Copyright adopted in the european parliament in first reading

Private copying against appropriate compensation

At least in the first reading, the european parliament approved by a large majority several tightening amendments to the copyright law proposed by the eu commission. Apparently, the petition of 400 european musicians, including the repeatedly mentioned spice girls, but also the urging of the music industry has borne fruit.

The new law is intended to extend copyright protection to new technologies in the digital age, but also to ensure that copyright is not infringed "does not hinder the competition of the developing services and products of the information society." in particular, italian mep roberto barzanti has pushed for the tightening of the supplementary amendments. If these were not introduced, europe would be "marginalized" will be. The additions were "guarantee creativity and help fight piracy."

"Harmonization of copyright and related rights should be based on a high level of protection, subject to the need for appropriate exceptions in the interest of consumers and the public, since these rights are essential for intellectual creation. Their protection helps to ensure the preservation and development of creative activity in the interests of creators, performers, producers, consumers, culture and industry, and the public at large. These rights have therefore been recognized as an integral part of ownership."

The exceptions for private use, for scientific purposes, for libraries and for the disabled were particularly controversial. Under the new law, private copying will only be possible if the right holders are paid a reasonable royalty "fair compensation" is provided. Thus, the levies on blank video and audio cassettes throughout the eu, d.H. To be introduced also by great britain and ireland, where such a provision did not exist yet. There should also be a similar addition for copying for scientific or educational purposes and for new uses of archival material, such as cd-roms. However, it remains unclear how such levies are to be collected, for example in the case of digital copies via the internet. A general exception shall only exist if the authors authorize this or if this is "allowed by law" but for the "rights holder has no economic significance" has. This wording is intended to "and accidental" copies in the cache that "as an inseparable part of a technical process" the new law is intended to exempt from the obligation to pay royalties the royalties arising from the transfer of files by the provider or the surfer on the internet, in order not to endanger e-commerce, provided that they do not constitute an infringement of copyright "are made in the context of the exercise of a contractual or legal right and do not have an independent economic meaning."

The amendments place particular emphasis on technological protection measures that can prevent the "bypass" of the copyright. In the case of derogations, care must also be taken to ensure that they are "do not impede the use of technological takedowns or their enforcement against unauthorized circumvention." one might wonder how in the future libraries, schools or universities will be able to provide online services at all. Adequate legal protection should be provided by the member states for the users of the information society "the production or distribution of technologies, devices, products, components or their parts, manufactured for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of" or even "drafted" have been introduced.

An amendment allows member countries to make exceptions for non-commercial services for people with disabilities, e.G., for the provision of health care.B. Blind, even though this has gone a long way for some, because it allows them to circumvent the strict regulations again. Only if no "economic advantage" the argument is that member countries can, in a limited way, exempt bookstores and educational institutions from the duty to "the use of short extracts from works lawfully made available to the public" exclude. In addition, exceptions may be made for "shall be applied only to certain special cases and shall not be interpreted in such a way that their use may unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of authors or interfere with the normal exploitation of their works or other subject matter." for reporting purposes, only "limited excerpts" be used – before that, it was still simple "excerpt" -, if the source is indicated and the purpose of the information justifies it. These are therefore mostly very vague formulations, which will probably only receive their real restrictions in the courts.

During the debate in the european parliament, criticism was also voiced about the. Bryan cassidy (epp), for example, accused the legal committee of looking too much on the side of producers and authors, while the legitimate concerns of consumers had not been sufficiently taken into account. Phillip whitehead (pes) fears that this copyright could restrict the right to freedom of expression, so that journalists and commentators, for example, would be able to quote only to a very limited extent. And marja matikainen-kallstrom said that this copyright could create a barrier to surfing the internet. In addition, the main concern is the protection of music rights, and here 80 percent of the income generated would not go to europe.

All in all, copyright law is in fact one-sidedly oriented towards the rights holders and thus towards economic criteria. Thus, it is also true that the "to maintain a higher level of intellectual property protection, substantial investments in creativity and innovation, including network infrastructure, are required" should be. This should then contribute to the growth and increased competitiveness of european industry, thereby preserving and creating jobs. On the other hand, the citizens’ right to information falls by the wayside, which is necessary for the functioning of democracy, even if it does not create jobs. Whether european artists will now become more creative if they see greater financial incentives remains to be seen, but the restrictions on science and education could well have long-term negative consequences in a knowledge-based society, where it is not only important to secure intellectual property, but also to ensure the free flow of information, after all, all knowledge-based innovations are also based on knowledge from others and presuppose a rough general knowledge, which may no longer be imparted if the "excerpts" always have to be shorter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.