| The Proposed
European Council Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of Copyright and
Related Rights in the Information Society August 1999
Timetable and Progress on lobbying
The Committee Consultation
Opinions on the draft Directive were given by the European Parliament's committees on
Economic and Monetary Committee (EMAC), the Cultural Committee and the Consumer Committee.
In September 1998, all three committees finally voted on their opinions. The extensive
lobbying, undertaken mainly by EBLIDA and EFPICC, proved to be worthwhile as most of the
suggested amendments were adopted in at least one of the committees' final texts The
reports of these three committees which contained many suggested amendments some of which
were favourable to the library and information profession, were then fed into the Legal
Affairs Committee which takes the lead on this Directive.
In September 1998, Mr Barzanti, the rapporteur of the Legal Affairs Committee
(LAC), presented his draft report for the first time. The LAC then had not only
Barzanti’s, report to vote upon but also the three reports from the other committees.
The LAC had to determine which amendments would in the end be presented to the European
Parliament plenary session. They had to vote on over 300 amendments. The outcome was not
at all good for consumers and the bias of Mr Barzanti towards the right holders could be
clearly seen. The fact that representatives of the music industry, on behalf of 400
musicians and other artists, inserted a very timely open letter in the Financial Times did
not help the library cause. The letter called for a strong copyright regime and to support
technological measures to fight music piracy on the Internet.
In the vote of the European Parliament plenary on February 10th 1999,
despite all the consumer lobbying activities across Europe, MEPs chose to adopt a text
which effectively ignored or disregarded the legitimate interests of consumers, libraries,
disabled people. MEPs voted for all the amendments which were designed to enhance the
protection of rights holders, mainly the international music industry. The European
Parliament bowed to aggressive lobbying by multinational record companies and effectively
adopted a ban on digital private copying.
On 21st May 1999 an amended proposal1 was
issued by the European Commission. The full text is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/intprop/intprop/copy2.htm.
The situation has changed a little from the EP text but not necessarily in our favour.
- There is provision for copying small amounts on paper (except from printed music) but
not for a commercial purpose and as long as fair compensation is provided to rights
holders. This could mean that the UK Government would be forced to install equipment
levies.
- Libraries open to the public, provided they are not run for profit, will be allowed to
copy for the purposes of archiving or conservation. There is no provision for copying for
users, (including document delivery) or for stock. Industrial and commercial libraries and
others which do not fit the narrow exception will have to pay every time or be licensed
for all copying.
- There is an exception for copying and communicating to the public for teaching and
research as long as fair compensation is provided to rights holders.
- Making a copy for private use using analogue a/v (off-air recording) is allowed as long
as fair compensation is provided to rights holders.
- Making a copy using digital a/v technology is allowed only if there is no
reliable or effective means of protection and as long as fair compensation is
provided to rights holders.
- Copying is allowed for people with disabilities provided the copying is non-commercial.
Apart from one covering transient and incidental copying, all the exceptions are still
listed as options for Member States to take or leave and are still subject to the three
step test of Article 5.4. Also any exception allowed in Member States must not interfere
with any technical means of protecting the work. This means, for example, that if rights
holders decide to give added protection for their works using technical means then any
legitimate copying under an exception will no longer apply. Note also that a levy or
remuneration condition is attached to practically all of the exceptions. We believe that
an exception which has to be paid for is not an exception. From letters received from Kim
Howells, the Minister responsible for copyright at the DTI, we are aware that the
Government is not in favour of levies but we have warned them that if we have to have
levies then we will be campaigning for the Government to pay for them as is the case in
some Member States.
The amended position was sent to the Council of Ministers at the end of June. The
Council, however, only received it, there was no discussion. Discussions will take place
at the Internal Council meetings in October and December 1999. Member States are
struggling hard to come to a common position which is not expected now before December
1999 (under the Finnish Presidency) or even next year under Portuguese Presidency. The
European Parliament will only become active again, once there is a Council common
position. In the meantime, the Committees will be putting forward nominations for
rapporteurs. The LA, as part of EFPICC UK, has been trying hard to persuade influential
MEPs to nominate impartial rapporteurs in order to ensure that the greater needs of
society are not overlooked.
The earliest that changes will be introduced into UK law is likely to be 2002 as the
Directive is not likely to be adopted until 2000.
1. See the LA response to the amended
proposal.
|
