NEWS & EVENTS

.

Joint Press Release – MACP, PPM and RPM oppose User Group calls for the re-establishment of a single joint licensing body

June 17, 2021

JOINT PRESS RELEASE

MACP, PPM AND RPM OPPOSES USER GROUPS CALLS FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE JOINT LICENSING BODY

14th June 2021, Kuala Lumpur – We refer to the letter by a group of associations titled “Appeal for a single collecting agency for music copyright royalties” published on the news portal The Star dated 19 May 2021. As the former members of the company under liquidation, Music Rights Malaysia Berhad (MRM) (“the Company”), we hereby emphasize that the decision to wind-up the Company was a collective one, made with transparency, and not without numerous consultations with the past and present Government representatives in the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs, as well as the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO).

What began as a Government-initiated one-stop-body with promises of more revenue and operational efficiency, ended up as a commercial burden to the existing Licensing Bodies, two of which have proven track records of more than 30 years of effective collective management. Whilst many attempts were made to make MRM operate effectively, intellectual property rights are, at the end of the day, private property rights belonging to each property right owner, and each licensing body had to prioritize the mandate given to it by their respective members, that is, to act in their best interests and welfare whilst carrying out the tasks of issuing licences, collecting and distributing royalties in respect of certain commercial uses of their musical works or recordings.

Similar to the group of associations that prepared the letter, each Licensing Body represents separate and distinct category of rightsholders, i.e. MACP for songwriters, composers and publishers, PPM for recording labels and RPM for recording performers. We are not one end product. We fully respect the freedom of the user groups to have their own associations and, in turn, expect the same from them towards our members’ constitutional right of association under their respective collective management organisations.

The User Groups reference to the alleged issue of overlapping groups is now a matter of the past as PRISM has shut down and the rights represented by the existing 3 CMOs do not overlap. Going forward, there should not be any confusion as MyIPO is duty bound to ensure that an entity is declared as a Licensing Body only if it fulfils the role and function of a licensing body and complies with the requirements under the Copyright Act 1987 and related Regulations.

In addition, MyIPO has very correctly expressed their stand of not intervening and have asked the User Groups to deal with the CMOs directly, and if dissatisfied with the tariff, parties should use the Copyright Tribunal to resolve any disputes.

In other words, licensing disputes between users and collective management organisations is an anticipated consequence and our government has ensured that the existing copyright law expressly makes detailed and totally workable solutions (which have been practised successfully in countries such as Australia, Singapore, UK and Hong Kong) to tackle such occurences. So far, the User Groups have not made any official reference to the Copyright Tribunal, which is obviously the proper channel should negotiations fail.

Put simply, MyIPO and the government have already made express legislative provisions to resolve any licensing disputes that may arise, and it is inappropriate for the User Groups to continue to push the authorities to revert to the creation of a single licensing body, which has been tried and failed miserably.

In this regard, we also highlight the fact that the overwhelming majority of countries globally have separate collective management organisations representing the different categories of rights set up as we have in Malaysia. In other words, a single entity is not the only rational, efficient and practical solution, as the rest of the world has shown. That is because there exists three separate and distinct rights (‘end products’ as the User Groups have described them), and not one. Hence, the User Groups car analogy is somewhat misapplied. The better analogy would be the supply of electricity or water into the User Groups members’ commercial premises. After the User Groups members have installed the wiring or the piping, the User Group members will need to apply for the supply of electricity or water and make separate monthly payments for the same.

Moreover, we take exception to the User Groups stating that their “members have been continually harassed by…” us. As mentioned, copyright is a private property right, identical to ownership of a house or a bicycle. If any of their members have and are using the private properties of others without first securing the necessary licences, that is illegal behaviour and it is a sad reflection on their members. In fact, the law is very clear in that their members must first obtain the necessary licences before use. Unfortunately, the current situation is that our licensing staff have had to reach out to some of their members who have continued to use our members’ works in total disregard of the law.

Everyone in our country has been affected by the pandemic, including some segments of the music industry, which have been devastated by it. Hence, it is absolutely critical for us to continue with our licensing efforts and it is not realistic to expect us to hold our work in abeyance and to provide the User Group members’ with a moratorium. However, we have, time and again expressed our willingness to explore specific concessions, where required, under these unique circumstances and we have received and responded appropriately to the direct appeals from some users. We are all in this together.

Finally, we acknowledge the survey made by MyIPO and each of us has since responded with our respective replies to the questions raised. We will allow that process to take its course. In the meantime, as we have highlighted above, the existing copyright law and our respective individual practices already provide sufficient mechanisms to settle any licensing issues. And in these trying times, our doors remain open as mentioned to discuss on ways to ease the burden of music users (as well as of our members) to achieve the best outcomes under these challenging circumstances faced by all parties.