EU Copyright Directive Adopted by the European Parliament
by Teresa Hackett
Teresa Hackett is the Director for EBLIDA (European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations). She may be reached via email at eblida@nblc.nl. www.eblida.org.
The text before Parliament was the so-called Common Position, achieved after nineteen months of negotiation by diplomatic representatives of the EU member states
The European Parliament in Strasbourg voted on 14 February 2001 to adopt the draft EU Directive on copyright in the information society, with overall minor modifications. This is almost the final stage before the Directive officially becomes European law. Parliament's second reading opinion has now been forwarded to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. If the Commission and the Council agree with Parliament's amendments, the Directive could become official as early as 2001.
EU Copyright Directive
Commission welcomes Parliament's vote
Commissioner for the Internal Market, Frits Bolkestein, welcomed Parliament's vote. "I am delighted that the European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to endorse the compromise amendments to the EU copyright Directive that reflect the delicate balance of interests catered for in the Council's Common Position", said Mr Bolkestein after the vote. "Parliament's vote should help to ensure the rapid adoption of this important measure to bring European copyright rules into the digital age, as requested by the EU's Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon Summit. The rapid implementation of this Directive will facilitate the development of electronic commerce and so increase the competitiveness of the European economy."
Maintaining the Common Position
The text before Parliament was the so-called Common Position, achieved after nineteen months of negotiation by diplomatic representatives of the EU member states (see Information Europe, Autumn 2000 vol. 5, issue 3). Although there were still concerns, EBLIDA gave a cautious welcome to the Common Position, as it was a good improvement over the outcome of the first reading in the European Parliament and gave a more balanced approach as envisaged by international treaties (see Information Europe, Winter 2000 vol. 5, issue 4). Above all, the main concern was to maintain this balance. During the weeks when the Directive was actively under discussion in Parliament (8 January-14 February 2001), the library and user communities had to call on all their resources as they faced a powerful rightholder lobby, making the copyright Directive described as the most lobbied piece of European legislation.
Compromise amendments
The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, one of seventeen standing committees of the European Parliament, was responsible for making voting recommendations on the copyright Directive to Parliament as a whole. The Committee appointed the Italian MEP Enrico Boselli as the rapporteur to draw up a report on the issue which he presented to the full committee. Mr Boselli, who belongs to the Group of the Party of European Socialists (PES) and has been an MEP since 1999, described the passage of the Directive during it's second reading as "the mother of all battles". Mr Boselli presented his report (Boselli report) to the Legal Affairs Committee on 8 January 2001, with recommendations for four amendments, essentially maintaining the spirit of the Common Position. MEPs on the Committee then had one week in which to submit their own amendments, provoking an unprecedented 197 amendments, the majority in favour of rightholders. These included proposals to attach compensation to the library 'fair dealing' provisions and to narrow the library copying right to archiving and conservation purposes only, as it was during the first reading in Parliament in 1999. These and other amendments would have seriously unbalanced the delicate compromise of the Common Position and would, in all likelihood, have delayed adoption of the Directive.
In an attempt to rescue the situation, Mr Boselli proposed nine compromise amendments. In return, some MEPs withdrew their amendments and others agreed to support Mr Boselli. When the Committee voted on 5 February, the nine compromise amendments were accepted as well as six others. The proposals damaging to libraries were rejected. The Common Position, plus the fifteen amendments, were then submitted for debate by the whole Parliament on 13 February.
Debate in Parliament
All 626 MEPs had three days in which to table further amendments to the Committee's compromise proposal. A total of nine MEPs, some on behalf of their political groups, tabled a further thirty amendments. Some of these amendments were the same as those which had been rejected by the Legal Affairs Committee and some were tabled by the same MEPs.
The debate took place in Parliament on 13 February. Mr Boselli introduced his recommendation for second reading, drawn up on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee.
MEP Medina Ortega, Spain, spoke on behalf of the socialist group (PES), the second largest political group in Parliament. Mr Manders, the Netherlands, spoke on behalf of the liberal group (ELDR), Ms Echerer, Austria, on behalf of the Greens (Verts/ALE), Ms Fraisse, France, on behalf of the Europe United Left (GUE/NGL), Mr Abitbol, France, on behalf of the Union for a Europe of Nations group (UEN) and Mr Krarup, Denmark on behalf of the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities (EDD). In addition, MEPs Cederschiöld, Fourtou, Graça Moura, Harbour, Niebler, Villiers, Wuermeling represented the European People's Party (EPP), the largest political group in Parliament.
Every MEP commented on the huge lobbying which had taken place, most mentioned the interests of users and consumers in the debate and some specifically mentioned libraries. There were many interventions in our favor, in contrast to the first reading, where rightholders seemed to have a monopoly on the copyright issue. The debate was rounded off by Ana Palacio Vallelersundi, Spain, Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee and by Commissioner Bolkestein from the European Commission, who gave a clear indication of which amendments before Parliament would not be acceptable to the Commission. A verbatim report of proceedings is available from the Parliament Website.1
The vote
The vote took place the following day on 14 February. The conservative (EPP) group were prepared to support the Boselli report, with two further amendments. As the largest group in Parliament, this gave the compromise a good chance of success. Although Mr Boselli belongs to the socialist group (PES), the socialists were divided and did not manage to form an agreed party line. The liberals (ELDR) and the Greens were also divided, so there was intense lobbying of MEPs right up to the last moment.
There was much attention from the media and the debate featured in most of the European press, as well as the US press. The International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI) organized a press conference with the Belgian artist, Axelle Red, and George Martin, ex-producer of the Beatles and the user lobby represented by the European Fair Practice in Copyright Campaign (EFPICC) and supported by EBLIDA, handed out balloons to MEPs urging them to Keep the Information Society Afloat by not placing unnecessary restrictions on copyright legislation. Much behind the scenes lobbying by national library associations and individual libraries also ensured that our message got across and was listened to.
In the end, nine of the Boselli compromise amendments were accepted and once again, the damaging proposals for libraries were rejected. The results of the votes are available on the Parliament Website.2 After three years, Europe became a significant step closer to having a copyright Directive.
How will the Directive affect member states?
Directives require 'national transposition' i.e. national laws in each EU member state must be introduced in order to implement the Directive. One of the changes made by Parliament in the second reading is to reduce the time given to member states to implement the Directive from 24 to 18 months, in line with the e-commerce Directive. Both Directives are complementary and are seen as important pieces of legislation to encourage the development of the European information society.
Adoption of the Directive means that Europe will sign up to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (1996). This extends protection for European authors, artists and creators in a global market and boosts the European internal market in the fast moving global economy by adjusting existing copyright law to the digital age.
Despite great effort, the aim to harmonize copyright law in Europe was not achieved in the end. The focus was on the so-called 'exceptions' i.e. special provisions allowing libraries, the disabled, consumers, etc. to copy in certain circumstances. Only one of these provisions is obligatory; the controversial issue of temporary, fleeting copies which are produced as an image or text is transmitted from server to server over the Internet, and which are an essential part of the network transmission process. Under the Directive, Internet service providers and telecoms operators can transmit such copies without special permission from rightowners. This will help ensure the effective operation of live webcasting and the streaming of music and video.
The other provisions are optional, which means that individual member states may choose which to adopt and which to reject. What they cannot do is add anything new to the list. So libraries and other users may end up with different rights in different countries. For example, a library in one EU state may be able to digitize print material already in their collection while their European colleagues may not, or a song copied legally onto a portable CD player for private listening may be illegal in another member state. This will not work in favour of the borderless information society or help the European internal market.
Other disappointments are that the rights of private individuals to make copies were further restricted, including in the online environment, despite new technical systems which allow rightholders more control over access and use of information. Rather bizarrely for a Directive designed to promote the information society, online contracts (so-called 'click-on1 contracts), where the user is faced with the choice of either accepting the terms of the contract, even if these are unfair, or is refused access to the Website, take precedence over statutory rights.
Lobbying at national level
The stage now moves quickly to the individual member states. With the high number of options available, the library and user communities must press their national governments to adopt as many as possible, all of which relate to the public interest. EBLIDA will continue working with the national library associations and other groups to ensure that the hard won achievements at European level are rewarded by the individual member states.
1 http://www.europarl.eu.int/plenary/default_en.htm
2 http://www.europarl.eu.int/plenary/default_en.htm. Then go to Minutes-14 February 2001-HTML provisional edition-Result of roll-call votes-Recommandation Boselli. 
|
Think there's one system of copyright protection worldwide? Think again. Just about every nation around the world offers its own brand of intellectual property protection for works created and/or used within its borders. And most national laws have quirks that are unique to that nation alone. So how does the world harmonize its varied laws?
The World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPOthat's how! It's an international organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit. These works intellectual propertyare expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life, as well as creating real wealth for nations.
With headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. It administers 21 international treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual property protection. The Organization counts 175 nations as member states. Please visit the links below for more informationboth general and specificon WIPO.
The original creators of works protected by copyright, and their heirs, have certain basic rights. They hold the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the work on agreed terms. The creator of a work can prohibit or authorize: · its reproduction in various forms, such as printed publication or sound recording; · its public performance, as in a play or musical work; · recordings of it, for example, in the form of compact discs, cassettes or videotapes; · its broadcasting, by radio, cable or satellite; · its translation into other languages, or its adaptation, such as a novel into a screenplay.
Many creative works protected by copyright require mass distribution, communication and financial investment for their dissemination (for example, publications, sound recordings and films); hence, creators often sell the rights to their works to individuals or companies best able to market the works in return for payment. These payments are often made dependent on the actual use of the work, and are then referred to as royalties.
These economic rights have a time limit, according to the relevant WIPO treaties, of 50 years after the creator's death. National law may establish longer time-limits. This limit enables both creators and their heirs to benefit financially for a reasonable period of time. Copyright protection also includes moral rights, which involve the right to claim authorship of a work, and the right to oppose changes to it that could harm the creator's reputation.
The creatoror the owner of the copyright in a workcan enforce rights administratively and in the courts, by inspection of premises for evidence of production or possession of illegally made"pirated"goods related to protected works. The owner may obtain court orders to stop such activities, as well as seek damages for loss of financial rewards and recognition.
What are rights related to copyright? A field of rights related to copyright has rapidly developed over the last 50 years. These related rights grew up around copyrighted works, and provide similar, although often more limited and of shorter duration, rights to:
· performing artists (such as actors and musicians) in their performances; · producers of sound recordings (for example, cassette recordings and compact discs) in their recordings; · broadcasting organizations in their radio and television programs.
Why protect copyright? Copyright and its related rights are essential to human creativity, by giving creators incentives in the form of recognition and fair economic rewards. Under this system of rights, creators are assured that their works can be disseminated without fear of unauthorized copying or piracy. This in turn helps increase access to and enhances the enjoyment of culture, knowledge, and entertainment all over the world.
How has copyright kept up with advances in technology? The field of copyright and related rights has expanded enormously with the technological progress of the last several decades, which has brought new ways of spreading creations by such forms of worldwide communication as satellite broadcast and compact discs. Dissemination of works via the Internet is but the latest development which raises new questions concerning copyright. WIPO is deeply involved in the ongoing international debate to shape new standards for copyright protection in cyberspace. The organization administers the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonogram Treaty (often known together as the "Internet Treaties"), which set down international norms aimed at preventing unauthorized access to and use of creative works on the Internet or other digital networks.
How is copyright regulated? Copyright itself does not depend on official procedures. A created work is considered protected by copyright as soon as it exists. However, many countries have a national copyright office and some laws allow for registration of works for the purposes of, for example, identifying and distinguishing titles of works.
Many owners of creative works do not have the means to pursue the legal and administrative enforcement of copyright, especially given the increasingly worldwide use of literary, musical and performance rights. As a result, the establishment of collective management organizations or societies is a growing trend in many countries. These societies can provide members the benefits of the organization's administrative and legal expertise in, for example, collecting, managing, and disbursing royalties gained from international use of a member's work.
Compiled by John Crosby, Director Public Communications. |
RSS
Feedback form
