Difference between revisions of "Commission of the European Communities (2005)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
to in order not to stifle the emergence of Option 3 as a competitive model for the cross-border
 
to in order not to stifle the emergence of Option 3 as a competitive model for the cross-border
 
management of copyright works.
 
management of copyright works.
|Description of Data=This report utilises data from reviewing existing literature. It uses no original data.
+
|Description of Data=This report utilises data from reviewing existing literature. It uses no original data. The study examines cross-border collective management for copyright in the provision of digital services in the EU.
 +
|Data Year=2005
 
|Data Type=Secondary data
 
|Data Type=Secondary data
 
|Data Source=IFPI;
 
|Data Source=IFPI;
Line 39: Line 40:
 
|Funded By=European Commission;
 
|Funded By=European Commission;
 
}}
 
}}
|Dataset=
+
|Dataset={{Dataset
 +
|Sample Size=1
 +
|Level of Aggregation=Case study,
 +
|Data Material Year=2005
 +
}}
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 13:23, 14 November 2016

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing Video game publishing Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Commission of the European Communities (2005)
Title: Study on a Community Initiative on the Cross-border Collective Management of Copyright
Author(s): Commission of the European Communities
Year: 2005
Citation: Study on a Community Initiative on the Cross-border Collective Management of Copyright, Commission of the European Communities (2005), available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/management/study-collectivemgmt_en.pdf.
Link(s): Definitive Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: This report utilises data from reviewing existing literature. It uses no original data. The study examines cross-border collective management for copyright in the provision of digital services in the EU.
Data Type: Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2005
Funder(s):
  • European Commission

Abstract

This Study concludes that present structures for cross-border collective management of legitimate online music services -- that are based on models developed for the analogue environment need to be improved for music to fulfil its unique potential as a driver for online services. Action is now required at EU level because revenue achieved with online content services in the US in 2004 was almost eight times higher than online content revenue produced in Western Europe. As music pervades European culture and society, only music has the real potential to kick-start online content services. This Study examines the present structures for cross-border collective management of copyright for the provision of online music services. It concludes that the absence of EU-wide copyright licences for online content services makes it difficult for these music services to take off. Improving cross-border licensing for music services requires the creation of entirely new structures for cross-border collective management of copyright. In order to improve cross-border management of copyright, this Study considers three options: (1) Do nothing (Option 1); (2) Suggest ways in which cross-border cooperation between national collecting societies in the 25 Member States can be improved (Option 2); or (3) Give right-holders the choice to authorise a collecting society of their choice to manage their works across the entire EU (Option 3).

Main Results of the Study

The Study concludes that Option 3 offers the most effective model for cross-border management. With respect to cross-border licensing, allowing right-holders to choose a collecting society outside their national territories for the EU-wide licensing of the use made of his works, creates a competitive environment for cross-border management of copyright and considerably enhances right-holders’ earning potential. With respect to cross-border distribution of royalties, the right-holders freedom to choose any collecting society in the EU, will be a powerful incentive for these societies to provide optimal services to all its rightholders, irrespective of their location – thereby enhancing cross-border royalty payments. The Study therefore proposes a series of principles that Member States would have to adhere to in order not to stifle the emergence of Option 3 as a competitive model for the cross-border management of copyright works.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

In order to improve cross-border management of copyright, this Study considers three options: (1) Do nothing (Option 1); (2) Suggest ways in which cross-border cooperation between national collecting societies in the 25 Member States can be improved (Option 2); or (3) Give right-holders the choice to authorise a collecting society of their choice to manage their works across the entire EU (Option 3).

The Study concludes that Option 3 offers the most effective model for cross-border management. With respect to cross-border licensing, allowing right-holders to choose a collecting society outside their national territories for the EU-wide licensing of the use made of his works, creates a competitive environment for cross-border management of copyright and considerably enhances right-holders’ earning potential. With respect to cross-border distribution of royalties, the right-holders freedom to choose any collecting society in the EU, will be a powerful incentive for these societies to provide optimal services to all its rightholders, irrespective of their location – thereby enhancing cross-border royalty payments. The Study therefore proposes a series of principles that Member States would have to adhere to in order not to stifle the emergence of Option 3 as a competitive model for the cross-border management of copyright works.


Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 1
Level of aggregation: Case study
Period of material under study: 2005