SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    EU Copyright Levy Debate Rekindled; UK Needs Better Licensing, Study Finds

    Published on 4 April 2012 @ 6:24 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    Stalled talks on Europe’s broken system of private copying levies resumed on 2 April, with European Commission-appointed mediator António Vitorino laying out his goals and urging parties to move beyond their entrenched positions. Meanwhile, a report for rights owners found that abolishing levies will hurt them as well as device makers and, possibly, consumers. And in another copyright-related development, a UK government study identified problems with the country’s copyright licensing regime.

    Levies are fees imposed on digital reproduction equipment such as blank DVDs to compensate copyright owners for the making of private copies. Not every EU country uses the system, but among those that do, there are significant differences as to the devices affected and the definitions of private copying, European Internal Market and Services Commissioner Michel Barnier said last November when he appointed Vitorino to try to clean up the mess. The varying regimes pose problems for businesses and consumers, to the detriment of rights owners, he said.

    “We must find a way to reconcile” national private copying levy systems with smooth cross-border trade in goods and services, Vitorino said in his 2 April statement. That means taking account of new business models that deliver new forms of authorised access to copyright-protected material, and that give rights holders better control over the use of their content and how they are paid for it, he said.

    “Significant efforts have been made over the years on this sensitive subject” that he will build on, said Vitorino. But “the purpose of this mediation is to move beyond well-known and entrenched positions” to find workable, mutually acceptable solutions, he said. Individual talks with stakeholders begin this month, he said.

    The exercise has two objectives, Vitorino said: To identify possible ways to tackle the issue of disparate levy systems, and to gauge the functioning and scope of the private copying exception in the digital environment. The mediation will focus on several core issues: How to set levies; cross-border sales; determining who is liable to pay levies; visibility of the levy; and private copying and reproduction in the context of new digital forms of distribution of copyrighted content, and their implications for the levy system. Organisations and interested parties seeking solutions should send comments by 31 May to markt-levies-mediation-2012@ec.europa.eu.

    IMPALA, which represents independent music companies, welcomed the re-launch of talks. While the methodology and administration of private copying systems “is open to improvement,” imposing fees on blank media and recording equipment is the fairest way to maintain such a copyright exception while ensuring artists are paid, it said. DIGITALEUROPE, which represents tech companies such as consumer electronics manufacturers, said it will engage directly with Vitorino for the moment.

    Duelling Reports

    Additional support for levies came in a 28 March report [pdf] by Compass Lexecon economic consultants for the European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers (GESAC), Association of European Performers’ Organisations, European Federation of Joint Management Societies for Producers of Private Audiovisual Copying, the International Federation for the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), IMPALA and the Society for All Artists. The report analysed an earlier study, commissioned by Nokia, which found that removing copyright levies would benefit consumers, rights owners and device manufacturers.

    To the contrary, Compass Lexecon said, abolishing levies will not create a win-win situation for all market players. Rights holders will be worse off because they will lose the revenue generated by the levy and won’t benefit from the unlikely increase in sales of recording devices resulting from the end of the levy, it said. Lower revenues will reduce incentives to develop new, high quality content, it said. Information available on the music industry in 19 EU countries for 2000-2009 shows a positive and statistically significant relationship between copyright levies and content creation, it said.

    The outlook for device manufacturers is mixed, the report said. They may, but will not necessarily, benefit from the cost reduction in the short term, but in the long run their revenues may drop as incentives for rights holders to invest in new content will disappear in the absence of levies, it said. For consumers, the effect is “ambiguous,” Compass Lexecon said. They could gain in the short term if removing levy fees significantly lowers the price of electronics goods, it said. But in the long term, they may find themselves worse off if there is less investment in content and, hence, less high quality content available, it said.

    The study proves there is economic justification for and welfare benefits from private copying levies, GESAC said. The legal justification for such fees has long been recognised by EU law and by recent decisions of the European Court of Justice, it said.

    UK Copyright Licensing Needs Tweaking

    UK copyright licensing compares well with that of other countries but could be better, according to a 27 March report [pdf] for the Intellectual Property Office by Richard Hooper, appointed by the government to study the feasibility of a digital copyright exchange (DCE).

    Licensing problems exist in several market segments and industry sectors, the report said, including libraries, archives and museums; educational institutions; and the audiovisual, publishing, music and images industries. Problems include complex licensing processes and organisations, repertoire imbalance between the digital and physical worlds, and the difficulty in finding out who owns what rights to what content in what country, it said.

    Other issues are how to pay creators accurately for use of their works, and how to reduce the labor-intensiveness and costs of licensing copyright for the high-volume, low-value transactions that characterise the digital world, the report said. There is also a lack of common standards and a common language for expressing, identifying and communicating rights information across creative sectors and national boundaries, it said.

    Solutions for these and other concerns will be considered in the second phase of the Hooper study, which began this month, the IPO said. One possible fix is the DCE, recommended in the 18 May 2011 government-commissioned “digital opportunity|” review headed by Ian Hargreaves, digital economy chair at the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies (IPW, Copyright, 18 May 2011), it said.

    Hooper will report his finding to the government before Parliament recesses this summer, the IPO said. A separate IPO consultation on proposed changes to UK copyright law arising from the Hargreaves report closed on 21 March, and the government will publish its analysis and summary of responses within three months, the IPO said.

    Dugie Standeford may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.90.127.10