European Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently hosted a round table among licensors of music publishing rights (EMI Music Publishing, SACEM, PRS for Music, Universal Music Publishing) and other interested parties (including Amazon, iTunes, Nokia, BEUC).
The outcome was a joint statement setting out general principles designed to deliver improved online music opportunities for European consumers, including working towards "an open, fair and transparent licensing process that secures an appropriate level of royalties for right holders and authors."
Monday, 26 October 2009
The first copyright czar for the United States.
President Barack Obama has nominated Victoria A. Espinel as the first copyright czar for the United States (formal title: “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator”). According to Threat Level:
"The czar’s position is charged with overseeing government anti-piracy crackdowns and, among other things, training other countries about IP enforcement. The Pro-IP Act also called for the creation of an FBI piracy unit and allows for the forfeiture of equipment used in large pirating operations. The legislation was strongly backed by Hollywood, the recording industry, unions, manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce".
"The czar’s position is charged with overseeing government anti-piracy crackdowns and, among other things, training other countries about IP enforcement. The Pro-IP Act also called for the creation of an FBI piracy unit and allows for the forfeiture of equipment used in large pirating operations. The legislation was strongly backed by Hollywood, the recording industry, unions, manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce".
Bibliotecas digitais - Comunicado da Comissão Europeia
A Comissão Europeia divulgou um comunicado, no dia 19 de Outubro, relativo aos direitos de autor na economia do conhecimento, que procura dar resposta aos importantes desafios culturais e jurídicos associados à digitalização em massa e difusão de livros, em especial das colecções de bibliotecas europeias.
As bibliotecas digitais, nomeadamente a Europeana, vão disponibilizar aos consumidores europeus novas formas de acesso ao conhecimento. Contudo, esta situação levanta novos problemas, nomeadamente em relação às obras órfãs que, muitas vezes, não podem ser digitalizadas devido à sua situação incerta em termos de direito de autor.
As bibliotecas digitais, nomeadamente a Europeana, vão disponibilizar aos consumidores europeus novas formas de acesso ao conhecimento. Contudo, esta situação levanta novos problemas, nomeadamente em relação às obras órfãs que, muitas vezes, não podem ser digitalizadas devido à sua situação incerta em termos de direito de autor.
Outro ponto fundamental, apontado pelo comunicado, está relacionado com a necessidade de melhorar a distribuição e disponibilidade das obras a pessoas com deficiência, em especial as pessoas com deficiência visual.
Os Comissários Europeus Charlie McCreevy e Viviane Reding, responsáveis pela elaboração do comunicado, realçaram que o debate sobre o acordo Google Books, realizado nos EUA, veio mostrar que a Europa não pode ficar para trás neste domínio.
Neste sentido, o Comissário McCreevy afirmou que “temos de impulsionar o desenvolvimento da Europa como centro de criatividade e inovação. O vasto património existente nas bibliotecas europeias não pode continuar a ganhar pó, tem de se tornar acessível para os nossos cidadãos”.
Na mesma linha, a Comissária Reding realçou que “tiveram já início, em todo o mundo, importantes actividades de digitalização. A Europa deve aproveitar esta oportunidade para assumir a liderança e assegurar que a digitalização dos livros se efectue em consonância com a legislação europeia do direito de autor e no pleno respeito da diversidade cultural europeia. A Europa, com o seu rico património cultural, tem muito a oferecer e a ganhar com a digitalização dos livros. Se agirmos com prontidão, as soluções europeias para a digitalização dos livros, favoráveis à concorrência, poderão muito bem tornar-se operacionais antes das soluções actualmente previstas no âmbito do acordo Google Books, celebrado nos EUA”.
Monday, 21 September 2009
US statement on the Google Settlement
The US government recently filed a statement recommending that the court rejects the Google Book Settlement in its current wording. According to the statement, the settlement has been criticised on three grounds: violation of competition law, failure to fulfil the requirements for a class action and violation of copyright law. Curiously, the statement focuses on the first two issues, leaving copyright aside ….
Revised loi Hadopi passes lower house
France's famous “loi Hadopi” which introduces a ‘three strikes’ approach to persistent illegal fileswappers and which would allow authorities to disconnect repeat infringers, has passed through the lower house of parliament in a revised form. The law, supported by President Sarkozy, must still be approved by the French parliament and may still face another challenge in the constitutional court.
A previous version of the law, approved by parliament in June, was rejected by France's constitutional court who said that any disconnections could only be ordered by a court.
Under the new version of Hadopi, a new authority will investigate suspected cases of piracy and will have the power to issue two written warnings before a court can order an Internet connection to be disconnected and a fine of up to 30,000 euros.
Source: Reuters
A previous version of the law, approved by parliament in June, was rejected by France's constitutional court who said that any disconnections could only be ordered by a court.
Under the new version of Hadopi, a new authority will investigate suspected cases of piracy and will have the power to issue two written warnings before a court can order an Internet connection to be disconnected and a fine of up to 30,000 euros.
Source: Reuters
Friday, 11 September 2009
Implications of the Google Book Settlement
The US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary has held a hearing on ‘Competition and Commerce in Digital Books’. Eight statements were given, including one from Google, one from the Authors Guild and one from Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights.
According to Peters:
“As a matter of copyright policy, courts should be reluctant to create or endorse settlements that come so close to encroaching on the legislative function. Congress generally adopts compulsory licenses only reluctantly in the face of a failure of the marketplace, after open and public deliberations that involve all affected stakeholders, and after ensuring that they are appropriately tailored. Here, no factors have been demonstrated that would justify creating a system akin to a compulsory license for Google – and only Google – to digitize books for an indefinite period of time (…)
We are not experts on the proper scope of class action settlements, but we do wonder whether, as a constitutional matter, a class action settlement could decide issues that were not properly before the Court as part of the case and controversy presented during the litigation (…)
the proposed settlement inappropriately creates something similar to a compulsory license for works, unfairly alters the property interests of millions of rights holders of out-of-print works without any Congressional oversight, and has the capacity to create diplomatic stress for the United States.”
According to Peters:
“As a matter of copyright policy, courts should be reluctant to create or endorse settlements that come so close to encroaching on the legislative function. Congress generally adopts compulsory licenses only reluctantly in the face of a failure of the marketplace, after open and public deliberations that involve all affected stakeholders, and after ensuring that they are appropriately tailored. Here, no factors have been demonstrated that would justify creating a system akin to a compulsory license for Google – and only Google – to digitize books for an indefinite period of time (…)
We are not experts on the proper scope of class action settlements, but we do wonder whether, as a constitutional matter, a class action settlement could decide issues that were not properly before the Court as part of the case and controversy presented during the litigation (…)
the proposed settlement inappropriately creates something similar to a compulsory license for works, unfairly alters the property interests of millions of rights holders of out-of-print works without any Congressional oversight, and has the capacity to create diplomatic stress for the United States.”
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Brussels threatens sanctions against US
According to a recent European Commission report the US is still failing to address the need to pay a royalty fee for music broadcast in public places, such as bars, shops or restaurants. In Europe, these royalties are usually gathered by collecting societies, with royalties also being collected for US authors. The issue has been raised on different occasions by Brussels in international fora in which trade matters are discussed, in particular the World Trade Organisation. After official complaints from the EU, Washington accepted to offer financial assistance to EU artists for the period between 2002 and 2004. The arrangement expired at the end of 2004, and since then the US has not changed its relevant copyright rules, neither has it compensated EU authors with a new financial agreement. According to the report, the EU has safeguarded its rights to suspend trade benefits granted to the US if the Copyright Act is not amended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
