p2p news / p2pnet: Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal, the venal Big Four, classify their customers as marks to be screwed, blued and tattooed as often as possible and the labels’ mottos might be, ‘Never give a sucker an even break,’ to quote WC Fields.

With that in mind, it’s refreshing to come across an agreement between artists and music lovers in which strenuous efforts appear to have been made by both sides to be fair and reasonable.

For example, among other things, it states, “Consumers are to be protected when they copy music for their private needs, even if they use an illegal source in good faith. Private copying is fair and not contrary to the general requirements of copyright exceptions as long as it does not exceed the extent needed for one’s own enjoyment of works and that of the family or close friends, respectively. The private copying exception does not cover the dissemination (communication) of digital copies, e.g. via file sharing.

“The private copying levy paid for blank media is an adequate tool for balancing between different interests, as it makes possible consumers’ protection as well. This levy is justified as long as consumer private copying is technically possible.”

The contract is between Hungary’s National Association for Consumer Protection (NACPH) and the Socoiety Artisjus Hungarian Bureau for the Protection of Authors’ Rights (ARTISJUS) and was forwarded to us by Nick Bentley. Thanks, Nick.

The NACPH is a non-profit, politically independent, non-profit, non-governmental association in Hungary whose aim is, “the general protection of consumers (in this respect, the protection of their fundamental rights). NACPH identifies, represents and protects consumer interests.”

ARTISJUS is the, “Hungarian civil law association of composers, lyricists and music publishers, dealing with collective management of their rights and carrying out the representation of their interests. It joins authors, in order to strengthen them by exercising their individually unenforceable rights. It grants copyright licenses to the commercial exploiters of music, collects royalties, and distributes collected sums among its more than 1.200 full members, 4.300 mandating authors, and the members of 80 similar foreign composers’ societies.”

We’ve included the full NACPH / ARTISJUS agreement below. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cooperation Agreement Between the undersigned:

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION IN HUNGARY (hereinafter referred to as NACPH)

and

SOCIETY ARTISJUS HUNGARIAN BUREAU FOR THE PROTECTION OF AUTHORS’ RIGHTS (hereinafter referred to as ARTISJUS)

Whereas,

• consumers and authors of music have many common interests,
• both consumers and authors are weaker parties vis-á-vis the commercial exploiters of music, therefore they assert their rights in a similar position.
• it is useful for the associations of both groups to cooperate in exercising their rights,

NACPH and ARTISJUS conclude the following agreement:

1.) Common interests of authors and consumers in general NACPH and ARTISJUS hereby agree with respect to the following principles:

1.1. If authors can safely subsist on their earnings, which include copyright royalties, it provides them incentive to create additional works. This leads to cultural diversity and wideranging musical supply, which is a primary interest to consumers.

1.2. The commercial exploiters of music should disseminate the works to the public in a way that takes into due account the interests of consumers as well. It is important for composers that consumers – fans and those having an interest – enjoy music without disruption and with great pleasure.

1.3. The commercial exploiters of music should disseminate the works to the public in a way that respects the moral rights of authors as well.

The consumer has a right to know not only the performer’s but also the author’s name (subject to the circumstances i.e. to the mode of use or perception). This promotes consumers’ freedom of choice by providing complete information in a lawful way.

It is important not only for the author but for the consumer as well, that the work (message) of the author should reach the public in an undistorted, unabridged way.

1.4. The collective management of music authors’ rights is advantageous to consumers as it provides the widest possible musical choice. It affords an opportunity for restaurants, radio,television, record labels, internet content providers and each commercial exploiter of music, to take their pick from almost every musical work of the world, irrespective of its genre and others’ business interests.

1.5. The Parties welcome the adoption of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expression and hope that the Hungarian Republic will also sign this shortly.

1.6. It is becoming increasingly important to protect Hungarian music – particularly at a time of intensive, global expansion of the Anglo-American music industry – and for this reason, there is a need for the protection of Hungarian authors and performers creating quality music.

A good means to achieve this goal could be the use of minimal quotas – in line with the acquis communautaire – for the protection of Hungarian music not only on television but on the radio as well.

2.) Common interests of authors and consumers in the digital world (access to music, private copying)

NACPH and ARTISJUS jointly declare the following:

2.1. Wide scale and well-ordered online access to culture is a public interest.

• The wide access to works of art gives incentives to create new works. This is equally important for consumers and authors as well.
• Copyright is not an obstacle to the public for freely using the content of the work for their own private purposes.
• Copyright does not prevent creators from freely using the basic building elements of musical art (style, rhythm schemes, harmony, tempo, music ideas).
• There is need for inexpensive, legal musical content service of good quality and with wide repertory being available online, that respects both consumers’ and authors’ rights.
• ‘Free access to culture’ is not meant to jeopardize the living of authors. There should be opportunity for inexpensive access to culture in libraries, archives, schools and museums. Local and national governments should make contributions to this end not only by restrictions of authors’ rights (which seems necessary in the information society), but much more by organizational and financial means.

Consumers being able to pay for technical devices used to enjoy culture, should feel it obligatory to contribute to the costs of the content as well: to the existence of authors and performers and to the continuous creation of works. Consumers should avoid sources which presumably make works available by not observing authors and performers’ rights.

2.2. The technical restrictions of access to and copying of musical recordings (the so-called “DRM systems”) should not infringe the interests of consumers and authors.

• If commercial exploiters of music restrict the playing or use of musical recordings via technological measures, it should only take place by means accepted by consumers as well. This is the only way to communicate music to the widest possible public which is a primary interest of authors.
• Commercial exploiters of music should inform consumers in an appropriate manner on the manner in which such technological measures taken restrict the playing or copying of musical recordings.
• Technological measures used in restricting access, copying or other use should make it possible for the consumer to enjoy the purchased musical recordings at home on every digital player device (’interoperability’), and to prepare private copies needed for this purpose.
• No personal data of the consumers or data on their consumption habits should be collected, processed or shared without the expressed consent of the consumers. Such a practice cannot even be justified by the fight against copyright infringement.
• Copyright exceptions mean a real restriction of copyright. They should not be precluded or made valueless by technological restrictions.

2.3. The private copying of works is the unrestrictable freedom of the consumer.

The protection of consumers acting in good-faith is in the public interest.

• Consumers are to be protected when they copy music for their private needs, even if they use an illegal source in good faith. Private copying is fair and not contrary to the general requirements of copyright exceptions as long as it does not exceed the extent needed for one’s own enjoyment of works and that of the family or close friends, respectively. The private copying exception does not cover the dissemination (communication) of digital copies, e.g. via file sharing.
• The private copying levy paid for blank media is an adequate tool for balancing between different interests, as it makes possible consumers’ protection as well. This levy is justified as long as consumer private copying is technically possible.

2.4. Online service providers taking part in the online dissemination of music should also participate in the protection of consumers’ and authors’ rights, and contribute to royalties as well.

• Online service providers take great financial advantage from the online use of music and other works. However, up to now, they have refused to pay any fees for authors. It is desirable that they ensure to associations of consumers and authors the data necessary to exercise their rights efficiently against the adequate person.
• Due care should be devoted to the service providers’ obligation of continuously making public their contact data.
• The limitation of liability of online intermediaries in the field of copyright and consumer protection civil law is not justified if they make available the content under their own name, by their own electronic commercials. It would be desirable to adjust community and national law to this requirement.

3.) NACPH- ARTISJUS cooperation

NACPH and ARTISJUS will contact each other in all matters falling within the aim and scope of activity of the other organization in order to express professionally well-founded opinions, mainly in the field of legislation.

NACPH and ARTISJUS will hold regular expert meetings to exchange their experience regarding new phenomena in the commercial exploitation of music and their possible effects on consumers and authors, respectively.

NACPH and ARTISJUS shall jointly inform the press from time to time about their opinions falling into the common scope of interests.

NACPH and ARTISJUS intend to cooperate in the future in other ways not specified herein, in order that the affected parties and the society at large realize and acknowledge the common interests of authors and consumers.

NACPH and ARTISJUS authorize each other to announce this agreement to the public. This agreement is concluded in the Hungarian language, however, this English version is likewise accepted by both parties and can also be made public by either party.

The parties express their consent by undersigning this agreement in two identical copies.

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 30th, 2006 at 8:38 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 2371 times