...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International review of intellectual property and competition law >Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market COM (2012)372
【24h】

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market COM (2012)372

机译：马克斯·普朗克知识产权与竞争法学院关于欧洲议会和理事会关于在内部在线使用音乐作品的版权和邻接权集体管理以及多地域许可的指令的建议的评论市场COM（2012）372

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Max Planck Institute welcomes the initiative of the European Commission for a binding legal instrument on collective management of copyright and related rights in the EU. Numerous provisions are to be appreciated. Yet the Commission seems to fail to take account of the full legal framework and factual circumstances that have structured the current system of collective rights management. Disposing of natural monopolies in a two-sided market, collecting societies should not refuse to grant access to their services to rightholders and users. Hence, it is strongly recommended that the European legislature follows the experience of numerous Members States and proposes an obligation to contract with rightholders as well as with users. The critique on the Commission's approach to cross-border licences for online rights on musical works as set forth in the Recommendation of 2005 has unfortunately not been duly considered and the Commission's assessment of the practical effects of the Recommendation is mistaken. Differences of substantive copyright law among Member States still constitute an obstacle to the establishment of an internal market for works. This is why the Institute deems the Commission's sectorial approach to the regulation of cross-border licensing to be problematic. Also such regulation would require further harmonisation of substantive copyright law. Moreover, the Proposal fails to take account of statutory remuneration rights and cases of mandatory collective management. Both pursue specific protection of original rightholders. In this regard the Proposal's refusal to distinguish between different categories of right-holders raises concerns. Since collecting societies manage copyrights and related rights arising from national law, and considering the benefits of an authorisation system, which can be found in several Member States, the Institute advises the European legislature to clearly state that the intellectual property exception of Art. 17(11) of the Service Directive applies to collecting societies. The Proposal endangers the balance both between different categories of rightholders and between rightholders and users that the established system of collective management of copyright in Europe traditionally seeks to achieve. It thereby compromises the laudable goal to foster the establishment of an internal market for online uses of works across Europe.
机译：马克斯·普朗克研究所欢迎欧盟委员会针对欧盟版权和邻接权集体管理制定具有约束力的法律文书的倡议。应当理解许多规定。然而，委员会似乎没有考虑到构成现行集体权利管理体系的完整法律框架和事实情况。在两面市场上处置自然垄断，收集社会不应拒绝将权利提供给权利人和使用者。因此，强烈建议欧洲立法机关借鉴众多成员国的经验，并提出与权利人和使用者订立合同的义务。不幸的是，2005年建议书中对委员会对音乐作品的在线权利的跨境许可方法的批评并未得到适当考虑，并且委员会对建议书的实际效果的评估是错误的。成员国之间实质性版权法的差异仍然构成建立作品内部市场的障碍。这就是为什么研究所认为委员会对跨境许可进行监管的部门方法存在问题。同样，此类法规将需要进一步统一实质性版权法。此外，该提案未考虑法定薪酬权利和强制性集体管理的情况。两者都追求对原始权利人的特定保护。在这方面，提案拒绝区分不同类别的权利持有人引起了关注。由于收款组织管理国家法律规定的版权和相关权，并考虑到授权系统的好处（可以在几个成员国中找到），因此该研究所建议欧洲立法机关明确声明艺术的知识产权例外。 《服务指令》第17（11）条适用于收费协会。该提案危及不同类别的权利人之间以及权利人和用户之间的平衡，而这种平衡是欧洲建立的版权集体管理制度传统上试图实现的。因此，它损害了值得称赞的目标，即建立一个在欧洲范围内在线使用作品的内部市场。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号