Individual and collective management of copyright in a digital environment

Ricolfi, Marco

doi:10.4337/9781848440210.00016

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gyertyánfy (2010), p. 79. See also Ricolfi (2007) 67 In this decision the CJEU criticised the Commission's arguments from many perspectives and gave preference to the arguments of CISAC and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) which favoured the territorial approach to the collective management of rights. The CJEU warned that the Commission criticised the monopoly position of the territorially organised network of local CMOs through reciprocal representation agreements without explaining how efficient collective management should be achieved by competition among CMOs.…”

Section: New European Legal Framework For Collective Management and Tmentioning

confidence: 97%

Implementation of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective Management and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Musical Rights in Regulating the Tariff-Setting Systems in Central and Eastern Europe

Vučković

2016

IIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Procedures for setting the tariffs in collective management of copyright in Central and Eastern Europe are currently more or less intensively coloured by the influence of state authorities (such as intellectual property/copyright offices or competent ministers) or quasi-state authorities (such as copyright expert boards, councils or mediators). This article presents the results and conclusions drawn from research on tariff-setting procedures and criteria in the national laws of 13 Central and Eastern European countries as well as in European law and jurisprudence. Furthermore, this article analyses the provisions of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management and multi-territorial licensing of musical rights, relevant for procedures and criteria for setting tariffs for both traditional and online use. Specific challenges introduced by this Directive are discussed, for authorised and unauthorised uses in the online world, as well as the influence of the Directive on the amount of remuneration for the repertoire represented by collective management organisations (CMOs). According to Directive 2014/26/EU, the position of CMOs in licensing and enforcing the rights collectively in the digital environment has changed tremendously, since they are not able to rely on their monopoly position nor on the presumption of representation, on the one hand, and they are invited to act multi-territorially, on the other hand. In these circumstances their cultural and social role is put at stake, which also affects cultural diversity in Europe. Finally, it is emphasised that in light of the shift in the paradigm of collective management from mono-to multi-territorial management, introduced by Directive 2014/26/EU, the problem of applicable law arises in relation to tariff-setting procedures established by the national laws of EU Member States.

show abstract

Section: New European Legal Framework For Collective Management and Tmentioning

confidence: 97%

Implementation of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective Management and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Musical Rights in Regulating the Tariff-Setting Systems in Central and Eastern Europe

Vučković

2016

IIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since, theoretically speaking, there is no longer any difference between the original and its digital replica, the new scenario has quickly turned upside down a whole generation of laws that lasted, and worked pretty well, for over a century: The International Convention of Berne on the exclusivity rights over public communication was signed in 1886 and was complemented only in December 1996, with the two treaties on copyright concluded by the World Intellectual Property Organization. Indeed, the process of digitalization has both dissolved the classical distinction between primary and secondary exploitations of a given work, and shortened the “long route” between authors and the public, traditionally mediated by the different phases of production, storage, distribution and delivery of material artefacts via business organizations (Ricolfi, 2007). The new ways of sharing information on the internet have thus suggested to represent the old – or pre‐digital – right to the protection of copyrighted works as the right to control access and, therefore, the same “visibility” of these works in digital environments (Heide, 2001; Ginsburg, 2003).…”

Section: Access and Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new “Ring of Gyges” and the meaning of invisibility in the information revolution

Pagallo

2010

Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper aims to examine the profound transformations engendered by the information revolution in order to determine aspects of what should be visible or invisible in human affairs. It seeks to explore the meaning of invisibility via an interdisciplinary approach, including computer science, law, and ethics.Design/methodology/approachThe method draws on both theoretical and empirical material so as to scrutinise the ways in which today's information revolution is recasting the boundaries between visibility and invisibility.FindingsThe degrees of exposure to public notice can be understood as a matter of balance between access and control over information in a specific context, as well as a function of the ontological friction in a given region of the environment.Originality/valueThe originality of the case study on a new kind of recommender system is enhanced because of the procedural approach which is suggested to further develop the distinction between “good” and “evil” as anything that enriches, or damages, the informational complexity of the environment.

show abstract

“…121 Michael Carroll identifies three groups of such entities: (1) registries administered by organisations that either own rights under copyright or related rights, or act as transactional agents for right holders -for example, Collective Management Organisations (CMOs); 122 (2) third party registries or copyright documentation services that do not solely rely upon input from right holders to gather information about works and their owners (e.g. YouTube's ContentID registry); and (3) organisations that compete in parallel with public registration systems to provide right holders with copyright documentation services, such as notice (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Copyright formalities: A return to registration?

Gangjee

2017

What if We Could Reimagine Copyright?

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual and collective management of copyright in a digital environment

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Implementation of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective Management and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Musical Rights in Regulating the Tariff-Setting Systems in Central and Eastern Europe

Implementation of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective Management and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Musical Rights in Regulating the Tariff-Setting Systems in Central and Eastern Europe

A new “Ring of Gyges” and the meaning of invisibility in the information revolution

Copyright formalities: A return to registration?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About