Memorandum 7
Submission from the Music Users' Council
THE WORK AND OPERATION OF THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
The Music Users' Council is an umbrella body
representing the interests of 25 trade organisations and individual
companies which, between them, represent some 300,000 individual
businesses. All these businesses have issues concerning the playing
of copyright music which involves the negotiation of licences
for the public performance of that music in all delivery forms—from
live performance, through jukeboxes to background music delivered
via satellite broadcast.
As far as the United Kingdom is concerned there
are only two monopoly organisations that issue music copyright
licences—Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) representing
producers and record companies and Performing Rights Society (PRS)
representing authors and music publishers. Every user of copyright
music, from a voluntary organisation holding a dance in a village
hall to a multi-national operating a cross-border streaming service
has to obtain a licence from one or both of the above companies.
If a music user is forced to pay a licence fee
which they consider to be far in excess of the fee hitherto negotiated
or if onerous terms are imposed as a condition of granting the
licence there is no other recourse than applying to the Copyright
Tribunal in order to try to lessen the financial obligation or
ameliorate the conditions of the licence.
THE COPYRIGHT
TRIBUNAL—TODAY
AND YESTERDAY
As things stand the Tribunal is seriously understaffed
and under funded and relies on out dated practice directions.
In a current case a group of users have had to wait more than
a year for determination of a case which has so far cost £100,000
while still paying the copyright collection society. Should the
case go against the collection society a further appeal will probably
be brought to law. These proceedings prove to be very costly to
users whereas the collection societies have unlimited funds to
pursue their case. As evidence of this it should be noted that
PPL distributed some £90 million to its members according
to latest figures (2006).
THE COPYRIGHT
TRIBUNAL—A POSSIBLE
FUTURE
Our further evidence to the committee regarding
the future reflects our response to the external report prepared
last year for the UK Intellectual Property Office (previously
the Patent Office).
— It is a sensible idea to have the
proceedings of the Copyright Tribunal governed by civil procedure
rules and at the same time a review of practice direction undertaken.
— From receipt of application to a
decision the Tribunal should be in a position to provide a clear
timetable for completion of a case.
— More resources in terms of manpower
and finance should be made available.
— There needs to be a clearer definition
of the sections 128a and 128b, introduced as revisions to the
Copyright, Designs & Patents Act (1988) in 2003.
In summary these are our immediate thoughts
when considering evidence to the Committee. We would welcome the
opportunity to provide more detailed evidence either orally or
in written format.
January 2008
| 
