Procedure lapsed or withdrawn
Legal Basis RoP 048, RoP 048-p2
Activites
-
2009/01/20
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- 2008/10/14 Committee draft report
-
2008/07/16
Document attached to the procedure
-
COM(2008)0466
summary
PURPOSE: to launch a debate on copyright in the Knowledge Economy (Commission Green Paper). CONTENT: the purpose of the Green Paper is to foster a debate on how knowledge for research, science and education can best be disseminated in the online environment. It will address all issues in a balanced manner, taking into account the perspective of publishers, libraries, educational establishments, museums, archives, researchers, people with a disability and the public at large. Scope of the Green Paper: in its review of the Single Market, the Commission highlighted the need to promote free movement of knowledge and innovation as the "Fifth Freedom" in the single market. The Green Paper will focus on how research, science and educational materials are disseminated to the public and whether knowledge is freely circulating in the internal market. However, the Green Paper is not limited to scientific and educational material. Material not falling within these parameters but which has value in enhancing knowledge is also within the scope of this Green Paper. The consultation document will also look at the issue of whether the current copyright framework is sufficiently robust to protect knowledge products and whether authors and publishers are sufficiently encouraged to create and disseminate electronic versions of these products. Content: the Green Paper is essentially in two parts: the first part deals with general issues regarding exceptions to exclusive rights introduced in the main piece of European copyright legislation - Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society; the second part deals with specific issues related to the exceptions and limitations which are most relevant for the dissemination of knowledge and whether these exceptions should evolve in the era of digital dissemination. The Green Paper focuses on the exceptions to copyright which are most relevant for the dissemination of knowledge, namely: (1)The exception for the benefit of libraries and archives: two core issues have arisen: the production of digital copies of materials held in the libraries' collections and the electronic delivery of these copies to users. Under the current legal framework, libraries or archives do not enjoy a blanket exception from the right of reproduction. Reproductions are only allowed in specific cases, which arguably would cover certain acts necessary for the preservation of works contained in the libraries' catalogues. On the other hand, the library exception and national rules implementing it are not always clear. Main questions: Should the exception for libraries and archives remain unchanged because publishers themselves will develop online access to their catalogues? In order to increase access to works, should publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums and archives enter into licensing schemes with the publishers? Should the scope of the exception for publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums and archives be clarified with respect to: format shifting; the number of copies that can be made under the exception; the scanning of entire collections held by libraries? Is a further Community statutory instrument required to deal with the problem of orphan works, which goes beyond the Commission Recommendation 2006/585/EC? (2) The exception allowing dissemination of works for teaching and research purposes: both teachers and students increasingly rely on digital technology to access or disseminate teaching materials. The Copyright Directive allows Member States to provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights of reproduction and communication to the public when a work is used for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible. This exception has often been implemented in a narrow sense and distance or Internet-based learning at home is not covered. Main questions: Should the scientific and research community enter into licensing schemes with publishers in order to increase access to works for teaching or research purposes? Should the teaching and research exception be clarified so as to accommodate modern forms of distance learning? Should there be a clarification that the teaching and research exception covers not only material used in classrooms or educational facilities, but also use of works at home for study? Should there be mandatory minimum rules as to the length of the excerpts from works which can be reproduced? (3) The exception for the benefit of people with a disability: people with a disability should have an opportunity to benefit from the knowledge economy. To this end they not only need physical access to premises of educational establishments or libraries but also the possibility of accessing works in formats that are adapted to their needs (e.g. Braille, large print, audio-books and accessible electronic books). The Directive contains an exception to the reproduction right and the communication to the public right for the benefit of people with a disability. All Member States have implemented this exception, although, in some national laws it is restricted to certain categories of disabled persons (e.g. the exception only covers the visually impaired). Some Member States require payment of compensation to the rightholders for the use of works under the exception. Main questions: Should people with a disability enter into licensing schemes with the publishers in order to increase their access to works? Should there be mandatory provisions that works are made available to people with a disability in a particular format? Should there be a clarification that the current exception benefiting people with a disability applies to disabilities other than visual and hearing disabilities? Should national laws clarify that beneficiaries of the exception for people with a disability should not be required to pay remuneration for using a work in order to convert it into an accessible format? (4) A possible exception for user-created content: consumers are not only users but are increasingly becoming creators of content. Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, podcasts, wiki, or video sharing, enable users easily to create and share text, videos or pictures, and to play a more active and collaborative role in content creation and knowledge dissemination. However, there is a significant difference between user-created content and existing content that is simply uploaded by users and is typically protected by copyright. The Directive does not currently contain an exception which would allow the use of existing copyright protected content for creating new or derivative works. Main questions: Should an exception for user-created content be introduced into the Directive? Should there be more precise rules regarding what acts end users can or cannot do when making use of materials protected by copyright?
- DG Information Society and Media, MCCREEVY Charlie
-
COM(2008)0466
summary
-
2008/05/22
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
- 2007/11/30 Non-legislative basic document published
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: SEC(2007)1556
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2008)0466
- Committee draft report: PE413.997
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 46 |
2008/2121(INI)
2008/09/18
ITRE
7 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Reaffirms that the information society is a crucial pillar of the Lisbon Strategy, based on access to knowledge and on the protection of digital content by means of a rigorous and effective system of protection of copyright and related rights and further reaffirms that such protection must promote innovation, respect technology neutrality and take into account the legitimate interests of law-abiding consumers and internet service providers;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses the need to achieve legal certainty as regards copyright in the information society and underlines the need for further harmonisation in that area, within the EU as well between the EU and the United States;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society is a vital component of the Community legislation on the protection of intellectual property in the digital environment, in conformity with the WIPO 'Internet treaties'; further recalls that this legislation has worked well in practice, helping to promote a vibrant community within Europe;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes that information technologies create a need for modern copyright and related rights, and that the protection of these rights must be secured, with a clear division between the public authorities responsible for enforcement and the operators, acting within the applicable legal framework ;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Recalls the rapid increase of user- created content on the internet and its contribution to creativity; recognises that it is a sector with an ever increasing value; notes that information sharing is a precondition for this and that this must be taken into consideration; recalls, in this context, that while copyright protection stimulates investment and production of content, carefully considered exceptions are equally essential to ensure access to knowledge, creation and innovation, and calls on the Commission to revise Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC to provide the level of flexibility needed for copyright exceptions and limitations to allow for the development of innovative services and users' self-expression where this is accurate and uncontroversial;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Welcomes the Commission's adoption of the green paper 'Copyright in the Knowledge Economy'
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission, when further assessing aspects of Directive 2001/29/EC, including the Green Paper 'Copyright in the Knowledge Economy', to consider Parliament´s Resolution of 31 January 2008 on the European Research Area: New Perspectives1 which underlines the importance of respecting intellectual property and stresses that publishers’ investments in infrastructure, functionality and electronic cross- reference initiatives have resulted in major improvements in the dissemination of information and knowledge. ______________ 1 Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0029.
source: PE-412.279
2008/10/16
IMCO
14 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Notes that the creative industries are a growing sector that account for 2.6% of EU GDP (2003) and employ over five million people;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that this initial report on the application of Articles 5, 6 and 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC does not enable a meaningful assessment, owing to belated transposition by the Member States, and considers the adoption of the green paper on copyright in the knowledge economy (COM(2008)0466) to be premature, while acknowledging that the Commission has an active role to play in this field;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that this initial report on the application of articles 5, 6 and 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC does not enable a meaningful assessment, owing to belated transposition by the Member States, and therefore calls on the Commission to concentrate its efforts on full implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC in all its aspects and to ensure a balance between ensuring rewards for rights owners and dissemination to the benefit of European consumers;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Regrets that, in its report, the Commission disregards the legislative practice of the countries which joined the European Union after the adoption of the Directive;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers that the Commission should immediately address, in particular, questions concerning the implementation of Articles 5, 6 and 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC particularly as regards users’ rights in the information society (including consumers’ rights), digitalisation of cultural heritage in libraries and the changeover to digital television broadcasting; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to broaden the application of Article 5(3)(o) to cover justified digital use, such as, for example, allowing the reception of radio or television broadcasts via a communal domestic antenna (particularly in the case of housing cooperatives) to continue to be an exception pursuant to Article 5(3)(o) after the changeover to digital television broadcasting;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that the protection of copyright and related rights in the context of the information society is an important factor in the development of the internal market economy which underpins a virtuous circle of incentive, creation, investment, and dissemination to European consumers;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls that the European Community and its Member States are required to respect the international copyright framework, namely Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention and Article 13 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the terms of which are set out in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29/EC;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers that digital copyright law requires multi-level, flexible regulation capable of keeping pace with the extremely rapid development of digital technologies without jeopardising legal certainty;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Emphasises that it is important to allow everyone to access protected content in full respect of copyright;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Observes that technological measures must not excessively or unjustifiably damage the rights of those lawfully consuming copyright-protected products;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Recognises that wide dissemination of knowledge contributes to more inclusive and cohesive societies but emphasises that a high level of copyright protection is crucial for intellectual creation and that a balance must therefore be struck in order to ensure the preservation and development of creativity in the interests of all;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 d (new) 1d. Emphasises that a European copyright framework providing a high level of protection is a necessary condition for continued innovation and investment by publishers in new electronic products and services, which make an essential contribution to the European Union’s efforts to become the main player in the knowledge economy at world level;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers that exceptions to and limitations on copyright and related rights are most efficiently provided for on a national basis, as this ensures the most flexible solutions for the rapidly changing environment of the information society;
source: PE-412.210
2008/11/27
JURI
25 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Suggests that a European discussion platform be launched to consider alternative compensation systems for rightholders, with a view to modernising the current system;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Recalls that, pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 5, of Directive 2001/29/EC, the exceptions provided for by the directive are only applicable in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder (‘three-step test’ clause); also maintains that the exceptions must go hand in hand with the legal source principle;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Wishes the scientific community and researchers to enter into voluntary licence- issuing schemes with publishers in order to improve access to works for purposes of teaching and research; however, takes particular note of the value of learned journals, which play a key role in the peer review process of validating the results of academic research, and the financial viability of which is dependent on paid subscriptions;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Welcomes the Commission’s facilitation of discussions between the interested parties on the issue of copyright levies; notes that there are now instances of levies exceeding the price of the electronic goods themselves; calls for the adoption of a consistent and equitable approach across the EU;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has set up a platform bringing together representatives of industry, rightholders, and consumers in order to carry out a completely impartial review of the position regarding copyright levies and the issues that they raise, especially in the digital environment; calls on the Commission to supply progress reports on the platform’s proceedings;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 a (new) 29a. Urges that the situation in respect of a competitive market for online copyright and related rights be clarified (CISAC case);
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Takes the view that the activity of websites which, without the consent of the rightholders, offer
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30.
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Notes that any reform of the directive would be
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Supports the setting-up in the individual Member States of
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Encourages the
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 a (new) 31a. Suggests that downloads made available on the Internet should include information on copyright status and, ideally, the copyright expiry date;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 a (new) 35a. Considers that consumers are entitled to make and utilise private copies of works legally in their possession for which royalties have previously been paid and that their right to do so should be explicitly stated and defined;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 b (new) 35b. Believes that a traceability system should be devised for consumers’ legitimate private copies so as to enable their legality to be certified when the original has been destroyed or lost or has not been presented to public view;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) 38a. Calls on the Commission to broaden the scope of its next review of Directive 2001/29/EC to cover the implementation of Article 3(2)(a) thereof; believes that the Commission should consider new ways of improving the situation for performers if enforcement of the law provided for by that provision is found to be wanting;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Takes the view that Directive 2001/29/EC constitutes a fair
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes the view that a review of ‘soft- law’ regulation is needed in the field of copyright and related rights and that, if necessary, steps should be taken in relation to the legislation;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Reminds the Commission that, as regards the regulation of copyright and related rights, it is essential and imperative for the EU institutions to cooperate closely and to act in concert with each other;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls for a level playing field to be created and for a move away from the fragmented system of copyright levies, by the establishment of a legal obligation requiring all actors in the chain to show on their invoices the amounts paid to collecting societies as part of the copyright levies;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Insists that the Commission must be consistent in its approach to copyright; suggests that its DG Market must coordinate proposals originating in different sectors so as to ensure respect for the legal basis of copyright and to avoid unintended consequences;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Stresses that protecting copyright and neighbouring rights is one of the necessary conditions for stimulating creativity and innovation, as well as for safeguarding cultural identities; believes that new legal models need to be established in order to protect forms of copyright suited to the online world without encroaching on fundamental rights such as the protection of privacy and data protection;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Calls for consumer surveys to be carried out on a regular basis with a view to assessing how much private copying takes place; regards it as essential for levy tariffs in respect of individual products to be determined on the basis of the volume of legal private copies made by consumers;
source: PE-416.320
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|