Submissions are closed now. Thanks for participating in the consultation!

Let's fix EU Copyright!

The European Commission is thinking about the future of copyright in the EU, and your input can push them into the right direction.

Select one or more categories below that best describe you – this will lead you to the questions that are most relevant to your activities. Alternatively, if you are brave enough, have a look at all 80 consultation questions!
If you do not have time to justify all your answer, clicking on ‘submit the form’ will create a document where only the Yes/No options are selected by being put in bold/underline as requested.
Please note this website is not from the European Commission.


The explanations coloured like this have been put together by a broad cross-section of interest groups from across Europe, from rights holders to public interest NGOs to large consumer representatives and everything in between. Learn more about them here.

Access to Content

1. Have you faced problems when trying to access online services in an EU Member State other than the one in which you live?

Explanation: Today, most content are licensed and distributed on a territorial basis, which means that the content accessible varies from one country to another. Therefore, citizens often have problems accessing content from another country, or they cannot access the same content as citizens in another EU Member States. It creates unjustified barriers to enjoy cultural goods.

Rightsholder

2. Have you faced problems when seeking to provide online services across borders in the EU?

Explanation: There are multiple examples of business that can be launched in some EU countries and not in others due to copyright complexities:
● Spotify which was not available in every EU Member State a full four years after its launch and had to undergo long discussions with GEMA (German Collecting Society) before launching the service in Germany due to excessive fees requests;

3. How often are you asked to grant multi-territorial licences? Please indicate, if possible, the number of requests per year and provide examples indicating the Member State, the sector and the type of content concerned.

Explanation: The Commission seeks specific numbers of requests and details of location. There is a risk linked to this question that few requests for multi-territorial licences be interpreted as a lack of interest, even though the correlation is not self-evident.

4. If you have identified problems in the answers to any of the questions above – what would be the best way to tackle them?

Explanation: Yes, there are problems. Copyright reform is needed to adapt to the digital world we live in. The rules must be harmonised to create a EU digital single market without borders and give EU citizens the same access to content and services. This means that innovative services should be able to flourish and EU citizens should be able to enjoy those services across the EU.

5. Are there reasons why, even in cases where you hold all the necessary rights for all the territories in question, you would still find it necessary or justified to impose territorial restrictions on a service provider (in order, for instance, to ensure that access to certain content is not possible in certain European countries)?

Explanation: The purpose of creating content should surely be to share with a maximum of users and hence to enable a maximum of users to access it.

6. Are there reasons why, even in cases where you have acquired all the necessary rights for all the territories in question, you would still find it necessary or justified to impose territorial restrictions on the service recipient (in order for instance, to redirect the consumer to a different website than the one he is trying to access)?

Explanation: Why impose territorial restrictions if you can make content you hold the rights to accessible in all EU countries?

7. Do you think that further measures (legislative or non-legislative, including market- led solutions) are needed at EU level to increase the cross-border availability of content services in the Single Market, while ensuring an adequate level of protection for right holders?

Explanation: copyright reform is needed to adapt to the digital world we live in. The rules must be harmonised to create a EU digital single market without borders and give EU citizens the same access to content and services. This means that innovative services should be able to flourish and EU citizens should be able to enjoy those services across the EU

8. Is the scope of the “making available” right in cross-border situations – i.e. when content is disseminated across borders – sufficiently clear?

Rightsholder

9. Could a clarification of the territorial scope of the “making available” right have an effect on the recognition of your rights (e.g. whether you are considered to be an author or not, whether you are considered to have transferred your rights or not), on your remuneration, or on the enforcement of rights (including the availability of injunctive relief)?

10. Does the application of two rights to a single act of economic exploitation in the online environment (e.g. a download) create problems for you?

Explanation: Under the current rules, the categories of right are not adapted to digital uses.

As a user, this means you often have access to less attractive and innovative services and have less choice. A good example is the roll-out of Spotify, which is happening country-per country and in some cases at the pace of a snail.

Linking and Browsing

11. Should the provision of a hyperlink leading to a work or other subject matter protected under copyright, either in general or under specific circumstances, be subject to the authorisation of the rightholder?

Explanation: The ability to freely link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the Internet. Users do it every day when they post a Facebook update, put a tweet on Twitter, write a blog post, comment, etc. Requiring the authorisation of rights holders before being allowed to place a link to a resources that is available online would break the internet as we know it and lead to a nightmarish permission culture.

12. Should the viewing of a web-page where this implies the temporary reproduction of a work or other subject matter protected under copyright on the screen and in the cache memory of the user’s computer, either in general or under specific circumstances, be subject to the authorisation of the rightholder?

Explanation: When you look at a website, parts of what you see on the screen are copied on the hard disk of your computer. More generally, your everyday uses of digital technology create multiple temporary digital copies of content which are essential to accessing and sharing content on the Internet.

Download to own digital content

13. Have you faced restrictions when trying to resell digital files that you have purchased (e.g. mp3 file, e-book)?

Explanation: Sometimes, digital files are restricted in their use due to so called ‘DRM’ or ‘Digital Rights Management’ tools that stop you from using a file from one device to another or to copy it. These types of restrictions do not apply to the offline world, where you can simply take a physical book and give it to a friend to read, so why would they be allowed in the online world?

Share any examples you have on how you faced such restrictions.

14. What would be the consequences of providing a legal framework enabling the resale of previously purchased digital content? Please specify per market (type of content) concerned.

Explanation: The resale of previously purchased digital content should be allowed. This well-established “user”-right in the non-digital / offline world must be recognized by law in the digital / online environment
Any restriction of the right to resell your digital property means that secondary markets where used goods are traded would not be allowed, removing the possibility for users to obtain a product at lower prices.

Registration of works

15. Would the creation of a registration system at EU level help in the identification and licensing of works and other subject matter?

Explanation: at the moment, it is sometimes difficult to know which works are protected by copyright and who you should ask for permission when wanting to use them. A registration system at EU level would make this easier and create more legal certainty.
Such a registration system should also contain information on works that are in the Public Domain and on works that have been made available under open content licenses such as the Creative Commons Licenses.

16. What would be the possible advantages of such a system?

Explanation: The creation of a registration system at the EU level would be beneficial to both authors and users as it makes it easier to know if something is protected by copyright or not and to find the rightholders of a specific work. In other words, it would be cheaper and clearer to find out if a work is copyrighted and who has the rights to it.

17. What would be the possible disadvantages of such a system?

Explanation: Having a (mandatory) registration system will require an extra effort from rightholders. This small extra effort would however be minimal compared to the benefits of having the registration information available. In the digital environment both registering a work and searching for registered works can be done with very little effort.

18. What incentives for registration by rightholders could be envisaged?

Explanation: There could be several incentives for rightholders to register their works. Rules could be put in place whereby certain elements of copyright protection are only available to rightholders who have registered their works. For example, registration might be required for a rightsholder to start an enforcement action. Another incentive might be that rightholders need to register their works in order to be eligible to collect royalties through collective rights management organizations.

19. What should be the role of the EU in promoting the adoption of identifiers in the content sector, and in promoting the development and interoperability of rights ownership and permissions databases?

20. Are the current terms of copyright protection still appropriate in the digital environment?

Explanation: In the EU, copyrighted material remains protected up to 70 years after the death of the author. Moreover, sometimes this duration is counted from another date and the death of the author and it is not always clear who all the authors of a work are (for example, for songs). That is confusing and excessively long if you think that the purpose of copyright is to enable artists, writers to create.

Limitations and exceptions

21. Are there problems arising from the fact that most limitations and exceptions provided in the EU copyright directives are optional for the Member States?

Explanation: Each EU country can pick and choose amongst the current list of exceptions. This means in practice that even though something you do in your country might be perfectly legal, it could be illegal when put online or shared with friends, family or colleagues in another country. That is confusing and scary. European citizens should have the same rights with regards to access to knowledge and culture regardless of where they live.

22. Should some/all of the exceptions be made mandatory and, if so, is there a need for a higher level of harmonisation of such exceptions?

At present, the EU only obliges EU countries to adopt one exception (regarding temporary acts of reproduction), while the adoption of the others is optional. As a result, something that’s legal in one country could be illegal elsewhere. An example of how unworkable a non-compulsory implementation of the limitations and exceptions is can be found here: http://www.smarimccarthy.is/2011/08/copyright-combinatorics/

23. Should any new limitations and exceptions be added to or removed from the existing catalogue? Please explain by referring to specific cases

Explanation: Removing exceptions is unacceptable. On the contrary, a more flexible approach is needed, combining the current system of a list of exceptions (but made mandatory for all EU countries and specified as not exhaustive), but stating specifically that these cases must be interpreted as applying to ‘similar uses’ and add a more general open norm based on ‘fair use’ or general principles of fairness. Other countries such as the US use this ‘fair use’ principle: Fair use means you can use copyright material as long as the use is fair, for example reporting the news, parody or satire. Europe would benefit from such a flexible concept, that can adapt as technology changes.

24. Independently from the questions above, is there a need to provide for a greater degree of flexibility in the EU regulatory framework for limitations and exceptions?

Explanation: The current EU copyright regime offers some form of flexibility, but in practice everything tends to fall under copyright unless it is covered by a specific exception in the law.

The trouble is that these exceptions are narrow, specific and technologically outdated: the list was written in 2001! This was well before YouTube and Facebook were created. As a result, everyday habits of online users could be considered illegal today. A blogger linking to copyrighted content, a meme based on a copyrighted image, a video with some footage from an existing movie or a song: all of that could create issues for the user that posted them.

25. If yes, what would be the best approach to provide for flexibility? (e.g. interpretation by national courts and the ECJ, periodic revisions of the directives, interpretations by the Commission, built-in flexibility, e.g. in the form of a fair-use or fair dealing provision / open norm, etc.)? Please explain indicating what would be the relative advantages and disadvantages of such an approach as well as its possible effects on the functioning of the Internal Market.

Explanation: The existing EU system does not create legal certainty because every EU country can choose its list of exceptions and international rules have added complexity and the system of a static list of exceptions is not adapted to our fast evolving society.

This is why a more flexible approach is needed, combining the current system of a list of exceptions (but made mandatory for all EU countries and specified as not exhaustive), but stating specifically that these cases must be interpreted as applying to ‘similar uses’ and add a more general open norm based on ‘fair use’ or general principles of fairness.

26. Does the territoriality of limitations and exceptions, in your experience, constitute a problem?

Explanation: At present, even though the EU has identified a list of exceptions in the Copyright Directive, each EU country can choose which of these exceptions are put into national law. As a result, something that’s legal in one country could be illegal elsewhere.

For example, the UK does not have a private copying exception, so an act that is legal in Spain or the Netherland suddenly becomes an offence in the UK, that can be criminal in some cases. Finland hardly has a parody exception, so a work considered legal in Germany could be infringing copyright in Finland.

Access to content in libraries and archives

28. (a) [In particular if you are an institutional user:] Have you experienced specific problems when trying to use an exception to preserve and archive specific works or other subject matter in your collection?
(b) [In particular if you are a right holder:] Have you experienced problems with the use by libraries, educational establishments, museum or archives of the preservation exception?

Explanation: The main problem with the existing exception is that it does not cover all situations in which cultural heritage institutions (libraries and archives but also museums) need to make reproductions as part of their public mission to preserve and make available the works in their collections. On top of that, the existing exception is not implemented in the same way across the EU.

29. If there are problems, how would they best be solved?

Explanation: By clarifying the scope of the existing EU legislation and explicitly broadening the existing exception in article 5(2)c of the Copyright Directive, so that it allows institutions to make reproductions of all works in their collection as long as these are not intended for direct commercial advantage.

30. If your view is that a legislative solution is needed, what would be its main elements? Which activities of the beneficiary institutions should be covered and under which conditions?

Explanation: The main element would be a broadening of the existing exception in article 5(2)c of the Copyright directive. Instead of only allowing specific acts of reproductions it should allow all acts of reproduction necessary for publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives to achieve aims related to their public-interest missions.

Off-premises access to library collections

32. (a) [In particular if you are an institutional user:] Have you experienced specific problems when trying to negotiate agreements with rights holders that enable you to provide remote access, including across borders, to your collections (or parts thereof) for purposes of research and private study?
(b) [In particular if you are an end user/consumer:] Have you experienced specific problems when trying to consult, including across borders, works and other subject-matter held in the collections of institutions such as universities and national libraries when you are not on the premises of the institutions in question?
(c) [In particular if you are a right holder:] Have you negotiated agreements with institutional users that enable those institutions to provide remote access, including across borders, to the works or other subject-matter in their collections, for purposes of research and private study?

(b)
Explanation: This should be prefaced by a concrete example if possible] From the perspective of citizens, researchers and other end users it does not make sense that publicly funded cultural heritage institutions are not allowed to make available works in their collection that are not in commercial circulation anymore.

33. If there are problems, how would they best be solved?

Explanation: The best solution for the problem is broadening the scope of the exception currently provided for in article 5(3)n of the Copyright Directive in order to ensure that anyone can make their collections available on-line for scientific and educational purposes without restriction to on-site terminals. This broadened exception should be implemented in the same manner in all EU countries.

34. If your view is that a legislative solution is needed, what would be its main elements? Which activities of the beneficiary institutions should be covered and under which conditions?

Explanation: The main element would be a broadening of the existing exception in article 5(3)n of the copyright directive. Instead of limiting the making available to dedicated terminals on the premises of the institutions it should apply to making the works available online via public networks such as the internet. The scope of the exception should further be expanded to not only include ‘the purpose of research or private study’ by ‘individual members of the public’ but should apply to all non-commercial uses.

35. If your view is that a different solution is needed, what would it be?

Explanation: Only a legislative clarification could solve the current problems. See answer to question 34.

E-Lending

36. (a) [In particular if you are a library:] Have you experienced specific problems when trying to negotiate agreements to enable the electronic lending (e-lending), including across borders, of books or other materials held in your collection?
(b) [In particular if you are an end user/consumer:] Have you experienced specific problems when trying to borrow books or other materials electronically (e-lending), including across borders, from institutions such as public libraries?
(c) [In particular if you are a right holder:] Have you negotiated agreements with libraries to enable them to lend books or other materials electronically, including across borders?

(c)
Please share your experience if you negotiated agreements with libraries to enable them to lend books or other materials electronically, including across borders.

37. If there are problems, how would they best be solved?

Explanation: The following principles should be put in place across the EU:
● All e-book titles available for sale to the public should be available to libraries for acquisition and access;
● All e-books titles should be available to libraries at the time of publication;
● Publishers should deliver e-books in interoperable formats;

38. What differences do you see in the management of physical and online collections, including providing access to your subscribers? What problems have you encountered?

Explanation: There is no possible comparison between physical and online collection in libraries. Theoretically digital collection should be based on the economy of wealth, meaning access to an infinity of content, where budget constraint could be the “only” limit.

39. What difference do you see between libraries’ traditional activities such as on-premises consultation or public lending and activities such as off-premises (online, at a distance) consultation and e-lending? What problems have you encountered?

Explanation: From a users’ perspective, there is no difference in these activities, aside from the convenience of online tools.

As a rightholder, please share your views and experience.

Mass digitisation

40. Would it be necessary in your country to enact legislation to ensure that the results of the 2011 MoU (i.e. the agreements concluded between libraries and collecting societies) have a cross-border effect so that out of commerce works can be accessed across the EU?

Explanation: This question misses the point. The 2011 Memorandum of Understanding is much too limited to make an impact on mass digitization. This is illustrated by the fact that the Memorandum of Understanding is not being used by the intended beneficiaries (The 2013 'Study on the application of directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society' commissioned by the European Commission lists a mere 2 mass digitization projects 'inspired' by the MoU).

41. Would it be necessary to develop mechanisms, beyond those already agreed for other types of content (e.g. for audio- or audio-visual collections, broadcasters’ archives)?

Explanation: The public has a legitimate interest in having online access to the collections of all publicly accessible libraries, museums and archives across Europe (see article 27.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). There is no good reason for limiting mechanisms that create such access to certain types of content. The solution referred to in answer to question 40, namely extending the scope of the exception in article 5(3)n of the Copyright Directive, should cover all types of works.

Teaching

42. (a) [In particular if you are an end user/consumer or an institutional user:] Have you experienced specific problems when trying to use works or other subject-matter for illustration for teaching, including across borders?
(b) [In particular if you are a right holder:] Have you experienced specific problems resulting from the way in which works or other subject-matter are used for illustration for teaching, including across borders?

Explanation: The current exception for teaching in the EU law is written in a rather broad and open way but none of the EU countries have implemented it as broadly as allowed by the Copyright Directive.

If implemented broadly into the national laws the exception allows for use of any copyrighted material, including text, film, multimedia for illustration of teaching in classrooms and also in online courses. It should also allow for using copyrighted works in teaching compilations, analog or digital. Such uses should not require a license. Compensation is not required but allowed.

43. If there are problems, how would they best be solved?

Explanation: The problem would best be solved by making a broad educational exception mandatory for all EU countries. This mandatory educational exception should cover all uses of all types of works for illustration of teaching, regardless of the institution. It is important to stress that uses of computer programs , databases and multimedia works (such as video games) should be expressly included.

44. What mechanisms exist in the market place to facilitate the use of content for illustration for teaching purposes? How successful are they?

Explanation: In some EU countries, certain educational uses require a license. For example universities in Spain pay to collecting societies a flat fee of 5 euro per student to allow reproduction and online uses of works for teaching purposes.

45. If your view is that a legislative solution is needed, what would be its main elements? Which activities of the beneficiary institutions should be covered and under what conditions?

Explanation: It should be made explicitly possible for anyone to make works available on-line for educational purposes without restriction to on-site terminals, both in original form, as well as in the form of an adaptation.

46. If your view is that a different solution is needed, what would it be?

Explanation: Only a legislative approach could solve the current uncertainties. See our answer to questions 43 and 45: the problem would best be solved by making a broad educational exception mandatory for all EU countries.

Research

47. (a) [In particular if you are an end user/consumer or an institutional user:] Have you experienced specific problems when trying to use works or other subject matter in the context of research projects/activities, including across borders?
(b) [In particular if you are a right holder:] Have you experienced specific problems resulting from the way in which works or other subject-matter are used in the context of research projects/activities, including across borders?

Explanation: Currently research activities are covered by the same exception as educational uses. It is therefore a broad provision. The type of research institution is not relevant: it may be publicly funded or private as long as the research itself is non-commercial.

48. If there are problems, how would they best be solved?

Explanation: Main problems concern the lack of access to scientific material due to prohibitive licensing and/or DRMs. They could best be solved by promoting and implementing open access principles.

49. What mechanisms exist in the Member States to facilitate the use of content for research purposes? How successful are they?

Disabilities

50. (a) [In particular if you are a person with a disability or an organisation representing persons with disabilities:] Have you experienced problems with accessibility to content, including across borders, arising from Member States’ implementation of this exception?
(b) [In particular if you are an organisation providing services for persons with disabilities:] Have you experienced problems when distributing/communicating works published in special formats across the EU?
(c) [In particular if you are a right holder:] Have you experienced specific problems resulting from the application of limitations or exceptions allowing for the distribution/communication of works published in special formats, including across borders?

(c)
Explanation: In most EU countries the application of exceptions to copyright for visually impaired persons has been fairly successful in facilitating accessibility to texts in appropriate formats for visually impaired persons. At the same time persons with different types of disabilities are often prevented the use of formats used by non-disabled reader due to technical and market barriers.. Exchange and shipment of works across borders is greatly hindered due to the absence of an appropriate legal framework.

51. If there are problems, what could be done to improve accessibility?

Explanation: The swift ratification, implementation and application of the Marrakesh Treaty by the EU and its Member States is needed to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities . A broader interpretation of EU exceptions applied to other disabilities should also be included in EU and EU national legislation.

52. What mechanisms exist in the market place to facilitate accessibility to content? How successful are they?

Explanation: Not enough. To a great extent there has been a market failure to supply accessible formats for persons with disabilities. Despite the great technical advancements in the digital sphere, most persons with disabilities cannot take advantage of these possibilities due to the lack of availability of formats, cost and legal restrictions in copyright laws.

Text and data mining

53. (a) [In particular if you are an end user/consumer or an institutional user:] Have you experienced obstacles, linked to copyright, when trying to use text or data mining methods, including across borders?
(b) [In particular if you are a service provider:] Have you experienced obstacles, linked to copyright, when providing services based on text or data mining methods, including across borders?
(c) [In particular if you are a right holder:] Have you experienced specific problems resulting from the use of text and data mining in relation to copyright protected content, including across borders?

(a)
Explanation: Text and data mining covers the extraction of facts and data , which are not covered by copyright. From a legal point of view, the problem is that text and data mining may infringe copyright because it is necessary to make copies of content to convert it into machine readable format.

54. If there are problems, how would they best be solved?

Explanation: An exception for text and data mining would provide legal certainty. It should also be explicitly stated in the law that technical protection measures (TPMs) and contracts should not override such an exception. Such an exception should also not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial activities, as such a differentiation is not in the public interest

55. If your view is that a legislative solution is needed, what would be its main elements? Which activities should be covered and under what conditions?

Explanation: We need a specific exception for text and data mining, that also explicitly states that technical protection measures (TPMs) and contracts should not override such an exception. Such an exception should also not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial activities, as such a differentiation is not in the public interest.

56. If your view is that a different solution is needed, what would it be?

Explanation: Only a legislative approach can solve the issues faced. See our answer to questions 54 and 55.

57. Are there other issues, unrelated to copyright, that constitute barriers to the use of text or data mining methods?

Explanation: From a practical/technical point of view, technical protection measures (TPMs) can prevent users from downloading content in order to ‘mine’ it. This notably seriously impedes research.

User generated content

58. (a) [In particular if you are an end user/consumer:] Have you experienced problems when trying to use pre-existing works or other subject matter to disseminate new content on the Internet, including across borders?
(b) [In particular if you are a service provider:] Have you experienced problems when users publish/disseminate new content based on the pre-existing works or other subject-matter through your service, including across borders?
(c) [In particular if you are a right holder:] Have you experienced problems resulting from the way the users are using pre-existing works or other subject-matter to disseminate new content on the Internet, including across borders?

Explanation: Current EU laws make it virtually impossible to share remixes and mashups of pre-existing works online, even in non-commercial contexts and when only very minor parts of works are re-used. While this is a major obstacle for freedom of creative expression in general, it is particularly problematic that Europeans have substantially fewer rights than, for instance, US citizens, which in many cases can refer to the Fair Use clause in US copyright law.

59. (a) [In particular if you are an end user/consumer or a right holder:] Have you experienced problems when trying to ensure that the work you have created (on the basis of pre-existing works) is properly identified for online use? Are proprietary systems sufficient in this context?
(b) [In particular if you are a service provider:] Do you provide possibilities for users that are publishing/disseminating the works they have created (on the basis of pre-existing works) through your service to properly identify these works for online use?

(b)
Please explain if you provide such possibilities and why.

60. (a) [In particular if you are an end user/consumer or a right holder):] Have you experienced problems when trying to be remunerated for the use of the work you have created (on the basis of pre-existing works)?
(b) [In particular if you are a service provider:] Do you provide remuneration schemes for users publishing/disseminating the works they have created (on the basis of pre-existing works) through your service?

(b)
Explanation: Please explain if you provide such possibilities and why.

61. If there are problems, how would they best be solved?

Explanation: The overly rigid and outdated list of limitations and exceptions in the European Copyright Directive has to be opened up. While in the US Copyright system the general Fair Use clause allows for at least some flexibility, the European system of limitations and exceptions cannot deal with new usage practices.

62. If your view is that a legislative solution is needed, what would be its main elements? Which activities should be covered and under what conditions?

Explanation: Two main legislative changes are necessary:

1.) More flexibility: A more flexible approach is needed, combining the current system of a list of exceptions (but made mandatory for all EU countries and specified as not exhaustive), but stating specifically that these cases must be interpreted as applying to ‘similar uses’ and add a more general open norm based on ‘fair use’ or general principles of fairness.

63. If your view is that a different solution is needed, what would it be?

Explanation: We see no feasible alternative to legislative changes. See answers to questions 61 and 62.

Private Copying & reprography

64. In your view, is there a need to clarify at the EU level the scope and application of the private copying and reprography exceptions in the digital environment?

Explanation: In the analog world, citizens are allowed to use the content they legally acquired more freely. In the digital environment the legality of private copying is uncertain and differs from one Member State to another. Can you legally move a book from one place to another? Can you legally copy a file for private uses on different devices?

65. Should digital copies made by end users for private purposes in the context of a service that has been licensed by rightholders, and where the harm to the rightholder is minimal, be subject to private copying levies?

Explanation: This question mixes two issues. So you should address both.

First: you should answer the question: Do you want to pay a copyright charge to copy an MP3 or an e-book for private uses that you legally purchased and that do not unreasonably prejudice the rightholders? If not, so tell the European Commission that you disagree with such a levy.

Private Copying & reprography

66. How would changes in levies with respect to the application to online services (e.g. services based on cloud computing allowing, for instance, users to have copies on different devices) impact the development and functioning of new business models on the one hand and rightholders’ revenue on the other?

Explanation: Users should not have to pay additional random charges for ‘theoretical’ copyright infringements when using online services.

Businesses developing new online services need legal certainty, and should not be burdened by levies that would compensate a loss that is not proven. The European Union should think about boosting creativity and innovation before adding some extra-layers of burden.

67. Would you see an added value in making levies visible on the invoices for products subject to levies?

Explanation: If a levy system applies, users should be informed about:

1) How much is being charged;
2) For what purpose; and,
3) How the money is being used.

68. Have you experienced a situation where a cross-border transaction resulted in undue levy payments, or duplicate payments of the same levy, or other obstacles to the free movement of goods or services?

Explanation: Maybe you bought something abroad, a printer, and MP3 or an e-book, and discovered you paid copyright charges abroad and at home? Or more generally, you experienced other issues buying hardware or digital media from other EU countries? Any thoughts on how this could have been avoided, or on how you would have liked to be reimbursed should be expressed here.

69. What percentage of products subject to a levy is sold to persons other than natural persons for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying? Do any of those transactions result in undue payments? Please explain in detail the example you provide (type of products, type of transaction, stakeholders, etc.).

Explanation: Do you know that in many EU countries, the system in place recognises citizens a right to do private copies and makes you pay for a supposed harm suffered by the rightsholders for these private copies - the private copying levy -, harm that has never been defined nor proven?

71. If you have identified specific problems with the current functioning of the levy system, how would these problems best be solved?

Explanation: Do you know that in many EU countries, the system in place recognises citizens a right to do private copies and makes you pay for a supposed harm suffered by the rightsholders for these private copies - the private copying levy -, harm that has never been defined nor proven?

Fair remuneration of authors & performers

72. What is the best mechanism (or combination of mechanisms) to ensure that you receive an adequate remuneration for the exploitation of your works and performances?

Explanation: The primary mechanism envisaged in the copyright theory is a contract, and any alternative mechanism (such as levies) should be introduced when there is apparent evidence that contracting fails. We believe that there is a need to undertake a thorough analysis of the economics underlying the creation and dissemination of culture, since currently it is often wrongly assumed that every use of work should be remunerated in order to satisfy creators’ interests.

73. Is there a need to act at the EU level (for instance to prohibit certain clauses in contracts)?

Explanation: There is a need to prevent imposing contractual clauses that prohibit users to exercise their freedoms provided in legislation implementing the Copyright Directive, since it is often the case that licenses attempt to impose such prohibitions. It is also necessary to prohibit using technical restriction measures aimed at the same effect.

74. If you consider that the current rules are not effective, what would you suggest to address the shortcomings you identify?

Explanation: There is a need to undertake a thorough analysis of the economics underlying the creation and dissemination of culture, since currently it is often wrongly assumed that every use of work should be remunerated in order to satisfy creators’ interests.

76. In particular, is the current legal framework clear enough to allow for sufficient involvement of intermediaries (such as Internet service providers, advertising brokers, payment service providers, domain name registrars, etc.) in inhibiting online copyright infringements with a commercial purpose? If not, what measures would be useful to foster the cooperation of intermediaries?

Explanation: The limitation of intermediaries’ liability is important. Without it, there is a high risk of censorship and of going against freedom of expression, freedom of communication but also freedom to conduct a business. Middlemen should not be liable and privatised enforcement is not the solution. The rule of law needs to apply.

Respect for rights

77. Does the current civil enforcement framework ensure that the right balance is achieved between the right to have one’s copyright respected and other rights such as the protection of private life and protection of personal data?

Explanation: the current copyright system is completely tilted towards the rightholders, and does not take users’ much into consideration, if at all. Copyright should aim to encourage creativity and innovation for the benefit of the society as a whole. However, current copyright law fails to achieve its dual mission, as the notion of consumers’ rights is absent.

78. Should the EU pursue the establishment of a single EU Copyright Title, as a means of establishing a consistent framework for rights and exceptions to copyright across the EU, as well as a single framework for enforcement?

Explanation: Any tool to achieve more harmonisation and flexibility should be pursued.

Other Issues

80. Are there any other important matters related to the EU legal framework for copyright? Please explain and indicate how such matters should be addressed.

Explanation: Users need to be protected from the adverse effects of Technical Protection Measures (TPM)/Digital Rights Management (DRM). Circumvention of TPMs must be allowed when exercising user rights created by Exceptions and Limitations or when using Public Domain works. Using DRM/TPMs to hinder or impede privileged uses of a protected work or access to public domain material should be sanctioned.

Do you have some time left to answer a few more questions?


Please provide your name to make your voice count.

The finished document will be sent to your email address. Your email address and all other input will not be used except for sending you the finished document.

You do not have to fill out everything and can skip questions if you want to. If you do not have time to justify all
your answer, clicking on ‘submit the form’ will create a document where only the Yes/No options are selected by
being put in bold/underline as requested.