Latest leak reveals that review of EU IP enforcement framework is currently in a deadlock

exclusive image of Brussels cabinet meeting
Leaks of internal EU Commission documents have seemingly become unavoidable events in-between one official release and another from this EU institution.

The latest leak, published by Politico, is that of an internal note to the attention of Commissioner Bieńkowska's Head of Cabinet concerning the forthcoming (?) review of the enforcement framework, including the Enforcement Directive.

As readers will remember, the Commission itself announced that this is part of the agenda when it unveiled its Digital Single Market Strategy (DSMS) two years ago (May 2015). Despite the timeframe indicated in the 2015 DSMS, a more thorough review of the enforcement framework is (or, rather, was?) expected in the first half of 2017, including the release of proposals to review existing EU legislation.

So far nothing has happened on this front. 

The reason - as this latest leak appears to suggest - is that there is no agreement within the Commission itself as to what direction should be taken. In other words, as the document admits, the reform process is currently in a "deadlock".

D(r)eadlock Kat
In addition, there might have been also a change of heart in some of the key players, possibly even including Commission's Vice-President Ansip

According to the document, it appears presumable that Commissioner Ansip has gone from strongest supporter to most vocal opponent of a review of the Enforcement Directive. The reason would be that at the beginning it appeared that rightholders would somewhat lose in the reform of the copyright acquis, so that a stronger enforcement would be needed as a "trade-off" [yes, the document employs this term]. Apparently this has not been the case. Hence, "such trade-off is no longer considered necessary given the final scope of the copyright proposals which do not materially cut into right holders positions."

The document then reviews a number of possible options on the table. 

An important (and unsurprising) aspect is the focus on the role intermediaries. According to the note, any proposals to harmonise intermediary liability in the context of a review of the Enforcement Directive and require intermediaries to take more pro-active measures "is a very far reaching call which does not fit into [the Enforcement Directive] systematically and it is at least doubtful if such an initiative would be in line with the E-Commerce Directive and the announcements made by the Commission in the 2016 Communication on platforms to respect the liability regime for platforms."

To be continued ...
Latest leak reveals that review of EU IP enforcement framework is currently in a deadlock Latest leak reveals that review of EU IP enforcement framework is currently in a deadlock Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Sunday, May 21, 2017 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. In Commission speak this means -please Commissioner, kill it off, we have bigger fish to fry and this is copyright policy's problem and due to a dismantling a couple years back they (copyright) went off to a crazy DG (Connect- and look at what they came up with) and we are stuck in a dead end DG (Grow) with a DG who is only interested in gender equality and with a bit of luck will get a golden goodbye as a Brit. All because DG Internal Market grew far too powerful when it had all IPR and all Financial Services under one roof under those dastardly Brits. I mean all they did was build Empires -Mogg, Faull and Cockfield. I mean they put in place the internal market. Know what I mean. We will never see their like again internally or externally and now they bugger off. So those left behind broke up the place sending us in all different directions and centralising the power.

    Plus we need to save the UPC and possibly do some real work on another matter.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.