This autumn Russian State duma plans to consider issue of illegal copy paste.
In a DSM, the rights and obligations arising between e-commerce traders and their customers should be governed by a common set of rules and principles. EU law provides protection for EU consumers, irrespective of how goods are purchased. Harmonized EU legislation ensures safety of the goods being placed on the market. Moreover, the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EC) has fully harmonised certain aspects of consumer and contract law applicable to online sales to consumers, such as pre-contractual information the customer should receive and the right of withdrawal from the contract. However, in other areas there are only minimum EU rules, which Member States may supplement with stricter requirements. For example, the Consumer Sales Directive (1999/44/EC) has set a minimum level of harmonisation for the remedies available when tangible goods are not in conformity with the contract of sale. Member States can also go beyond the requirements of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC), which provides protection against unfair clauses which have not been individually negotiated in B2C contracts relating to both tangible goods and digital content products.
Option 4 would be achieved through a Regulation setting out common EU rules and replacing national legislation with a legal base of Article 118 TFEU. A single EU copyright title would be developed to replace national copyright titles. Under a unitary title, the exclusive rights would be defined as being protected in the whole territory of the EU.
The Digital Single Market must be built on reliable, trustworthy, high-speed, affordable networks and services that safeguard consumers’ fundamental rights to privacy and personal data protection while also encouraging innovation. This requires a strong, competitive and dynamic telecoms sector to carry out the necessary investments, to exploit innovations such as Cloud computing, Big Data tools or the Internet of Things. The market power of some online platforms potentially raises concerns, particularly in relation to the most powerful platforms whose importance for other market participants is becoming increasingly critical.
Russian ministry of communication (MinCom) has proposed to reform collective management in Russia as reported by vedomosti. MinCom prepares amendments to Russian Civil Code in order to abolish non-contractual collective management. Such amendments caused by imperfection of existing collective management system in Russia. The lack of transparency in a system of royalty collection, allocation and distribution and the lack of control over CMO for right holders are among the reasons why reform is necessary. MinCom wants CMO to work directly with right holders, i.e. under MinCom’ intention CMO, in order to manage someone’ rights, must conclude direct agreement with right holder. MinCom considers two possible ways of reform. The first is to abolish non-contractual right management. The second is more global: reduce commission rate (now it is about 40%) and appoint state organisation to collect private copying levy. According to deputy of minister of communication Alexey Volin, right holders are unhappy with current system of collective management. He thinks that it would be much better if author will have opportunity directly and at his own negotiate with CMO. It is not good, if the right holder is like serf and his rights are managed without his authorisation.
Territoriality and absolute territorial restrictions in licensing agreements
Under the “country of origin” principle, a service provider can use the licence in its country of origin (possibly obtained from a person holding the rights in that country only) in order to actively market content outside its country of origin as well. When rights are territorially fragmented, e.g. when different persons or entities hold the rights for different Member States, a service provider established in one Member States may therefore undermine the economic position of right holders in other Member States.
How private copying levy must be collected in Russia? IV part of Civil code of Russian Federation (CC RF) grants authors, performers and producers of phonograms and audio-visual works exclusive reproduction right in order to control a certain use of relevant subject of intellectual property. Article 1245 of CC RF provides certain exception for copies of phonograms or audio-visual works made only for private purposes – “Authors, performers, producers of phonograms and audio-visual works have the right to receive remuneration for free reproduction of phonograms and audio-visual works only for private purposes”. For example, there is no remuneration for free reproduction of musical works for private purposes. But existing mechanism of collection, allocation and distribution of levy can take in account the interests of songwriters and musical publishers along with interests of producers and performers. If one composer creates musical work, other writer creates a text and producer, using musical work and text, makes sound recording, why producer and performer have the right to receive remuneration for free reproduction of phonogram when composer and writer don’t have the right to receive remuneration for free reproduction of musical work and text? Why Russian law discriminates creators, owners of intellectual property rights? Even if you have a great talent, in most cases in order to create a phonogram you need at least text and musical accompaniment.
New accreditation to collect private copying levy is coming up.
In Russia there are three accredited CMO – Russian Authors’ Society (RAO) managing copyright in musical works, All-Russian organisation of Intellectual Property (VOIS) managing copyright in sound recordings and Russian Union of Right holders (RSP) collecting private copying levy. Few days ago all three CMOs announced their merger. All three CMOs are supposed to form one collective management organisation “Trade Union of creators, Russian authors’ society (PDK RAO)”. This merger should be for benefit of right holders whose rights are managed by these three accredited CMOs. But not all right holders, managers and founders of CMOs happy with it.