Preliminary version adopted in plenary on July 9, 2015 – subheadings added
Changes to previous version (Legal Affairs Committee) shown as strikethroughs
See Parliament website for PDF download and official translations
Background on the report: Context, status, next steps


A. whereas the revision of Directive 2001/29/EC is central to the promotion of creativity and innovation, cultural diversity, economic growth, competitiveness, the Digital Single Market and to access to knowledge and information; while at the same time also providing authors of literary and artistic works with sufficient recognition and protection of their rights;

Compromise #28 negotiated among the (shadow) rapporteurs, merging my initial draft and 14 amendments

B. whereas Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the European Union shall promote the flowering and diversity of the cultures of the Member States, particularly through artistic and literary creation;

Amendment #58 by 4 Spanish S&D MEPs
I supported

C. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society was aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and related rights to reflect technological developments;

Compromise #29 merging my initial draft and 8 amendments

D. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC also addresses a number of EU obligations under international law, including the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty;

Compromise #29 merging my initial draft and 8 amendments

E. whereas the European Commission and the Member States are making considerable investments in the digitization and online accessibility of the rich collections of Europe’s cultural heritage institutions, so that citizens can enjoy access from everywhere on any device;

Amendment #69 by Dutch ALDE MEP Schaake
I supported

F. whereas the European cultural and creative industries are an engine for economic growth and job creation in the EU and make a major contribution to the EU economy, as they employ more than 7 million people and generate more than 4.2% of EU GDP according to the latest estimates, and whereas cultural industries continued to create jobs during the economic crisis of 2008-2012;

Amendment #70 by 4 Spanish S&D MEPs
I opposed

G. whereas the September 2013 joint EPO and OHIM study shows that about 39% of total economic activity in the EU, worth some EUR 4 700 billion a year, is generated by IPR-intensive industries, as is, in addition, 26% of direct employment (or 56 million jobs), with indirect employment accounting for a further 9% of the total number of jobs in the EU;

Amendment #21 by EPP MEPs Le Grip and Ehler
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDEEFDD-Bergeron, an ECR MEP

“The entire economy hinges on intellectual property”

These numbers are flawed. Show details…

The study defines “IPR-intensive industries” as industries that rely on intellectual property rights more than the average industry. According to this definition, that even covers McDonald’s. What this number really says: The 50% of all industries that are by definition more IPR-intensive than the average generate much less than half of all EU economic activity (39%). So rather than signifying a remarkable contribution to the economy, all it shows is that “IPR-intensive industries” are less productive than others. The methodological flaws of this study have been pointed out time and again.

Point F above quotes other numbers (7 million people, >4% of GDP) without naming their source (pg. 10). That study was commissioned by the European umbrella organisation for collecting societies GESAC, with the support of a host of rightsholders organisations with a direct economic interest in copyright policy, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) the International Federation of Film Producers Associations (FIAPF) and the Federation of European Publishers (FEP). The methodology employed in a similar EY study looking at the French market has also been criticised by Copyright for Creativity.

H. whereas the digital revolution has brought with it new technique and means of communication and opened the way to new forms of expression which, while calling into question the long-established three-way relationship between creators, cultural entrepreneurs and users, has spurred the emergence of a knowledge-based economy providing new jobs and helping to promote culture and innovation;

Amendment #71 by EFDD shadow rapporteur Ferrara
I supported

I. whereas any political initiative concerning the digital single market must be in keeping with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22 thereof;

Amendment #75 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I supported

J. whereas cultural diversity and language diversity exceeds national borders, with some European languages spoken in multiple countries;

Amendment #76 by Dutch ALDE MEP Schaake
I supported

K. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the arts and science, guarantees protection of personal data and protection of cultural and linguistic diversity, the right to property and the protection of intellectual property, the right to education and the freedom to conduct a business;

Compromise #30 merging my initial draft and 16 amendments

L. whereas the right of the creator to protection of his or her creative works must continue to apply in the digital age;

Amendment #105 by German EPP MEPs Niebler and Voss
I opposed

M. whereas measures that contribute to the further development of cultural interchange and improve legal certainty in the sector need to be considered; whereas many creative on-line services have developed since the application of Directive2001/29/EC, and consumers have never before had access to such a wide range of creative and cultural works, while users need access to a plentiful and diverse supply of high-quality content;

Compromise #31 merging my initial draft and 15 amendments

N. whereas the harmonious and systematic development of the Europeana digital library, which was founded in 2008 as part of an EU initiative, has made works from Member States’ libraries available;

Amendment #116 by Polish S&D MEP Gehringer de Oedenberg
I supported

O. whereas creative works are one of the main sources nourishing the digital economy and information technology players such as search engines, social media and platforms for user-generated content, but virtually all the value generated by creative works is transferred to those digital intermediaries, which refuse to pay authors or negotiate extremely low levels of remuneration;

Amendment #120 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE

“Internet platforms are evil” #1

These sweeping claims are unsubstantiated. Show details…

A number of additions to the report (see also R. below) reflect a conviction that internet platforms are generally exploiting authors, unfairly encroaching upon traditional distributors’ turf and irresponsibly aiding and abetting copyright infringement.

It’s no question that we must ensure healthy competition online and that some dominant platforms are in violation of that. However, the hyperbolic wording of these amendments represent an unconditional siding with the entrenched giants (labels and publishers) against innovation.

Let’s not forget that online services have in fact in many cases done much more over the last years to meet fans’ changing demands and find new business models for artists than the old industry players.

P. whereas Directive 2011/77/EU and Directive 2006/116/EC harmonised the terms of protection of copyright and neighbouring rights by establishing a complete harmonisation of the period of protection for each type of work and each related right in the Member States;

Amendment #124 by EPP shadow rapporteur Comodini, S&D shadow rapporteur Honeyball and 8 further MEPs
I opposed

Q. whereas the EU legislative authorities have a duty to promote a clear legal framework for copyright and related rights that can be understood by all stakeholders, in particular the general public, and ensures legal certainty;

Amendment #125 by EFDD shadow rapporteur Ferrara
I supported

R. having regard to the competitive advantage and growing power of a number of Internet intermediaries and to the negative impact of this situation on authors’ creative potential and on the development of services offered by other distributors of creative works;

Amendment #126 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE

S. whereas when defining the legal framework for copyright and related rights account should be taken of the need to promote innovative industrial and commercial models, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by new technologies, in order to make EU businesses more competitive;

Amendment #128 by EFDD shadow rapporteur Ferrara
I supported

T. whereas the Commission’s priority and the focus of its 2014-2019 programme is the creation of growth and jobs;

Amendment #129 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I supported


1. Points out that copyright is the tangible means of ensuring that creators are remunerated and that the creative process is funded;

Amendment #114 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada and French S&D MEP Rozière
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE, GUE, ECR

“Internet platforms are evil” #2

Emerging ways of funding creative works are ignored. Show details…

Those who approved this addition seem locked into a world view contradicted by the existence of emerging alternative platforms like Kickstarter and Patreon: While copyright is a very common way to secure the funding of the creative process, it is not the only possible one. The Parliament shouldn’t adopt texts that are this oblivious to the innovation currently happening.

2. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative in having conducted a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from a wide range of interested stakeholders, including the cultural sector and civil society

Compromise #1 merging my initial draft and 10 amendments

3. Welcomes the commitment of the Commission on further developing the EU digital agenda, including copyright issues, in the course of the new Commission mandate; welcomes the Commission Work Programme for 2015 insofar as it promises to deliver a Digital Single Market Package which includes a legislative proposal with the objective of modernising copyright rules to make them fit for the digital age;

Suggestion by IMCO committee #1
I supported

4. Recalls that copyright and related rights protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EU;

Amendment #149 by ECR
I opposed

5. Stresses that copyright is only as effective as the enforcement measures in place to protect it and that in order to ensure a flourishing and innovative creative sector copyright enforcement must be robust;

Amendment #151 by ECR
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE, ECR

Geoblocking & Cross-border access

6. Points out that the existence of copyright and related rights inherently implies territoriality; emphasises that there is no contradiction between that principle and measures to ensure the portability of content;
Amendment #130 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada and two S&D MEPs
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE, GUE, ECR

“We ♥ borders” #1

We need to overcome, not reaffirm, national borders on the internet Show details…

Some adopted amendments attack the central reason for the Commission’s plan to reform copyright: That the 28 different national copyright laws in the EU make it impossible for ordinary people to understand the law, to freely exchange knowledge and culture across borders and to watch their favourite videos without being geoblocked. One points out that copyright inherently implies territoriality, as if the introduction of a common European copyright law would mean that this copyright law would suddenly apply in the entire world, rather than in the territory of the EU. It is not territoriality, the principle that different copyright laws may apply in different places, that these amendments are defending, but they are using territoriality as a pretext to plug a number of other, more problematic ideas: Portability, national differences and territorial exclusivity.

Portability, mentioned in this amendment, is the idea that as long as people can take their Netflix subscription on holiday, other forms of geoblocking can just be accepted. Portability would do nothing to give you access to video streaming and other services that are simply not being offered in your country of residence or that you cannot acquire through payment, such as the websites of public broadcasting services or ad-supported platforms. This point also contradicts other part of the report that clearly state that geoblocking that blocks linguistic minorities from offers in their language is unacceptable and that Europeans have a right to enjoy the freedoms of the market, which includes cross-border access to online services.

The following point 7. makes the claim that just because national differences in copyright laws exist, this is a good thing and must be reinforced in order to ensure that different cultures are respected. This is a direct contradiction to point J of the report that points out that while different cultures and linguistic groups exist in Europe, they are not confined to national borders.

7. Emphasises that any revision of Directive 2001/29/EC should continue to safeguard the principle of fair remuneration for rightholders; calls for a reaffirmation of the principle of territoriality, enabling each Member State to safeguard the fair remuneration principle within the framework of its own cultural policy;

Amendment #127 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada and two S&D MEPs
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE, GUE, ECR

8. Notes that the range of works lawfully available to users has increased since the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC; further notes that cross-border access to the diversity of uses that technological progress offers to consumers may require evidence-based improvements to the current legal framework to further develop the legal offer of diversified cultural and creative content on-line, to allow access to European cultural diversity;

Compromise #2 merging my initial draft and 27 amendments

9. Recalls that consumers are too often denied access to certain content services on geographical grounds, which runs counter to the objective of Directive 2001/29/EC of implementing the four freedoms of the internal market; urges the Commission, therefore, to propose adequate solutions for better cross-border accessibility of services and copyright content for consumers;

Suggestion by the IMCO committee #16
I supported

10. Considers that lessons may be drawn for other types of content from the approach taken in the Collective Rights Management Directive, but that issues concerning portability and geoblocking may not be solved by one all-encompassing solution but may require several different interventions, both regulatory and market-led;

Amendment #150 by ECR
I supported
(but opposed an additional sentence which got rejected)

11. Stresses that the creative output of the European Union is one of its richest resources, and those who want to enjoy it should be able to pay to do so, even when it is only sold in another Member State;

Amendment #165 by ECR
I supported

12. Draws attention to the fact that multi-territorial licensing, as provided for in Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright, is an option when broadcasters want Europe-wide coverage;

Amendment #233 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada and two S&D MEPs
I opposed

13. Points out that the financing, production and co-production of films and television content depend to a great extent on exclusive territorial licences granted to local distributers on a range of platforms reflecting the cultural specificities of the various markets in Europe; that being so, emphasises that the ability, under the principle of freedom of contract, to select the extent of territorial coverage and the type of distribution platform encourages investment in films and television content and promotes cultural diversity; calls on the Commission to ensure that any initiative to modernise copyright is preceded by a wide-ranging study of its likely impact on the production, financing and distribution of films and television content, and also on cultural diversity;

Amendment #235 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada and French S&D MEP Rozière
I opposed
In favor: S&D, ALDE

“We ♥ borders” #2

Is geoblocking necessary to ensure film funding? Show details…

The claim is that the only way that European films can be funded is by having one exclusive online distributor for each film per country that can ensure that there will be no competition by imposing geoblocking.

I call into question the assertion that everything is fine now and nothing must change: In fact, most European films today are not available for online viewing in most European countries. Geoblocking often keeps customers away from films they want to pay for – reducing, rather than securing, revenues for filmmakers.

Nobody’s going to stop going to the cinema in Portugal because a film is already viewable online on an Estonian website: Europe’s “natural” cultural and linguistic barriers are much more effective and unintrusive in achieving some market segmentation than discriminating viewers based on the country they are currently in, harming linguistic minorities and cultural exchange in the process.

If the film industry wants to thrive in the online world, it needs to embrace change.

14. Emphasizes that industry geoblocking practices should not prevent cultural minorities living in EU Member States from accessing existing contents or services in their language that are either free or paid for;

Amendment #322 by French Greens/EFA MEP Durand
I supported

15. Supports the initiatives aimed at enhancing the portability, within the EU, of online services of legally acquired and legally made available content, whilst fully respecting copyrights and the interests of right-holders;

Amendment #323 by three EPP MEPs
I supported

16. Recalls that the European cultural markets are naturally heterogeneous because of the European cultural and linguistic diversity, notes that this diversity should be considered as a benefit rather than an obstacle to the Single Market;

Amendment #325 by three EPP MEPs
I opposed

17. Takes note of the importance of territorial licenses in the EU, particularly with regards to audiovisual and film production which is primarily based on broadcasters pre-purchase or pre-financing systems;

Amendment #326 by three EPP MEPs
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE


18. Notes with concern the growing number of illegal on-line services and the increasing incidence of piracy and, more generally, of infringements of intellectual property rights, a trend that poses a serious threat to Member States’ economies and to creativity in the European Union;

Amendment #168 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada and two EPP MEPs
I opposed
In favor: EPP, ALDE, ECR, EFDD-Bergeron

19. Emphasizes that any reform of the copyright framework should take as a basis a high level of protection, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment #169 by three EPP MEPs
I opposed

20. Alongside the important task of expanding functioning structures for the digital Single Market, steps must also be taken to ensure that the analogue Single Market continues to function properly;

Amendment #170 by German EPP MEPs Ehler and Verheyen
I opposed

21. Points out that copyright-intensive industries employ more than seven million people in the Union; asks the Commission, therefore, to ensure that, in line with the principles of better regulation, any legislative initiative to modernise copyright be preceded by an exhaustive ex-ante assessment of its impact in terms of growth and jobs, as well as its potential costs and benefits;

Amendment #172 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE

22. Emphasises that any revision of EU copyright law must be properly focused and must be based on convincing data, with a view to securing the continued development of Europe’s creative industries;

Amendment #175 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I opposed the second part of the sentence

23. Recognizes that commercial copyright infringing activities pose a serious threat to the functioning of the digital single market and to the development of the legal offer of diversified cultural and creative content online;

Amendment #176 by three EPP MEPs


24. Deems it indispensable to strengthen the position of authors and creators and improve their remuneration with regard to the digital distribution and exploitation of their works;

Amendment #177 by German EPP MEPs Ehler and Verheyen
I supported

25. Acknowledges the necessity for authors and performers to be provided with legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises that the dissemination of culture and knowledge is in the public interest; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for fair and appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediaries, notably by considering a reasonable period for the use of rights transferred by authors to third parties, after which those rights would lapse, as contractual exchanges may be marked by an imbalance of power; stresses in this connection the importance of contractual freedom;

Compromise #3 merging my initial draft and 28 amendments

26. Notes that a proportionate protection of copyright works and other protected matter is of great importance, including from a cultural standpoint; under Article 167 TFEU, the Community is required to take cultural aspects into account in its activity;

Amendment #198 by two Greens/EFA MEPs
I supported

27. Stresses that authors and performers must receive fair remuneration in the digital environment and in the analogue world alike;

Amendment #199 by two Greens/EFA MEPs
I supported

Harmonisation & re-use

28. Invites the Commission to evaluate targeted and appropriate measures to improve legal certainty, in line with the Commission’s objective of better regulation; calls on the Commission to study the impact of a single European Copyright Title on jobs and innovation, on the interests of authors, performers and other rightholders, and on the promotion of consumers’ access to regional cultural diversity;

Compromise #4 merging my initial draft and 11 amendments

29. Points out that, in the fragile ecosystem which produces and finances creative work, exclusive rights and freedom of contract are key components because they make for improved risk sharing, enable a range of players to get involved in joint projects for a culturally diverse audience and underpin the incentive to invest in professional content production;

Amendment #230 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I opposed

30. Recommends that the EU legislator should consider, to protect the public interest while protecting personal information, how to further lower the barriers to the re-use of public sector information; notes that such adjustment of the legislation should be made with due regard of directive 2013/37/EU, of the principles underpinning the copyright system and of the relevant case law of the Court of Justice;

Compromise #5 merging my initial draft and 6 amendments

31. Calls on the Commission to effectively safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection; therefore urges the Commission to clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain; also calls on the Commission to examine whether rightholders may be given the right to dedicate their works to the public domain, in whole or in part;

Compromise #6 merging my initial draft and 5 amendments

32. Calls on the Commission to further harmonise the term of protection of copyright, while refraining from any further extension of the term of protection, according to the international standards set out in the Berne Convention, encourages Member States to finalise the transposition and implementation of Directives 2006/116/EC and 2011/77/EU in a streamlined manner;

Compromise #7 merging my initial draft and 6 amendments

Exceptions and limitations

33. Calls on the EU legislator to remain faithful to the objective stated in Directive 2001/29/EC of providing an adequate protection for copyright and neighbouring rights as one of the main ways of ensuring European cultural creativity, and of safeguarding a fair balance between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matter, as well as between the different categories of rightholders; further emphasises that any legislative change in this field should guarantee people with disabilities access to works and services protected by copyright and related rights in any formats;

Compromise #8 merging my initial draft and 11 amendments

34. Underlines that copyright and related rights constitute the legal framework for the European cultural and creative industries, as also for the educational and research sector and for the sector benefiting from exceptions to and limitations on those rights, and form their basis for activity and employment;

Suggestion by the ITRE committee #7
I supported

35. Notes that exceptions and limitations must be applied in such a way as to take account of the purpose for which they were designed and the particular respective characteristics of the digital and analogue environments, while maintaining the balance between the interests of rightholders and the interests of the public; therefore calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of reviewing a number of the existing exceptions and limitations in order to better adapt them to the digital environment, taking into account the ongoing developments in the digital environment and the need for competitiveness;

Compromise #9 merging my initial draft and 17 amendments

36. Underlines the importance of exceptions and limitations being accessible for persons with disabilities; in this regard notes the conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty, which will facilitate access for the visually impaired to books, and encourages swift ratification without making the ratification conditional to the revision of the EU legal framework; believes that the Treaty is a good step forward, but that much work remains to be done in order to open up access to content for people with different disabilities;

Compromise #9 merging my initial draft and 17 amendments

37. Notes the importance of European cultural diversity, and notes that the differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions can be challenging for the functioning of the internal market in view of the development of cross-border activities and EU global competitiveness and innovation, and may also lead to legal uncertainty for authors and users, considers that some exceptions and limitations may therefore benefit from more common rules; remarks however that differences may be justified to allow Member States to legislate according to their specific cultural and economic interests, and in line with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity;

Compromise #10 merging my initial draft and 20 amendments

38. Calls on the Commission to examine the application of minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations, and further to ensure the proper implementation of the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, and an equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;

Compromise #11 merging my initial draft and 19 amendments

39. Considers it necessary to strengthen exceptions for institutions of public interest, such as libraries, museums and archives, in order to promote wide-ranging access to cultural heritage, including through online platforms;

Amendment #350 by three S&D MEPs
I supported

40. Calls on the Commission to consider with care the possibility of making certain exceptions mandatory where the purpose is to protect fundamental rights, particularly to combat discrimination or protect freedom of the press; recalls in this context that fair compensation should be provided for these exceptions;

Amendment #351 by two S&D MEPs
I opposed second sentence
In favor of the second sentence: EPP, S&D, ALDE

“New royalties for public-interest use” #1

Fundamental rights with a price tag Show details…

An important feature of any copyright law are exceptions and limitations that balance exclusive rights against other rights or the public interest. As point 57. of the report confirms, “compensation for the exercise of exceptions and limitations should only be considered in cases where acts deemed to fall under an exception cause harm to the right holder.

While making exceptions that protect fundamental rights such as the freedom of the press mandatory is an excellent idea, requiring compensation for them is not. Typical exceptions that safeguard press freedom are for example the right to quotation or parody. Imagine you had to pay royalties just for the ability to critically discuss something that somebody else has published!

These exceptions benefit all creators and the public debate, there is no need to complicate them by shovelling money from one author (the one quoting) to another (the one being quoted).

41. Recalls the importance of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the cultural and creative industries in terms of job creation and growth in the European Union; stresses that the vast majority of SMEs in the cultural and creative industries take advantage of the flexibility of copyright rules to produce, invest and distribute cultural and creative works but also to develop innovative solutions which enable users to gain access to creative works on line adapted to the preferences and specificities of local markets;

Amendment #352 by EPP shadow rapporteur Comodini and ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I opposed

42. Notes with interest the development of new forms of use of works on digital networks, in particular transformative uses, and stresses the need to examine solutions reconciling an efficient protection that provides for proper remuneration and fair compensation for creators with the public interest for access to cultural goods and knowledge;

Compromise #12 merging my initial draft and 7 amendments

43. Stresses that, where an exception or limitation already applies, new usages of content which are made possible by technological advances or new uses of technology should be, insofar as possible, construed in line with the existing exception or limitation, provided that the new usage is similar to the existing one, in order to improve legal certainty; this would be subject to the three-step-test; acknowledges that such flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations may permit the adaptation of the concerned exceptions and limitations to different national circumstances and social needs;

Compromise #13 merging my initial draft and 11 amendments

44. Highlights the need to ensure the technological neutrality and future compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence, while serving the public interest by fostering incentives to create, finance and distribute new works and to make those works available to the public in new, innovative and compelling ways;

Compromise #14 merging my initial draft and 8 amendments

45. Suggests a review of the liability of service providers and intermediaries in order to clarify their legal status and liability with regards to copyrights, to guarantee that due diligence is exercised throughout the creative process and supply chain, and to ensure a fair remuneration for creators and rightholders within the European Union;

Amendment #411 by three EPP MEPs
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ECR, GUE, EFDD-Bergeron

“Internet platforms are evil” #3

New liability for intermediaries is off-topic here – and dangerous Show details…

One popular strategy to derail the debate about much-needed copyright reform has always been to talk about copyright enforcement instead. The latest trend in this regard is to push for a more active role of online intermediaries (be it social media and hosting platforms or internet service providers) in the enforcement of copyright law by making them more liable for copyright infringements individuals commit over their platforms or networks.

This report deals with the 2001 copyright directive, which regulates the substance of copyright law, not its enforcement, these paragraphs are off topic. Just last month, the European Parliament adopted a separate report on enforcement.

There is also an inherent contradiction between the European Parliament’s repeated statements calling for Internet Service Providers and online platforms to be more neutral in dealing with information from different sources, and any new calls for them to be more liable or responsible. Liability for copyright infringements of third parties creates an incentive for intermediaries to divert from a principle of neutrality and to start policing the behaviour of their users.

The end result may be a concentration of the market to a few large intermediaries, who can afford to put in place complicated monitoring systems, and a significant overblocking of works that aren’t copyright infringements, simply because the commercial operator wants to be on the safe side. While concern about the dominance of a few powerful internet companies may be justified, intermediary liability would make the problem even worse, whereas measures such as net neutrality and enforcement of competition rules would contribute to creating a level playing field with a larger number of small and medium-size operators.

Finally, the main obstacle to making transnational IT companies pay their fair share to society is the fragmentation of our taxation law (though also off-topic here). As the LuxLeaks scandal has revealed, as long as companies can get away with paying 1 percent corporate tax, there is no point in creating entirely new laws trying to make them pay for third-party copyright infringement.

46. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;

Amendment #421 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada
I opposed
In favor: EPP, S&D, ALDE-Cavada, EFDD-Bergeron

“New royalties for public-interest use” #2

This threatens freedom of panorama, a right guaranteed in half the member states today. Show details…

Freedom of Panorama allows photographers, filmmakers and other visual artists to make free use of the public space. In about half the EU member states, this right exists with no limitation to “non-commercial use”, a distinction that is not always intuitively easy to draw in the age of sharing photos on free, but commercial platforms.

Those supporting this amendment want to restrict these rights without reason. Architects and photographers – those this amendment supposedly aims to protect – have already expressed disagreement with the plan in the UK.

I have blogged about this issue in detail

46. Maintains that the development of the digital market is impossible unless creative and cultural industries are developed alongside it;

Amendment #429 by Croatian ALDE MEP Jakovčić
I opposed

47. Emphasises the importance of the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche as a factor in the vitality of democratic debate; believes that the exception should strike the balance between the interests and rights of the creators and original characters and the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who is relying on the exception for caricature, parody or pastiche;

Compromise #17 merging my initial draft and 5 amendments

48. Stresses the need to properly assess the enablement of enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’ or ‘content mining’) for research purposes, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired;

Compromise #18 merging my initial draft and 8 amendments

49. Maintains that the development of the digital market is closely linked to, and has to go hand in hand with, the development of creative and cultural industries, this being the only way to achieve lasting prosperity;

Amendment #451 by Croatian S&D MEP Picula
I opposed

50. Notes that the right to private property is one of the fundaments of the modern society Also notes that facilitation of access to educational materials and cultural goods is of extreme importance for the development of knowledge based society and that this should be taken into account by the legislators;

Amendment #203 by Slovenian EPP MEP Zver
I opposed

51. Calls for an exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments, but accredited educational or research activities, including online and cross-border activities, linked to an educational establishment or institution recognised by the competent authorities or legislation or within the purview of an educational programme;

Compromise #19 merging my initial draft and 15 amendments

52. Stresses that any new exceptions or limitations introduced to the EU copyright legal system needs to be duly justified by a sound and objective economic and legal analysis;

Amendment #471 by Polish EPP MEPs Zwiefka and Wenta
I opposed

53. Recognizes the importance of libraries for access to knowledge and calls upon the Commission to assess the adoption of an exception allowing public and research libraries to legally lend works to the public in digital formats for personal use, for a limited duration through the internet or libraries’ networks, so that their public interest duty of disseminating knowledge can be fulfilled effectively and in an up-to-date manner; recommends that authors should be fairly compensated for e-lending to the same extent as this is the case for the lending of physical books according to national territorial restrictions;

Compromise #20 merging my initial draft and 17 amendments

54. Calls upon the Commission to assess the adoption of an exception allowing libraries to digitalise content for the purposes of consultation, cataloguing and archiving;

Compromise #20 merging my initial draft and 17 amendments

55. Stresses the importance of taking into account the conclusions of the numerous experiments being undertaken by the book industry to establish fair, balanced and viable business models;

Amendment #476 by ECR
I opposed

56. Notes that in some Member States statutory licences aimed at compensatory schemes have been introduced; stresses the need to ensure that acts which are permissible under an exception should remain so; reminds that compensation for the exercise of exceptions and limitations should only be considered in cases where acts deemed to fall under an exception cause harm to the right holder; further calls on the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights for a full scientific evaluation of these Member state measures and their effect on each affected stakeholder;

Compromise #21 merging my initial draft and 17 amendments

57. Recalls the importance of the private copying exception that may not be technically limited, coupled with fair compensation of creators; invites the Commission to analyse on the basis of scientific evidence, the European Parliament’s resolution of February 2014 and the results of the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission, the viability of existing measures for the fair compensation of rightholders in respect of reproductions made by natural persons for private use, in particular in regard to transparency measures;

Compromise #22 merging my initial draft and 14 amendments

58. Notes that the right to impose private copying levies should be governed in such a way as to inform citizens of the actual amount of the levy, its purpose and how it is going to be used;

Amendment #523 by EFDD shadow rapporteur Ferrara
I supported

59. Stresses that digital levies should be made more transparent and optimised to safeguard rightholder and consumer rights and by taking into account Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market;

Amendment #524 by three EPP MEPs

60. Stresses the importance of bringing more clarity and transparency of the copyright regime for copyright users, in particular with regard to user-generated content and copyright levies, to foster creativity, the further development of online platforms, and ensure appropriate remuneration of copyright holders;

Suggestion by the IMCO committee #19
I supported

61. Notes the importance of article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC and stresses that the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be waived by contract or contractual terms;

Compromise #23 merging my initial draft and 4 amendments

62. Calls on distributors to publish all available information concerning the technological measures necessary to ensure interoperability of their content;

Amendment #554 by French S&D MEP Rozière
I supported

63. Highlights the need to promote greater interoperability, in particular for software and terminals, as lack of interoperability hampers innovation, reduces competition and harms the consumer; believes that lack of interoperability leads to market dominance of one particular product or service, which in turn stifles competition and limits consumer choice in the EU;

Suggestion by the ITRE committe #29
I supported

64. Points out that the rapid rate of technological development in the digital market calls for a technologically neutral legislative framework for copyrights;

Amendment #538 by three EPP MEPs
I supported

65. Recognises the role of proportionate and effective enforcement in supporting creators, rightholders and consumers;

Amendment #553 by S&D shadow rapporteur Honeyball
I opposed

66. Calls on the Commission and the EU legislature to consider solutions for the displacement of value from content to services; stresses the need to adjust the definition of the status of intermediary in the current digital environment;

Amendment #556 by ALDE shadow rapporteur Cavada and three EPP MEPs
I opposed
In favor: EPP, ALDE, ECR

67. Stresses that consumers often face various limitations and the notion of consumers’ rights in the copyright framework is very often absent; calls on the Commission to assess the effectiveness of the current copyright law from a consumers’ perspective and to develop a set of clear and comprehensive consumers’ rights;

Suggestion by the IMCO committee #23
I supported

68. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

This page includes icons by Arthur Shlain from the Noun Project, licensed under cc-by

Comments closed.