IPR Enforcement Report – Second Exchange of Views on the EP

By EDRi · November 18, 2009

This article is also available in:
Deutsch: [Durchsetzungsbericht der IPR – zweiter Meinungsaustausch im EP | http://www.unwatched.org/node/1591]

A discussion on the IPR Enforcement report took place in the European
Parliament (EP) on 9-10 November 2009. At the beginning of the discussion,
the Parliamentarian in charge of the dossier, Marielle Gallo (EPP, France)
gave details of the current timetable for the dossier. The presentation of
the draft report is estimated for 27-28 January 2010, while the deadline for
amendments is 6 February. The vote in the Committe could take place on 23
February, while the EP plenary might consider the report in April 2010.

Ms.Gallo explained that the report should take a sector-by-sector approach
as diffent types of content need to be handled in different ways, so a
single policy would work . She also said it was important to stress the need
for education to protect copyright. Most people would not dream of picking
up a book and walking out of a shop with it without paying, but this is
exactly what happens when people share books online. The Directive on
sanctions is still stuck in the Council and the EP will need to work with
the Spanish Presidency to get that dossier moving again.

She also considers that “online piracy is a problem and IPR law is there to
protect rightsholders. We don’t say that taxes should not exist because tax
laws are widely broken. In the same way, we should not remove IPR law.”
Young people need to understand that they need to pay for content. For
multi-territorial licences, a sectoral approach is needed. With regard to
technical protection measures, the EP needs to examine how we can
standardise content recognition. With regard to the international dimension
of the issue, strong requirements on piracy in international agreements are
necessary.

The Parliament needs to give some thought to the follow-up of the
Communication. Should the adoption of new legislation be encouraged or
should existing legislation be revised? Ms Gallo concluded her introduction
by saying that she had lots of input from IPRs lobbyists and was open to
contributions from other members.

Several MEPs commented on Ms. Gallo introduction. Among them Christian
Engstroem (Greens/EFA, Sweden (Pirate Party)) said that Ms Gallo’s
intervention demonstrated the problem. This Communication is almost
exclusively about counterfeiting of goods (which is a real problem and
should be illegal and ha has no objections to this, he said), while Ms Gallo
talks almost exclusively about file sharing. While, at the moment, the fact
that sharing of protected content is illegal can be conceded, this is a hot
political topic and how it should be handled is far from clear. It is
inappropriate for the Commission to be spending money on advocating for
moving in one particular direction – making enforcement harsher.

Joanna Geringer (S+D, Poland) argued that the Internet is more like a
library than a bookshop and that filesharing is not really theft.
Legislation must be adapted accordingly. There is a crime only if there is
an advantage being drawn from it and profit is being made. Young people see
content being made available and that they are accessing it without having
to break any protection measures. For individual users (filesharers) we
should consider the Internet as a library. We should fight against
counterfeit goods and other illegal activity but we should not confuse this
with filesharing. Therefore, she agrees with Mr Engstroem that these two
issues should not be in the same document.

Françoise Castex (S+D, France) said that this was a broad question and that
the Committee needed to avoid becoming polarised and also to avoid focusing
on one sector and ending up with something that is less appropriate for
other sectors. Tackling just illegal downloads should be avoided, as there
is a wider range of issues such as patents, exchange of knowledge, generics
etc. The Parliament has time to get this right.

Cecelia Wikström (ALDE, Sweden) said that a balance must be struck
between property rights (whether physical or not) and the fact that we live
in an age where the Internet is an important source of information that
allows us to share our heritage. Intangible rights need to be protected as
well as tangible ones and we need to recognise that legal instruments are
necessary to allow us to use the Internet legally.

Eva Lichtenberger (Greens/EFA, Austria) said that the subjects of the report
needed to be split. There is a difference between copyright and patents and
we cannot have the same strategy for both. The Internet undermines the logic
that copyright is based on. On the Internet, we need to improve awareness,
we need to reform the whole package of legislation to reflect the realities
of the Internet. We need to deal with different activities differently.

Mereille Gallo closed the discussion by saying that the debate demonstrated
that this was a fascinating subject. It is clear that the subjects need to
be split up and that a clever approach is needed. Action is needed and all
technologies must be taken into account. If the issue is the Internet today,
there might be an even more powerful technology to consider in the future.

(contribution by Joe McNamee – EDRi)