This page helps you to fill out the document for the public consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules.
Just follow these steps:
Please provide your name to make your voice count.
The finished document will be sent to your email address. We can send you the finished document by email. Your email address and all other input will not be used except for sending you the finished document.
In the interests of transparency, organisations (including, for example, NGOs, trade associations and commercial enterprises) are invited to provide the public with relevant information about themselves by registering in the Interest Representative Register and subscribing to its Code of Conduct.
If you are a registered organisation, please indicate your Register ID number below. Your contribution will then be considered as representing the views of your organisation.
If your organisation is not registered, you have the opportunity to register now. Responses from organisations not registered will be published separately.
The following organisations have provided guides to the questions:
Click to load their explanations and suggestions. Their text will be marked like this.
You can take a break and come back later and your answers will not get lost.
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. Read more... Example: Give an example if you have experienced geo-blocking, for example you wanted to watch a video online but were told ‘this content is not available in your country’. Explain if you feel this is not acceptable in a European single market.
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.
Example: Give an example if you have experienced geo-blocking, for example you wanted to watch a video online but were told ‘this content is not available in your country’. Explain if you feel this is not acceptable in a European single market.
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; Read more... ● Netflix and its current situation whereby it faces very long discussions and negotiations before being able to launch its service in different EU Member States (France being one example). If you are a service provider that faced such difficulties, let the European Commission know.
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;
● Netflix and its current situation whereby it faces very long discussions and negotiations before being able to launch its service in different EU Member States (France being one example). If you are a service provider that faced such difficulties, let the European Commission know.
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. Read more...
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. Read more... It is simply unacceptable that getting a digital single market is so complicated due to digital borders that should not exist on the Internet and that users and service providers are constantly wondering if what they do is legal or not.
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.
It is simply unacceptable that getting a digital single market is so complicated due to digital borders that should not exist on the Internet and that users and service providers are constantly wondering if what they do is legal or not.
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. Read more...
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? Read more...
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 Read more... It is simply unacceptable that getting a digital single market is so complicated due to digital borders that should not exist on the Internet and that users and service providers are constantly wondering if what they do is legal or not.
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
Read more...
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. Read more... As a service provider, this delays the possibility to quickly offer new and innovative services, because you need to go into lengthy and often expensive negotiations and more expansive, that make everything more complicated.
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.
As a service provider, this delays the possibility to quickly offer new and innovative services, because you need to go into lengthy and often expensive negotiations and more expansive, that make everything more complicated.
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. Read more... Rights holders have sufficient rights that allow them to control if they want their works to be available online or not. Once a work is published online anyone must be free to link to the work. It is like putting a footnote in a document.
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.
Rights holders have sufficient rights that allow them to control if they want their works to be available online or not. Once a work is published online anyone must be free to link to the work. It is like putting a footnote in a document.
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. Read more... Requiring the authorisation of the rightholder for viewing and reading content that is already available amounts to an additional permission which could lead to citizens infringing the law by merely surfing on the Internet. This directly touches on your’ fundamental right to receive and impart information. Critically, this is about citizens’ right to read.
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.
Requiring the authorisation of the rightholder for viewing and reading content that is already available amounts to an additional permission which could lead to citizens infringing the law by merely surfing on the Internet. This directly touches on your’ fundamental right to receive and impart information. Critically, this is about citizens’ right to read.
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. Read more...
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. Read more...
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. Read more...
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. Read more... A (mandatory) registration system would also provide a more efficient mechanism for commercial licensing opportunities. and would prevent the appearance of future orphan works. But of course, adopting such a system cannot be to the detriment of keeping and enhancing the list of copyright exceptions. Such a system would also give a more accurate overview of creativity and culture in the EU.
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.
A (mandatory) registration system would also provide a more efficient mechanism for commercial licensing opportunities. and would prevent the appearance of future orphan works. But of course, adopting such a system cannot be to the detriment of keeping and enhancing the list of copyright exceptions. Such a system would also give a more accurate overview of creativity and culture in the EU.
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. Read more...
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. Read more... Finally, registration could be made a prerequisite for prolonging copyright protection after an initial term (this would assume a much shorter duration than the current term). For example, with an initial copyright term of protection of 20 years (similar to patents), rightholders who register their works in the system would have the ability to extend the term for works they intend to exploit after the first 20 years of protection.
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.
Finally, registration could be made a prerequisite for prolonging copyright protection after an initial term (this would assume a much shorter duration than the current term). For example, with an initial copyright term of protection of 20 years (similar to patents), rightholders who register their works in the system would have the ability to extend the term for works they intend to exploit after the first 20 years of protection.
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. Read more... This duration must be reduced to enhance access to knowledge and culture much more quickly. 15 to 25 years seems a more proportionate duration, or even 50 years, which is the minimum set in international rules.
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.
This duration must be reduced to enhance access to knowledge and culture much more quickly. 15 to 25 years seems a more proportionate duration, or even 50 years, which is the minimum set in international rules.
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. Read more... The list of exceptions needs to be the same in every EU country and must be more flexible to adapt to technological change. More fundamentally, the approach whereby everything falls under copyright except when an ‘exception’ gives a user more freedom is flawed to start with and it should be the other way round: human rights and freedoms should be the rule and copyright the exception.
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.
The list of exceptions needs to be the same in every EU country and must be more flexible to adapt to technological change. More fundamentally, the approach whereby everything falls under copyright except when an ‘exception’ gives a user more freedom is flawed to start with and it should be the other way round: human rights and freedoms should be the rule and copyright the exception.
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/ Read more... All exceptions should be made mandatory for all EU countries, and specified as not exhaustive. It should also be stated 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.
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/
All exceptions should be made mandatory for all EU countries, and specified as not exhaustive. It should also be stated 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: 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. Read more... Citizens must notably be allowed to share protected works and adaptation for non-commercial purposes. For citizens to express themselves online it is necessary that they can use copyright protected material that others have created as part of their own expressions (think remixes and so called user generated content).
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.
Citizens must notably be allowed to share protected works and adaptation for non-commercial purposes. For citizens to express themselves online it is necessary that they can use copyright protected material that others have created as part of their own expressions (think remixes and so called user generated content).
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. Read more... Other countries such as the US use a principle called ‘fair use’: Fair use means you can use copyright material as long as the use is fair, for example reporting the news, parody and satire or education. Europe would benefit from such a flexible concept, that can adapt as technology changes. It would also ensure that copyright focusses on what it should, instead of, for example, making it illegal for teachers to share PowerPoint presentations with copyrighted material on websites or by e-mail.
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.
Other countries such as the US use a principle called ‘fair use’: Fair use means you can use copyright material as long as the use is fair, for example reporting the news, parody and satire or education. Europe would benefit from such a flexible concept, that can adapt as technology changes. It would also ensure that copyright focusses on what it should, instead of, for example, making it illegal for teachers to share PowerPoint presentations with copyrighted material on websites or by e-mail.
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. Read more... Disadvantages of open norms: ● Because they leave room for interpretation (what is ‘fair’?), open norms rely on court decisions to get defined and can thus reduce legal security the first years of their introduction. This why keeping a list of (mandatory) exceptions is sensible. Advantages of open norms: ● The US example has shown that an open norm becomes more predictable as to its interpretation as more courts issue their views on it. ● Flexible norms avoid having to adapt the list of limitations and exceptions every X years, and will encourage ‘tomorrow’s inventions’, creative re-use and the development of new business models.
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.
Disadvantages of open norms: ● Because they leave room for interpretation (what is ‘fair’?), open norms rely on court decisions to get defined and can thus reduce legal security the first years of their introduction. This why keeping a list of (mandatory) exceptions is sensible. Advantages of open norms: ● The US example has shown that an open norm becomes more predictable as to its interpretation as more courts issue their views on it. ● Flexible norms avoid having to adapt the list of limitations and exceptions every X years, and will encourage ‘tomorrow’s inventions’, creative re-use and the development of new business models.
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. Read more... From a research perspective, this means that researchers have difficulties working together and sharing knowledge across borders. Currently, for example, inter-library loans are hampered across borders. Give your own examples of such problems, and tell the European Commission that this needs to stop and that ALL exceptions should be made mandatory across the EU.
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.
From a research perspective, this means that researchers have difficulties working together and sharing knowledge across borders. Currently, for example, inter-library loans are hampered across borders. Give your own examples of such problems, and tell the European Commission that this needs to stop and that ALL exceptions should be made mandatory across the EU.
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. Read more... Generally speaking, the whole concept of fair compensation should be revisited. Member States should be explicitly obliged to introduce compensation schemes only if there is evidence of specific harm to authors that cannot be remedied in other way.
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.
Generally speaking, the whole concept of fair compensation should be revisited. Member States should be explicitly obliged to introduce compensation schemes only if there is evidence of specific harm to authors that cannot be remedied in other way.
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. Read more... As a result, most EU countries do not allow the making of copies for crucial activities like format shifting and structural digitization of collections or putting all kinds of artificial constraints to digitalisation. This, and the fact that they cannot make digitized works available on-line without a license (see question 32 as well), severely limits institutions in how they can leverage digital technologies.
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.
As a result, most EU countries do not allow the making of copies for crucial activities like format shifting and structural digitization of collections or putting all kinds of artificial constraints to digitalisation. This, and the fact that they cannot make digitized works available on-line without a license (see question 32 as well), severely limits institutions in how they can leverage digital technologies.
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. Read more... A very similar recommendation can be found in the 'Study on the application of directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society' that was commissioned by the European Commission in 2013. This broadened exception would of course need to be applied in the same way in every EU country.
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.
A very similar recommendation can be found in the 'Study on the application of directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society' that was commissioned by the European Commission in 2013. This broadened exception would of course need to be applied in the same way in every EU country.
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. Read more... This should include reproductions made as part of mass digitization efforts and reproductions for format shifting. Reproductions should be limited to internal use which is not for direct commercial or economic advantage or use in line with other exceptions and limitations allowed for by the directive. This is in line with the recommendations found in the 'Study on the application of directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society' that was commissioned by the European Commission in 2013.
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.
This should include reproductions made as part of mass digitization efforts and reproductions for format shifting. Reproductions should be limited to internal use which is not for direct commercial or economic advantage or use in line with other exceptions and limitations allowed for by the directive. This is in line with the recommendations found in the 'Study on the application of directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society' that was commissioned by the European Commission in 2013.
Explanation: Only a legislative clarification approach can work (see answer to question 30) Read more...
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. Read more... (b) These institutions have built and maintained their collections with public funds. Their mission is to provide access to the knowledge and culture contained in these collections. As long as there are sufficient safeguards that prevent these institutions from interfering with the normal exploitations of works in their collection they should be allowed to make their collections available online for non-commercial uses by the general public. For citizens it is perfectly understandable that they cannot expect cultural heritage institutions to provide unlimited free access to works that still are in commercial circulation, but it does not make sense at all that institutions have to restrict access to works that are not in circulation anymore because they are still under copyright protection. It should be noted here that this is also true for authors who may have a legitimate interest that works that they have created are kept available via cultural heritage institutions and who often rely on access to works of others as part of their own creative process.
(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.
(b) These institutions have built and maintained their collections with public funds. Their mission is to provide access to the knowledge and culture contained in these collections. As long as there are sufficient safeguards that prevent these institutions from interfering with the normal exploitations of works in their collection they should be allowed to make their collections available online for non-commercial uses by the general public. For citizens it is perfectly understandable that they cannot expect cultural heritage institutions to provide unlimited free access to works that still are in commercial circulation, but it does not make sense at all that institutions have to restrict access to works that are not in circulation anymore because they are still under copyright protection. It should be noted here that this is also true for authors who may have a legitimate interest that works that they have created are kept available via cultural heritage institutions and who often rely on access to works of others as part of their own creative process.
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. Read more...
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. Read more... It also seems reasonable to limit the scope of the exception to works that are not in commercial circulation anymore and to allow rights holders to opt out of the exception. This would ensure that the legitimate interests of rights holders would not be harmed while allowing cultural heritage institutions to bring large parts of their collections online. In fact many authors would benefit from improving online access to works that are out of commercial circulation because works that they have created are kept available via cultural heritage institutions.
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.
It also seems reasonable to limit the scope of the exception to works that are not in commercial circulation anymore and to allow rights holders to opt out of the exception. This would ensure that the legitimate interests of rights holders would not be harmed while allowing cultural heritage institutions to bring large parts of their collections online. In fact many authors would benefit from improving online access to works that are out of commercial circulation because works that they have created are kept available via cultural heritage institutions.
Explanation: Only a legislative clarification could solve the current problems. See answer to question 34. Read more...
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. Read more...
(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; Read more... Libraries should be permitted to make available acquired or licensed e-books for a limited period of time to a user. ● It should be possible to use the same e-book title simultaneously; ● Registered users should be able to download an e-book either in the library or by way of remote access via authentication systems.
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;
Libraries should be permitted to make available acquired or licensed e-books for a limited period of time to a user. ● It should be possible to use the same e-book title simultaneously; ● Registered users should be able to download an e-book either in the library or by way of remote access via authentication systems.
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. Read more... But in reality, libraries can buy all physical publication, when they cannot buy licences to all commercially available content because the rightholders are free to decide whether they want to give access to a specific work, and to decide on the terms for such access. As a result, the collections in libraries are being defined by publishers according to their commercial interests, rather than by the libraries themselves taking into consideration the public interest. In addition to this core issue, publishers currently develop models with a lot of frictions that are mere copy/paste of the physical model.
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.
But in reality, libraries can buy all physical publication, when they cannot buy licences to all commercially available content because the rightholders are free to decide whether they want to give access to a specific work, and to decide on the terms for such access. As a result, the collections in libraries are being defined by publishers according to their commercial interests, rather than by the libraries themselves taking into consideration the public interest. In addition to this core issue, publishers currently develop models with a lot of frictions that are mere copy/paste of the physical model.
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. Read more...
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). Read more... If Europe wants to enable its cultural heritage institutions to transfer their collections into the digital age (and there cannot be any doubt that this is both an important policy objective and a reasonable expectation of taxpayers fund these organisations) a far more comprehensive approach is needed. This can be achieved by extending the scope of the exception in article 5(3)n of the Copyright Directive as outlined in the answer to question 34 above. Doing this would provide Europe's cultural heritage institutions a clear legal framework for operating in the digital environment that would allow them to make their collections available online (which is where citizens rightfully expect them to be).
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).
If Europe wants to enable its cultural heritage institutions to transfer their collections into the digital age (and there cannot be any doubt that this is both an important policy objective and a reasonable expectation of taxpayers fund these organisations) a far more comprehensive approach is needed. This can be achieved by extending the scope of the exception in article 5(3)n of the Copyright Directive as outlined in the answer to question 34 above. Doing this would provide Europe's cultural heritage institutions a clear legal framework for operating in the digital environment that would allow them to make their collections available online (which is where citizens rightfully expect them to be).
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. Read more...
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. Read more... Because of the narrow implementations of the broad exception provided in the Directive, permitted use of works in education differs between member states. This presents special difficulties for the providers of online open courses that can be access by citizens of various EU countries If you personally encountered a problem with accessing or making available any online courses in the EU, please share it. Please also indicate if in your country online uses of works for teaching are not allowed in and share how you feel about such an old-fashioned restrictions.
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.
Because of the narrow implementations of the broad exception provided in the Directive, permitted use of works in education differs between member states. This presents special difficulties for the providers of online open courses that can be access by citizens of various EU countries If you personally encountered a problem with accessing or making available any online courses in the EU, please share it. Please also indicate if in your country online uses of works for teaching are not allowed in and share how you feel about such an old-fashioned restrictions.
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. Read more... It would be helpful if you could describe what revisions to the educational exception are needed in your country’s copyright rules.
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.
It would be helpful if you could describe what revisions to the educational exception are needed in your country’s copyright rules.
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. Read more... In France the works are licensed under special agreements with collecting societies. Each time a teacher wishes to use a work for the purpose of illustration of teaching, it is checked if the work and the teacher’s educational institution are covered by the agreement. Such use must be then registered and reported. In Denmark and Finland the works are licensed under collective licensing schemes. If this is the case in your member state please describe any specific problems with such mechanisms that are known to you.
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.
In France the works are licensed under special agreements with collecting societies. Each time a teacher wishes to use a work for the purpose of illustration of teaching, it is checked if the work and the teacher’s educational institution are covered by the agreement. Such use must be then registered and reported. In Denmark and Finland the works are licensed under collective licensing schemes. If this is the case in your member state please describe any specific problems with such mechanisms that are known to you.
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. Read more...
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. Read more... 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: 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.
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: 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. Read more... Contrary to the educational exception, the exception for research is not restrictively adopted in national laws. However, the main problems with accessing and using scientific materials are mainly practical. The exception allows for their use for research purposes, but they are usually protected by restrictive licenses or DRM (Digital Rights Management) systems - or simply only published in hard copies and not accessible. For example, licenses require that works are made available using certain networks or software only. Text and data mining is often explicitly prohibited in licenses, or allowed only to a limited extent. If you experienced any problems accessing materials for research purposes or any other problems concerning your research activities please describe them.
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.
Contrary to the educational exception, the exception for research is not restrictively adopted in national laws. However, the main problems with accessing and using scientific materials are mainly practical. The exception allows for their use for research purposes, but they are usually protected by restrictive licenses or DRM (Digital Rights Management) systems - or simply only published in hard copies and not accessible. For example, licenses require that works are made available using certain networks or software only. Text and data mining is often explicitly prohibited in licenses, or allowed only to a limited extent. If you experienced any problems accessing materials for research purposes or any other problems concerning your research activities please describe them.
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. Read more... Perhaps in some cases collective licensing schemes could be used in order to encourage scientific publishers to make their publications available for research activities. Such schemes (where a fee would be due) should cover commercial as well as non-commercial research. Please add any other suggestions you may have on how to facilitate access to scientific materials.
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.
Perhaps in some cases collective licensing schemes could be used in order to encourage scientific publishers to make their publications available for research activities. Such schemes (where a fee would be due) should cover commercial as well as non-commercial research. Please add any other suggestions you may have on how to facilitate access to scientific materials.
(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. Read more...
(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. Read more...
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. Read more...
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. Read more... (a) 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.
(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.
(a) 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: 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 Read more...
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. Read more...
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. Read more...
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. Read more...
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. Read more...
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. Read more...
(b) Please explain if you provide such possibilities and why.
(b) Explanation: Please explain if you provide such possibilities and why. Read more...
(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. Read more... 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: 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.
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: 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. Read more... 2.) Introduction of a remix exception: In addition to more flexibility, there should be an explicit remix exception to the Copyright Directive. This remix exception would permit creative recombinations based on existing works. While uncompensated in non-commercial contexts, commercialization could be regulated via compulsory licensing models.
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.
2.) Introduction of a remix exception: In addition to more flexibility, there should be an explicit remix exception to the Copyright Directive. This remix exception would permit creative recombinations based on existing works. While uncompensated in non-commercial contexts, commercialization could be regulated via compulsory licensing models.
Explanation: We see no feasible alternative to legislative changes. See answers to questions 61 and 62. Read more...
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? Read more... Moreover, the digital age should permit easier access and uses of the content legally acquired, instead copying and moving files is made harder. Let the European Commission know if you think this is not justified.
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?
Moreover, the digital age should permit easier access and uses of the content legally acquired, instead copying and moving files is made harder. Let the European Commission know if you think this is not justified.
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. Read more... Second: More and more services licence the content, it means that when you buy content online you are allow to copy it a certain number of times only and this is calculated in the price you pay. Therefore if you add a levy on top, you would be paying twice. If you disagree with this system, let the European Commission know and explain briefly why.
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.
Second: More and more services licence the content, it means that when you buy content online you are allow to copy it a certain number of times only and this is calculated in the price you pay. Therefore if you add a levy on top, you would be paying twice. If you disagree with this system, let the European Commission know and explain briefly why.
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. Read more...
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. Read more... Increased transparency means more trust from consumers. Any mechanism that would educate the general public about the fact and amounts of money collected and distributed through such schemes as levies is thus a good idea.
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.
Increased transparency means more trust from consumers. Any mechanism that would educate the general public about the fact and amounts of money collected and distributed through such schemes as levies is thus a good idea.
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. Read more...
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? Read more... Moreover, you pay for copies of content of which you are the author (back-up of your computer files, memory cards in your photo or video cameras, printers…).You also pay levies on devices you may not even use to copy copyright protected content, for example if you use your phone only to make calls or send messages. Tell the European Commission that you disagree with this system, and share any practical experiences of these levies with them.
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?
Moreover, you pay for copies of content of which you are the author (back-up of your computer files, memory cards in your photo or video cameras, printers…).You also pay levies on devices you may not even use to copy copyright protected content, for example if you use your phone only to make calls or send messages. Tell the European Commission that you disagree with this system, and share any practical experiences of these levies with them.
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. Read more... There exists evidence that these interests are not harmed, or that the public interest benefits, in cases where some uses are not remunerated, and this evidence should be systematically gathered and analysed before any legislative action is undertaken to further empower copyright monopolies.
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.
There exists evidence that these interests are not harmed, or that the public interest benefits, in cases where some uses are not remunerated, and this evidence should be systematically gathered and analysed before any legislative action is undertaken to further empower copyright monopolies.
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. Read more...
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. Read more... There exists evidence that these interests are not harmed, or that the public interest benefits, in cases where some uses are not remunerated, and this evidence should be systematically gathered and analysed before any legislative action is undertaken to further empower copyright monopolies.
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. Read more...
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. Read more... The problem is that community wireless networks, anonymizing services, fixed internet service providers, online data storage places, search engines and other actors suffer uncertainty because of the intermediary liability in copyright. As a result, they sometimes take down things that are legal, out of fear of being sued. That is bad for EU citizens free speech rights and can chill innovation and creativity.
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.
The problem is that community wireless networks, anonymizing services, fixed internet service providers, online data storage places, search engines and other actors suffer uncertainty because of the intermediary liability in copyright. As a result, they sometimes take down things that are legal, out of fear of being sued. That is bad for EU citizens free speech rights and can chill innovation and creativity.
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. Read more... Consumers do not know what they can and cannot do with copyright protected material. The current legislation is simply out of date and fails to respond to the challenges of the digital environment.
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.
Consumers do not know what they can and cannot do with copyright protected material. The current legislation is simply out of date and fails to respond to the challenges of the digital environment.
Explanation: Any tool to achieve more harmonisation and flexibility should be pursued. Read more...
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. Read more... While looking at reviewing the current EU laws, EU countries should be encouraged to promote more flexibility and a user-friendly approach to how they implement their copyright laws.
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.
While looking at reviewing the current EU laws, EU countries should be encouraged to promote more flexibility and a user-friendly approach to how they implement their copyright laws.
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. Read more... There is also a problem due to excessive enforcement of copyright in the EU notably due to. misuses of the IPR Enforcement Directive, but also excessive removal of content. This needs to be stopped and framed in a proper manner, that balances the different rights and freedoms at stake. Please note this is an open ended question: your answer can cover any topic you think should be (better) addressed by EU laws.
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.
There is also a problem due to excessive enforcement of copyright in the EU notably due to. misuses of the IPR Enforcement Directive, but also excessive removal of content. This needs to be stopped and framed in a proper manner, that balances the different rights and freedoms at stake. Please note this is an open ended question: your answer can cover any topic you think should be (better) addressed by EU laws.
The finished document is sent to you by email () Please forward it to:
The document is now downloading. Please send it by email to: