MUST Prevails Over Taiwan IPO in Administrative Lawsuit on Royalty Rate

As a copyright collective management organization (CMO), the Music Copyright Society of Chinese Taipei (MUST) set and announced the “royalty rate for public transmission under blanket licensing of commercial transmission” and reported the same to the Taiwan IPO for recordation in accordance with the Copyright Collective Management Organization Act.  However, 37 relevant companies and associations, including the Taiwan Internet Association, the Satellite Television Broadcasting Association and the Commercial Radio Broadcasting Association, KPro, and Universal Music each filed a request for the Taiwan IPO’s review of the said royalty rate, by the reason that the royalty rate is very much influential on their rights and interests. 

Taiwan IPO published the above-mentioned request on its official website and further invited the MUST and the 37 interested companies and associations for their comments exchanges.  After that, Taiwan IPO had also sought opinions from the Copyright Review and Mediation Committee with respect to the royalty rate review for several times.  Finally, the Taiwan IPO decided to change the royalty rate set by MUST by reference of the Copyright Review and Mediation Committee’s opinions and relevant factors, and subsequently notified the MUST and the interested companies and associations of the review decision in December 2012.  Taiwan IPO’s review decision dissatisfied the MUST.  Out of the dissatisfaction, the MUST sought remedy from the MOEA by filing an administrative appeal which turned out to be unsuccessful.  Thus, the MUST further initiated an administrative lawsuit with the Taiwan IP Court upon its administrative appeal being dismissed by the MOEA. 

Taiwan IP Court indicated that YANG Bi-Tsun (the former director-general and the current standing director of the Commercial Radio Broadcasting Association) and ZHONG Rui-Chang (the secretary-general of the Satellite Television Broadcasting Association), who are both the committee members of the Copyright Review and Mediation Committee, should have but failed to avoid providing their opinions or being involved in the royalty rate review.  Besides, as the competent agency in charge of reviewing the royalty rate set by the collective management organization, Taiwan IPO failed to explain about why they adopted and took reference of the opinions and decision made by the Copyright Review and Mediation Committee which is simply a consulting committee, and also failed to specify the basis and reasons of the review decision.  In view of the foregoing, the IP Court determined that Taiwan IPO contravened the laws and therefore Taiwan IPO’s review decision and the MOEA’s appeal decision should both vacated.  (October 2014)
/CCS