Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) are “performing rights organizations” (PROs). PROs provide licenses to users such as bar owners, television and radio stations, and internet music distributors that allow them to publicly perform the musical works of the PROs’ thousands of songwriter and music publisher members.
Comments closed
RAO is ready to create special technical platform in order to automatically track using of musical works in public places (restaurants, outlets and other different venues) and on television channels and radio stations. The purpose is to allow authors and right holder to be able to check how often their music is performed and how much they should receive.
Comments closed
Russian famous composer and music businessman Igor Krytoy believes Russian artists should have more opportunities for their careers in Russia, therefore if rotation of foreign artists on Russian radio stations would be restricted by law it could help Russian artists to get more listeners of their music.
Comments closed
The underlying source of the PROs’ and publishers unhappiness with the current performance royalty landscape seems to be that musical works performance royalties for non-interactive digital music services are much lower than the sound recording royalty rates for the same licensees. It is important to note in this context that this disparity results from an explicit decision by the CRB that sound recording performance royalties should not be tied to music composition performance royalties.
Comments closed
Russian ministry of culture (MinCult) proposed to fund Russian cinematography at the expense of television channels (broadcasters), movie exhibitors (online and traditional cinemas). Russian broadcasters, cinemas and media companies already acquire rights in content, including those produced in Russia, they fund Russian cinematography already and don’t want to pay more.
Comments closed
First, respondents were asked (de) if they had used the existing negotiation and mediation mechanisms established under the Directive. They were invited to describe their experience. Second, respondents were asked to give their view about a possible extension of these rules to facilitate the cross border availability of online services, and they were invited to suggest any other measure that could facilitate contractual solutions and negotiations in good faith.
Comments closed
The few consumers who have replied (de) to these questions tend to consider that the extension of the regime to the simultaneous retransmission of TV and radio programmes on platforms other than cable is likely to increase the cross-border accessibility of online services. They also tend to oppose maintaining the different treatment of rights held by broadcasting organisations. Member States/public authorities, but also right holders, CMOs and broadcasters, recall that voluntary collective management, extended collective licensing and individual licensing are all used to clear rights relevant for the different new TV and radio transmission and re-transmission methods and services. In this respect some Member States argue that voluntary approaches lead to legal uncertainty since service providers cannot be sure that they have cleared all the rights or that the distinction between transmission and retransmission is not always clear.
Comments closed
First, respondents were asked about the existing rules applicable to clearance of copyright and related rights for the simultaneous cable retransmission. Second, respondents were asked about the impact of a possible extension of the mandatory collective management regime to different forms of online simultaneous retransmissions.
Comments closed
Access issues of reasons containing in Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council of Ensuring the cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market.
Comments closed
Views are divided (de) as concerns the need of an extension of the country of origin principle to online transmissions. Consumers representatives call for a broad extension of the country of origin principle to cover all online services. In addition, certain argue that introducing this principle with regard to online transmissions would not be sufficient on its own – such an intervention would need to be accompanied by a rule explicitly prohibiting technical or contractual restrictions on “passive sales” across EU borders (restrictions on responding to unsolicited requests from consumers residing in other Member States).
Comments closed