Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights in Musical Works

The Max Planck Institute welcomes the initiative of the European Commission for a binding legal instrument on collective management of copyright and related rights in the EU. Numerous provisions are to be appreciated (paras 15 and 31). Yet the Commission seems to fail to take account of the full legal framework and factual circumstances that have structured the current system of collective rights management. Disposing of natural monopolies in a two-sided market (paras 5-9), collecting societies (about this terminology, see footnote 2) should not refuse to grant access to their services to rightholders and users. Hence, it is strongly recommended that the European legislature follows the experience of numerous Members States and proposes an obligation to contract with rightholders (para 10) as well as with users (para 11). The critique on the Commission’s approach to cross-border licences for online rights on musical works as set forth in the Recommendation of 2005 (footnote 6) has unfortunately not been duly considered and the Commission’s assessment of the practical effects of the Recommendation is mistaken (paras 9-10, 12, 17, 46 et seq.). Differences of substantive copyright law among Member States still constitute an obstacle to the establishment of an internal market for works. This is why the Institute deems the Commission's sectorial approach to the regulation of cross-border licensing to be problematic. Also such regulation would require further harmonisation of substantive copyright law (paras 13, 20 and 25). Moreover, the Proposal fails to take account of statutory remuneration rights and cases of mandatory collective management (see paras 14, 18 and 36). Both pursue specific protection of original rightholders. In this regard the Proposal’s refusal to distinguish between different categories of rightholders raises concerns (paras 15-18, 28, 55). Since collecting societies manage copyrights and related rights arising from national law, and considering the benefits of an authorisation system (paras 57 and 69 et seq.), which can be found in several Member States, the Institute advises the European legislature to clearly state that the intellectual property exception of article 17(11) of the Service Directive applies to collecting societies (paras 19-24). The Proposal endangers the balance both between different categories of rightholders and between rightholders and users that the established system of collective management of copyright in Europe traditionally seeks to achieve (see paras 32-45, 64). It thereby compromises the laudable goal to foster the establishment of an internal market for online uses of works across Europe (paras 12, 26, 46-65)

Covid-19 and the Role of Intellectual Property - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 7 May 2021

In this Statement, the authors take a position on the waiver of intellectual property (IP) protection currently being considered by the members of the World Trade Organisation. The waiver was initiated by India and South Africa as a measure to enable rapid access to affordable medical products that are necessary to combat Covid-19. The initiative gained momentum after the US decided to support it. The authors do not consider this path to be expedient. The Statement presents factual and legal arguments why a comprehensive waiver of IP protection is unlikely to be a necessary and suitable measure towards the pursued objective. Overall, it argues that IP rights may so far have played an enabling and facilitating rather than hindering role in overcoming Covid-19. The global community might not be better off if IP rights are waived, neither during nor after the pandemic. There are more efficient and direct ways to supply developing countries with vaccines quickly – if the industrialised countries are willing to do their share

The SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Impacts the Management of Swiss Pediatric Intensive Care Units.

The impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic on pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) is difficult to quantify. We conducted an observational study in all eight Swiss PICUs between 02/24/2020 and 06/15/2020 to characterize the logistical and medical aspects of the pandemic and their impact on the management of the Swiss PICUs. The nine patients admitted to Swiss PICUs during the study period suffering from pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS) and constituting 14% (9/63) of all SARS-CoV-2 positive hospitalized patients in Swiss children's hospitals caused a higher workload [total Nine Equivalents of nursing Manpower use Score (NEMS) points, p = 0.0008] and were classified to higher workload categories (p < 0.0001) than regular PICU patients (n = 4,881) admitted in 2019. The comparison of the characteristics of the eight Swiss PICUs shows that they were confronted by different organizational issues arising from temporary regulations put in place by the federal council. These general regulations had different consequences for the eight individual PICUs due to the differences between the PICUs. In addition, the temporal relationship of these different regulations influenced the available PICU resources, dependent on the characteristics of the individual PICUs. As pandemic continues, reflecting and learning from experience is essential to reduce workload, optimize bed occupancy and manage resources in each individual PICU. In a small country as Switzerland, with a relatively decentralized health care local differences between PICUs are considerable and should be taken into account when making policy decisions

Pharmacological Evidence Suggests That the Lysozyme/PACAP Receptor of \u3cem\u3eTetrahymena thermophila\u3c/em\u3e is a Polycation Receptor

Pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP) is a peptide hormone that exists in two biologically active forms: PACAP-38 and PACAP-27. Several types of PACAP receptors have been characterized, and these have been classified into three families: the VPAC1, the VPAC2, and the PAC1 receptors. In this study, we used in vivo behavioral assays along with pharmacological inhibitors to investigate the behavior of the lysozyme/PACAP receptor in Tetrahymena. This receptor behaves like a PAC1 receptor in some respects; however, PACAP 6-38 serves as an agonist, rather than an antagonist, for this receptor. These results are consistent with the existence of a generalized polycation receptor rather than a PACAP-specific receptor

Influence of Pig Farming on the Human Nasal Microbiota: Key Role of Airborne Microbial Communities

It has been hypothesized that the environment can influence the composition of the nasal microbiota. However, the direct influence of pig farming on the anterior and posterior nasal microbiota is unknown. Using a cross-sectional design, pig farms (n = 28) were visited in 2014 to 2015, and nasal swabs from 43 pig farmers and 56 pigs, as well as 27 air samples taken in the vicinity of the pig enclosures, were collected. As controls, nasal swabs from 17 cow farmers and 26 non-animal-exposed individuals were also included. Analyses of the microbiota were performed based on 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and the DADA2 pipeline to define sequence variants (SVs). We found that pig farming is strongly associated with specific microbial signatures (including alpha- and beta-diversity), which are reflected in the microbiota of the human nose. Furthermore, the microbial communities were more similar within the same farm compared to between the different farms, indicating a specific microbiota pattern for each pig farm. In total, there were 82 SVs that occurred significantly more abundantly in samples from pig farms than from cow farmers and nonexposed individuals (i.e., the core pig farm microbiota). Of these, nine SVs were significantly associated with the posterior part of the human nose. The results strongly indicate that pig farming is associated with a distinct human nose microbiota. Finally, the community structures derived by the DADA2 pipeline showed an excellent agreement with the outputs of the mothur pipeline which was revealed by procrustes analyses. IMPORTANCE The knowledge about the influence of animal keeping on the human microbiome is important. Previous research has shown that pets significantly affect the microbial communities of humans. However, the effect of animal farming on the human microbiota is less clear, although it is known that the air at farms and, in particular, at pig farms is charged with large amounts of dust, bacteria, and fungi. In this study, we simultaneously investigated the nasal microbiota of pigs, humans, and the environment at pig farms. We reveal an enormous impact of pig farming on the human nasal microbiota which is far more pronounced compared to cow farming. In addition, we analyzed the airborne microbiota and found significant associations suggesting an animal-human transmission of the microbiota within pig farms. We also reveal that microbial patterns are farm specific, suggesting that the environment influences animals and humans in a similar manner

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law - Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate

This Position Statement presents a broad overview of issues arising at the intersection of AI and IP law based on the work of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition research group on Regulation of the Digital Economy. While the analysis is approached mainly from a perspective de lege lata, it also identifies questions which require further reflection de lege ferenda supported by in-depth interdisciplinary research. The scope is confined to substantive European IP law, in particular, as regards copyright, patents, designs, databases and trade secrets. Specific AI-related issues are mapped out around the core questions of IP law, namely, the eligibility for protection under the respective IP regimes, allocation of rights and the scope of protection. The structure of the analysis reflects three key components of AI: inputs required for the development of AI systems, AI as a process and the output of AI applications. Overall, it is emphasised that, while recent legal and policy discussions have mostly focused on AI-aided and AI-generated output, a more holistic view that accounts for the role of IP law across the AI innovation cycle is indispensable