The European Commission wants to hear your opinion on copyright reform. On this site we're making it easy for you to respond to the official EU consultation by filtering out the questions that don't apply to you. Together we can make our opinions and experiences heard!
One more thing: You can answer the question in any European language you are comfortable with!
Would you like to respond to the full 80-question consultation rather than this simplified form? It's not necessary to answer all the questions.
Your problem:
This problem relates to the following question(s) in the consultation:
Next problem » Send answers »The Privacy statement of the European Commission applies.
Would you share this page with your friends? The more responses the EU gets, the better the reform will be.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
Explanation: Why impose territorial restrictions if you can make content you hold the rights to accessible in all EU countries?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Explanation: There is no apparent evidence that every use of work without compensation constitutes harm to the author while there exists evidence that certain uses positively affect revenue from other uses. in case of full harmonisation of exceptions, there should not be a problem with fair compensation.
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.
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.
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.
Explanation: Only a legislative clarification approach can work (see answer to question 30)
(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.
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.
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.
Explanation: Only a legislative clarification could solve the current problems. See answer to question 34.
(c)
Please share your experience if you negotiated agreements with libraries to enable them to lend books or other materials electronically, including across borders.
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;
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
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.
Explanation: Only a legislative approach can solve the issues faced. See our answer to questions 54 and 55.
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.
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.
(b)
Please explain if you provide such possibilities and why.
(b)
Explanation: Please explain if you provide such possibilities and why.
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.
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.
Explanation: We see no feasible alternative to legislative changes. See answers to questions 61 and 62.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Explanation: Respect for rights is not created by enforcement but by establishing rules that are perceived as fair and balanced by as many people as possible. The most effective way to improve ‘respect for rights’ would be to take user concerns seriously when addressing the other issues identified throughout the entire consultation.
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.
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.
Explanation: Any tool to achieve more harmonisation and flexibility should be pursued.
Explanation: Harmonisation should be dealt with in the near future. There is too much legal uncertainty and the adaptation to the digital era needs to happen now! The more the EU waits the less attractive the European market is, the less innovation can be developed and the less EU citizens have access to the same content and services.
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.