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 >

    European Copyright Reform On Slow Track, Observers Say

    Published on 27 February 2013 @ 12:44 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    European talks aimed at dragging copyright law into the digital age are not likely to produce results any time soon because of resistance from rights holders and political manoeuvring in the European Commission, players from the internet service provider and consumer sectors say. But the Commission said while it’s true that changes could take several years, there will be regulation if needed.

    Debate on copyright reform in Europe is nothing new, but in an 18 December 2012 communication on content in the digital market [pdf], the European Commission (EC) said it wants quick answers to the many vexatious, still-unresolved issues. Internal Market and Services Commissioner Michel Barnier, Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes, and Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou said they will work on two parallel action tracks. One is a “structured stakeholder dialogue” to try to deliver industry solutions by the end of 2013 to the problems of licensing copyrighted content in Europe.

    Following an initial meeting, the EC planned to set up working groups to look for ways forward in five areas: (1) Cross-border access to and portability of content services. (2) User-generated content and licensing for small-scale users of protected material. (3) Audiovisual sector and cultural heritage institutions. (4) Text and data mining. (5) Review of the copyright system.

    The initial meeting took place on 4 February, and prompted stinging criticism from representatives of the internet service provider (ISP) and consumer sectors.

    Why Reform is Lagging

    In an 11 February blog posting on radiobruxelleslibera, independent telecommunications consultant Innocenzo Genna said the “problem with such initiatives is that they represent the umpteenth ‘problem setting’ exercise in a digital world which is running and changing faster than the heads of Brussels believe.”

    Instead of clear and immediate action, the EC continues to analyse the digital sector with the idea of eventually coming up with some proposal, Genna said. Since the process may only be completed at the end of the EC’s current five-year mandate (2014), the issues will be kicked into the future, he said. Moreover, he wrote, the new Commission may not be bound by the proposals suggested by the current one.

    While the debate is taking place, “concrete results are unlikely to occur in a reasonable time,” Genna wrote. How is it possible, he asked, that during its five-year term (2010-2014), the EC hasn’t been able to provide solutions? Genna attributed the lag to several factors. One is a fight for control of the issue of copyright reform within the EC. The fact that the December communication was pushed by three commissioners reflects “tensions and search for a compromise,” he said.

    A second issue is that Barnier’s office has been “permanently and strongly lobbied” since 2010 by a copyright industry focussed on solving the problems of a digital market through repression, Genna wrote. The sector believes that piracy is the biggest problem, justifying measures such as internet filtering and disconnection, website blocking and consumer fines, he said. Barnier’s office has not been keen on this approach, considering the opposite view of consumers, civil society and the telecom industry, he said. But since rights owners are a key constituent for the EC Internal Market Directorate, Barnier’s’ staff has tried to convince ISPs, telecom companies and others they should enforce content owners’ rights voluntarily, an idea they have rejected.

    A third reason why copyright modernisation won’t happen soon is “panic” stirred up by the politically sensitive disputes over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) tussles on internet copyright and freedoms, Genna said. All three factors feed into Barnier’s reluctance to tackle reform during his term, he wrote. The “new wave of analyses, studies and workshops, about problems and possibly solutions which have been already debated in the past, may become instrumental to delay decisions.”

    Could EU High Court Force Action?

    Every year organisations seeking copyright reform go through the same motions, European Consumers’ Organisation Senior Legal Officer Kostas Rossoglou told Intellectual Property Watch.

    The 2012 communication on content licensing is just another discussion, he said. The 4 February meeting was “a waste of time” because it was just talk, he said. The music, audiovisual and print industries don’t see any problem, he said. He predicted there will be no copyright reform for the next three years because this Commission won’t deal with it.

    What could force change, however, is the European Court of Justice, Rossoglou said. Decisions in cases now in the pipeline could push the EC to come up with legislative proposals before it’s too late, he told us.

    Among those cases is Amazon.com International Sales Inc. and Others v Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmubg mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft m.b.H., in which the EU high court must consider various questions relating to private copying levies on reproduction media. Another case, UPC Telekabel GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, Munich (Germany), Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH, deals with the balance of rights among content owners, users and internet access providers. These cases ask many of the right questions which the EC has never dared to answer, Rossoglou said.

    Collecting Society Reform Said to be Key

    Revamping the EU collective rights management directive is the only practical way to tackle copyright issues for music rights owners, said Kelvin Smits, director of Younison, a lobby group that represents around 7,000 authors throughout Europe who want copyright royalties collected and distributed fairly and transparently using available technology such as audio recognition.

    Barnier has been trying to push collective rights management reform but there are too many interested parties and action depends on who has the loudest voice, Smits told Intellectual Property Watch. Up to now, that has been the collection societies. National politicians are reluctant to interfere with those organisations, despite numerous problems, because they pay the bill for cultural activities, so EU-wide regulation is needed, he said.

    “We Got the Best Deal We Could”

    Nothing has changed from an EC standpoint since it announced its way forward on copyright reform in December, said Kroes spokesman Ryan Heath. “We got the best deal we could” during a 5 December Commission “orientation debate” and “for the first time,” Barnier’s Internal Market directorate is “required to put written reform proposals on the table,” he said. The EC also fast-tracked discussions on a set of problems that don’t need legislative resolution (the topics now being addressed by the current talks on “licensing for Europe”).

    “If the talks don’t produce concrete action than we will step in with regulatory proposals,” Heath said. But that won’t happen until 2014, and there’s no guarantee that anything be will approved that year; it may have to wait until 2015. The new Commission seated in 2015 will be bound by any formal proposals made by this one, but can put forward new ones or drop drafts not yet adopted, he said. Barnier’s office didn’t return a request for comment.

    Genna’s comments lead to some “obvious questions,” said Wiggin LLP (Brussels) Partner Ted Shapiro, who formerly headed the Motion Picture Association’s European legal department. “Why would copyright owners want to see their rights weakened, their ability to attract investment in new works undermined and the freedom to exploit their works in the manner they consider best tailored to ensure a return on investment shackled?”

    Shapiro questioned what hard evidence Genna relied on to justify his calls for reforming copyright, “apart from the usual anti-copyright slogans.” The burden of proving the need to weaken hard-won protections for European creators and producers “lies with those who wish to trample upon it,” he said. But “they are well funded and apparently not interested in marketplace solutions.”

    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 54.205.228.154