Editor's note: recently, The Latvian Organization for the Collective Management of Copyright for Musical Works has published draft licensing rates for music works for public performance, Solicit comments from the public. In Latvia, it's a public place (Such as shops and service centers) The rates for the broadcast of musical works are compared with the corresponding rates in Lithuania and Estonia, The Latvian Competition Commission considers the rates set by the Latvian Collective management Organization to be excessive, An abuse of a dominant market position, Decide on the punishment. Read on for more details!

[background]

The Latvian copyright Collective has published the draft licensing rates for music works for public performance, Solicit comments from the public. In Latvia, it's a public place——Such as shops and service centers——The rates for the broadcast of musical works are compared with the corresponding rates in Lithuania and Estonia, The Latvian Competition Commission considers the rates set by the Latvian Collective management Organization to be excessive, An abuse of a dominant market position, Decide on the punishment. The counterpart of the administrative decision filed an action before the Latvian Court of Administrative Disputes, Request that the above administrative decision of the Latvian Competition Commission be revoked. The case was then appealed to Latvia's Supreme Court. After Latvia's Supreme Court heard the appeal, Decided to stay the appeal proceedings, And asked the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) To issue preliminary rulings on issues related to the case. The problem mainly involves, Fair pricing in the field of copyright management and the need to compare rates with those of other member States.

[conclusion]

The European Court of Justice first noted, Copyright collective administrative organizations in member countries shall have the monopoly right to manage copyright, And in addition to managing the rights of Latvian rights holders, It also regulates the corresponding rights of foreign rights holders in the country, So its price policy may affect free trade among its members. The European Court of Justice also stated, A copyright collective management organization that has the right of monopoly management of copyright in the domain of a member state, Generally regarded as having a dominant position in the internal market, Fixed price, When the rate or fee is too high, An abuse of a dominant market position.

Based on this, Hold that, Determine if a price is too high, This could be done by comparing the corresponding pricing in that member state with that in other member States. Therefore, European court of justice ruling, There is no minimum number of member countries for comparison, It shall be based on the specific circumstances of the case, Objective adoption, Appropriate and reliable criteria for selecting appropriate contrast markets.

The European Court of Justice stated that, For that matter, Take into account differences in living standards and spending power between member states, Prices for the same services can vary widely across member states. Therefore, Competition authorities need to be flexible and adopt a variety of methods to determine uniform comparison mechanisms. The ruling went on to analyse the extent of price differentials, Can be deemed to be vastly different and constitute abuse of a dominant market position, And what evidence groups can use to prove that pricing is not unduly high. The European Court of Justice stated that, When an item is priced significantly higher (appreciably higher) The corresponding pricing of other member countries, It should be considered an abuse of market position.

but, The court also noted, There is no minimum membership concept, That is, it cannot only be the corresponding price of the member state whose quantity is higher than the minimum quantity, Judgment pricing "Obviously too high" . In addition to quantitative factors, Should also consider: Whether the price difference is huge, The duration of a particular price, And whether the pricing is temporary or accidental changes. The ruling also stated that, If the collective management organization can prove that the price differences are caused by the objective conditions of the member countries, Then there is no abuse of dominance. To justify price differences, If the collective management organization collects, Reasonable cost of managing and distributing activities, Having an effect on the relationship between the price grade and the actual fee paid to the right holder, Should be considered. Finally, Judgment point, When the competent competition authority determines the amount of punishment imposed on the collective management organization, Must abide by valid, Principle of appropriateness and disciplinary effect. The fact that collective management organizations have already been penalized for unfair pricing issues, It should also be taken into account when determining the amount of the penalty.

[comment]

Competition authorities have long paid attention to the pricing of copyright collective management organizations. Users often cite pricing in other member countries, Complain that the price set by the collective management organization of the country is too high. Whereas collective management organizations hold dominant market positions in their own fields, The price policies it sets will have an impact on free trade among member countries, The ruling reaffirms and establishes the defining criteria for the quantitative and qualitative assessment of different prices among Member States. Although the European Court of Justice has ruled on specific issues, But the mechanism for determining whether prices are abnormally high, Reference or unified standards, etc, It is still referred to the competition authority of the corresponding member State for determination.

compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel

source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights

Cover picture source: Bing Pictures