Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) is a copyright management society for Italy and abroad. It represents performers and phonogram producers. SCF conducted negotiations with the Associazione Dentisti Italiani (Association of Italian Dentists) with a view to concluding a collective agreement quantifying the relevant equitable remuneration within the meaning of Articles 73 or 73a of the Law on copyright for the communication of phonograms, including distribution in private professional practices whatever the technique used.
Month: December 2017
Veoh Networks (Veoh) operates a publicly accessible website that enables users to share videos with other users. Users can view videos uploaded by other users as well as authorized “partner content” made available by major copyright holders such as SonyBMG, ABC and ESPN.
According to indictment Kim Dotcom, Megaupload ltd and other affiliates were members of the “Mega Conspiracy”, a worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale with estimated harm to copyright holders well in excess of $500,000,000 and reported income in excess of $175,000,000.
“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” In short, a corporation such as Megaupload could not be brought within the jurisdiction of eastern district of Virginia court for criminal proceedings absent its consent.
On 24 June 2004, the Société belge des auteurs compositeurs et éditeurs (SABAM) brought interlocutory proceedings pursuant to the Belgian Law of 30 June 1994 on copyright and related rights before the President of the tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels) seeking an injunction against Scarlet Extended SA, an ISP.
Under the current Russian law the access to the web-site can be restricted without court order if the Attorney General or his deputy believes that such web-site disseminates information or content calling to mass disorder, extremist activities, participation in public events, organised in violation of Russian law and if such web-sites is operated by non-governmental organisation, recognised non-grata in Russia.
“Sometimes, sure, creators give their work out for free and get their reward in other ways. Other times, the best way for creators to profit is to charge for access to their work. That’s not a limitation on freedom or openness, any more than paying for a newspaper is.
The IPRED evaluation (de) indicated that rules on reimbursing legal costs differ across the EU and are in some situations insufficient to cover the full costs incurred by the successful party. According to Article 14 of the Directive, the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party are to be borne by the unsuccessful party, unless equity does not allow it. The principle on reimbursing legal costs expressed in Article 14 applies to all types of legal proceedings covered by the Directive, i.e. proceedings on infringement of IPR.
The core difference between Options 2 and 3 is that Option 3 also covers online linear TV and radio-like transmissions (webcasting services) and online services ancillary to webcasting. One general challenge in assessing impacts of this option is the fact that webcasting market (in the sense of online-only, linear TV or radio-like services) is at a development stage and not yet fully formed.
A collective work is a type of compilation. The Copyright Act defines a collective work as “a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.”