Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
The market for music performance rights is not competitive and the Consent Decrees continue today to serve important pro-competitive purposes. Direct licensing is an important check on performance rights organization (“PRO”) market power under the Consent Decrees, but it cannot replace the Consent Decrees due to the high market concentration of the major music publishers and the lack of competition among them.
Comments closed
From the perspective of providers of audio-visual television programming, the Consent Decrees continue to serve very important purposes, acting as safeguards to constrain ASCAP’s and BMI’s substantial market leverage, while providing a framework that facilitates licenses for program providers and fair compensation for music creators.
Comments closed
CEO of Russian union of right holders, collecting private copying levy under state accreditation, and VOIS, collective management organisation collecting royalties under state accreditation for all worldwide repertoire, explained the main tendencies in Russian collective rights management and his vision of perspectives.
Comments closed
Under the consent decrees, for an end-user to obtain a blanket license it need only write a letter to ASCAP or BMI asking to do so. While the ensuing blanket license process is a highly efficient means of clearing music rights for use in the media, rates are sometimes disputed in the rate court where prior licenses are cited to help the rate court determine a reasonable fee for the music user.
Comments closed
Currently Russian law requires manufacturers and importers of equipment capable of copying a copyrighted content to pay private copying levy. Nobody from “taxpayers” likes this levy, and pays it reluctantly. What they can do? File a suit? Yes, Russian law allows it to challenge system of private copying levy in court and there is a defendant. But they always chose wrong defendant and lost.
Comments closed
The case concerns the question of retransmission of broadcasts, cf. section 34 of the Copyright Act, when a cable company distributes television channels, which it receives in a closed electronic transmission, but which are broadcast simultaneously via satellite and the terrestrial network.
Comments closed
SOCAN is Canada’s music performing rights society. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Canadian Copyright Act (the “Acf’), SOCAN carries on the business, on a not-for-profit basis, of granting licences for the public performance and communication to the public by telecommunication of musical works in Canada.
Comments closed
Russian Union of Right holders – (RSP) accredited by state Russian collective management society collecting private copying levy in Russia – has decided to terminate agreement, transferring authority to manage copyright and establishing cooperation in this field, concluded with Russian Authors Society – (RAO) another accredited by state collective management society collecting royalties for public performance and synch under state accreditation.
Comments closed
Actually there are two proposal and both are different. Let’s take a look at the first of them. The draft law proposed certain amendments to regulation of collective rights management. These amendments concern collecting societies received state accreditation. First of all under new proposal such CMO must be non-profit organisation.
Comments closed
The Law on Management Business of Copyright and Neighboring Rights (hereafter referred to as “the Management Business Law”) was enacted in 2001. JASRAC was registered as a management business operator under the Management Business Law, and continued its collective management business. Since other management business operators for music copyrights were also registered, a multiple-СMO environment emerged in the field of music copyright administration in Japan.
Comments closed