Originally from:
Digital Rights Management: The End of Collecting Societies - PDF (Downloadable Electronic Product)
Preview Page
Rationales of Copyright and Collective Administration in
the Information Society
(comment)
Adolf Dietz
In his brilliant analysis of the challenges to the traditional role and functions
of collecting societies in the digital environment Daniel Gervais 1 made a
quotation from a study on the «future of copyright collecting societies»
published by Herman Cohen Jehoram in 2001. 2 Part of that quotation 3
(somewhat corrected here) I would like to take as starting point of my short
comment; it reads:
«... Copyright societies have historically been created by professional artistic
and literary associations, which represented not only the individual interests of
their members, but also the interests of the profession as such. The old
levelling system of fixed tariffs for everyone was not only dictated by
efficiency, but it also met certain social concerns of the associations for their
less successful members. The present trend towards radical individualization
in general is squarely contrary to these concerns. Copyright in the hands of the
reorganised societies will be an unmitigated capitalistic tool, a mere
instrument to have rights smoothly and precisely taken care of in electronic
commerce. The present collective administration will have to give way to
central administration of rights».
Herman Cohen Jehoram clearly explains that, according to his view, such a
rather dramatic evolution is not only unavoidable, but should not be regretted
either. But is it really unavoidable? Would we not give up too quickly an
established and proved system that has its undoubted merits in particular from
the point of view of creative people (authors and performers)? Does the
position of Cohen Jehoram critical of all more than only individualistic, i.e.
social and cultural aspects of copyright, not itself rather amount to a petitio
principii in contrast to long traditions of a different nature and – as Cohen
Jehoram himself demonstrates – backed to a large extent by the copyright
legislators themselves? These are precisely the questions I would like to ask in
Adolf Dietz
Born in Munich, in 1936; 1958 to 1963 law studies at Munich and Paris University; Dr.
iur. 1966 at University of Munich; Dr. h.c. 1996 at the Catholic University of Brussels.
Since 1966 scientific collaborator at the Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property,
Competition and Tax Law in Munich (MPI); since 1972 head of department, from 1978
to 2001 head of division and senior research fellow at the MPI. Since 1993 lecturer and
since 1998 honorary professor («Honorarprofessor») at the University of Passau,
Germany. From 1995 to 2001 guest professor at Renmin University Beijing, China.
Retired in 2001.
Adolf Dietz is a renowned specialist of German, European and international copyright
law as well as of intellectual property law of the countries in Central and Eastern
Europe and of China. He is the author of numerous articles in German, foreign and
international scientific reviews, contributions to Festschriften and other collections;
translations of multiple legal acts and court decisions, in particular from Central and
Eastern European countries and China. Some of his most significant publications
include: Das droit moral des Urhebers im neuen französischen und deutschen
Urheberrecht, 1968; Das ungarische Patentrecht, 1976; Copyright Law in the European
Community, 1978; Urheberrecht und Entwicklungsländer, 1981; Die Neuregelung des
gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes in China, 1988; Das Urheberrecht in Spanien und Portugal,
1990; Protection of Intellectual Property in Central and Eastern Europe, 1995; La mise
en oeuvre des droits d’auteur / Enforcement of Copyright: Berlin Congress of ALAI,
2000.
