Telecommunications company (Telko / Operator / MCP) as a business person this RBT, they only provide the server that stores all the repertoire in digital form and IT facilities to do the activation for its customers. Telko not perform broadcasting activities or making music entertainment programs, as was done by television or radio.
Telecommunications agencies are clearly not the body, such as broadcasting in general, but rather serves as a 'counter tenancy' or it could be said also as a virtual music showcase.
Consumers who want to use the music provided, shall perform the registration / activation in a way and certain technical and payment systems that have been determined also. After doing the activation, they are entitled to use the repertoire provided by the relevant telko but limited to the songs that ordered it. Penggunaannyapun limited duration, usually telko-telko implements the use of transactions per month.
If the concerned want to continue using the song in the coming months, the user must perform the activation and new transactions as a form of lease contract extension song.
Uniquely, that the buyer was not able to enjoy the song order, because the songs are not placed on the cell phone. They simply choose and order a song for those who contact him via his cell phone number. So this RBT business more on a business 'rental' songs in a virtual form.
If there is any argument that states that the upload process was regarded as a form of broadcasting activities (performing), these arguments certainly do not have a strong foundation. Because the users only use their rights to technology from telko facility in question as compensation for the payments he has done for booking a song of their own choosing following access facilities to broadcast the song to others. In the transaction the use of music, has fulfilled the right of royalty all the elements that exist in it whether it is producer, publisher, songwriter, singer and even styling his music.
It is not possible a use of creature can be subjected to two royalty collection at once. Due to mechanical and performing royalties and licensing system has a way different.
In conclusion, RBT transaction activity is more likely categorized on mechanical areas. The reason is that almost all of their interactions did not show other forms of announcement activity (performing).
In mechanical, permit the use of creation is given as the title's creation by the creator of the song itself, either directly or through publishernya. And royalties provided by the user / users to copyright owners based on the calculation of reported sales turnover periodically by the telco concerned with amount of royalties as agreed.
While in performing, permit the use of creation is given by the CMO collectively (blanket license) and not a song per song. So that the royalties paid by a user / users performing the CMO in question, also be global and paid in licensing provided even before the repertoire is used. CMO's will that will determine how the distribution and magnitude of the royalties to the copyright owner.
Referring to the systematic and the above procedure, we can infer, in areas where RBT is actually located.
Explanation:
* To use a song on the RBT, the contract made between the operator / telco by the copyright owner or publishernya, has determined the sale price and profit sharing tracks per song (song by song). So from the inception of the composers in question already know how many parts to be received prior to copyrighted works are exploited. In the case of the use of the songs on this RBT, the producer, composer or publisher must provide a fixation or a master of these copyrighted works. In order for the song can be known and used by consumers, the composer, publisher or even Telco itself remains as is appropriate to do promos happening on the exploitation of mechanical. To find out the results of 'sale' on the transaction RBT, telko party will provide a list of repertoire use in detail in a report called 'traffic data' such as sales data reported by the label.
* As for the use of copyrighted works that are categorized on the right announcing / performing right, the composer in question never know from the beginning how much actual selling price and the final distribution of his work. Because the contracts are carried out with users / user fully carried out and determined by the CMO concerned. In addition to determining the value of royalties very fariatif and not based on calculation of the song perlagu, CMO is also no need to provide fixation and neither do the promo for copyrighted works under its management. The creators of the song just depends on the seriousness of the CMO in monitoring their creative works done by the user. If the CMO was not professional, nor do the monitoring properly, then the composer will be severely impaired. Due to the unclear usage reports will affect the distribution of their royalties.
And finally the composer royalties received are very dependent on the policy of the CMO in question and may have an impact on the incidence of discrimination the division .. For composers who influenced or who have close contact with administrators CMO, will certainly receive substantial royalties. As for those who are less well known in general and has no emotional attachment with the board CMO, already can definitely be neglected and become victims of obscurity and injustice. Even the composer could not be demanding more royalties on the CMO in question unless they have proof of delivery of the work that is certainly it is difficult to do. However they can not know how much the value of certain claims. Things like this will not happen for the exploitation of copyrighted works in Ring Back Tone.
No comments:
Post a Comment