Copyright
reform in the EU has been in progress for many years now. In September 2016 the
EU Commission proposed a new directive to update its copyright framework after
years of public consultation. Since then, we have seen much negotiation and several amendments to the proposal. The most controversial parts of the proposed EU Directive
on Copyright in the Digital Single Market are of course Article 11 [press publishers rights, Katposts here] and Article 13, which was
intended to address the so-called “value gap” [Katposts here]. See Katpost
here for views from Jaime de Mendoza Fernandez (Legal Officer DG CNECT,
European Commission, Brussels) and Tobias McKenney (Senior EU IP Policy
Manager, Google).
The final text has now been agreed and will be
put to the Parliamentary vote in the coming weeks. Keeping up with the Kardashain's copyright reform can be tricky, so here is a consolidated overview:
What’s the latest?
|
Opening up the Pandora's box of EU copyright reform |
On 13th
February 2019, the European Parliament and the Council concluded the trilogue
negotiations with a final proposed text for the new EU Copyright Directive. A press
release confirmed that the Council had reached a provisional agreement
with the European Parliament on a draft directive,
[Katpost here] and here
is the agreed text. The agreement was then submitted for confirmation by
member states at the Council. On Wednesday 20th February the Council of
Ministers endorsed the agreement.
What will happen next?
With
such a controversial proposal, and the looming European Elections taking place
in May 2019, it is hard to say which way the vote will swing. In the 'vote-reject' corner you will find the likes of Google and Facebook, who have been criticised for their campaigning but, Politico created a fascinating power matrix back in 2017 that puts these players in the top-right for loud and powerful... [Academics such as myself apparently hiding away in the bottom-left as quiet and weak!]
Italy, Finland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Poland voted against the deal. A joint statement was released declaring that, in their view, the final text
of the Directive fails to deliver adequately on the aims that the directive intended
to achieve, namely enhance the good functioning of the internal market and to stimulate
innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the
digital environment.
|
@YourMarkLubbers |
According
to Pledge, 23 members of the European
Parliament have pledged to vote against the directive, including representatives
1 from the UK (for what it’s worth), 3 from Austria, 1 from Estonia, 1 from France,
11 from Germany, 1 from Italy, 1 from the Netherlands, 1 from Poland, 1 from Portugal,
1 from Sweden and 1 from Spain.
On the 'vote-accept' side there are thirty
organisations from across the cultural and creative sectors published
a statement calling on EU member states and the European Parliament to
adopt the text of the Copyright Directive as agreed in trilogue last week. GEMA Society for Musical Performance and Mechanical Reproduction Rights have also publicly supported the directive.
The EU Commission from Ireland has said that the new laws “will reinforce position of European authors & performers in the digital environment and enhance high-quality journalism in the EU.” In a press
conference by Axel Voss (EPP, DE), rapporteur, and Sajjad Karim (ECR, UK)
on the trilogue deal on the copyright directive for the digital single market, Karim
claimed that the campaigns about the directive goes against the grain of a democratic
nation
Harry Potter [The European Commission] and the Inappropriate Blog Post...
|
@CelestialRayna |
Shortly
after the trilogue agreement earlier in February, the European
Commission posted a blog titled: The Copyright Directive: how the mob was told
to save the dragon and slay the knight. The post was not well received.
The passive-aggressive [in my opinion] blog was inevitably removed, but thanks to the internet you can still
see a copy of what it said here
and here! It has since been
replaced by the following text: “This article published by the Commission
services was intended to reply to concerns, but also to misinterpretations that
often surround the copyright directive proposal. We acknowledge that its
language and title were not appropriate and we apologise for the fact that it
has been seen as offending. That is why we removed this article from our Medium
account.”
MEP Timeo Wölken brought up the blog post during the JURI meeting on 18th February, saying: “It’s not
an angry mob – it’s concerned young people who are worried about disappearing
culture – and that is a major concern.” Apparently, EU
Commissioner Mariya Gabriel apologised for the blog post, stating that she had
not authorized its publication.
Stay tuned for further updates on the directive and the drama...
The blog post wasn't just passive aggressive, it was also extremely patronising. It strongly implied that the millions of opponents to the copyright directive were stupid, didn't understand the directive, and were being manipulated by Facebook and Google. It also used extremely cringey memes and phrases in an attempt to appeal to younger readers.
ReplyDeleteThe directive deserves to fail because of the blog post alone.
Thank you for this informative article. The joint statement link seems to be broken in the article; here it is:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/binaries/nlatio/documents/policy-notes/2019/02/20/joint-statement-regarding-the-copyright-directive/II-39+Declaration+NL+ea+on+Copyright+DSM.pdf
Is this bill created to defend the interests of artists and writers... or of the lawyers, agents and empresarios who live off them? I guess we shall never know.
ReplyDeleteUPDATE: As expected the committee voted through the draft agreement yesterday (16 for, 9 against) now it comes down to the 751 MEP vote at the 25-28th March plenary. So far 60 MEPs have publicly pledged to vote against the bill..
ReplyDeleteAlso thanks for the link Rosie!