Brussels, 24/02/2015 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament's legal affairs committee, debating the draft report by Julia Reda (Greens/EFA, Germany) on Monday 23 February, was highly critical of the proposals made by the young German Pirate Party member. MEPs felt the report was unbalanced and favoured users to too great an extent at the expense of rights holders. “You have worked heroically. It's perilous work. But freedom to create is fundamental for citizens. … This freedom has to be protected, harmonised but not destroyed”, said commission deputy chair and shadow rapporteur on this issue, Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE, France). Numerous amendments will be submitted. They will be put to the vote in the JURI committee on 16 April.
The draft report has brought strong reaction since it was published a month ago with, on the one hand, some who support the proposals and applaud in particular those that seek to make compulsory and to extend exceptions to copyright throughout the whole of Europe or to harmonise private copying, and those on the other hand who, like the collecting societies, are against these ideas - the French form a large part of this group.
Constance Le Grip (EPP, France) said that the “proposal bears the marks of an ideology that works against the interests of authors”, and taking the view that only the interests of final users should be taken into account to the detriment of the efforts of national governments to protect cultural diversity. “Urgent amendment of your report is needed”, she concluded. Mary Honeyball (S&D, UK) followed the same line of thinking. She argued that getting rid of “geoblocking” (territorial restrictions on copyright) would give the American giants greater access to the market. European production and small member states have to be protected, she said. Advocating the greatest caution, she suggested that a great many amendments would be needed to make the report “acceptable”. Dietmar Köster (S&D, Germany) felt that the report does not make a clear distinction between Anglo-American copyright and continental European copyright. Virginie Rozière (S&D, France) said the report is “more a catalogue of proposals” than a “real assessment of the situation”. She added that Reda's vision of users and their “thirst for culture” is too “romantic”. She is also against a single pan-European licence. The aim of copyright is not to be protectionist but to remunerate authors and creators, a principle that must be borne in mind, she argued. Angelika Niebler (EPP, Germany) regretted that the draft overlooks what worked with the 2001 framework and what did not. Like other MEPs, she had concerns at a vision that favoured users to too great an extent. Only Italian MEP Laura Ferrara of the 5 Star Party (EFDD) seemed to welcome the text. “Bravo for lifting the taboos (…). Too much protection … could be damaging to copyright. (…) Courageous review is what's needed”, she argued. Antonio Marinho e Pinto (ALDE, Portugal), too, was more balanced in his opinion. He felt that current barriers worked in favour of an “elitisation” of culture, when authors are seeking to reach as wide an audience as possible. He took the view that the current framework had to change because it allowed intermediaries to be richly rewarded, at the expense of the authors.
Reda, in the meantime, has launched a call on her blog for contributions from the whole of the creative sector which has not been sufficiently heard, in her view, and having a dig at collection societies in the passing. “Do they really represent the interests of all artists?” she asked. (Isabelle Lamberty)