SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Mediator’s Report On EU Copyright Levies Recommends Major Changes

    Published on 31 January 2013 @ 8:27 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    Copies made by end-users for private purposes in the context of a service previously licensed by copyright holders don’t cause harm that should be subject to private copying levies on reproduction devices such as MP3 players, blank DVDs and photocopiers, a European Commission-appointed mediator said in recommendations published on 31 January. António Vitorino suggested major changes to Europe’s copy levy system to align it with the digital world, but said at a press briefing that “there is still some way to go” to bring stakeholder positions together.

    Vitorino’s report on mediation on private copying and reprography levies brought cautious approval from consumers and reproduction rights organisations which, nevertheless, said they have reservations.

    The report is available here [pdf].

    [Update:] European rightsholders said on 6 February that they “strongly disagree” with Vitorino’s main recommendations. If accepted by the EC, they will harm consumers; damage the interests of rights owners, and make licensing arrangements more complex, said AEPO-ARTIS, the Association of European Performers’ Organisations; EUROCOPYA, the European Federation of Joint Management Societies of Producers for Private Audiovisual Copying; GESAC, the European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers; and SAA, the Society of Audiovisual Authors. “Our main concern is that licensing is seen as a way of eradicating private copyihg levies,” they said. The organisations also panned the ideas of making retailers liable for the levies and leaving it to govenrments to decide which products should be subject to the assessments. [end update]

    Vitorino was appointed to mediate the fractious debate about copy levies after a 24 May 2011 European Commission (EC) communication on “A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights Boosting creativity and innovation to provide economic growth, high quality and first class products and services in Europe.”

    “Most stakeholders were very constructive during the mediation process,” he wrote, but “interests at stake are conflicting, and often prevented stakeholders from exploring common ground.” While players weren’t able to come closer on the most contentious issues, Vitorino said he hopes to advance the discussion as much as possible. Some issue may be settled on the basis of case law decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), he said.

    “Embrace New Direct Licensing Opportunities”

    To favour the development of new and innovative business models in the digital single market based on licensing agreements between service providers and rightsholders, Vitorino recommended that levies not be set on copies made by end-users for private purposes in the context of services that have been licensed by rightsholders, because there’s no harm requiring remuneration.

    Most new digital services offer a comprehensive package of services to consumers that includes copying possibilities that go far beyond copy and other exceptions, he said. These new services usually involve a service provider acquiring a licence from the rights owner that covers all copyright-relevant acts involved in the provision of the service, including reproduction of copyright-protected content by the end-user, he said.

    A user who pays for the download of a song expects that payment to cover not only the first download onto her personal computer but also subsequent copying onto mobile devices, Vitorino said. Similarly, a person who subscribes to a music streaming service is usually paying for the online streaming to his devices(s) as well as the possibly to create playlists that can be listened to offline, he said.

    The levy system on copying devices was set up in the offline environment to give rights owners the possibility to be compensated for copies made by end-users, Vitorino wrote. Things are different in the digital world, he said, adding, “I am convinced that it would be best for rightsholders to fully embrace the new direct licensing opportunities” there.

    To impose levies on devices as well as licensing fees would “pave the way for double payments,” he said. “Consumers cannot be expected to show understanding for such double payments.” That conclusion appears to be in line with past and upcoming rulings by the EU high court, he said.

    Major Changes to Levy System Broached

    Vitorino recommended significant changes to simplify the levy system and ensure the free movement of goods and services in Europe’s internal market.

    He wants levies in cross-border transactions to be collected in the EU member state in which the final customer resides, not, as is true now in some countries, where the manufacturer or importer is located. Responsibility for paying the tax should shift from manufacturers and importers to retailers, he said, and the system should be simplified. Reproduction device makers and importers should have to tell collecting societies about transactions concerning goods subject to a levy, or, alternatively, there should be clear, predictable “ex ante” (in advance) exemption regimes. In the area of reprography, there should be more emphasis on operator levies than hardware-based fees.

    The report also recommended that consumers be given more information about what fees are imposed on devices they buy. It also said the process of setting the levies should be made more coherent by defining “harm” to rightsholders uniformly cross the EU as the value consumers attach to the additional copies in question (lost profit); and by setting up a procedural framework that reduces complexity, guarantees objectivity and ensures the observance of strict time-limits in setting levies.

    Consumers Mostly Pleased But Wary

    Vitorino’s “recognition that copyright levies sit uneasily, if at all, with the modern digital environment is reassuring,” said European Consumers’ Organization (BEUC) Communications Officer John Phelan. A basic tenet of levies is consumers pay twice, first for the content and then for the device itself, and that’s unjustifiable, he said.

    But the recommendations don’t touch up the “key issue of the purpose of tech devices,” Phelan said. Levies are currently derived from the capacity of the device, not the actual use. As more and more multi-function devices hit the market, such as cameras that can record MP3 or mobiles which download, “it becomes all the more prudent only to charge levies for the media used,” he said. Such devices offer a range of functions unrelated to private copying and should be gauged on their primary usage, he said.

    “Outstanding Questions Need Clarification”

    Vitorino’s intent to advance future discussions on levies, and his acknowledgement that the levy system is here to stay for the immediate future, are welcome, said International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (FRRO) CEO Olav Stokkmo. It’s also helpful that the report explicitly noted that alternative forms of compensation touted by some stakeholder aren’t sufficiently thought out, he said. Stokkmo said he agrees with the “country of destination” approach to collecting levies across borders, and that the recommendations leave it to individual governments to decide which products should be covered.

    But some parts of the report raise reservations and questions, Stokkmo said. IFRRO opposes making retailers responsible for paying the levy, he said. And even if the argument for shifting liability holds for private copying, his proposal to extend it to reprography “seems to be based mainly on a desire for a neatly uniform system,” he said.

    While there are positive elements in the recommendations, “there are outstanding questions that need clarification,” Stokkmo said. IFRRO wants further explanation before committing itself, he added.

    Asked at Thursday’s press briefing whether the EC will now propose harmonizing levies, Internal Market and Services Commissioner Michel Barnier said his first move will be to send the recommendation to EU governments for formal opinions. He also promised to make sure that the recommendations are taken into account in any further steps on private copying and reprography levies, in particular the ongoing review of the EU copyright system.

    There’s an obvious need for legislation updating and harmonising the current levy system, said Phelan. Allowing the patchwork of national laws on copyright levies to persist is a “clear hindrance” to a true digital single market. Until that is addressed, consumers will continue to pay the unclear price, he added.

    Dugie Standeford may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.83.230.41