While the future of the copyright directive is being played out in Strasbourg, the other part of the package, the regulation on ending geo-blocking for certain radio and television programmes (‘SatCab’) is at a complete standstill according to the report from the Council working party group meeting on 12 June.
It should be recalled that the legislative proposal of just seven articles aims to promote the cross-border provision of ancillary online services and facilitate the digital retransmission of TV and radio programmes from other member states (see EUROPE 11624). The inter-institutional negotiations began on 20 February and led to three trialogues (see EUROPE 12004). The Bulgarian Presidency of the Council is hoping to organise a fourth trialogue before handing over to the Austrian Presidency but the compromise to proposals submitted by the European Commission to “facilitate” the debate do not appear to have been very convincing.
Member states’ position to the compromise. According to the report back by the “intellectual property” group working party obtained by EUROPE, the member states are still largely divided on the most controversial provisions, namely, the country of origin principle, retransmission services covered by compulsory collective management (article 3) and the direct injections (article 4a of Parliament's mandate).
Country of origin principle (article 2). The main controversy focuses on the country of origin principle, which determines the place applicable for satellite broadcasting where copyright should be paid. The Bulgarian text suggests reducing this principle's scope to TV news and current affairs programmes and broadcasters' own productions (produced by the broadcasters with their own resources or by their subsidiaries) and by explicitly excluding productions commissioned by independent producers. It adds a revision clause after two years. According to the information we have received, Germany, Finland, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Hungary, Belgium, Ireland, Poland, Latvia, United Kingdom, Romania and Estonia would be in favour of this revision clause. France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Greece and Slovakia, however, would be opposed to it.
Retransmission services covered by compulsory collective management (article 3). The text examined by the member states explains that all services by over the top operators (OTT) will have to, subject to certain conditions, go through collective management companies. The Bulgarian Presidency explains that these “safeguards” match the notion of “controlled environment” (authorised users and secure content) called for by the European Parliament. During the roundtable talks on 12 June, Italy, Poland, Spain, Slovakia and Portugal supported the Presidency’s text, while Germany and the Netherlands complained that the safeguards could prove cumbersome.
Direct injections (article 4a of Parliament mandate). The presidency text retains the idea of regulating the “direct injection” mechanism that allows broadcasters to directly retransmit their programmes to the retransmission networks. The Bulgarian document points out that “after the April meeting, it appears clear that a regulatory intervention on direct injection is an indispensable element from the European Parliament for reaching an agreement”. The text is therefore proposing to ensure that broadcasters obtain the authorisations needed and proceed to the necessary payments, whilst allowing the member states a certain amount of flexibility. Germany, the Netherlands and Slovakia were not pleased with this provision and they highlight the fact that there was no impact study in this regard. France is simply critical of the way in which it was worded, while Spain demands a definition of direct injection. Hungary has said openly that it is in favour of this new regulatory provision.
“Copyright” directive attracting all the attention. At this current juncture, no date for a trialogue has as yet been put forward by the new Austrian Presidency of the Council of the EU. The latter is quite clearly waiting for the plenary vote on the copyright section of the package before taking action (see EUROPE 11624). The MEPs have to decide whether they will put the judicial affairs committee's negotiating mandate back in to play on 5 July (see EUROPE 12052). (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)