Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
The Proposed Rule would require multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) to provide qualifying third parties with access to copyrighted video content, as well as associated programming information, for use across a broad spectrum of products ranging from physical set-top devices to internet-based software applications.
Comments closed
National sport channel has asked the court to apply “interim measures” in relation to web-site sports.ru in order to protect copyright in broadcasting television programs of “NTV Plus Sport” and “Our Football”. In other words, company asked the court to block web-site for copyright infringement of TV channels. The claimant asserts its programs were streamed without proper consent of right holder.
Comments closed
Consent Decrees remain essential to foster competitive market pricing for music performance rights. SESAC exercises substantial market power as a licensing collective and should be subject to regulation comparable to that to which ASCAP and BMI are subject. Copyright law principles and market structure coalesce to eliminate competition in the marketplace for music performance rights. These combined factors give the PROs enormous market power insulated from competitive forces.
Comments closed
This bill amends federal copyright law to extend a sound recording copyright owner’s rights to include the exclusive right to perform or authorize the performance of the recording publicly by means of any audio transmission, thereby requiring terrestrial AM/FM broadcast radio stations that play copyrighted sound recordings to pay royalties for the nondigital audio transmissions of the recordings.
Comments closed
Last year Russian government adopted new amendments to rules for demonstration of movies in cinemas. Under these amendments the permission for demonstration of movies is also necessary for “showing of film by other technical means”. The making available of a film is also included to public performance. Russian MinCult decided to clarify these amendments and published its explanation.
Comments closed
“FAPL” is the governing body of the football competition known as the Premier League. FAPL owns the copyright in films comprising television footage of all Premier League matches, and in artistic works which appear within that footage. By its claim FAPL sought an injunction against the six main retail internet service providers (“ISPs”) in the United Kingdom pursuant to section 97A of the CDPA 1988, which implements Article 8(3) of the Information Society Directive, requiring the defendants in this case to take measures to block, or at least impede, access by their customers to streaming servers which deliver infringing live streams of Premier League footage to UK consumers.
Comments closed
From the perspective of providers of audio-visual television programming, the Consent Decrees continue to serve very important purposes, acting as safeguards to constrain ASCAP’s and BMI’s substantial market leverage, while providing a framework that facilitates licenses for program providers and fair compensation for music creators.
Comments closed
AVMSD currently covers broadcasters and certain on-demand video services and requires Member States to impose minimum rules for the regulation of audio-visual media services in specific coordinated fields. In doing so, it establishes the country of origin principle for the regulation of media services within its scope of application, with certain exceptions to avoid abuses. The new proposal seeks to bring video-sharing platforms within its scope of application, also imposing new obligations on on-demand services.
Comments closed
Section 73 of the CDPA currently provides that the retransmission of the Public Service Broadcasters’ (PSBs) core channels (all BBC Channels, ITV1, and Channel 4 and 5’s core channels) via cable is exempt from copyright fees.
Comments closed
Internet companies have almost agreed with certain provisions of proposed regulations for OTT-services operating in Russia, but also have their own amendments in order to improve regulation and exclude from its scopes Russian projects, including those, which already have been funded by foreign investors and operate in Russia.
Comments closed