KUALA LUMPUR: Three licensing bodies tasked with the responsibility of royalty collection for music in the country have expressed opposition to calls for the re-establishment of a single joint licensing body.
Music Authors' Copyright Protection (MACP), Public Performance Malaysia (PPM) and Recording Performers Malaysia (RPM) released a lengthy statement today as a response to a letter by a group of associations highlighting the issue which was published in a local portal recently.
The now defunct Music Rights Malaysia (MRM) carried out collective music licensing and royalty collection since its inception in 2017 and until its dissolution last July.
"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 prioritise 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," read the statement.
It explained that each of the three licensing bodies represented the different categories for the rightsholders, with MACP for songwriters, composers and publishers, PPM for recording labels and RPM for recording performers.
"Similar to the group of associations that prepared the letter, each licensing body represents the separate and distinct categories of the rightsholders.
"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 (CMO)," it said.
Addressing the alleged issue of overlapping groups, the statement added that the matter was mooted since PRISM had already been shut down and the rights represented by the existing three CMOs did 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 CMOs 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, the UK and Hong Kong) to tackle such occurrences.
"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," it said.
The statement also highlighted the fact that the overwhelming majority of countries globally have separate CMOs representing the different categories of rights set up just like 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 of the existence of 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 had to reach out to some of their members who have continued to use our members' works in total disregard of the law," it said.
Touching on the ongoing pandemic, it said that everyone in Malaysia had been affected including some segments of the music industry which had experienced devastating effects.
"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," it said.
The statement ended with: "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."