Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: collective management

Russian authors society intends to implement special player for public performance in different venues

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

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

It seems atmosphere surrounding Russian authors’ society is getting worst

Roman Abramov, the president of Federation of Intellectual Property, stated about threats to his address in connection with “RAO case”. Chairman of this federation is famous director Nikita Mihalkov, he is also president of the council of Russian Union of Right holders collecting private copying levy in Russia under state accreditation.

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 Authors’ Society is under enforcement fire again

This time it is much more seriously. Not only business activity of accredited collecting society is in the field of interests of Russian law enforcement authorities, but also top management of organisation get their attention. Now not only Russian ministry of internal affairs but also Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) try to find out all aspects of very old issue.

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

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

Copyright gives creators a monopoly over their own works; rightsholders licensing their works individually have the right to charge whatever they choose, and would not be subject to any restriction on their licensing practices or prices. There is no legal or regulatory restriction on the right of any individual composer to operate in this manner today. Composers and music publishers have chosen, however, to organize themselves into Performing Rights Organizations or “PROs.” The PROs (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) offer “blanket” licenses that convey to broadcasters and other users the right of public performance to the works of thousands of individual composers at a single price. We would not allow wheat farmers or law firms to band together and offer access to their products only on a package basis at a fixed price, because we expect that if they did so they would insist on higher prices than each could get on their own.

Comments closed

Netflix’ public comment on collective management rules review

Netflix has engaged in negotiations over license fees and terms with each of ASCAP and BMI in order to secure licenses for the public performance of copyrighted musical works embedded in the programming it transmits to viewers. Since the inception of its streaming service, Netflix has relied upon the ASCAP and BMI rules to secure interim licenses upon request pending the negotiation of final agreements with ASCAP and BMI. And Netflix has conducted its negotiations with ASCAP and BMI with the knowledge that, if negotiations reach an impasse, it can rely upon the provisions of the current rules providing for federal “Rate Court” jurisdiction over ASCAP and BMI to secure reasonable license fees and terms.

Comments closed

EU public consultation concerning copyright with regard to EU Satellite and Cable Directive – mediation system and obligation to negotiate

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