Copyright Review Commission Report - ICT Law and Regulation ...

y a collecting society. A rights holder who does not belong to a collecting society can theoretically claim his orher share of royalties from the broadcasters.8.3.3. Owing to the tariffs dispute, there are currently no agreements in place between SAMPRA and the broadcastersfor sound recordings.8.3.4. SAMRO has an agreement with the SABC for performance rights, which was signed in 1987 and to which noamendments have been made. This agreement covers all radio and television stations owned by the SABC andis indefinite, with no provision for a review date. Since 1987, the SABC has restructured its radio and TVstations several times and some of the radio stations (e.g. Radio Highveld) have been sold and new channelsintroduced. The technology has significantly changed and so have the tariffs. The current agreement does nottake into account the above-mentioned points. There is no agreement between SAMRO and the SABC withregard to mechanical rights. The SABC initially paid SAMRO arbitrary amounts (with no scientific basis) for acouple of years and then in September 2009 halted payment.8.3.5. SAMRO has performance rights agreements with M-NET and e.tv. The M-NET agreement was signed in 1990and no subsequent reviews have been conducted. A mechanical rights agreement between SAMRO and M-NET is still being negotiated. There is nothing abnormal about e.tv’s agreement, which was signed in 1999. Withregard to mechanical rights, there is no agreement with SAMRO. It should be noted that both M-NET and e.tvhad no agreements with SARRAL in respect of mechanical rights.8.3.6. Multichoice has no agreement with SAMRO based on the fact that it is not a broadcaster but provides a platformfor broadcasters. The content service providers are responsible for obtaining broadcasting licences.8.4 CONTRACTS BETWEEN COLLECTING SOCIETIES AND GENERAL MUSIC USERS8.4.1. Several contracts between SAMRO, SAMPRA and the respective music users were examined.8.4.2. With regard to SAMRO’s contracts, the following areas are earmarked for improvement:8.4.2.1. SAMRO’s contracts are indefinite and make no provision for review. Some have been in place for morethan 20 years without any reviews.8.4.2.2. There is conflict between SAMRO’s practice and the written agreements with users. According to thecontracts, usage is limited to SAMRO’s repertoire, but, in practice, SAMRO claims to have blanketagreements with users.8.4.2.3. Where a licensee has multiple sites governed by one contract, the contracts do not provide guidanceas to what should happen if sites are acquired or disposed of during the period.8.4.2.4. The contracts are silent on issues of change of ownership (e.g. merger, acquisition or restructuring).8.4.2.5. The contracts do not recommend any processes to be followed by the parties should a contractualdispute arise.- 66 -