First vice-premier Igor Shuvalov hosted a meeting dedicated to regulation in the field of intellectual property. The stakeholders of copyright market are almost ready to agree to create a single regulator for collective management of rights, but there is no common consent as regards to who will be supervising such regulator.
Comments closedCategory: Private copying levy
Russian ministry of culture proposed to “impose” private copying levy on smart watch
Published 28th July 2017
Russian ministry of culture (MinCult) intends to amend relevant governmental decree in order to collect private copying levy from smart watch. Amendments are already agreed in order to be proposed to government. At the same time it is also proposed to exclude digital video cameras from taxable equipment.
Continue readingRussian ministry of culture proposed to “impose” private copying levy on smart watch
Related Posts:
- Russian ministry of culture develops some changes to Russian private copying levy system
- It was proposed to shift Russian private copying levy to customers
- Payers of private copying levy in Russia realised its imperfections but can’t change it
- Russian Union of Right holders, collecting private copying levy in Russia, can lose its authority
- Why current Russian law makes implementation of Russian internet tax impossible?
- Russian Union of Right holders lost the suit against Dell
- Izotek v Russian Union of Right holders: private copying levy must be paid even without…
- New accredition in collective management is coming up
- Business divorce of Russian accredited collecting societies
- Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies:…
- Russian constitutional court decided whether Russian private copying levy is in accordance…
- Panasonic v Russian Ministry of Culture: Russian private copying levy issue
- Private copying levy under Russian law
- Consumers’ FAQs on copyright: what are copyright levies?
- New draft law abolishes Russian private copying levy and at the same time excludes…
Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: non-application of private copying levies to professional users
Published 17th August 2015
While, in principle, all products capable of making copies of copyright protected content can be levied, the private copying levies must not be imposed on goods that are acquired for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying. This approach requires a distinction between transactions where a good is sold to a private user and transactions where a good is sold to a non-private user. The latter transactions must, in principle, not be subject to a private copying levy.
Related Posts:
- Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies:…
- Reasons for Vitorino's recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: the…
- It was proposed to shift Russian private copying levy to customers
- Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies
- Reasons for Vitorino's recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: double…
- Payers of private copying levy in Russia realised its imperfections but can’t change it
- Russian ministry of culture develops some changes to Russian private copying levy system
- How to regulate private copying levy in EU?
- Russian ministry of culture proposed to “impose” private copying levy on smart watch
- Reasons for Vitorino's recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: copies…
- Izotek v Russian Union of Right holders: private copying levy must be paid even without…
- Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: the notion of harm
- Padawan case: European court's decision - third, fourth and fifth questions
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
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.
Related Posts:
- Padawan case: European court's decision - first and second questions
- Padawan Case - Background
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Consumers’ FAQs on copyright: what are copyright levies?
- Consumers’ FAQs on copyright: downloading from internet
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: the notion of harm
- Consumers’ FAQs on copyright: allowed scope of private copying
- GS Media v Sanoma – observations of the parties in court
- Australian copyright law review – alternative to fair use exception, specific exceptions and…
- How to regulate private copying levy in EU?
- It was proposed to shift Russian private copying levy to customers
- Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies
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’.
Related Posts:
- Padawan case: European court's decision - third, fourth and fifth questions
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Padawan Case - Background
- Padawan case - Legal assessment
- Proposed amendments to Marrakesh EU directive
- Consumers’ FAQs on copyright: what are copyright levies?
- Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: the notion of harm
- What means communication to the public in Directive 2001/29?
- How to regulate private copying levy in EU?
- Consumers’ FAQs on copyright: downloading from internet
- Position of the European parliament on adoption of Marrakesh Directive
- SCF v Marco Del Corso – opinion of advocate general
- Draft proposal for a directive on copyright in DSM – rights for publishers of news publications
Reforming of copyright in EU and one of the questions concerned: exceptions and limitations and the functioning of the internal market
Published 16th February 2015
In the light of coming copyright reforms in EU the draft impact assessment concerns some important copyright issues. One of them is exceptions and limitations and the functioning of the internal market.
Related Posts:
- Draft proposal for a directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market
- White paper - Copyright rules in support of other policy objectives in the digital environment
- Digital Single Market: The Evidence - copyright
- Australian copyright law review – alternative to fair use exception, specific exceptions and…
- Max Andersson's proposed amendments to proposed directive to implement Marrakesh Treaty…
- Consumers’ FAQs on copyright: when you can use a work protected by copyright created by another?
- Reforming of copyright in EU and one of the questions concerned: territoriality of copyright
- Legal elements of EU proposal to adopt Marrakesh Treaty
- Australian copyright law review – with a fair use exception the right questions could be asked
- SWD IA on EU copyright modernisation – impacts of baseline and first options for…
- SWD IA on EU copyright modernisation – preservation of cultural heritage
- Promoting a fair and efficient European copyright-based economy in the Digital Single Market
- New research on legal aspects of exception for text and data mining in DSM directive – IP paradox
- Proposed regulation to fulfil obligations under Marrakesh Treaty by EU
- Position of the European parliament on adoption of Marrakesh Directive