미국의 디지털 음성송신에 관한 연구 -우리나라 관련 제도에 대한 적용 시사점 도출을 위하여-
The Study of Digital Audio Transmission in U.S. and Its Lesson
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
By Copyright Amendment of 2006, the right of Digital Audio Transmission has been provided to the holder as one of neighboring rights. However, the right is not one which requires voluntary licenses, but one which provides statutory license to everybody without negotiation with holders of neighboring rights if she pays the fee which Korean Copyright Committee decides. Because this right was inserted into the Copyright Act after lots of discussion among the interests, those who provides Digital Audio Transmission must follow many limitation which the interests had agreed to. However, in Korea the right was inserted without lots of discussion among the interests. Therefore, some users hope to use the right without negotiation with the right holders by arguing they transmit digital audio even though they transfer the digital auido which requires voluntary license from right holders. Especially, the reason digital transmission right was inserted into the Copyright Act is to protect the right holders from the development of Internet technology which decreases album sale by using music which was not protected by Copyright Act. Therefore, to protect their right in the digital audio transmission, Korean Copyright Act should prevent some digital audio transmission which provides adverse effect to right holders and consider some limitations which U.S. Copyright Act provides.
Abstract
By Copyright Amendment of 2006, the right of Digital Audio Transmission has been provided to the holder as one of neighboring rights. However, the right is not one which requires voluntary licenses, but one which provides statutory license to everybody without negotiation with holders of neighboring rights if she pays the fee which Korean Copyright Committee decides. Because this right was inserted into the Copyright Act after lots of discussion among the interests, those who provides Digital Audio Transmission must follow many limitation which the interests had agreed to. However, in Korea the right was inserted without lots of discussion among the interests. Therefore, some users hope to use the right without negotiation with the right holders by arguing they transmit digital audio even though they transfer the digital auido which requires voluntary license from right holders. Especially, the reason digital transmission right was inserted into the Copyright Act is to protect the right holders from the development of Internet technology which decreases album sale by using music which was not protected by Copyright Act. Therefore, to protect their right in the digital audio transmission, Korean Copyright Act should prevent some digital audio transmission which provides adverse effect to right holders and consider some limitations which U.S. Copyright Act provides.
참고문헌 (17)
- 디지털음성송신의 적격요건에 관한 연구, "이해완", 문화관광부, ~ (2012)
- 김주엽, "디지털음성송신 쟁점에 관한 연구", 중앙법학회 2012 하계공동학술대회. 발표문 (2012)
- Lydia Pallas Loren, "The Law, Technology & the Arts Symposium: Copyright in the Digital Age: Reflections on Tasini and Beyond, UNTANGLING THE WEB OF MUSIC COPYRIGHTS", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 53, pp.673~ (2003)
- Mary Seelhorst, "The Progressives", Popular Mechanics (2000)
- Joshua D. Levine, "DANCING TO A NEW TUNE, A DIGITAL ONE: THE DIGITAL PERFORMANCE RIGHT IN SOUND RECORDINGS ACT OF 1995", Seton Hall Legis. J, 20, pp.632~
- Howard Seigel, "Digital Transmissions and Sound Recording Performance Rights: The Latest Legal Challenge in Emerging Technologies", 7(1) (1995), NYSBA
- Sobel, "A New Music Law for the Age of Digital Technology", Enter. L. Rptr, 17, pp.3~3 (1995)
- Telecommunications; The Proposed Performance Rights Act Would Results in Additional Costs for Broadcast Radio Stations and Additional Revenue for Record Companies, Musicians, and Performers 30, "U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off.", ~, pp.Rep. to Cong. Requesters, No. GAO–10-826 (2010)
- "RCA Mfg. Co. v. Whiteman, 28 F.Supp. 787 (S.D.N.Y. 1939)", ~ (1939)
- "Waring v. WDAS, 327 Pa. 433", ~ (1937)
- "Metro Opera Ass’n v. Wagner-Nichols Recorder Corp. 101 N.Y. S. 2d 483", ~ (1950)
- "Capitol Records v. Mercury Records, 221 F.2d 657 (2d Cir. 1955)", ~ (1955)
- "Gieseking v. Urania Records, Inc.,155 N.Y.S.2d 171(1956)", ~ (1956)
- "Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken 422 U.S. 151", ~ (1975)
- "Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U.S. 390", ~ (1968)
- "Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394", ~ (1974)
- "Arista Records v. Launch Media, Inc. 578 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2009)", ~ (2009)