Both the RIAA and the NMPA, and their many members, have a shared interest in maintaining strong but not excessive copyright protection, and in helping copyright law develop in ways that clarify the law’s boundaries.
Comments closed
Month: December 2018
No policy intervention. Reproduction of works for preservation purposes by CHIs would continue to take place only as permitted under the different conditions and the varying space provided by the national implementation of the existing EU exception for ‘specific acts of reproduction’, or after the reproduction right has been cleared with rightholders if CHIs consider that the transaction costs involved is for them worth and possible to incur. In voluntary legal deposit contexts and for parts of scientific publications that libraries have access to remotely, preservation could continue to take place within broader agreement-based systems.
Comments closed
There are two types of sound recording authorship:
- Authorship in the performance(s); and
- Authorship in the production of the sound recording.
Comments closed
A substantial part of the law on copyright in the UK is derived from EU law. There are 11 EU Directives all of which have been implemented by the UK. The purpose of the Directives is to harmonise the copyright frameworks in Member States, by reducing national discrepancies and maintaining a level of protection which encourages creativity and enables consumers from across the EU to access services.
Comments closedRecently audiovisual right holders have signed antipiracy memorandum with Russian search and IT companies like Yandex but without participation of Google. The main goal of this memo is de-indexing links to pirate web-resources without court order and elimination of all such links from search results. Russian search engines have signed this memo, but without enthusiasm. Book publishers and right holders also want to sign similar memo, because IT counterparts of memo underlined that the memo covers only audiovisual works.
Comments closed
The experts in Russian government have assessed the recently proposed draft law on autonomy of Russian internet. And assessment underlines flaws of draft law, rather than its positive advantage. The draft law can impair the functioning of Russian internet, can make the authority of Russian internet watchdog – Roskomandzor – excessively broader and can entail high transaction costs for communication operators. The draft law also would not secure the stable functioning of Russian internet as it was initially declared by its authors.
Comments closed
Online distribution of audio-visual content in Russia plays prominent and leading role in Russian internal market. The right holders take online distribution very seriously because it makes money even when the movie is not shown in cinemas. Anyway, the right holders are not happy with statistics provided by the online cinemas. On the basis of this statistics the cinemas calculate royalties and pay them to right holders. Right holders want statistics from the third party.
Comments closed
Russian authorities decided to protect the purity of morals in Russian internet and clear out “all negative words” of insulting character, but only in relation to Russian authorities. In other words mass media, bloggers and any person can write in internet anything negative about any authorities except Russian in Russian segment of internet. In other words if you write something negative about Russian politician you could be punished in Russia under proposed law.
Comments closed
Russian legislators have introduced new draft law aiming to guarantee an absolute autonomy to Russian segment of internet. Under proposed draft law the Russian internet watchdog would receive broad authority. The main purpose and objective of law is protection of Russian internet from external threat. The draft law provides regulation for traffic routing and control over compliance with this regulation.
Comments closed
The Watch List reflects the results of stakeholder consultations. It presents examples of reported marketplaces or service providers whose operators or owners are allegedly resident outside the EU and which reportedly engage in, facilitate or benefit from counterfeiting and piracy. The aim is to encourage the operators and owners as well as the responsible local enforcement authorities and governments to take the necessary actions and measures to reduce the availability of IPR infringing goods or services on these markets.
Comments closed