A watered-down image of reality. Europe's products and the fruits of its creativity will, in the future, be better protected against piracy, counterfeiting and unfair competition. This is due to an agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on the new directive reinforcing respect for intellectual property laws (for the parliamentary vote, see our bulletin of 10 March, pages 15/16), and to Council's adoption of a new directive making defence mechanisms against dumping and illegal subsidies more flexible and efficient (see Pascal Lamy's statements in our bulletin of 9 March, p.8).
This spells good news for European industry, but that's not all. Why? Because piracy and counterfeiting are a plague which far outweighs legitimate defence of producers' interests. We often get a watered-down image of the truth, which I would describe as "for the tourists": designer luxury or travel bags, elegant shirts and T-shirts, perfume, records, video tapes... The reality is a whole lot more dramatic. Counterfeit products extend much further than what's sold on the beach or on quaint little markets, or what's offered to passers-by on street corners in tourist towns. The counterfeiting industry has established itself in many other sectors, from medicines to food products, from car and 'plane parts to electrical devices. The consequences, sometimes, are terrifying for citizens, because organised crime, in several third countries and in Europe itself, controls an increasing share of this activity (where it finds greater profits than in selling drugs, said Toine Manders during the parliamentary debate), and it is certainly not overburdened by scruples. The wrong medicines could cause dreadful illnesses or death; as for fake food products, it's not just a question of taste or quality, but also of knowing what you're eating; sham car or 'plane parts could mean brakes that don't brake or 'planes that don't stop at the end of the runway and end up in the sea (which has already happened). An African country lost its entire annual coffee crop due to badly-imitated disinfectants. The effects of bogus cosmetics or phoney electrical appliances are less spectacular, but could be just as unwelcome. Obviously, we shouldn't neglect the "classic" consequences: loss of jobs and activity in Europe, a drop-off in creativity and quality, a deterioration in the perception of European brands, copied by poor-quality products.
A priority, despite reservations. I am well aware that some of the Left Wing is challenging aspects of the European directive (which will be finally approved next month), essentially concerning patents, Internet copies and provisions covering music and films. These aspects should, in their opinion, be tackled on their own (and I leave aside the row, which may seem justified on first sight, about the choice of rapporteur, Janelly Fourtou, whose husband is the CEO of Vivendi Universal). The European body representing consumers (BEUC) and other associations are unhappy with certain definitions, sometimes quite vociferously so (with demonstrations in Strasbourg). I think that these reservations should not block or delay the agreement, especially as provisions protecting private copying and taking account of certain criticisms have been retained, and many elements will be clarified at a later date. Given the circumstances, I feel that the correct position was that of the French Socialists, who did not hide their opposition to the provisions which they felt opened the door to an abusive use of patents, brands or copyright by multinationals, but who ended up voting for the directive, for three reasons: a) counterfeiting and piracy have become a world industry, managed by Mafia-type organisations which work like drugs- or weapons-trafficking networks; b) without a European legislative text, job losses will be heavy in the EU (counterfeiting costs 30,000 jobs in industry and 6,000 billion EUR); c) consumers must be protected, because all sectors are affected, including mass-consumption products, with huge risks to public health, safety and innovation.
What can I add to the text by the French delegation of the PES parliamentary group?
As for the new anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules, they do not change the substance of the European legislation, but improve and simplify the procedures and transparency behind decisions. The increasing opening of markets necessitates protection against abusive use, and many other measures, notably environmental ones, will be required. Pascal Lamy used figures to prove that the EU makes "moderate use" of trade defence instruments, and this will continue to be the case in the future. But unfair competition must be fought; this is a pre-condition for an open trade policy.
(F.R.)