Activities of Emmanuel MAUREL related to 2023/2019(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the implementation of the 2018 Geo-blocking Regulation in the digital single market
Amendments (35)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls the crucial importance of the film and audiovisual sector, the music sector, the book sector and the video games sector for the EU at both economic and cultural level, and considers thisese sectors vital for safeguarding the EU’s cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the findings of this evaluation report, which confirms that extending the scope of the regulation to copyright-protected online content would not bring substantial benefits to consumers in terms of choice of content and would have negative consequences in terms of cost and pluralism of content offers;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the film and audiovisual sector has a broad range of stakeholders, including a large number of highly innovative and creative independent production and distribution companies and independent cinemas that produce a wide variety of content across the EU;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas it is important to note the key financing principles of the film and audiovisual sector, notably territorial and exclusive licensing, and the Council conclusions (2021/C 501 I/02 et 7809/22) emphasising the importance of territorial exclusivity and exclusive licences for the sustainability of the audiovisual sector;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that the Commission’s report on the first review of the Geo- blocking Regulation in November 2020 highlighted the serious consequences of extending the scope of the regulation, in particular for the book, music and audiovisual sector;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Commission’s review shows that European consumers only have access to a small proportion of the total content made available online in the Union; whereas the number of consuRegulation on cross- border portability of online content services in the internal market (Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 and the Directive laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmers trying to access digital media content offered(Directive (EU) 2019/789) are currently exceptions to territorial exclusivity in other Member States is growing rapidly and a third of citizens have expressed inter audiovisual sector; whereas these exceptions permit, in particular, cross-border portability of online content subscription servicest in doing soall Member States;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises the key financing principles of the film and audiovisual sector, notably the indispensable territorial and exclusive allocation of licensing rights and contractual freedom;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s first short-term review of Regulation (EU) 2018/302 (the Geo- blocking Regulation) which upholds the continued exclusion of audiovisualcopyright-protected content (audiovisual, music and e-book services) from the scope of the regulation;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas citizens who have purchased digital media content and move to another Member State oftenmay find they can no longer access that content due to geo- blocking; whereas this runs counter to their right to portability, which should allow them to access the subscription service they have purchased at all times when travelling within the European Union;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Directive on online television and radio programmes facilitates cross-border accessibility of certain television programmes; whereas citizens living in the border regions or belonging to linguistic minorities are often prevented fromcan therefore accessing a considerable volume of content in their native languages due to geo-blocking, which hinders their access to and enjoyment of cultural content;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that the inclusion of audiovisual services in the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation would result in a significant loss of revenue, putting investment in new content at risk, while eroding contractual freedom and, reducing cultural diversity in both content production and distribution, distribution and exploitation and leading to an increase in the prices of cinema tickets and video-on-demand subscription services;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights that such an inclusion could trigger a chain of negative effects for the creation, financing, production and, distribution and exploitation of films and audiovisual content in the mid to long term, thus potentially damaging cultural diversity and a whole value chain that relies entirely on the principle of territoriality.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers that the inclusion of e- book services in the scope of the Geo- blocking Regulation would result in a loss of revenue, putting investment in new content at risk, while eroding contractual freedom, reducing cultural diversity, accentuating the monopoly of dominant market players (large platforms) and undermining alternative or independent offers;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers that the inclusion of music services in the scope of the Geo- blocking Regulation would result in a significant loss of revenue, putting investment in new content at risk, while eroding contractual freedom, reducing cultural diversity in both content production and distribution and resulting in higher prices for consumers;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the Commission organised a stakeholder dialogue to find solutions for these issues, but no significant agreements were reached and the proposals put forward would not adequately address the geo-blocking of digital media contentas reached;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas persistent barriers to accessing to digital media content, such as price, fragmentation, geo-blocking and the unavailability of dubbing or subtitles force citizens to resort to piracy in order to access contentthe fight against online piracy must be a priority;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Stresses the importance of supporting a policy of European co- productions, reflecting the richness and diversity of culture in Europe, and of strengthening the international dissemination of works;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2021/818 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) states that one of the programme's objectives is to 'safeguard, develop and promote European cultural and linguistic diversity and heritage'; whereas the MEDIA strand seeks to improve access to dubbing and subtitling in order to increase the distribution of European cultural programmes throughout the Union;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Calls on the Commission, through the Creative Europe MEDIA programme, to finance more projects for dubbing and subtitling audiovisual works, to finance improved access to film heritage, and to finance putting a selection of emblematic European films online in all countries and all languages with an appropriate promotion campaign;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the growth of on-demand content and the shrinking role of television and radio should prompt a rethink of the Union’s approach to content licensingreport on the media industry outlook points out that broadcasting accounts for 83.7% of audiovisual market revenues and broadcasters thus remain the top clients, while VoD only accounts for 12.8%;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that the Commission’s report on the first review of the Geo- blocking Regulation in November 2020 highlighted the serious consequences of extending the scope of the Regulation, in particular for the book, music and audiovisual sectors;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses that the findings of this Commission report confirm that extending the scope of the Regulation to copyright-protected online content would not bring substantial benefits to consumers in terms of choice of content, and would have negative consequences in terms of cost and pluralism of content offers;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to investigate, in line with Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 on portability and Article 4 of Directive 2019/789, to promote and develop the existing ways of granting citizens access to the public media platforms of the Member State whose citizenship they hold, regardless of where they reside;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to guarantee comprehensive implementation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 on portability so that citizens’ have long-term access to the digital media content they have purchased, regardless of the EU country where that content was purchased;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that including e-books in the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation would result in a loss of revenue, putting investment in new content at risk, while eroding contractual freedom, reducing cultural diversity, accentuating the monopoly of dominant market players (large platforms) and undermining alternative or independent offers;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Considers that including music services in the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation would result in a significant loss of revenue, putting investment in new content at risk, while eroding contractual freedom, reducing cultural diversity in both content production and distribution, and resulting in higher prices for consumers;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Recalls that the current territorial and exclusive licensing system guarantees the sustainable financing of films and television programmes;
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Considers that the inclusion of audiovisual services in the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation would result in a significant loss of revenue, putting investment in new content at risk, while eroding contractual freedom, reducing cultural diversity in content production, distribution and exploitation, and leading to an increase in the prices of cinema seats and video-on-demand subscription services;