A dispute between the British Phonographic Industry Limited (BPI) and the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) will soon be heading for the UK's Copyright Tribunal. BPI, a record industry trade association, represents a variety of different manufacturers, producers and sellers of audio and audiovisual recordings of music and other data. Anyone who wants to perform any reproductive copying of musical works for defined products in DVD video format has to get a BPI licence. Meanwhile, MCPS -- which collects and distributes "mechanical" royalties to composers and music publishers who are its members -- grants recording licences under its current scheme and may grant licences under a further proposed scheme. The BPI has complained that both the current scheme and the proposed scheme are unreasonable and has asked the Copyright Tribunal to adjudicate. In particular the BPI is objecting to a "very substantial and unjustified proposed increase in licensing fees". In the spirit of brotherly love neither the BPI nor the MCPS have put details of their dispute on their websites. The IPKat would like to hear on from anyone who can tell us more.

Learn more about DVD video format here

COPYRIGHT BODIES PREPARE TO LOCK HORNS <strong>COPYRIGHT BODIES PREPARE TO LOCK HORNS</strong> Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, July 31, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.