Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: collective management

Mandatory collective management regime for different forms of online simultaneous retransmissions in EU

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

EU public consultation on Satellite and Cable Directive – evaluation of existing rules applicable to clearance of copyright and related rights for the simultaneous cable retransmission.

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

Russian enforcement authorities have not found corpus delicti in business activity of Russian accredited collective management organisations.

Russian enforcement authorities have inspected business activity of Russian collective management societies and have not found any offence. Earlier deputies from Russian state duma have asked for inspection of three Russian accredited CMO – Russian authors society, All-Russian intellectual property organisation and Russian Union of right holders.

Comments closed

Report on EU public consultation concerning copyright with regard to EU Satellite and Cable Directive

The public consultation on the review of Directive 93/83/EEC on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (the “Directive”) was held from 24 August 2015 until 16 November 2015. This review (de) is part of the Digital Single Market Strategy which has as one of its objectives to enhance cross-border access to TV and radio programmes in the European Union.

Comments closed

Russian collecting societies are required to pay social security fees

Social security fees must be paid from royalties collected in behalf of authors by collecting societies in Russia. Russian CMOs have not paid these social security fees to Russian pension fund within three last years. According to letter obtained by Vedomosti, and written by Anton Dronov, chairman of Russian Pension Fund, to Andrey Pudov, deputy of minister of labor and social security, Russian state pension fund wants to get these monies.

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

Padawan case: European court’s decision – third, fourth and fifth questions

Background, and first two questions were earlier

The third and fourth questions

It is appropriate to examine third and fourth questions together. It must be held from the outset that a system for financing fair compensation such as that described in relevant part of this judgment is compatible with the requirements of a ‘fair balance’ only if the digital reproduction equipment, devices and media concerned are liable to be used for private copying and, therefore, are likely to cause harm to the author of the protected work. There is therefore, having regard to those requirements, a necessary link between the application of the private copying levy to the digital reproduction equipment, devices and media and their use for private copying. Consequently, the indiscriminate application of the private copying levy to all types of digital reproduction equipment, devices and media, including in the case expressly mentioned by the national court in which they are acquired by persons other than natural persons for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying, does not comply with Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/29.

Comments closed

Padawan case: European court’s decision – first and second questions

The first question

It should be borne in mind that under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 Member States which decide to introduce the private copying exception into their national law are required to provide for the payment of ‘fair compensation’ to rightholders. It should be noted at the outset that neither Article 5(2)(b) nor any other provision of Directive 2001/29 refers to the national law of the Member States as regards the concept of ‘fair compensation’.

Comments closed