The internet renaissance of collective management organisations: reflections on flat fee system and the role of collective management organisations

ABSTRACT

With the increasing influence of modern technologies, collective management stands in front of a significant challenge. An integral part of this process is the necessary change in our society’s psychology, as the disputed shifts in the possibilities of using copyrighted works on the Internet represent a whole new perspective on sharing creativity and collaboration between users and authors. Changes in possibilities of using copyrighted works and in the minds of stakeholders indicate that our current system is not sustainable in the long term. The original motivation to create organisations of collective management – the possibility of more economically advantageous and useful administration of legitimate claims of authors, still exists. Therefore, we must seek a solution that will create a compromise between the anarchist concept of the Internet generation and the rigid approach of copyright. A flat fee could be an easy solution (whether as a part of an Internet connection payment or a ‘copyright tax’). The article discusses positive and negative aspects and provides a critical assessment of feasible options for practical use in the European legal system with regard to the Directive on collective management of copyright (2014/26/EU). In conclusion, the article summarises how collective management organisations are supposed to effectively manage the use of copyrighted works on a flat-fee basis.

KEYWORDS:

• Collective management
• flat fee
• modern technologies

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. E.g. digital dilemma, technological challenges or motivation of users. See section ‘Flat fee as a digital dilemma solution’.

2. See section ‘Proposed flat fee models’.

3. See section ‘Management of collected flat fees and the role of CMO’.

4. Mentions of collective management can be found in the following directives: Directive 92/100/EEC, Directive 93/83/EEC, Directive 2001/84/EC, Directive 2012/28/EU.

5. IFPI – International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

6. CISAC - Confédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Auteurs et Compositeurs.

7. BIEM – Bureau International des sociétés gérant les droits d’Enregistrement et de reproduction Mécanique.

8. District Court of Haarlem (Rechtbank Haarlem), 148418/KG ZA 08-410, 19 August 2008, LJN: BE8765.

9. In recent days, we can also find some opinions that a solution for the collective management on the Internet - the desired change - might be based on blockchain technology. See section ‘Tracking the works and distribution of fees’.

10. Stokes (2009) adds the seventh challenge to the points defined by Pamela Samuelson – ‘no human author’. Nevertheless, the challenge added by Stokes will not be considered in this article, although that is a question that needs to be addressed in the context of collective management.

11. But without offline music provision and with the inclusion of ads.

12. Spotify is a service that offers users music from selected publishers. There is both a free and a premium version that allows not only to listen to the library but also to download it to the user's device for offline listening. Founded in 2008 in Sweden, the service is gradually spreading to Europe and the rest of the world.

13. However, as this regime will appear in the Internet environment exceptionally, only such cases as digitised works can be considered for now - where digitalisation does not constitute another layer of copyright.

14. See the next section ‘Management of collected flat fees and the role of CMO’, part ‘Definition of non-commercial use’ for more about the terms ‘commercial’ and ‘non-commercial’

15. It includes all the services that work with the copyrighted works of third parties and provide a service that would be meaningless without these works. Examples include both music or movie service providers as well as digital libraries, text and data mining programmes, and many more.

16. See Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License, Section 1- Definitions (i.) Non-commercial: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode

17. E.g.: Belgian Ruling of Le Tribunal de Premiere Instance de Nivelles No. 09-1684-A, Lichôdmapwa v. L'asbl Festival de Theatre de Spa, 28th October 2010, District Court Southern District of New York, 1:17-cv-02472-PAE Lili Chin v Shopko Stores Operating Co., LLC, JJo-Ann Stores, LLC, Everything Legwear, LLC and Does 1–10 or Israeli Ruling TA 3560/09, 3561/09, Avi Re'uveni.