Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: CMO rules

Original ideas to reform collective rights management in Russia

Investigators do their job. They interrogate employees of RAO. And Sergey Fedotov tries to appeal his arrest. Other stake holders have to present their proposals concerning new model of collective rights management. They have term till middle of August. First vice-premier Igor Shuvalov entrust Russian ministry of economic development to create new model of collective rights management. “We will try to involve all stakeholders and providers of content, and authors and telecommunication companies and all of them.” – said Oleg Fomichev, deputy of Russian minister of economic development.

Comments closed

Comments of Dr. Adam B. Jaffe on collective rights management – second part

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 accredited collecting societies might be required to take lesser commission

Russian state would limit commission taken by accredited by state collective management organisation from royalties collected under compulsory licencing regime. There is no details how it should be done, but the common idea it clear – accredited by state CMO will make on right holders lesser monies than earlier.

Comments closed

BMI’ public comment on collective management rules review

The digital revolution in information processing and communications has completely transformed the way music performances are heard by the public and equally changed the way in which information about music performances is collected and processed. In particular, the rise of Internet streaming as a principal way the public hears performances of music has created market needs that are now not being met because of inefficient and anticompetitive restrictions in rules that serve no sound purpose today.

Comments closed

Future of Music Coalition’ public comment on collective management rules review

Direct deals by consolidated music publishers are de facto anticompetitive, lacking in transparency and potentially harmful for songwriters. At the recent round of music licensing hearings before Congress, BMI addressed the issue of “interim licensing.” Both ASCAP and BMI have the ability to negotiate interim fees. While FMC acknowledges that the addition of interim licensing may be an equitable solution, any modification regarding interim licensing or fees must preserve direct payments to songwriters, the 50/50 splits, and promote greater transparency for the benefit of songwriters who require accurate royalty statements and services seeking clarity on what repertoire is available to perform. FMC, however, also acknowledges that interim licensing could shift the “holdout” problem, demotivating PROs to come to reasonable fee agreements. Combined with the proposals for mandatory arbitration, interim licensing could potentially leave songwriters and end-users in a dead-zone without any recourse, stuck with payments under new interim licenses and lacking any bargaining power to arrive at reasonable licensing through an equitable or meaningful grievance mechanism.

Comments closed