Option 2 would enhance the level of legal certainty for the benefit of a wide range of retransmission services – IPTV, OTT, satellite, DTT, mobile – and can be expected to both (i) contribute to a greater variety of such services and (ii) provide an incentive to the retransmission service providers to expand the range of TV / radio channels offered to their subscribers.
Comments closedCategory: CMO rules
The European Commission decided to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the EU for failure to notify complete transposition (partial non-transposition) of EU rules on collective management of copyright and related rights, and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use (Directive 2014/26/EU) into national law. The Commission called on the Court to impose financial penalty to Poland – € 87 612.00 per day. Member States had to transpose the Directive into national law by 10 April 2016.
Comments closedOption 1 – Mandatory collective management of rights to retransmission of TV / radio broadcasts by means of IPTV and other retransmission services provided over “closed” electronic communications networks
Option 1 would enhance the level of legal certainty for the benefit of a specific category of retransmission services – those provided over “closed” electronic communications networks – and can be expected to contribute to a better offer of such services, depending on market situations in particular MS.
Comments closedThe European Commission decided to refer Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Romania and Spain to the Court of Justice of the EU for failure to notify complete transposition of EU rules on collective management of copyright and related rights, and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use into national law as foreseen by 10 April 2016 Collective Rights Management Directive, Directive 2014/26/EU.
Comments closedThe United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) appealed the judgment interpreting the consent decree between it and Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”). The court ruled that the consent decree neither requires full-work licensing nor prohibits fractional licensing of BMI’s affiliates’ compositions. The dispute in this case is whether, under the consent decree, “fractional” interests BMI has acquired through its affiliates to a co-owned work are included in BMI’s repertory and may be included in the blanket license.
Comments closedThis appeal presents a single question: does BMI’s Consent Decree prohibit BMI from licensing a fractional interest in the public performance right to a musical work (commonly referred to as “fractional licensing”), when BMI does not control the entirety of the public performance right for that musical work? As demonstrated below, the answer to this question is no.
Comments closedThe Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is obliged to have regard to information which is received regarding behaviour or activities which may constitute a breach of the Collective Management of Copyright Regulations. However (with the exception of a request from a national competent authority in another member state), the IPO is not obligated to take any particular action in response to such information.
Comments closedCollective licensing works on the basis of rights holders mandating collecting societies to manage certain rights on their behalf. As such, those rights holders actively opt in to collective licensing schemes and become collecting society members.
Comments closedIn evaluating the rhetoric and proposals advanced by the PROs, and music publishers, it is important to be mindful of the distinction between a “fair market” and a “free market”. The copyright owners use these terms interchangeably, yet these terms are not synonymous. At the most basic level, “free market” rates are the rates that a seller would obtain in an idealized market, free from any government intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies, or regulation.
Comments closed