IS IT MONEY OR IS IT THE RIGHT TO SAY NO?

The Uradex case (Case C-169/05 URADEX SCRL v Union Professionelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution (RTD) and Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE) has just been referred to the European Court of Justice by the Cour de Cassation de Belgique for a preliminary ruling on the question:
"Must Article 9(2) of Council Directive 93/83 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission be interpreted as meaning that, where a collecting society is deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights who has not transferred the management of his rights to a collecting society, that society does not have the power to exercise that rightholder's right to grant or refuse authorisation to a cable operator for cable retransmission, since it is mandated only to manage the pecuniary aspects of that rightholder's rights?".

How retransmission has changed our lives

In other words, are satellite and cable retransmission collecting societies just that -- recipients of rights owners' money -- or can they say "non" to cable operators?

The IPKat suspects that this reference will go in favour of the cable operators, but -- knowing how the ECJ can rewrite the text of Directives -- he won't prejudge the issue.

IS IT MONEY OR IS IT THE RIGHT TO SAY NO? IS IT MONEY OR IS IT THE RIGHT TO SAY NO? Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. What If This Could All Happen Automatically,
    with a simple push of a button.....

    ReplyDelete

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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.