This document compares the implementation of copyright collective management organizations (CMOs) in Malaysia and Thailand. It finds that the Malaysian CMO (MACP) has been more successful than the Thai CMO (MCT) in collecting royalties for composers. To improve, Thailand needs to better align stakeholders like the government, recording companies, CMO, and composers. The success of a CMO is indicated by representing most domestic and international repertoire, collecting reasonable royalties at low costs, and transparently distributing royalties quickly. Thailand can learn from Malaysia's example to strengthen rights protection, increase awareness, and ensure CMOs operate as non-profit organizations.
2. What is Collective Management?
• Collective Management
pool rights license
Creators/ Collective Several
Right Management right
owners $ royalties Organization $ users
(CMO)
• CMO is NFP organization:
- License works for users (monitor use & collect royalties)
- Distribute royalties to members
3. CMOs in Music Industry
• CMO for musical works ( or
Authors & composers’ Society)
• CMO for recording companies
• CMO for singers and musicians
4. Why the research is important?
• Copyright collective management is important in music
industry
• Collective management Organization (CMO) is essential in
representing composers demanding royalties
• Composers in some Asian countries do not appreciate full
benefit of collective managements
• Few studies of how the collective management is developed
in Asia.
• None compare between success and problematic cases in the
same region
5. Introduction
• Macro factors comparison between
Malaysia and Thailand
– Language
– Legal system
– Copyright Law
– Provision of Collective management
7. Aim & Scope
• Aim : to provide a guideline of collective
management for policy maker so that
Thai composers properly receive
royalties locally and internationally
• Scope: focus on collective management of
composers
8. Research Question:
• How can the collective managements in Thailand
be implemented successfully so that Thai
composers can
receive royalties locally and internationally?
- What are indicators for success of collective
management?
- How can Thailand implement collective
management successfully?
9. Methodology
Methodology: Case Study
• “Convergent Interview” of nine interviewees:
- 4 from executives of MACP
- 4 from executive of MCT
- 1 from international expert from CISAC
10. Operationalized Framework for
Success of Collective Management
• Business Perspectives:
– Revenue
– Cost
– Opportunity lose
– Opportunity gain
• Law Perspectives:
– Protect composers’ right
– Lifting the real practice to international standard
11. Indicators of
Collective Management’s Success
The success of collective management is indicated
by the collective management organization (CMO)
that:
• represents almost all international and local
repertoire of a copyright works,
• can collect the reasonable royalties at
reasonable costs, and
• is able to transparently distribute royalties to
creators/owners within its first two years of
licensing activities.
12. The Indicator for Success of CMO
in Collecting Royalties in Thailand
Compare to Malaysia
• Government
– Build understanding of international practice
– Correct interpretation about international practice
• Thai recording companies
– join CMO as music publishers
– Need to be internationalize and be competitive
in the region
– Need to protect right internationally
– Build good image and Social responsibility
13. The Indicator for Success of CMO
in Collecting Royalties in Thailand
Compare to Malaysia
• CMO
– Need clear legal identity
– Reduce conflict of Interest perceived by recording
companies
– Build good alignment with recording companies,
CMO, and composers
– Build of awareness campaign
14. The Indicator for Success of CMO
in Collecting Royalties in Thailand
Compare to Malaysia
• Users
– Build understanding
– Limit selective channel for Thai songs
• Thai composers:
– Build understanding
– Build solidarity to increase negotiation power with
recording companies
15. Conclusion
• The Policy maker should align and balance
all stakeholders within the operationalized
framework
• Mutual benefit of composers, recording
companies, and CMO should be enhanced
• Implementation should be at the macro level
both locally and internationally
16. Implications:
1.National Level
1.1 Provide guideline regarding law, regulation and
administration for policy maker
1.2 Build national competitiveness by recognizing
composers’ right up to
international practice
2. Industrial Level
2.1 Internationalized music industry by enhancing CMO
2.2 Good governance of CMO by positioning NFP
3. Individual Level
3.1 Less users’ infringement by
obtaining CMO license
3.2 Fair incentive to composers by
17. Future Research
• To what extent the Government should
control/supervise CMO
• Culture involved??
• CMO of performers?
