Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
The case concerns the question of retransmission of broadcasts, cf. section 34 of the Copyright Act, when a cable company distributes television channels, which it receives in a closed electronic transmission, but which are broadcast simultaneously via satellite and the terrestrial network.
Comments closed
This technical consultation concerns only the elements of the Government response that recommend repealing Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. Section 73 currently states that the copyright in a broadcast is not infringed where that broadcast is retransmitted via cable. More specifically, this technical consultation considers the practical impacts of the repeal of Section 73, and any necessary transitional arrangements.
Comments closed
The Law on Management Business of Copyright and Neighboring Rights (hereafter referred to as “the Management Business Law”) was enacted in 2001. JASRAC was registered as a management business operator under the Management Business Law, and continued its collective management business. Since other management business operators for music copyrights were also registered, a multiple-СMO environment emerged in the field of music copyright administration in Japan.
Comments closed
Copyright protects literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works as well as films, sound recordings and broadcasts. If you want to copy or otherwise use a copyright work then you usually have to get permission from the copyright owner.
Comments closed
Any restrictions on ASCAP or BMl’s ability to administer PRS’s repertoire effectively in the US will directly prejudice the royalties flowing to PRS’s members and undervalue PRS’s members’ musical works in the US.
Comments closed
The European Commission has found that a Spanish scheme compensating terrestrial private broadcasters for carrying out parallel broadcasting during the digitisation of the terrestrial television signal is in breach of EU state aid rules. As no aid has been granted yet, no recovery will be required.
Comments closed
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
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
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