Full name: Damian Pulle

On behalf of: Rights Agency Ltd

Question 1: 
Rights Agency Ltd (RAL) acts for over 1200 recording artists. Most of them are based in the UK. 
RAL's artists should be compensated for their contribution as performers on digitally broadcast recordings. It is our understanding that the Record Companies to whom the artists are contracted feel that they are entitled to keep the entire share of Neighbouring Rights royalties. The international performers do not receive any part of monies that are collected by PPCA from Broadcasters and other Users in the case of terrestrial broadcasting and public performance (in pubs, shops, clubs, etc) in Australia. 
Under the same rules that are adopted by the Australian Neighbouring Rights collection society, PPCA, international performing artists will automatically be excluded from a share of remuneration derived from the license fees received from Broadcasters and other users including digital broadcasting. This policy is unacceptable. 
PPCA's argument for not distributing royalties to international performers is that they are not obliged to do so under current Australian Copyright Law. Australian Copyright Law seems to be far behind that of developing nations and in contrary to International Treaties including the Rome Convention and WIPO Treaties on Intellectual Property. 
In the USA, the Neighbouring Rights is not recognised as the USA is not party to the Rome Convention. Therefore, royalties are not collected by any collection society or government body in respect of the exploitation of recordings for terrestrial broadcasting and public performance. However, since the commencement of internet and digital broadcasting, the Users have had to pay copyright holders and performers for theexploitation of their work digitally. 
When in the past, recording artists had recorded works and assigned them to record companies, the record companies did not have digital rights of exploitation. In the USA, this meant that record companies were not entitled to retain royalties from digital exploitation and a compromise was reached whereby the income derived from internet and digital broadcasting (including streaming and cable) is shared by a performer and record company  on 50/50 basis. 
In Australia, the similar argument can be used in that digital Broadcasters in Australia can only receive a licence to broadcast if the income was collected from a specific Licence that was granted by the Copyright owner on his behalf as well as  on behalf of the performer/s.
Question 2: 
The Use of music in the digital environment is rampant. This situation is resulting in a masive drop in physical sales of recordings e.g. in CDs, DVDs, videos. The performers who feature in music are suffering as a consequence. From all the evidence available the situation becomes dire on a month by month basis. The artists and creative persons will be restricted and eventually prevented from development when their finances diminish. 
It is only fair that performers are not treated as outcasts and have no role to play in creativity. The income stream from the Use of their creativity which is used in turn by Broadcasters, shops, clubs, etc to develop and increase their own business should not be diverted away from the performers themselves who had played a major role in contributing to the success of the said Users.
Statutory Licences therefore, should only be granted to Users on the basis that performers will receive at least a 50% share of remuneration derived from the exploitation of their works.  
I am not conversant with the current statutory licences but it sounds that they need to be modified to take into account the role of the performers. 
Question 3: 
I am not commenting as I am not conversant with this
Question 4: 
as in question 3
Question 5: 
as in question 3
Question 6: 
no comments on this matter
Question 7: 
only subject to my answers in 1 and 2
Question 8: 
If manufacturers of devices that are able to store data  or reproduce sound/video etc are not paying a royalty on each item that is produced this would be unfair as it is the very existence of these devices that contributes to the demise of the physical products. The inevitable result was the huge drop in income for performers. 
We believe that manufacturers should be liable for a royalty on each item that is manufactured. Income derived should be shared between the copyright owners and the creators/performers. 
The royalty on private copying is not recognised in the UK but it is accepted practice in many countries througout the World e.g. Germany, France, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden.
Question 9: 
The simple rule is that if there is a commercial benefit to any party subliminary or openly through advertising or other means the User or Broadcaster should be liable to pay a fee. 
Question 10: 
no comments
Question 11: 
The materials that are available on websites such as youtube can be reposted on social networking websites. This means
a) that thay can generate more viewers.
b) if there is any advertsing used on the youtube website this might increase the revenue for the content provider
Question 12: 
as in point 10
Question 13: 
Subject to the permissions granted by a Copyright owner, any use of a recorded work to create a new copyright, should be compensated to the copyright owner and the creator/performer. 
Question 14: 
the same as in 13
Question 15: 
see 13
Question 16: 
see 13
Question 17: 
non-commercial use
Question 18: 
Question 19: 
no comments
Question 20: 
no comments
Question 21: 
no comments
Question 22: 
no comments
Question 23: 
no comments
Question 24: 
no comments
Question 25: 
no comments
Question 26: 
no comments
Question 27: 
no comments
Question 28: 
no comments
Question 29: 
no comments
Question 30: 
educational institutions should have to pay a reduced licence fee for use of the copyright material
Question 31: 
Question 32: 
Question 33: 
Question 34: 
Question 35: 
Question 36: 
Question 37: 
Question 38: 
Question 39: 
Question 40: 
The body who issues such licences should do so at arms length. The policies of the said body should be clearly defined. Their interest should be transparent and not be prejudicial to one party or the other regardless of previous practices. 
Please note that PPCA is owned by Record Companies. The Copyright Act as it stands is biased towards record companies as opposed to performers. This situation is crucial to ensure fairnes to performers and we strongly recommend that the workings of PPCA are studied minutely. 
In the event that PPCA cannot administer the equitable distribution of revenue that it collects from Digital Use the obligation of collecting and distributing should be passed to another body. 
Question 41: 
Question 42: 
Question 43: 
Question 44: 
Question 45: 
Question 46: 
Question 47: 
Question 48: 
Question 49: 
Question 50: 
Question 51: 
Question 52: 
Question 53: 
Question 54: 
Question 55: 
Other comments: 
As representatives of 1200 international recording artists, we feel agrieved that unlike all other countries in the World who are party to the Rome Convention, it is only Australia and new Zealand that hide behind Australian Copyright Law in so far as the Law does not oblige the society to pay the performer for his contribution towards the commercial benefit of the Users in the territory.
The arguments given by PPCA are that the artist should colelct his money from the record company to whom he is signed. The right of a performer for a share of the Neighbouring Right is an inalienable right which is recognised around the World. PPCA chooses to ignore any moral rights of the artists and on the basis that is distributes money to its Licensees. Such monies never reach the artists themsleves. I am prepared to elaborate further in the event that you wish to raise any questions on the matter.
File 1: ppca_-_email_correspondence.doc