The Intellectual Property Office lost the lawsuit of changing the rate for commercial use
Music Copyright Society of Chinese Taipei (“Music Society”) formulated that the rate of songs for commercial use is 5 cent per song. However, after the deliberation of the Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”), the rate has been changed to 3 cent per song which provoked an uproar of protest. The Intellectual Property Court made a judgment on October 23, 2014 for the Music Society.
Music Society is the copyright collective management organization. According to Copyright Collective Management Organization Act (“CCMOA”), it made a public announcement of “public transmission royalty rate of the blanket license business transmission”, and reported to IPO for recordation during 2010 and 2011. Afterwards, many interested parties applied to IPO for the review of the published rate. While reviewing the rate, IPO not only invited Music Society and 37 internet companies and cable companies to exchange their opinions, but also consulted Copyright Review and Mediation Committee (“CRMC”) about this rate many times. IPO made reference to the resolution of CRMC and took relevant factors into consideration, and then revised the rate which Music Society originally published. Music Society filed an administrative appeal but failed, and thus filed the lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court.
The Court found that one member of CRMC is the ex-chairman and the executive director of the Commercial Radio Broadcasting Association and another member of CRMC is the secretary general of Satellite Television Broadcasting Association. Both of them have conflict of interests in the consultation, deliberation and resolution of the royalty rate. As a result, they might make a biased decision, and it’s hard to say that it’s impossible to influence the IPO’s decision. Those members of CRMC did not voluntarily disqualify themselves and the CRMC could not illustrate their grounds and reasons for changing the rate. The Court thus ruled that IPO’s disposition violated the law and both of the IPO’s disposition and the administrative appeal decision were revoked.
Search
English