2023/2019(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the crucial importance of the film and audiovisual sector for the EU at both economic and cultural level, and considers this sector vital for safeguarding the EU’s cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism; stresses that majority of European films receives EU and state fundings1aaimed to boost European and national culture, as a general principle, EU consumers should have access to art works financed with public funds; _________________ 1a https://rm.coe.int/fiction-film- financing-in-europe-2022-edition-m- kanzler/1680aa189b

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
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 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Milan ZVER, Isabella ADINOLFI, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that the sector has a broad range of stakeholders, many of which are SMEs, including a large number of highly innovative and creative independent production and distribution companies that produce a wide variety of content across the EU;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasises the pragmatic and constant adaptation by the film and audiovisual sector in Europe to the cultural and economic realities of a Union comprising 27 countries, with diverse national and regional cultures, habits, market conditions and audience demand, require tailored approach to content development, production and distribution;

Amendment 13 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Isabella ADINOLFI, Milan ZVER, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS

Draft opinion
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 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Notes that distributors and cinema operators work together to create markets for content in their respective territories with targeted marketing efforts taking into account cultural and linguistic specificities;

Amendment 15 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Peter POLLÁK, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Milan ZVER, Isabella ADINOLFI, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises the key financing principles of the sector, notably the indispensable territorial and exclusive allocation of licensing rights and contractual freedom and notes that the film value chain is a closely connected eco-system; stresses that what happens online also has an impact on what happens offline; recalls that time exclusivity and territorial exclusivity are strongly interlinked;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises th~~e key financing principles of the sector, notably the indispensable territorial and exclusive allocation of licensing rights and contractual freedom~~at every European citizen should have a right to consume and enjoy culture and entertainment in their own language, while exercising their right to move and reside freely across the EU;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
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 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises the key financing principles of the sector, notably copyright and the indispensable territorial and exclusive allocation of licensing rights and contractual freedom;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that discrimination based on nationality, residence and location in relation to access to audiovisual content is an existing problem in the EU ; recalls the report from the European Commission confirming that consumers in Greece have access to 1.3% of all the titles available in all EU Member States, while consumers in Germany have access to 43.1% of all film titles available in all Member States1a; _________________ 1a Commission Staff Working Document, First short-term review of the Geo- blocking Regulation, Part 2, November 2020

Amendment 2 #

François-Xavier BELLAMY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the crucial importance of the film and audiovisual sector and of all copyright-protected online content services for the EU, at both economic and cultural level, and considers that this sector ~~vital for~~and all copyright-protected online content services contribute to safeguarding the EU’s cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Recalls the European Citizens Initiative Minority SafePack, which collected more than millions of signatures among European citizens, calling for abolishing geo-blocking across the EU, which is harming the rights of linguistic minorities; stresses the need to ensure that minority language concerns are taken into consideration in future regulations;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
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 audiovisual services from the scope of the regulation;~~ proves that demand for cross-border access to audiovisual services is steadily growing; stresses that 20% of young people (age 15- 25 years) tried accessing cross-border audiovisual content1a; _________________ 1a Flash Eurobarometer 477b, Cross border access to content online, June 2019

Amendment 22 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Milan ZVER, Isabella ADINOLFI, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS

Draft opinion
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 ~~audiovisual~~copyright-protected content (audiovisual, music and e-book services) from the scope of the regulation;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the Council Conclusions (2021/C 501 I/02 & 7809/22) underling the importance of territorial exclusivity and exclusive licensing for the sustainability of the audiovisual sector;

Amendment 24 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates the fact that the current system of exclusive territorial licensing ensures the sustainable financing of films and audiovisual content, and is crucial to ensuring both content diversity and a wide range of distribution business models, which ultimately benefit EU consumerunjustified and ineffective geo-blocking practices significantly undermine a flow of European cultural art pieces and prevent strengthening of harmonised Digital Single Market, which harms EU citizens;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates the fact that ~~the current system of~~ exclusive territorial licensing currently ensures the sustainable financing of films and audiovisual content, and ~~is crucial~~contributes to ensuring both content ~~diversity~~and cultural diversity, pluralism, and a wide range of distribution business models, which ultimately benefit EU consumers;

Amendment 26 #

Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Highlights the achievements of Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 on cross- border portability of online content services in the internal market, allowing subscribers to portable online content services that are lawfully provided in their Member State of residence to be able to access and use these services when they are temporarily present in a Member State other than their Member State of residence;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Emphasises that the current system of territorial exclusivity in sport helps maintaining content quality, offers and the sustainability in organising sport events, while ensuring the financing of grassroots sports and investment in talent promotion;

Amendment 28 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Isabella ADINOLFI, Milan ZVER, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls the role of the EU Portability regulation in improving accessibility to film and audiovisual content when European residents travel abroad;

Amendment 29 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Peter POLLÁK, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Isabella ADINOLFI, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS, Milan ZVER

Draft opinion
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~~,and distribution and exhibition; emphasises that such inclusion would result in fewer distribution channels, ultimately driving up the prices for consumers;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the crucial importance of the film and audiovisual sector for the EU at both economic and cultural level, and considers this sector vital for safeguarding the EU’s cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism; points out that the European audiovisual sector has suffered massive revenue losses as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
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 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the inclusion of audiovisual services, videogames and ebooks 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~~strengthening of the European identity and would secure flow of European cultural artworks across the EU;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
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, whi~~le eroding contractual freedom and reducing~~ch would also impact cultural diversity in ~~both~~ content production ~~and~~, distribution, and promotion;

Amendment 33 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Isabella ADINOLFI, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS, Milan ZVER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Highlights that recent European Audiovisual Observatory Data proves the market is delivering increasing number of European films to audiences across Europe; this surge in availability proves the business model of territorial exclusivity is ensuring an abundance of films and that the continued exclusion of audiovisual services from the scope of the regulation remains fit for purpose;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that territorial licensing allows more flexibility for the sector, such as differed cinema releases or compliance with national rules on media chronology;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Highlights that such an inclusion could trigger a chain of negative effects for the creation, financing, production and distribution 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.deleted

Amendment 36 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
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 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Highlights that such an inclusion could trigger a chain of negative effects for the creation, financing, production ~~and~~, distribution, and promotion 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 38 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Recalls that, as indicated by the Commission report on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation of November 2020, geo-blocking in the book sector does not constitute a concern for the vast majority of consumers, and the inclusion of ebooks in the scope of the Regulation would only have the effect of pushing out of the market many SMEs, strengthening the position of a few internet giants and bringing virtually no benefit to consumers;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
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 4 #

Draft opinion
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 40 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
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 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Considers that such inclusion may, in particular, lead to a price harmonisation prejudicial to the consumers, as the consequent increase of pricing in countries where territorial exclusivity enables to offer content to a price point aligned with the consumers purchasing powers;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Regrets that the dialogue on the availability of works, initiated by the European Commission in the framework of the Media Audiovisual Action Plan, has not yet led to concrete progress;

Amendment 43 #

François-Xavier BELLAMY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to support access to film heritage, including for educational purposes, through the MEDIA strand of the Creative Europe programme;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to conduct updated study on demand on cross-border access to audiovisual services;

Amendment 45 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Considers that more could be done to ensure that European works of significant cultural importance, including but not limited to award-winning films, are available and promoted throughout the European Union, with dubbing or subtitling in the 24 official languages; calls on the Commission to suggest, in partnership with the industry, an initiative in this regard, for example by supporting the distribution in Europe of films that have competed for the LUX Audience Award;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Considers, however, that more can be done to increase the circulation of works and programmes across borders; calls on the more systematic circulation of existing and new cinema and audiovisual content across borders;

Amendment 47 #

François-Xavier BELLAMY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls on the Commission to initiate work on the discoverability of European works online and to examine the role, impact and transparency of recommender algorithms in the cultural sector;

Amendment 48 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls on the Commission to take all necessary steps to abolish geo-blocking practices within the Digital Single Market;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Notes that providing support to subtitling and dubbing content increases not only the demand and availability on different countries, but also its accessibility; draws attention to the increase in delivering of European content to audiences across Europe, and calls on further investment from the Member States and the sector;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls the results of the European Audiovisual Observatory’s study on Circulation on European Films on VOD and in cinemas; regrets that of all the films released over the last twenty years, less than 60% is currently available via streaming platforms in Europe and a vast majority of the titles are still not circulated outside their national market1a; _________________ 1a https://rm.coe.int/circulation-of- european-films-on-vod-and-in-cinemas- in-europe-2021-edi/1680a5779d

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
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 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Calls on the Commission to explore possibilities of establishing unitary European copyright with a goal to eradicate licensing barriers within the EU;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Reminds of the importance of article 7 of the Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and the Council (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), and stresses that accessibility of content should be understood on its complete scope; calls for the reinforcement of its application including for hearing impaired and visually impaired people, ensuring the access to the audiovisual content is inclusive and available to all European citizens;

Amendment 53 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
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 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 e (new)

7e. Fosters European culture and diversity of content, which ultimately benefit the European consumers;

Amendment 55 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 f (new)

7f. Highlights the relevance of the Regulation EU 2017/1128 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market as an example of portability, while not disturbing the value chain of the audiovisual producers, and calls for further assessment on its effectiveness in light of the fast evolving consumption habits and market trends in the sector;

Amendment 56 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 g (new)

7g. Recalls the unique experiences provided by the cinema sector, namely the value of theatrical releases, and calls on the Member States to support the continuation of their use, while accompanying the changing habits and consumptions patterns of the citizens;

Amendment 57 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 h (new)

7h. Reiterates the need on investment to anticipate further market changes, to foster the emergence of new formats, and to strengthen the presence of diverse offers from EU companies online;

Amendment 58 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 i (new)

7i. Asks for more catalogues to be made available on video-on-demand services across borders after return on investment on the domestic market;

Amendment 6 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Isabella ADINOLFI, Milan ZVER, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS

Draft opinion
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 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Emphasises that investments in the production, the distribution and exhibition of films is a high-risk enterprise and that this investment is safeguarded through the ability to secure exclusivity of the film on a territorial basis;

Amendment 8 #

Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Michaela ŠOJDROVÁ, Milan ZVER, Isabella ADINOLFI, Theodoros ZAGORAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that the sector has a broad range of stakeholders many of which are SMEs, including a large number of highly innovative and creative independent production ~~and~~, film distribution companies ~~that produc~~and cinemas that produce, distribute and showcase a wide variety of content across the EU;

Amendment 9 #

João ALBUQUERQUE, Victor NEGRESCU, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that the sector has a broad range of stakeholders composed of many SMEs, including a large number of highly innovative and creative independent production and distribution companies that produce, distribute, and showcase a wide variety of content across the EU;

source: 749.201

2023/07/11 JURI 113 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Recital -A (new)

-A. having regard to the report from the Commission on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation (COM(2020) 766) of 30 November 2020,

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the ban on geo-blocking represents an important element of the digital single market strategy;

Amendment 100 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Loucas FOURLAS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. C~~alls on the Commission to prohibit geo-blocking by digital media content platforms and ban restrictions by rights-holders on passive sales of individual content or subscrip~~onsiders 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 distributions;

Amendment 101 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ~~prohibit geo-blocking by digital media content platforms and ban restrictions by rights-holders on passive sales of individual content or subscriptions~~engage with the cultural and creative sectors to explore ways of making geo-blocking by digital media content platforms more efficient by indentify the technical, legal and economic rationale for territorial licensing;

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Considers that the inclusion of audiovisual services in the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation would result in a significant loss of revenue for the sector, putting investment in new content at risk, while eroding contractual freedom, reducing cultural diversity in content production, distribution and exhibition, and eventually affecting the continuation of an extensive number of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs); whereas such inclusion would have a severe impact on 490 000 jobs;

Amendment 103 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to work closely with Member States and stakeholders to ensure that the proposed measures are properly mirrored in all aspects of national and European Union regulations;

Amendment 104 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the current model for media licensing is incompatible with the trend away from television and radio and towards on-demand content; calls on the Commission to review the Union’s approach to media licensing.deleted

Amendment 105 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 106 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the ~~current model for media licensing is incompatible with the trend away from television and rad~~inclusion of the audiovisual sector in the scope of the Geoblocking Regulation is incompatible with the production of diverse audiovisual content and could trigger a chain of negative effects for the creation, financing, production and ~~towards on-demand content; calls on the Commission to~~distribution of films and audiovisual content in the mid to long term, thus potentially damaging cultural diversity and a whole value chain that revlie~~w the Union’s approach to media licensing~~s entirely on the principle of territorial exclusivity.

Amendment 107 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that ~~the~~ current model ~~for media licensing is incompatible with the trend away from television and radio and towards on-demand content; calls~~television and radio services enable a wide professionally-produced offer of on- demand content in Europe1a; calls on the Commission to support co-production schemes in the European Union; asks for more catalogues to be made available on video on-demand across borders, after return on investment on the Cdom~~mission to review the Union’s approach to media licensing.~~ estic market. _________________ 1a Studies show that 43% of EU households use Digital Terrestrial Television, which is only one of the various access points to linear television. In total, Europeans spend 2 hours 19 minutes watching linear TV per day, which is stable (-1% since 2017), whilst they spend 1 hour and 59 minutes per day on social media.

Amendment 108 #

Draft opinion
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 109 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that it is the Member States' responsibility to enforce the Geo- Blocking Regulation, and that the Commission should regularly evaluate national implementations and rely on their dialogue with competent market surveillance authorities to monitor and sanction, when appropriate, unjustified geo-blocking practices infringing the Geo-Blocking Regulation.

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
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 110 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls that further extension of the scope of the 2018 Geo-blocking Regulation to other online content services, such as access to music, e-books or videogames, would only have the effect of pushing out of the market many SMEs, strengthening the position of a few internet giants while bringing no substantial benefit to consumers;

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
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)

6c. Recalls that the current territorial and exclusive licensing system guarantees the sustainable financing of films and television programmes;

Amendment 113 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
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;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas territorial and exclusive allocation of licensing rights and contractual freedom are sine qua non conditions for the proper functioning of the audiovisual sector in the EU;

Amendment 13 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas exclusive territorial licensing currently ensures the sustainable financing of films and audiovisual content, and contributes to ensuring both content and cultural diversity, pluralism, and a wide range of distribution business models, which ultimately benefit EU consumers;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas t~~he Commission’s review shows that European consumers only have access to a small~~wo Regulations already constitute an exception to territorial exclusivity of the audiovisual sector, such as the portability of a subscription to an online content service across Member States, as provided in Regulation (EU) 2017/1128, and the access to news and current affairs programmes and fully financed own pro~~por~~ductions of the ~~total content made available online in the Union;~~broadcasting organisation across the European Union, as provided in Directive (EU) 2019/789, for which there was no appropriate evaluation to date. Whereas a report on the application of the Portability Regulation has been issued in June 2022 whereasby the ~~number of consumers trying to access digital media content of~~Commission’s services identified compliance issues by some VOD platforms that it undertook to investigate futher. Whereas no fered iback on othe~~r Member States is growing rapidly and a third of citizens have expressed interest in doing so~~se key investigation has been provided to the Parliament leaving the sector blind on the marge of maneuver left to increase the cross-border access of more content online;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
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 consu~~Regulation 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 othe~~r 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 so~~all Member States;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
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 consumers trying to access digital media content offered in other Member States is growing rapidly and a third of citizens have expressed interest in doing so; whereas barriers to access to digital media content cannot all be solved by Regulation 2017/1128 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, due to the delineated scope of the latter;

Amendment 17 #

Pascal ARIMONT, Antonius MANDERS, Loránt VINCZE, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the ~~Commission’s review shows that European consumers only have access to a small proportion of the total~~2022 European Audiovisual Observatory report on Circulation of European films on video- on-demand (VOD) and in cinemas shows that on average, European audiences have access to over 8 500 European films on VOD in their count~~ent made available online in the Union~~ries; whereas 82% of such films originate from other European countries; whereas despite the number of consumers trying to access ~~digital media~~copyright- protected content offered in other Member States is growing ~~rapidly and a third of citizen~~, only a minority of consumers have expressed interest in doing so;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas, in recent years, the EU has facilitated access to audiovisual content across borders by addressing certain copyright-related obstacles to the distribution of content with Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, which allows consumers to continue accessing their paid-for subscription service when travelling in the EU as well as with the Online Television and Radio Programmes Directive1a, which facilitates the cross- border accessibility of certain television programmes on broadcasters’ online services; _________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2019/789 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 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 programmes, and amending Council Directive 93/83/EEC

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas differences in Member States’ legislative provisions, such as those resulting in different national standards or lack of mutual recognition or harmonisation at Union level, continue to constitute significant obstacles to cross- border trade;

Amendment 2 #

Pascal ARIMONT, Antonius MANDERS, Loránt VINCZE, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital -A a (new)

-Aa. having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU,

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas the European Parliament in its resolution of 17 February 2022 on tackling non-tariff and non-tax barriers in the single market recalled that despite the Geo-blocking Regulation certain obstacles persist, particularly in the provision of audiovisual services and content, and that this manifests itself in reduced consumer confidence in cross- border online shopping within the Digital Single Market;

Amendment 21 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas ~~citizens who have purchased digital media content and move to an~~the Portability Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 allows consumers who have subscribed to digital media content services in their own EU Member State access to their paid subscriptions when temporarily staying in other EU Member State ~~often find they can no longer access that content due to geo-blocking~~; whereas a permanent change of residence of the subscriber would entail the re-negotiation of the provision of audiovisual services with the service provider that operates in the new country of residence;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas citizens ~~who~~ have ~~purchased digital media content and move to another Member State often f~~access to an important quantity of audiovisual works in each Member State; whereas demand for cross border access to audiovisual works remains very low ind the~~y can no longer access that content due to geo-blocking;~~ EU and whereas accepting this request would put in jeopardy the entire european audiovisual sector, affecting de facto consumer’s access to diverse and highly cultural European audiovisual creations;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas citizens who have purchased digital media content ~~and~~in their Member State of residence and subsequently move to another Member State often find they can no longer ~~access that content~~continue to access and use that content, to which they have lawfully acquired the right of access and use in their Member State of residence, due to geo-blocking;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas citizens who have purchased digital media content and move to another Member State ~~often~~may 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 25 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the internal market comprises an area without internal frontiers based, inter alia, on the free movement of persons and services; whereas, to this end, it is necessary to ensure that citizens who have purchased digital media content in their Member State of residence can also access and use that content when they are temporarily present in another Member State for purposes such as holidays, travel for private or professional reasons, or in the framework of learning mobility;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas the Online Television and Radio Programmes Directive1a facilitates the cross-border accessibility of certain television programmes on broadcasters’ online services, and, in corroboration with contractual practices, promote that citizens living in border regions or belonging to linguistic minorities ~~are often prevented from~~can access~~ing~~ content in their native languages ~~due to geo-blocking, which hinders their access to and enjoyment of cultural content;~~ and enjoy cultural content1b; _________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2019/789 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 programmes, and amending Council Directive 93/83/EEC 1b Studies show that public service media operate 224 TV, radio services and internet streams that specifically target linguistic minorities, ethnic minorities, non-native citizens, religious groups and migrants.

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
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 from~~can therefore access~~ing~~ a considerable volume of content in their native languages ~~due to geo-blocking, which hinders their access to and enjoyment of cultural content~~;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas citizens living in border regions or belonging to linguistic minorities are often prevented from accessing content in their native languages due to geo-blocking, which hinders their access to and enjoyment of cultural content, despite some improvement undertaken by public service media;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas citizens living in border regions or belonging to linguistic minorities are often prevented from accessing and using content in their native languages due to geo-blocking, which ~~hinders their access to~~prevents them exercising of their right of access to, and use and enjoyment of, cultural content;

Amendment 3 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Recital -A b (new)

-Ab. having regard to the European Citizens’ Initiative “Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe”, and to the European Parliament resolution on the Initiative (2020/2846(RSP)) of 17 December 2020,

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas citizens living in border regions or belonging to linguistic minorities alre ~~often prevented from accessing content in their native languages due to geo-blocking, which hinders their~~ady have access to news and current affairs programmes and fully financed own production of the broadcasting organisation acceross t~~o and enjoyment of cultural content~~he EU, as provided in Directive (EU) 2019/789;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Recital E

Amendment 32 #

Pascal ARIMONT, Antonius MANDERS, Loránt VINCZE, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas Parliament called for these issues to be addressed in its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU; whereas the ‘Minority SafePack’ European Citizens’ Initiative called for these issues to be addressed through the development of a unitary European copyright that will lead to the abolition of licensing barriers within the Union; whereas Parliament expressed its support to the ‘Minority SafePack’ European Citizens’ Initiative in its resolution of 17 December 2020 (2020/2846(RSP)), in which it welcomed the Commission’s plan to engage in a dialogue with stakeholders on audiovisual content as part of its media and audiovisual action plan, on the basis of the Commission’s detailed stock-taking on the Geo-blocking Regulation, and stressed the need to ensure that minority language concerns are taken into consideration in future regulations;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas Parliament ~~called for these issues to be addressed~~ in its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU has called the Commission and Member States to take into account national and ethnic minorities when licensing media services and already encouraged the Commission to create the legal and regulatory conditions to ensure freedom of service, passage and reception of audiovisual content in regions where minorities ~~in the EU~~live; whereas the ‘Minority SafePack’ European Citizens’ Initiative proposed an amendment with the effect of ensuring freedom of service and freedom of reception of audiovisual content in those regions where the minorities live and called for these issues to be addressed through the development of a unitary European copyright that will lead to the abolition of licensing barriers within the Union;

Amendment 34 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas Parliament called for ~~these~~minorities-related issues to be addressed in its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU; whereas the ‘Minority SafePack’ European Citizens’ Initiative called for these issues to be addressed through the development of a unitary European copyright that will lead to the abolition of licensing barriers within the Union; whereas the Commission communication C(2021) 171 final1a admits the existence of substantial harmonisation of copyright law, notably with TFEU Article 53(1) and Articles 62 and 114 as a legal base, and that the extension on the overall dynamics of the audiovisual sector needs further assessment; _________________ 1a C(2021) 171 final, Communication on the European Citizens' Initiative 'Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe'.

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Recital E

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for these issues to be addressed in its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU, and in its report of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU (2018/2036(INI)); whereas the ‘Minority SafePack’ European Citizens’ Initiative called for these issues to be addressed through the development of a unitary European copyright that will lead to the abolition of licensing barriers within the Union;

Amendment 37 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas 18 Members of Parliament asked the Commission (cross- group question E-004879/2020 ) about the inclusion of copyrighted content in the Geo-Blocking Regulation, to ensure equality amongst EU citizens, with a particular focus on accessing cross- border content for linguistic minorities; whereas the Commission shared their views that accessing copyrighted content across borders would facilitate cultural diversity and be beneficial for linguistics minorities;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas Directive 2006/123/CE excludes from its scope “audiovisual services, including cinematographic services, whatever their mode of production, distribution and transmission” (Article 2.2(g)) in compliance with Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
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 content;~~ with the audiovisual sector to discuss concrete ways to foster the circulation of, and improve consumers’ access to audiovisual content across the EU; whereas this dialgue showed how diverse the sector is, and outlined the wide array of solutions thereby developed to address both availability of interesting content and competititon with non-European content providers; whereas the audiovisual sector is continuously working to find solutions for these issues adequately, safeguarding investment in content and respecting and upholdig the sector’s value chain and needs;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Regulation (EU) 2018/302 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC of 28 February 2018 does not address unjustified geo- blocking of digital media content; whereas the Regulation mandates a review to assess if its scope should be extended to ~~these sector~~electronic services whose main feature is the provision of access to, and use of, works or other subject matter protected by copyright, including the selling of copyright-protected works or protected subject matter in an intangible form, provided that the trader has the requisite rights for the relevant territories;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Recital F

F. whereas the Commission organised a stakeholder dialogue to find solutions for these issues, but no ~~significant~~ agreements w~~ere reached and the proposals put forward would not adequately address the geo-blocking of digital media content~~as reached;

Amendment 41 #

Pascal ARIMONT, Antonius MANDERS, Loránt VINCZE, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital F

F. whereas the Commission organised a stakeholder dialogue ton access to and availability of audiovisual content across the EU to work further on finding 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 content;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Recital F

F. whereas the Commission organised within the framework of the Media Audiovisual Action Plan 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 content for minorities in the EU;

Amendment 43 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
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 content~~during which each and every trade organization of the audiovisual sector reminded the upmost importance of its territorial functioning;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas piracy of audiovisual content, including live content, drains the audiovisual sector, including cultural, creative and sport sectors; whereas the European Parliament has consistently called for a specific legislative proposal building on the Digital Services Act and other European legislation to address piracy; whereas the European Commission has issued an recommendation to counter online piracy; whereas, however, recommendations have a non-binding nature and, therefore, produce meager results;

Amendment 45 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the lack of action on the part of the audiovisual sector to address this long-standing issue in the last five years underlines the need for a strong regulatory response;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Recital G

G. whereas ~~persistent barriers to accessing to digital media content, such as~~jeopardising the territoriality of the audiovisual sector could lead to an increase in price,s f~~ragmentation, geo-blocking and the unavailability of dubbing or subtitles force citizens to resort to piracy in order to access content;~~ or spectators, in particular the price of a cinema ticket and of a subscription to an online content service. It would have several consequences: it would encourage citizens to resort to piracy in order to access content and would be detrimental to the EU consumers particularly in countries where they have smaller purchasing powers. Furthermore, lifting territoriality would lead to an uniformisation of the works linked to the concentration of distribution methods;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
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~~illegal distribution in order to access content; whereas improving legal access to digital content would enhance citizen trust in digital services and ensure greater legal certainty for users and rights-holders alike;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Recital G

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
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 citiz~~copyright ensures that rightholders can create and disseminate content in the first place; whereas efforts should continue towards informing European consumers about what is legal and what is not in the accessibility to digital media contenst to ~~resort to piracy in order to access~~effectively fight piracy of audiovisual content, including live content;

Amendment 5 #

Pascal ARIMONT, Antonius MANDERS, Loránt VINCZE, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Regulation (EU) 2018/302 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market and amending Regulations (EC) No 2006/2004 and (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC of 28 February 2018 ~~does not address geo-blocking of digital media content; whereas the Regulation mandates a review to assess if its scope should be extended to these sectors;~~ excludes from its scope audiovisual services, including services the principle purpose of which is the provision of access to broadcasts of sports events as well as cinematographic services, whatever their mode of production, distribution, and transmission, and radio broadcasting1a, and which are provided on the basis of exclusive territorial licenses; whereas the Regulation mandates a review to assess if its scope should be extended to these sectors; _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2018/302 does not apply to the activities referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC.

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Recital G

G. whereas piracy in order to access content can be put in relation with the 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 content~~;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
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 52 #

Draft opinion
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 licensing in view of enhancing citizen trust in digital services and ensure legal certainty; whereas Directive 2019/789 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 programmes (SatCab II) offers legal solutions to facilitate pan- European licensing of copyrighted content that are restricted to broadcasting and can therefore not address the entire scope of content licensing and access issues in the digital environment;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
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 licensing~~Commission’s Media Outlook highlighted that television remains the preferred service of Europeans for films and series and whereas the European Audiovisual Observatory highlighted that public broadcasters accounted for 55% of orders for European drama titles and 38% of the hourly volume. Private broadcasters ordered 36% of titles and 59% of the hourly volume;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Recital H

H. whereas the growth of on-demand content ~~and the shrinking~~ still sits in Eurolpe ofn a strong television and radio ~~should prompt a reth~~offer; whereas the distribution and showcasinkg of ~~the Union’s approach to content licensing~~audiovisual content are largely carried out by local or national operators who seek content licensing on a territory-by- territory basis, which hence play an important role in the audiovisual sector ;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
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 licensing~~report 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 56 #

Draft opinion
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas the European Commission May 2023 European Media Industry Outlook acknowledges that the broadcasters remain the top clients of producers in the audiovisual sector on all categories, amounting for 80% of the total investment in audiovisual content in Europe; whereas broadcasters play a crucial role in content diversity;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas, as highlighted in the Commission’s 2020 short-term review of the 2018 Geo-blocking Regulation, extending the Geo-blocking Regulation could trigger growth in pan-EU exclusive licensing and thus reduce unjustified geo- blocking, notably to sports event content online;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Recital H b (new)

Hb. whereas geo-blocking in the book sector does not constitute a concern for the vast majority of consumers;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Welcomes the Commission’s first short-term review of the 2018 Geo- blocking Regulation which upholds the continued exclusion of audiovisual services from the scope of the Regulation; welcomes the Council Conclusions ((2021/C 501 I/02 & 7809/22) underling the importance of territorial exclusivity and exclusive licensing for the sustainability of the audivisual sector, which contributes to ensuring both content and cultural diversity, pluralism, and a wide range of distribution business models that ultimately benefit EU consumers;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1a. Stresses the crucial importance of all copyright-protected online content services for the EU, at both economic and cultural level, and considers these services contribute to safeguarding the EU’s cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1b. Highlights the relevance of the Regulation EU 2017/1128 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, which observes the value chain of the audiovisual producers, as well as the Online Television and Radio Programmes Directive1a, which facilitates the cross-border accessibility of certain television programmes on broadcasters’ online services; calls for further assessment on their effectiveness in light of the fast evolving consumption habits and market trends in the sector; _________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2019/789 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 programmes, and amending Council Directive 93/83/EEC.

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1b. Recognises the pragmatic and constant adaptation by film and audiovisual sectors in Europe to the cultural and economic realities of the Union, with diverse national and regional cultures, habits, market conditions and audience demand; acknowledges that these audiences require tailored approaches to content development, production and distribution, as exemplified by the increasing number of European language content available in different streaming platform services;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to rapidly create the legal and regulatory conditions to guarantee the freedom to provide digital media content services and to ensure the dissemination and reception of digital media content from regions where minorities live, so that they can watch and listen to content in their mother tongue without geo-blocking of this content if it is broadcast or provided from another country;deleted

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the importance of digital democracy and the right of every citizen to information, and calls on the Commission to ensure that those values are respected; Calls on the Commission to rapidly create ~~the legal an~~an appropriate, efficient and harmonised rleg~~ulatory conditions~~al framework to guarantee the freedom to provide digital media content services and to ensure the dissemination and reception of digital media content from regions where minorities live, so that they can watch and listen to content in their mother tongue without geo-blocking of this content if it is broadcast or provided from another country; in this regard, the Commission should prioritise investment in the necessary infrastructure in order to ensure broad coverage of digital media content services;

Amendment 65 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to rapidly ~~cre~~evaluate the legal and regulatory conditions to guarantee the freedom to provide digital media content services and to ensure the dissemination and reception of digital media content from regions where minorities live, so that they can watch and listen to content in their mother tongue without geo-blocking of this content if it is broadcast or provided from another countrybenefits regulations Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 and Directive (EU) 2019/789 have on consumer ’s and linguistic minorities' access to audiovisual content;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. C~~alls on the Commission to rapidly create~~onsiders, however, that more can be done to increase the circulation of works and programmes across borders; calls on the Commission to launch an impact assessment to evaluate the need for the legal and regulatory conditions to guarantee the freedom to provide digital media content services and to ensure the dissemination and reception of digital media content from regions where minorities live, so that they can watch and listen to content in their mother tongue ~~without geo-blocking o~~if thise content ~~if it~~ is broadcast ~~or provided from ano~~ed in the country of residence of ther co~~untr~~ncerned minority;

Amendment 69 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Loucas FOURLAS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)

(1) Recalls that territoriality is the foundation of the European audiovisual sector, which enables cultural and linguistic diversity;

Amendment 7 #

Pascal ARIMONT, Antonius MANDERS, Loránt VINCZE, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the audiovisual sector is comprised by an extensive number of highly innovative and creative independent production and distribution industries of diverse size, including micro- , small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), that produce, distribute and showcase a wide variety of content across the Member States; whereas in 2019 the EU audiovisual sector employed an estimate of around 490 000 people1a; _________________ 1a According to the May 2023 European Media Industry Outlook, employment in production represented 42% of audiovisual employment, broadcasters accounted for 34% (including on news services as well as infrastructure/technical work), cinemas 13%, post-production 7% and distribution 3%; the period 2011-2019 experienced an increase in production in the EU since the rise of streaming platforms; TV employment increased by over 25% over the same period;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that, in order to improve cross-border access to and availability of audiovisual content in the EU for linguistic minorities, audiovisual content licences are geographically extended to the nationally defined territory of the recognized linguistic minority of the neighbouring country, in which the same language is spoken, without calling into question the territoriality principle in general;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
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)

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 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

~~2. Calls on the Commission to investigate ways of granting citizens access to the public media platforms of the Member State whose citizenship they hold, regardless of where they reside;~~deleted

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to investigate ways of granting citizens access to the public media platforms of the Member State whose citizenship they hold, regardless of where they reside, through further stakeholders dialogue involving all interested parties, including representatives of consumers, citizens and youth;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
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 76 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to investigate ways of granting citizens access to the public media platforms of the Member State whose citizenship they hold, regardless of where they reside and regardless of whether they may temporarily be in another Member State;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. CRecalls ~~on the Commission to investigate~~there are already ways of granting citizens access to the ~~public media platforms of the Member State whose citizenship they hold, regardless of where they reside~~news and current affairs of public media platforms regardless of where they reside thanks to Directive (EU) 2019/789;

Amendment 78 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considering that there is currently no information on the works available on the subscription VOD platforms. Calls on the Commission to encourage, through the Agoratheka program that the on demand platforms give access to the data of their catalog available to the film browsers set up in each Member States. Recalls that this information would enhance considerably the discoverability of works online;

Amendment 79 #

2b. Calls on the Commission to start researches on the discoverability of European works online, in order to initiate reflections on the role of recommendation algorithms in the cultural sector, on the transparency of these algorithms, and to propose courses of action, notably in terms of standardization, metadata provision, interoperability and tools to facilitate public access;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the film and audiovisual sector, the music sector, the book sector and the video games sector are of crucial importance for the EU at both economic and cultural level, and whereas these sectors are vital for safeguarding the EU’s cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism;

Amendment 80 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to guarantee citizens’ long-term access to the digital media content they have purchased, regardless of where that content was purchased; notes, however, that in order to better protect programmes and respect creators and authors, this access must be unique, personal and non-transferable;

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. CRecalls onthat the ~~Commission to guarantee citizens’ long-term access to the digital media content they have purchased, regardless of where that content was purchased~~current system of exclusive territorial licensing ensures the sustainable financing of films and audiovisual content, and is crucial to ensuring both content diversity and a wide range of distribution business models, which ultimately benefit EU citizens;

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
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 83 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to guarantee ~~citizens’ long-term access to the digital media content they have purchased, regardless of where that content was purchased~~a thorough implementation of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 on cross- border portability of online content services in the internal maket;

Amendment 84 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to work closely with telecoms operators to ensure an appropriate and accessible digital infrastructure enabling citizens to access public media platforms with the appropriate quality and speed; considers the importance of respecting the principles of privacy and data security in all measures relating to ensuring access to, and the right to use, public media platforms to be an essential factor, and urges the Commission to ensure that those principles are respected;

Amendment 85 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Loucas FOURLAS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to use the Creative Europe MEDIA programme to fund a selection of emblematic European films to be made available online in all countries and languages, with an appropriate promotional campaign to ensure that the works reach their audiences. Calls on the Commission to fund more projects for dubbing and subtitling audiovisual works through Creative Europe MEDIA programme, and to work towards improving access to cinematic heritage works;

Amendment 86 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Recalls the importance of supporting a policy of European co- productions, reflecting the richness and diversity of European culture, and the importance of strengthening the international distribution of works;

Amendment 87 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to propose legislation ~~obli~~encouraging commercial providers of digital media content operating in multiple Member States to allow Union citizens to purchase access to the catalogue of the Member State of their choice; the measures adopted should aim to widen customer choice and access to goods and services, whilst taking due account of traders’ freedom to organise their commercial policy in accordance with Union and national law;

Amendment 88 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to propose legislation ~~obliging commercial providers of digital media content operating in multiple Member States to allow Union citizens to purchase access to the catalogue of the Member State of their choice~~that ensures that the content in which digital media service providers invest is fully protected; calls on the Commission to ensure that the implementation of the Recommendation on combatting online piracy of sports events and other live content is thoroughly and adequately assessed; urges the Commission to pursue legislation addressing online piracy of live content should the effects of the Recommendation be inadequate to protect the affected sectors;

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to propose legislation obliging commercial providers of digital media content operating in multiple Member States to allow Union citizens to purchase access to the catalogue of the Member State of their choice; points out that, in order not to penalise creators and authors of creative programmes and content, access to this content should be limited to those who have a personal subscription that cannot be shared outside the family home;

Amendment 9 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Axel VOSS, Loucas FOURLAS, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the film and audiovisual sector is of crucial importance for the EU at both economic and cultural level; and whereas this sector is vital for safeguarding the EU's cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism;

Amendment 90 #

4. Calls on the Commission to ~~propose legislation~~implement measures obliging commercial providers of digital media content operating in multiple Member States to ~~allow Union citizens to purchase access to the catalogue of the Member State of their choice~~provide to the Audiovisual European Observatory and the rights holders data on the work they have online and their audience to better identify the availability of works by legal means ;

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 92 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. 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 online a selection of emblematic European films from all EU countries and languages with an appropriate promotion campaign;

Amendment 93 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that current audiovisual content availability proves the business model of territorial exclusivity is ensuring an abundance of films and that the continued exclusion of audiovisual services from the scope of the regulation remains fit for purpose;

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the importance of digital democracy and the right of every citizen to information, and calls on the Commission to ensure that those values are respected in the implementation of those new measures;

Amendment 95 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to guarantee the transparency of viewing data relating to the online exploitation of works, for the benefit of rights holders and regulators alike;

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to prohibit restrictions by rights-holders on passive sales, either of individual content or of subscriptions to VOD platforms;

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Recalls that the Geo-blocking Regulation allows consumers access to online content services in other Members States if the service provider holds the rights for their territories;

Amendment 98 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Calls on the Commission to prohibit geo-blocking by digital media content platforms and ban restrictions by rights-holders on passive sales of individual content or subscriptions;~~deleted

Amendment 99 #

Barbara THALER, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Calls on the Commission to prohibit geo-blocking by digital media content platforms and ban restrictions by rights-holders on passive sales of individual content or subscriptions;~~deleted

source: 751.728

2023/07/13 IMCO 132 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas Parliament requested that the Commission carefully assess the possible inclusion of electronically supplied services whose main feature is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter into the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation; whereas the Commission report on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation stated that, as regards audiovisual content, a European consumer has on average access to only 14% of the films available online in the EU279a. The number of consumers trying to access audiovisual content offered in other Member States are rising steadily. Therefore, the Commission would engage in dialogue with stakeholders with a view to fostering the circulation of quality content across the EU; whereas this dialogue is included as Action 7 in the Media and Audiovisual Action Plan9 ; __________________ 9a COM(2020) 766 final 9 COM(2020)0784.

Amendment 10 #

Pascal ARIMONT, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Antonius MANDERS, Loránt VINCZE, Herbert DORFMANN, François ALFONSI, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

C c. whereas citizens living in border regions or belonging to linguistic minorities are often prevented from accessing content in their native languages due to geo-blocking, which hinders their access to and enjoyment of cultural content;

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Calls on the Commission to rapidly create the legal and regulatory conditions to ensure freedom of service, dissemination and reception of digital media content in regions where minorities live, so that they can watch and listen to content in their mother tongue, without geo-blocking of this content if it is broadcast or provided from another country;

Amendment 101 #

Pascal ARIMONT, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Antonius MANDERS, Loránt VINCZE, Herbert DORFMANN, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15 b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that, in order to improve cross-border access to and availability of audiovisual content in the EU for linguistic minorities, audiovisual content licences are geographically extended to the nationally defined territory of the recognized linguistic minority of the neighbouring country, in which the same language is spoken, without calling into question the territoriality principle in general;

Amendment 102 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15 b. Calls on the Commission to start researches on the discoverability of European works online, in order to initiate reflections on the role of recommendation algorithms in the cultural sector, on the transparency of these algorithms, and to propose courses of action, notably in terms of standardization, metadata provision, interoperability and tools to facilitate public access;

Amendment 103 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15 b. Recalls the European Citizens Initiative Minority SafePack, which collected more than millions of signatures among European citizens, calling for abolishing geo-blocking across the EU, which is harming the rights of linguistic minorities; stresses the need to ensure that minority language concerns are taken into consideration in future regulations;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)

15 c. Calls on the Commission to encourage, through the Agoratheka program that the on demand platforms give access to the data of their catalog available to the film browsers set up in each Member States; recalls that this information would enhance considerably the discoverability of works online;

Amendment 105 #

Edina TÓTH

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes that the Portability Regulation12 delivered substantial benefits to consumers who expect to receive continued access to their services when they are temporarily present in another Member State; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing stakeholder dialogue on access to and the availability of audiovisual content across the EU; emphasises that further actions are needed to meet consumers expectations concerning the cross-catalogue availability of and cross-border access to sports events via streaming services; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to carefully assess all options that will reduce the unjustified and discriminatory geo- blocking barriers for access to audiovisual services and sports events, while taking into account the potential impact on diversity and the available financing of the creative sector; reminds the Commission to present Parliament with the outcome of its stakeholder dialogue on possibly extending the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation to audiovisual content; notes that the limited availability of video content and live sports events particularly affects linguistic minorities and citizens exercising their right to free movement; acknowledges the fact that without access to the audio-visual content of their native language, it is very difficult for citizens to preserve and develop their mother tongue and culture; calls on the Commission to create a legal framework which guarantees linguistic minorities access to audiovisual content and live sports events broadcasted from the neighbouring countries in their mother tongue without geo-blocking; __________________ 12 Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 of 14 June 2017 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, OJ L 168, 30.6.2017, p.1.

Amendment 106 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes that the Portability Regulation12 delivered ~~substantial~~certain benefits to consumers who expect to receive continued access to their services when they are temporarily present in another Member State; ~~welcom~~Notes the Commission’s ~~ongoing stakeholder dialogue on access to and the availability of audiovisual content across the EU~~Report on the application of Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market from June 2022, which elaborates that the legal fiction set out in Article 4 of that Regulation, has allowed the territorial constraints of copyright and related rights to be overcome without any significant revenue loss for rightholders12a; calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of applying similar approach in the Geoblocking Regulation; emphasises that further actions are needed to meet consumers expectations concerning the cross-catalogue availability of and cross-border access to sports events via streaming services; ~~calls, therefore,~~is concerned that geoblocking also occurs in regard to the audiovisual productions funded or co- funded from the EU budget; is onf the ~~Commission and the Member States~~opinion that whenever EU funds are involved there should be no place for depriving some EU citizens of access to the given content; calls on the Commission to carefully assess all options that ~~will~~could reduce the unjustified and discriminatory geo- blocking barriers for access to audiovisual services and sports events, while taking into account the potential impact on ~~diversity and the available financing of the creative sector; reminds the Comm~~current business models of the creative sector; __________________ 12a The provisions in Article 4 mean that the provission ~~to present Parliament with the outcome of its stakeholder dialogue on possibly extending~~of an online content service to a subscriber who is temporarily present in another Member State than the Member State of residence, as well as the access to and the us~~cop~~e of th~~e Geo- blocking Regulation to audiovisual content; __________________~~ at service by the subscriber, are deemed to occur solely in the subscriber’s Member State of residence. SWD(2022) 173. 12 Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 of 14 June 2017 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, OJ L 168, 30.6.2017, p.1.

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes and welcomes that the Portability Regulation12 delivered substantial benefits to consumers who expect to receive continued access to their services when they are temporarily present in another Member State; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing stakeholder dialogue on access to and the availability of audiovisual content across the EU; emphasises ~~that further actions are needed~~audiovisual rightholder's interest in supporting together with public authorities at EU, national and regional level cultural diversity in production and in distribution through market-led industry initiatives and partnerships to drive further and increase access to and availability of content across the EU to meet some consumers expectations concerning the cross-catalogue availability of and cross-border access ~~to sports events via streaming services~~; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to carefully assess all options that will reduce the unjustified and discriminatory geo- blocking barriers for access to audiovisual services and sports events, while taking into account the ~~potential impact on diversity~~detrimental impact of a potential extension of the Regulation’s scope on cultural diversity, expected increase prices for consumers and the available financing and viability of the creative ~~sector~~and cultural ecosystem; reminds the Commission to present the Parliament with the outcome of its stakeholder dialogue ~~on possibly extending the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation to audiovisual content;~~ including showcasing the sharp increase in content offerings and availability that has already been seen; __________________ 12 Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 of 14 June 2017 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, OJ L 168, 30.6.2017, p.1.

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes that the Portability Regulation12 delivered substantial benefits to consumers who expect to receive continued access to their services when they are temporarily present in another Member State; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing stakeholder dialogue on access to and the availability of audiovisual content across the EU; emphasises, however, that further clarity is needed on the services covered by the Portability Regulation and that further actions are needed to meet consumers expectations concerning the cross- catalogue availability of and cross-border access to sports events via streaming services~~; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to carefully assess all options that will reduce~~, in order to give them not only the possibility to ‘shop like a local’ but also to ‘watch like a local’; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to carefully assess all options, including adapting to the potential viewers within the EU market the agreement between the economic operators involved in the audiovisual sector, in order to abolish the unjustified and discriminatory geo- blocking barriers for access to audiovisual services and sports events, without harming the different actors in the supply chain and while taking into account the potential impact on diversity and the available financing of the creative sector; reminds the Commission to present Parliament with the outcome of its stakeholder dialogue on ~~possibly~~ extending the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation to audiovisual content; __________________ 12 Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 of 14 June 2017 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, OJ L 168, 30.6.2017, p.1.

Amendment 109 #

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes that the Portability Regulation12 delivered substantial benefits to consumers who expect to receive continued access to their services when they are temporarily present in another Member State; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing stakeholder dialogue on access to and the availability of audiovisual content across the EU; emphasises that further actions are needed to meet consumers expectations concerning the cross-catalogue availability of and cross-border access to sports events via streaming services such as market-led industry initiatives and partnerships to drive further and increase access to and availability of content across the EU; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to carefully assess all options that will reduce the unjustified and discriminatory geo- blocking barriers for access to audiovisual services and sports events, while taking into account the ~~pot~~detrimential impact o~~n diversity~~f a potential extension of the Regulation’s scope on cultural diversity, expected increase prices for consumers and the available financing and viability of the creative ~~sector~~and cultural ecosystem; reminds the Commission to present the Parliament with the outcome of its stakeholder dialogue ~~on possibly extending the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation to audiovisual cont~~including showcasing the sharp increase in content offerings and availability that has already been seent; __________________ 12 Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 of 14 June 2017 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, OJ L 168, 30.6.2017, p.1.

Amendment 11 #

Marc ANGEL, Biljana BORZAN, Maria GRAPINI, René REPASI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES

Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)

C d. whereas Parliament called for these issues to be addressed in its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU; whereas the ‘Minority SafePack’ European Citizens’ Initiative called for these issues to be addressed through the development of a unitary European copyright that will lead to the abolition of licensing barriers within the Union;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes that the Portability Regulation12 delivered substantial benefits to consumers who expect to receive continued access to their services when they are temporarily present in another Member State; welcomes the Commission’s ongoing stakeholder dialogue on access to and the availability of audiovisual content across the EU; emphasises that further actions are needed to meet consumers expectations concerning the cross-catalogue availability of and cross-border access to sports events via streaming services; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to carefully assess all options that will reduce the unjustified and discriminatory geo- blocking barriers for access to audiovisual services and sports events, while taking into account the potential impact on diversity and the available financing of the creative sector; reminds the Commission to present Parliament with the outcome of its stakeholder dialogue ~~on possibly extending the scope of the Geo-blocking~~with the audiovisual sector to improve access to and availability of audiovisual content across the EU; calls on the Commission to ensure consistency with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive; considers important in this regard to extend the scope of the Regulation to include the audiovisual ~~content~~services sector; __________________ 12 Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 of 14 June 2017 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, OJ L 168, 30.6.2017, p.1.

Amendment 111 #

Barbara THALER, Herbert DORFMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Believes that the Portability Regulation12 delivered substantial benefits to consumers who expect to receive continued access to their services when they are temporarily present in another Member State; ~~welcomes~~calls on the Commission~~’s ongoing~~ to present concrete solutions as outcome of the stakeholder dialogue on access to and the availability of audiovisual content across the EU, with the aim of diversifying audiovisual content available online; emphasises that further actions are needed to meet consumers expectations concerning the cross-catalogue availability of and cross-border access to sports events via streaming services; calls, therefore, on the Commission ~~and~~, the Member States and the audiovisual industry to carefully assess all options ~~that will~~and to commit towards reduceing the unjustified and discriminatory geo- blocking barriers for access to audiovisual services and sports events, while taking into account the potential impact on diversity and the available financing of the creative sector; reminds the Commission to present Parliament with the outcome of its stakeholder dialogue on possibly extending the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation to audiovisual content; __________________ 12 Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 of 14 June 2017 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market, OJ L 168, 30.6.2017, p.1.

Amendment 112 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Marcel KOLAJA, Kim VAN SPARRENTAK, Herbert DORFMANN, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Stelios KOULOGLOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Recognises that two Regulations already constitute an exception to territorial exclusivity of the audiovisual sector, such as the portability of a subscription to an online content service across Member States, as provided in Regulation (EU) 2017/1128, and the access to news and current affairs programmes and fully financed own productions of the broadcasting organisation across the European Union, as provided in Directive (EU) 2019/789, for which there was no appropriate evaluation to date; calls on the Commission to undertake a thorough assessment of the implementation of these acts and what measures may be required to improve their functioning;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. In this context, urges the Commission to propose, at the latest by September 2024, the comprehensive revision of Geoblocking Regulation, consisting, in particular, of the inclusion of audiovisual services in the scope of this Regulation, and the deletion from Article 4(1)(b) of the exclusion of electronically supplied services, the main feature of which is the provision of access to or use of copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter;

Amendment 114 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls on the Commission to rapidly create the legal and regulatory conditions to guarantee the freedom to provide digital media content services and to ensure the dissemination and reception of digital media content from regions where minorities live, so that they can watch and listen to content in their mother tongue without geo-blocking of this content if it is broadcast or provided from another country;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls on the Commission to propose legislation obliging commercial providers of digital media content operating in multiple Member States to provide to the Audiovisual European Observatory and the rights holders data on the work they have online and their audience;

Amendment 116 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Herbert DORFMANN, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16 b. Calls on the Commission to include, in this comprehensive Revision of Geoblocking Regulation, specific provisions on modalities related to how the prohibition of unjustified geoblocking will apply to audiovisual services and take into account in particular the need for assuring realistic timeframe allowing providers of audiovisual services to prepare for the implementation of new rules; calls on the Commission to make sure that all European citizens, in particular those living in border regions and linguistic minorities, have access to the content in their preferred language at all times; calls the Commission to take into account the need to provide consumers with a wider choice of content across borders, while acknowledging the need for further assessment of the potential impact on the overall dynamics of the audio-visual sector;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16 b. Calls on the Commission to investigate ways of granting citizens access to the public media platforms of the Member State whose citizenship they hold, regardless of where they reside;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16 c. Calls on the Commission to guarantee citizens’ long-term access to the digital media content they have purchased, regardless of where that content was purchased;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)

16 d. Calls on the Commission to propose legislation obliging commercial providers of digital media content operating in multiple Member States to allow Union citizens to purchase access to the catalogue of the Member State of their choice;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C e (new)

C e. 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 content;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 e (new)

16 e. Calls on the Commission to prohibit geo-blocking by digital media content platforms and ban restrictions by rights-holders on passive sales of individual content or subscriptions;

Amendment 121 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 f (new)

16 f. Considers that the current model for media licensing is incompatible with the trend away from television and radio and towards on-demand content; calls on the Commission to review the Union’s approach to media licensing;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes that online music services (streaming or on-demand) are widely available across the EU, and that most of the major music streaming services are available in all EU Member States, mirroring the increasing consumer interest in cross-border access to music; is concerned that some obstacles still persist for consumers when accessing music streaming services in another Member State, in particular regarding the automatic change of applicable conditions; or acceptance of payment method; asks the Commission to carefully analyse this matter and propose adjustments of the Regulation, where appropriate;

Amendment 123 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to continue to harmonise relevant legislation, in particular as part of the digital single market strategy in particular in order to reduce risks and costs for traders operating cross-border and incentivise more traders to deliver goods or services cross-border;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Notes that the Commission should also present the results of the analysis for the potential extension of the Regulation to transport, financial, telecommunication and health services; with particular focus on the impact of geo-blocking practices on these sectors and the potential benefits of their inclusion in the Regulation; emphasizes that the Commission should consider the specific characteristics and regulatory frameworks of transport, financial, telecommunication and health services when analyzing the potential extension of the Regulation to these sectors, to ensure that any proposed changes are feasible and beneficial; urges the Commission to engage in a comprehensive consultation process with stakeholders in these sectors, as well as consumer representatives and academia, to gather insights and feedback on the potential extension of the Regulation to these services;

Amendment 125 #

Antonius MANDERS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Notes that the Commission should also present the results of the analysis for the potential extension of the Regulation to transport, financial, telecommunication and health services; calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps to end the blocking of services provided by mobile network operators in border regions in the EU;

Amendment 126 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls on the Commission to provide further guidance to the Member States on the application of the Regulation and its relationship to the Services Directive, and to continue monitoring the market developments on customers’ access to offers in the single market;deleted

Amendment 127 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to regularly update and complement the ~~figures~~data on complaints received by the national enforcement bodies in order to ~~detect~~better identify possible areas of concern for consumers; ~~emphasi~~stresses that, in this context, aconducting regular mystery shopping exercise and a comparison with the 2015 and 2019 mystery shopping exercises could help identify persisting problems;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20 a. Calls on the Commission to conduct updated study on demand on cross-border access to audiovisual services;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20 b. Calls on the Commission to explore possibilities of establishing unitary European copyright with a goal to eradicate licensing barriers within the EU;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C f (new)

C f. 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 content;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)

20 c. Calls on the Commission to take all necessary steps to abolish geo-blocking practices within the single market, including in relation to audiovisual services;

Amendment 131 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Urges for a full assessment of possible synergies with other measures of the digital single market strategy, such as Regulation (EU) 2018/644 on cross- border parcel delivery services, that should help increasing the transparency of cross-border tariffs, and the changes in the area of VAT for cross- border e- commerce that entered into force on 1 July 2021 ~~and~~, which are supposed to reduce compliance costs for traders with cross- border operations and, hence, encourage more traders to deliver goods or services cross-border, ~~and Regulation (EU) 2018/64413 on cross-border parcel delivery services that should help increase the transparency of cross-border tariff~~stresses that, although not directly addressed by the Regulation, delivery limitations in cross-border online sales still affect more than 50% of shopping attempts, frustrating consumer expectations; __________________ 13 Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of 18 April 2018 on cross-border parcel delivery services, OJ L 112, 2.5.2018, p. 19.

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Urge~~Calls for a ~~full assessment of possible~~comprehensive evaluation of potential synergies with other measures of the digital single market strategy, ~~such as~~including the changes in the area of VAT for cross- border e-commerce that entered into force on 1 July 2021 and are supposed to reduce compliance costs for traders with cross- border operations and, hence, encourage more traders to deliver goods or services cross-border, and Regulation (EU) 2018/64413 on cross- border parcel delivery services that should help increase the transparency of cross- border tariffs; __________________ 13 Regulation (EU) 2018/644 of 18 April 2018 on cross-border parcel delivery services, OJ L 112, 2.5.2018, p. 19.

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C g (new)

C g. 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 licensing;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the Geo-blocking Regulation must be considered in the context of the overall e-commerce package of measures, in particular regarding cross- border parcel delivery services, the revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation and the revision of the directive on audio-visual media services, and reinforces its impact to boost the potential for cross-border e-commerce in Europe, as a prerequisite for the full functioning of the digital single market;

Amendment 16 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

E a. whereas citizens living in border regions and/or belonging to linguistic minorities are able to access significant amounts of content and services which are offered across the EU territory; while specific and tailor-made contractual offerings of different types of content often allow such citizens to access content and services in their language of choice;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines the remaining untapped potential for cross-border economic activities that could be encouraged by the removal of all geo-blocking barriers and the continued promotion of the free movement of products and services in line with the principles of the Geo-blocking Regulation; emphasizes the need for increased consumer awareness and improved enforcement of measures at the national level to ensure the effectiveness of the Geo-blocking Regulation; calls for further actions aimed at removal of barriers and easing burdens to provide cross-border services, especially parcel delivery services, to realize the full potential of the Single Market for consumers and businesses;

Amendment 18 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines the remaining untapped potential for cross-border economic activities that could be encouraged by the removal of all geo-blocking barriers and the continued promotion of the free movement of products and services in line with the principles of the Geo-blocking Regulation, except for the audiovisual and book sector, in compliance with Directive 2006/123/CE which excludes it from its scope (Article 2.2(g)) and with Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which gives the cultural competence to Member States to ensure cultural diversity;

Amendment 19 #

Marc ANGEL, Biljana BORZAN, Maria GRAPINI, René REPASI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 2 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas Parliament requested that the Commission carefully assess the possible inclusion of electronically supplied services whose main feature is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter into the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation; whereas the Commission report on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation stated that, as regards audiovisual content, the Commission would engage in dialogue with stakeholders with a view to fostering the circulation of quality content across the EU; whereas this dialogue is included as Action 7 in the Media and Audiovisual Action Plan9 ; whereas each and every organisation of the audiovisual sector reminded the utmost importance of its territorial functioning throughout the whole stakeholder’s dialogue; __________________ 9 COM(2020)0784.

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines the remaining untapped potential for cross-border economic activities that ~~could~~must be encouraged by the removal of all geo-blocking barriers and the continued promotion of the free movement of products and services in line with the principles of the Geo-blocking Regulation;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Highlights the importance of the elimination of all geoblocking barriers in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market within the European Union and guarantee equal access of goods and services to all European citizens;

Amendment 22 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Observes that all the existing geoblocking bariers consitute virtual borders that unjustly limit the internal market and prevent it from reaching its full potential as well as hinder consumer activity;

Amendment 23 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of the Geo-blocking Regulation in building a more robust, coherent and accessible internal market for all citizens and businesses in the EU, regardless of their place of residence or establishment; stresses that further steps need to be taken to achieve the full potential of the Regulation, including by strengthening the legal framework supporting the cross- border exchange of goods and services, lifting the principle of territorial exclusivity would be detrimental for the entire audiovisual sector but also for every EU citizen, since it could lead to an increase in prices for the public;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of the Geo-blocking Regulation in building a more robust, coherent and accessible internal market for all citizens and businesses in the EU, regardless of their place of residence or establishment; stresses that further steps need to be taken to achieve the full potential of the Regulation, including by strengthening the legal framework supporting the cross- border exchange of goods and services; emphasizes the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the Regulation's effectiveness, taking into account the changes in consumers' and traders' behaviour triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of the Geo-blocking Regulation in building a more robust, coherent and accessible internal market for all citizens and businesses in the EU, regardless of their place of residence or establishment; stresses that further steps need to be taken to achieve the full potential of the Regulation, including by strengthening the legal framework supporting the cross- border exchange of goods and services as well as considering to extend the scope in order to include the audio-visual media sector as explicitly mentioned in the review clause of article 9;

Amendment 26 #

Marc ANGEL, Biljana BORZAN, Maria GRAPINI, René REPASI, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of the Geo-blocking Regulation in building a more robust, coherent ~~and~~, accessible and fair internal market for all citizens and businesses in the EU, regardless of their nationality, place of residence or establishment; stresses that further steps need to be taken to achieve the full potential of the Regulation, including by strengthening the legal framework supporting the cross- border exchange of goods and services, and by including audio-visual services in the scope of the Regulation;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the importance of the Geo-blocking Regulation in building a more robust, coherent and accessible internal market without discriminations or any unjustified barriers for all citizens and businesses in the EU, regardless of their nationality, place of residence or establishment; stresses that further steps need to be taken to achieve the full potential of the Regulation, including by strengthening the legal framework supporting the cross- border exchange of goods and services;

Amendment 28 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Takes note that persistent territorial supply constraints (TSCs) exist in some sectors in the EU such as threatening to stop supplying a particular distributor; limiting the quantities available for sale by Member States; inexplicable differences in product ranges and prices between Member States; and limiting language options for product packaging or differentiation on content of the product and that this may contribute to higher consumer prices; calls on the Commission to undertake a EU-wide stakeholder consultation and assessment to conclusively determine if these TSC's amount to supply-chain restrictions and contribute to product differentiation that is not justified by a regulatory requirement or any other constraint and that these actions are fragmenting the internal market as a result;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Notes that the Commission published the First short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation’ (COM(2020)0766) and the accompanying staff working document (SWD(2020)0294) only on 30 November 2020, which is 7 months after the deadline set in the Regulation;

Amendment 3 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas Parliament requested that the Commission carefully assess the possible inclusion of electronically supplied services whose main feature is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter into the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation; whereas the Commission was bound by the Geoblocking Regulation Article 9, to perform such an evaluation by 23 March 2020; whereas the Commission report on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation stated that, as regards audiovisual content, the Commission would engage in dialogue with stakeholders with a view to fostering the circulation of quality content across the EU; whereas this dialogue is included as Action 7 in the Media and Audiovisual Action Plan9 ; __________________ 9 COM(2020)0784.

Amendment 30 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Recalls the European Parliament plenary debate, on the evaluation of Geoblocking Regulation, on 11 March 2021, where the Commission was called on multiple occasions to adopt a legislative proposal to include audiovisual services in the scope of the Geoblocking Regulation; Recalls that during this debate the Commission announced that it will engage, with stakeholders in a dialogue to identify how to foster better circulation of such content across the Union; Recalls that during the same debate the Commission announced that it will take stock of the progress achieved by the end of 2022 and decide on the follow- up, assessing various options, including legislative interventions;

Amendment 31 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Recalls that this dialogue was also mentioned in the Media and Audiovisual Action Plan adopted on 3 December 2020, where the Commission stated that this dialogue will take place in the course of 2021 and contribute to agreeing on concrete steps to improve access to and availability of audiovisual content across borders, that possible specific targets to increase the circulation of audiovisual works across the EU and ways to achieve them could be defined in the dialogue, and that the Commission, will monitor the progress in the achievement of the specific targets in cooperation with the audiovisual sector and decide on the follow-up, assessing various options, including legislative intervention;

Amendment 32 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2 d. Notes that the Commission effectively launched the dialogue on 9 November 2021 and that the fifth and the final meeting took place on 6 December 2022. Regrets that the Commission did not set out clear targets in regard to improving access to and availability of audiovisual content across borders at the beginning of the dialogue with the industry; Regrets that during past 3 years, from the announcement of the dialogue with the audiovisual industry at the end of 2020 until today, this exercise did not bring any concrete solutions, in terms of improving access to and availability of audiovisual content across borders, for the consumers;

Amendment 33 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 e (new)

2 e. Calls the Commission to present to the Parliament the detailed outcome of its stakeholder dialogue on improving access to and availability of audiovisual content across borders, as a matter of urgency; asks the Commission to complement this report with an assessment of the proposed measures and its potential benefits for consumers;

Amendment 34 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recognises that the Commission carried out its first review prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which means that changes to both consumer and trading behaviour triggered by the pandemic were therefore not reflected in the 2020 Commission report; recalls the changes in consumer habits and the rising preference for online services that were additionally strengthened by the COVID-19 pandemic; underlines, therefore, the need to draw further conclusions based on the new data in this area, as 12 % of EU businesses10 started or increased efforts to sell goods or services online due to the pandemicsuggests a re- evaluation of the Geo-blocking Regulation in the context of the accelerated digital transformation induced by the pandemic, which has seen an increasing number of businesses moving online; recalls the changes in consumer habits and the rising preference for online services that were additionally strengthened by the COVID-19 pandemic; acknowledges the surge in online activities, including e-commerce, digital services, and remote work, underscoring the need for a robust and inclusive digital single market that caters to these evolving consumer habits; underlines, therefore, the need to draw further conclusions based on the new data in this area, as 12 % of EU businesses10 started or increased efforts to sell goods or services online due to the pandemic; emphasizes the importance of the Geo-blocking Regulation in facilitating cross-border online transactions and ensuring a fair and competitive digital single market, given the significant shift of businesses towards online platforms; __________________ 10 Eurostat, ‘Online sales efforts on the rise due to the pandemic’, 11 April 2022.

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 36 #

Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 38 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recognises that t~~he Commission carried out its first review pr~~wo Regulations already constitute an exceptiorn to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which means that changes to both consumer and trading behaviour triggered by the pandemic were therefore not reflected in the 2020 Commission report; recalls the changes in consumer habits and the rising preference for online services that were additionally strengthened by the COVID-19 pandemic; underlines, therefore, the need to draw further conclusions based on the new data in this area, as 12 % of EU businesses10 started or increased efforts to sell goods or services online due to theerritorial exclusivity of the audiovisual sector, such as the portability of a subscription to an online content service across Member States, as provided in Regulation (EU) 2017/1128, and the access to news and current affairs programmes and fully financed own productions of the broadcasting organisation across the European Union, as provided in Directive (EU) 2019/789, for which there was no appropriate evaluation to date except that the Commission carried out its first review prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; __________________ 10 Eurostat, ‘Online sales efforts on the rise due to the pandemic’, 11 April 2022.

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Welcomes the Commission’s first short-term review of the 2018 Geo- blocking Regulation which upholds the continued exclusion of audiovisual services from the scope of the Regulation; welcomes the Council Conclusions ((2021/C 501 I/02 & 7809/22) underlining the importance of territorial exclusivity and exclusive licensing for the sustainability of the audiovisual sector; welcomes the European Parliament’s research service analysis1a on the implementation of the 2018 Geo-blocking regulation in the digital single market which supports territorial exclusivity, underlining that the audiovisual sector is strongly reliant on the current financing and licensing model, and that extending the scope of the Geo-blocking regulation could have considerable consequences for the economic sustainability of the sector; __________________ 1a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank /en/document/EPRS_IDA(2023)740255.

Amendment 4 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Herbert DORFMANN, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas Parliament requested that the Commission carefully assess the possible inclusion of electronically supplied services whose main feature is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter into the scope of the Geo-blocking Regulation; whereas the Commission report on the first short-term review of the Geo- blocking Regulation stated that, as regards audiovisual content, the Commission would engage in dialogue with stakeholders with a view to fostering the circulation of quality content across the EU; whereas this dialogue is included as Action 7 in the Media and Audiovisual Action Plan9 ; whereas the Parliament requested that the Commission carefully assesses the concrete actions taken by the creative and cultural sectors to increase the offering of content online in territory and across borders, as showcased to the European Commission in the stakeholder dialogue; __________________ 9 COM(2020)0784.

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Recalls that, even before COVID- 19 pandemic, there was an increasing demand among EU consumers to access audiovisual content and sports in another EU country. 40% of Europeans tried or were interested in accessing audiovisual content from other EU Member State already in 20191a; notes that geoblocking of the audiovisual sectors leads to the fragmentation of the Digital Single Market. According to Commission's report1b, the availability of audiovisual content online (in particular films and series) across the EU remains very limited (on average 14.1%); is particularly concerned that consumers in Greece have access to only 1.3% of all the titles available in all EU Member States; __________________ 1a First short-term review of the Geo- blocking Regulation (COM(2020)0766) and the accompanying staff working document (SWD(2020)0294). 1b Flash Eurobarometer 477b, Cross border access to content online, June 2019.

Amendment 41 #

Geoffroy DIDIER, Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN, Peter POLLÁK, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Considers that the report by the Commission’s services on the application of the Portability Regulation issued in June 2022 identified compliance issues by some VOD platforms that it undertook to investigate further; considers that no feedback on these key investigation has been provided to the Parliament leaving the sector blind on the marge of maneuver left to increase the cross-border access of more content online; underlines, therefore, the need to draw conclusions based on the new data in this area;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Member States to fully apply and enforce the Geo-blocking Regulation and to act decisively against entities that deprive consumers of all the benefits offered by the single market, also by securing proper enforcement tools and enhancing cross-border cooperation, including through a reinforced Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) network; urges the Commission to step up efforts on coordination and to steer and monitor the cooperation in the CPC network, in order to ensure effective enforcement of the Geo-blocking Regulation; calls on the Commission to provide additional guidance on the enforcement of the Regulation and to strengthen equal enforcement and to initiate and follow-up on infringement procedures in order to avoid the fragmentation of the rules;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Member States to fully apply and enforce the Geo-blocking Regulation and to act decisively against entities that deprive consumers of all the benefits offered by the single market, also by securing proper enforcement tools, including through a reinforced Consumer Protection Cooperation network; urges the Commission to strengthen equal enforcement and to initiate and follow-up on infringement procedures in order to avoid the fragmentation of the rules; calls on the Commission to facilitate this by assessing the different enforcement measures used to date by the Member States in order to determine which are most proportionate and effective and sharing this as a means of best practice and ensuring a uniform approach by the Member States;

Amendment 44 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Member States to fully apply and enforce the Geo-blocking Regulation and to act decisively against ~~entit~~companies that deprive consumers of all the benefits offered by the single market, also by securing proper enforcement tools, including through a reinforced Consumer Protection Cooperation network; ~~urge~~calls the Commission to strengthen ~~equal~~the enforcement ~~and to initiate and follow-up on infringement procedures~~ in order to avoid ~~the~~ fragmentation of the rules;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Acknowledges the wide range of applicable minimum and maximum fines both across and within Member States; calls on the Commission to monitor more closely if such discrepancies could harm the effectiveness of the Regulation and if the introduction of harmonised sanctions is needed;

Amendment 47 #

Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Is concerned that a full-scale evaluation will face challenges due to the delay in application and a lack of data; notes, however,~~Notes that the progress in the digitalisation of trade in goods and services should by its nature ease cross-border access and promote competition among different EU businesses to the benefit of consumers;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Is concerned that a full-scale evaluation will face challenges due to the delay in application and a lack of data; notes, however, that the progress in the digitalisation of trade in goods and services should by its nature ease cross- border access and promote competition among different EU businesses to the benefit of consumerEmphasizes the need for a more robust data collection and analysis framework to better understand the impact and effectiveness of the Geo- blocking Regulation, including its effects on consumer behaviour and market dynamics;

Amendment 49 #