The Strategy starts by stressing the "need
to create a Digital Single Market where everything that is also possible in the
physical Single Market is possible in the digital world [yet, there is
no mention of such topical issues as digital exhaustion, on which see latest
Kat-instalment here]... [F]ragmentation and barriers that
do not exist in the physical Single Market are holding the European Union back.
Bringing down these barriers within Europe could contribute to an additional
340 billion euros to European GDP."
So the aims are apparently "simple: First,
to create a Digital Single Market as an area where the free movement of goods,
persons, services and capital is ensured and where citizens and businesses can
seamlessly access and exercise online activities under conditions of fair
competition, irrespective of their nationality or place of residence. Second,
to create a Digital Single Market that will help restore Europe as a world
leader in information and communications technology, with all the tools and
skills required to succeed in the global digital economy."
The proposed Strategy is articulated around a
number of pillars, including "to tackle a number of obstacles which
prevent cross-border online activities from being as seamless as national ones.
The Commission has identified a number of areas where immediate action is
required. First, differences in contract law between Member States are creating
a barrier to trade within the Single Market. Second, there is a lack of
affordable and high quality cross-border parcel delivery services within
Europe. Third, consumers should not be unfairly discriminated against when
accessing content or buying goods and services online due to their nationality,
residence or geographical location, within the borders of the EU ..."
Besides discussion of issues such as e-commerce and
VAT rules, as expected the DSM Strategy reserves a prominent role to issues
relating - in one way or another - to copyright.
In particular, this draft document announces
legislative proposals to address:
(1)
"unjustified geo-blocking through a combination of actions";
(2)
copyright reform - notably by allowing text and data mining and ameliorating
civil enforcement [just these two? If this was the case,
then the Commission agenda would end up being notably more limited than what
MEP Julia Reda proposed in her draft Report,
here,
on which see the recent reaction
of CISAC, here];
(3)
and the role of intermediaries.
|
A Kat subscribing to Sky Italia is only allowed to watch its programmes when located in Italy, San Marino or Vatican City |
Geo-blocking
"Geo-blocking refers to practices used for
commercial reasons by online service providers that result in the denial of
access to websites in other Member States or, where the consumer is able to
access the website, they are still not able to purchase products or services
from it. Sometimes the consumer will be re-routed to a local website with
different prices. In other such cases, where the sale is not denied,
geo-localising practices - where differing pricing structures are automatically
applied based on geographic location - are often used to apply differentiated
prices to consumers."
Possible actions that the Commission is considering
in this area include targeted change to the e-Commerce framework and
clarification of the application of Article 20 of the Services Directive, or a review of Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. In
parallel, the Commission will launch a Competition Sector Inquiry focusing on
the application of competition law in this area [possibly
in continuation with the approach taken by the Court of Justice of the European
Union in FAPL, here].
Copyright reform: geo-blocking, text and data
mining and civil enforcement
Closely related to proposed initiatives on "unjustified"
geo-blocking, the Commission intends to prevent rightholders from disallowing
use of their content across borders. According to the Commission:
"Restrictions
to access online media content are still frequent, particularly for
audio-visual programmes. As soon as they cross an EU border consumers are
prevented from using the content services (e.g. for video services) for which
they have paid in their home country. In addition, when trying to access or
purchase copyright-protected content from another Member State, they are
sometimes confronted with the message that it is unavailable or cannot be
accessed from their own country."
Overall, data suggest that:
- 45% of
companies trying or considering selling digital services online to
individuals consider that copyright, preventing them from selling abroad,
is a problem;
- 20% of
EU population indicated their interest in watching or listening to content
from other EU countries and 33% in watching of listening to content from
home when abroad;
- Of all
the video on demand content in the EU, less than 4% of that content is
available cross-border.
|
Being vague seems increasingly en vogue |
Coming to the topic of exceptions and limitations,
it would seem that no major reform of Article 5 of the InfoSoc
Directive would take place [let
alone the introduction of an open norm as proposed by MEP Reda].
Rather, the only apparent (minor) change would be to provide legal certainty
and enable researchers and education institutions to text and data mine.
What seems a bit clearer from the draft DSM
Strategy is that there has been some 'bargaining' going on in Brussels. While
rightholders would be clearly penalised from the prohibition of geo-blocking,
it seems that the Commission would like to make the pill sweeter for them to
swallow by promising initiatives on civil enforcement and reviewing the role of
internet service providers (ISPs).
Indeed:
"From
the creators' perspective, there is concern that inappropriate changes to the
copyright framework may affect the overall value of the rights sold to
distributors/platforms/broadcasters, which could also have a negative impact on
the financing of EU media content, which is currently territorially based.
There is need therefore for a balanced copyright reform including measures that
would benefit rights holders, such as matching reforms to end the fragmented
regulatory framework within the Digital Single Market. Likewise, the need for a
more effective and balanced cross-border civil enforcement system against
commercial scale infringements of intellectual property rights will be
addressed ... This is also an issue to be taken into account in the Commission's
ongoing analysis of the role of online platforms in the digital economy and the
rules relating to liability for illegal content on the Internet."
Besides a reference to the ongoing antitrust
investigation onto Google ("The
market power of some online platforms in the digital economy raises a number of
issues that warrant further analysis"), the DSM contains a fairly
lengthy discussion of the role of ISPs:
"For
content on the Internet, the principle, enshrined in the e-Commerce Directive, that Internet intermediary
service providers should not be liable for the content that they hold and
transmit passively, i.e. provided they do not alter it or take ownership of it,
has underpinned the development of the Internet in Europe. At the same time
there is also a need to ensure that when illegal content is identified,
intermediaries take effective action to remove it, whether it be information
that is against the public interest (e.g. terrorism/child pornography) or
information that infringes the property rights of others (e.g. copyright). This
obligation to assist is enshrined in the e-Commerce directive. Today the
removal of illegal content can be slow and complicated while content that is
actually legal can be taken down erroneously. There is also a lack of
transparency in the process. Differences in national practices can impede
enforcement (with a detrimental effect on the fight against online crime) and
undermine confidence in the online world. As the amount of digital content
available on the Internet grows, current arrangements are likely to be
increasingly tested. It is also not always easy to define the limits on what
intermediaries can do with the content they host without losing the immunity
conferred on them by the e-Commerce Directive."
What will happen in this respect? "The
Commission will further prepare proposals to tackle illegal content on the
Internet and a common approach to the issue of duty of care. Alternatives
include legislative proposals to harmonise the procedures for removing illegal
content across the EU or establishing additional responsibilities on online
companies and verify the resilience of their systems against illegal content."
Timeframe
As the Annex to the DSM Strategy clarifies, the
proposed timeframe for any legislative proposals is as follows:
- Copyright reform
proposals will be tabled in Autumn 2015;
- Proposals on
cross-border access will be also tabled this year;
- Both the undertaking
of a comprehensive analysis the role of online platforms in the
market and the launch of an initiative leading to "possible" proposal [sounds rather vague: will it ever happen?] for combatting illegal content on the internet
will take place in 2016.
***
Now we can just wait until 6 May
to see if any substantial changes are made to the DSM Strategy. Stay tuned!
The proposal on enforcement sounds very like the return of the "notice and action" proposal. Indeed Ansip used that phrase in his press conference last month.
ReplyDeleteLast time this was long on rules for notices and short on actions. Addressing this and competition issues after substantive reforms rather than in parallel makes delivery more uncertain. A package within which compromises can be weighed off would be better.