Discussions about cross-border access to television and radio emissions broadcast on the Internet are not going well. Several political groups at the European Parliament have drafted alternative compromise amendments limiting the scope for providing ancillary online services and making the collective management system for cable retransmission optional.
These alternative compromise amendments were discussed for the first time by the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs on 23 October. A second meeting is planned in Strasbourg on 13 November next, while in the best-case scenario the vote could take place on 21 November.
It should be recalled that the legislative proposal seeks to promote the cross-border provision of ancillary services and facilitate the digital retransmission of TV and radio emissions from other member states (EUROPE 11624). In this connection, it is suggesting the application of the “country of origin” principle, as defined in the “satellite and cable” directive (93/83/EEC), to content broadcast on the Internet live or on catch up, by online broadcasters such as MyTFI. This question, however, has been dividing the different political groups since the very beginning. The left would generally like to extend this principle to more services, while the right is opposed to it.
At the beginning of October, the scales appeared to be tipped in favour of the rapporteur (EUROPE 11879) proposing to apply the country of origin principle to acts of communication and reproduction, with the exception of audiovisual sporting events, purchased or ordered audiovisual/cinematographic content and co-productions. However, the Liberals appear to have decided to come out in support of the right at the European Parliament on the country of origin principle (article 2) and the one on direct injection (the new article 4).
Alternative compromise amendments
The alternative compromise amendments of which EUROPE has obtained a copy propose to limit first of all, the application of the country of origin principle to ancillary online services “for the broadcasting of news and current affairs programmes”. They then suggest making the obligation on rights holders optional for going through a collective management company when granting or refusing authorisation for retransmission using an alternative medium to cable. Finally, they introduce joint responsibility in a new article, for broadcasting bodies in the event of “direct injection”. This process was not tackled at all in the Commission’s proposal and will take place in two phases: a radio broadcaster broadcasting a programme by satellite or terrestrially and a re-transmitter intercepting and retransmitting it to their subscribers.
These alternative compromises dated 20 October have been co-drafted by EPP (Angelika Niebler) and ECR (Sajjad Karim) shadow rapporteurs. The ALDE shadow rapporteur, Jean-Marie Cavada supported the provisions on the country of origin principal and direct injection but it does not support that on collective management (article 3). He emphasises that these alternative compromises have evolved since the meeting on 23 October. In reply to a question put to her by EUROPE, ALDE MEP Kaja Kallas (Estonia) rejected the whole version of the alternative compromises of 20 October. Julia Reda (Greens/EFA, Germany) pointed out her support for the Commission proposal regarding the scope of application and the country of origin principle. The MEP from the Pirate Party said that, “the so-called ‘alternative’ compromise proposals are not compromises at all, they simply take the most extreme position on each of the questions discussed”. She even went as far as saying they were “a way of putting pressure” on the rapporteur.
Direct injection examined by the Council
It should be pointed out that the Council text is also expected to include a reference to the direct injection phenomenon. According to the information we have received, France, Spain, Hungary and Luxembourg have called on the Estonian Presidency to include this issue in its compromise amendments, whilst Poland and Italy have called on it to examine the question. The United Kingdom, Finland, Slovakia, the Netherlands and Romania, however, are opposed to it.
The next meeting between the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs is currently planned for 13 November but this has still not been confirmed. Similarly, the date planned for the vote was 21 November but this could still be subject to change. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)