Implementing Copyright Collective Management: Malaysia and Thailand Comparison

466 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
466
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Implementing Copyright Collective Management: Malaysia and Thailand Comparison

  1. 1. ImplementingCopyright Collective Management: A Comparison of Malaysia and Thailand Supatchara Distabanjong สุพชรา ดิษฐบรรจง ั
  2. 2. What is Collective Management? • Collective Management pool rights licenseComposers, Collective ManyRight Management rightowners $ royalties Organization $ users (CMO) • CMO is NFP organization: - License works for users (monitor use & collect royalties) - Distribute royalties to members
  3. 3. CMOs in Music Industry • CMO for musical works ( or Authors & composers’ Society) • CMO for recording companies • CMO for singers and musicians“Communication to the public right (public performance right orperforming right)”
  4. 4. Why the research is important?• Copyright collective management is important in music industry• Collective management Organization (CMO) is essential in representing composers demanding royalties• Composers in some Asian countries do not appreciate full benefit of collective managements• Few studies of how the collective management is developed in Asia.• None compare between success and problematic cases in the same region
  5. 5. Introduction• Macro factors comparison between Malaysia and Thailand – Language – Legal system – Copyright Law – Provision of Collective management “licensing body” definition in Malaysia Copyright law
  6. 6. Malaysian Authors Music Copyright (Thailand): MCT Copyright Protection :MACP Currency: RM Currency: Baht20,000,000 20,000,00018,000,000 18,000,00016,000,000 16,000,00014,000,000 14,000,00012,000,000 12,000,00010,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 Revenue Expenditure Revenue Expenditure
  7. 7. Aim & Scope• Aim : to provide a guideline of collective management for policy maker so that Thai composers properly receive royalties locally and internationally• Scope: focus on collective management of composers
  8. 8. Research Question:• How can the collective managements in Thailand be implemented successfully so that Thai composers can receive royalties locally and internationally? - What are indicators for success of collective management? - How can Thailand implement collective management successfully?
  9. 9. MethodologyMethodology: Case-Study • “Convergent Interview” of nine interviewees: - 4 from executives of MACP - 4 from executive of MCT - 1 from international expert from CISAC
  10. 10. Operationalized Framework for Success of Collective Management• Business Perspectives: – Revenue – Cost – Opportunity lose – Opportunity gain• Law Perspectives: – Protect composers’ right – Lifting the real practice to international standard
  11. 11. Indicators of Collective Management’s SuccessThe success of collective management is indicatedby the collective management organization (CMO) that:• represents almost all international and local repertoire of a copyright works,• can collect the reasonable royalties at reasonable costs, and• is able to transparently distribute royalties to creators/owners within its first two years of licensing activities.
  12. 12. The Indicator for Success of CMO in Collecting Royalties in Thailand Compare to Malaysia• Government – Build understanding of international practice – Correct interpretation about international practice• Thai recording companies – join CMO as music publishers – Need to be internationalize and be competitive in the region – Need to protect right internationally – Build good image and Social responsibility
  13. 13. The Indicator for Success of CMO in Collecting Royalties in Thailand Compare to Malaysia• CMO – Need clear legal identity – Reduce conflict of Interest perceived by recording companies – Build good alignment with recording companies, CMO, and composers – Build of awareness campaign
  14. 14. The Indicator for Success of CMO in Collecting Royalties in Thailand Compare to Malaysia• Users – Build understanding – Limit selective channel for Thai songs• Thai composers: – Build understanding – Build solidarity to increase negotiation power with recording companies
  15. 15. Conclusion• The Policy maker should align and balance all stakeholders within the operationalized framework• Mutual benefit of composers, recording companies, and CMO should be enhanced• Implementation should be at the macro level both locally and internationally
  16. 16. Implications: 1.National Level 1.1 Provide guideline regarding law, regulation and administration for policy maker 1.2 Build national competitiveness by recognizing composers’ right up to2. Industrial Level international practice2.1 Internationalized music industry by enhancing C2.2 Good governance of CMO by positioning NFP 3. Individual Level 3.1 Less users’ infringement by obtaining CMO license 3.2 Fair incentive to composers
  17. 17. Future Research• To what extent the Government should control/supervise CMO• Culture involved??• CMO of performers?

×