any case, they serve purposes other than ‘private use’ within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 and are therefore not covered by the limiting provision.
Rights in online transmissions
Under this option, it could be clarified in a legally binding manner that, in the context of the InfoSoc Directive, the principle of exhaustion applies to copies acquired via download-to-own services in the online environment (to the extent required to achieve a functional equivalence to the “physical world”). In addition, a mandatory copyright exception that explicitly covers linking and browsing could be introduced. As to the reproduction and making available rights, two alternatives can be envisaged:
Respect for IP rights is an essential feature of the innovation value chain, since rights that cannot be enforced are of no (economic) value. The lack of a clear and predictable IP enforcement system had a chilling effect on investment in IP in general. Effective enforcement of copyright in the digital world is challenging because of the inherent cross-border nature of the internet, the remaining differences in national IP enforcement systems, and the speed with which commercial-scale infringers can change the sources and location of their infringing activity.