Candidate Standard

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 12 Next »

The message defined in this Part provides a mechanism for Licensees who have received such Claim Detail Messages (or an equivalent message) to respond with a Claim Detail Discrepancy Message should they determine that the Claim Detail Messages contain "discrepancies", i.e. issues that the recipient of the Claim Detail Messages has determined may impact the calculation of the royalties. Such discrepancies include, but are not limited to, arithmetic issues, questions about applied tariffs, disputes about Right Share control but also errors in the formatting of the Claim Detail Message. While the resolution of such discrepancies is out of scope, Licensees are expected to use the Claim Detail Discrepancy Message to signal such discrepancies to Rights Controllers and subsequently work with those organisations to resolve them.

A Licensee that has received a Claim Detail Message (or equivalent message), including a message containing corrections, can respond to it with a Claim Detail Discrepancy Message, if it detects:

  • Disagreements over information within a single Claim Detail Message (e.g. mathematical errors, use of a wrong tariff, use of a non-agreed currency conversion rate);
  • Discrepancies between multiple Claim Detail Messages from the same licensor (e.g. a change in writer or title information); and/or
  • Discrepancies between Claim Detail Messages from multiple licensors (e.g. an overclaim for a specific share).

Claim Detail Discrepancy Message may also be sent by triggers independent of the receipt of a Claim Detail Message (or equivalent message).

 

Editorial Comment

Comment from Sony/ATV:

If the CDDM is still not described as optional in section 5 of DSR-2435 so then in DSR-2438 2.1 “Discrepancies between Claim Details Messages from multiple licensors (eg. an overclaim for a specific share)” we would ask that this section be clarified such that whilst the CDDM is not optional, the included of this specific type of discrepancy be termed optional to be agreed on a bilateral basis. 

 

Comment from BMAT (2019-05-13):

The text: "if claim/data discrepancies are detected [...]" (cf. the diagram in §5.1 of Part 1) should be enough to mark the conditionality of the message. However, if the group stills believe is it not clear enough, we could add (conditional) to the outgoing arrow (in that diagram) with the condition being: (if discrepancies are detected and the is a bilateral agreement of using this resolution mechanism).

 

Comment from ICE (2019-05-13):

 

Please insert sentence similar to Alex’s request that a bilateral agreement necessary to use CDM-Dis.

  • No labels