Policy Statement & Submission

Mr Stephen Selby
Director of Intellectual Property


Dear Mr Selby

Registration of Copyright Licensing Bodies Regulation

Thank you for inviting the Chamber to comment on the draft Registration of Copyright Licensing Bodies Regulation. In formulating our views, we have had substantial input from the service sector members of the Chamber, in particular, those from the hospitality, retail and related service sectors. Our comments are as set out below.

Through the Regulation the fees charged by copyright licensing bodies will be made known to the public. This will improve transparency in the operation of the copyright licensing bodies, which is very much welcomed.
The Regulation, though useful, is however too limited in its application. The collective administration of copyright is an issue that affects many service industries, such as those in the tourism, hospitality and retail sectors. Under the Copyright Ordinance, the regulation could also be made "to provide for the better carrying into effect" of the collective administration of copyright, besides prescribing fees.
Most businesses do not dispute the right for the owner of copyright to levy charges on usage, and as business users the advantage of collective administration by licensing bodies is well appreciated. Many businesses have also emphasised the importance of ensuring that collective administration does not become a way to encourage restrictive practice. There is a need, therefore, to strike a balance between the right of the copyright licensing bodies on the one hand, and that of users on the other, in the regulatory regime for collective administration of copyright. This is especially so for those service industries which reach out to many end users, which consider themselves to be promoting the copyrighted works even as they are using them.
As said in the explanatory note to the Regulation, the registration of the licensing bodies, though voluntary, confers an official recognition on them. Instead of a free-market situation where the copyright licensing bodies will only have to be responsible to their owners, such a recognition implies an officially sanctioned right to impose and collect charges on businesses and users. The need to provide some regulation in their operation is therefore well justified by public interest.
We suggest, therefore, that the Regulation be extended to require registered copyright licensing bodies to each establish a code of practice on collection and administration of royalties, which should be made public. This will enable the behaviour of the copyright licensing bodies to be monitored by the public and by users.
In the larger picture, an effective way to regulate the administration of copyright is to bring more market forces into it. Currently, copyright owners do not have much choice in finding collective administration agencies. In our view, both copyright owners and users will benefit from the presence of more diverse means of copyright administration that compete with each other.
I hope you will find the above comments useful.

Yours sincerely

　

Dr Eden Woon
Director