Brussels, 28/05/2008 (Agence Europe) - After suspending the adoption of its draft recommendation at the end of 2006, the European Commission has reopened the file of private copying levies. On Tuesday 27 May, it brought together representatives of performers' organisations and the consumer electronics industry in a public hearing. European Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy suggested putting in place a permanent “forum” where stakeholders could work together to draw up a roadmap for the future development of the levies system. While all involved agree on the need for dialogue, the challenge is still great, given that there has been little change in the various stances and that they remain far apart.
The system in force, set up by directive 2001/29/EC on copyright, allows audiovisual material to be copied for private use but imposes levies on blank media (CDs and DVDs etc) and/or electronic players (MP3 players, printers, mobile, phones, hard disks). These levies are then paid to the performers through the royalties collecting societies to which they belong.
At the public hearing, everything was done not to open old wounds from previous battles. In his speech, Commissioner McCreevy avoided focusing on the lack of coherence in the way member states apply the current system, as he had done in the past. He also said that artists' right to compensation for use of their work could not be questioned. He said that the forum he proposed could deal with: - setting out “broad principles” on how levies could be calculated taking into account future technological developments; - clamping down on “free-riders”, companies which do not pay the levies; - improving the way levies are reimbursed once electronic equipment is exported to another member state where a new levy is collected.
On behalf of the European Information & Communications Technology Industry Association (EICTA), Mark MacGann said that the industry no longer challenged the legitimacy of the current rules, but would like to improve an unsound system that was not working. Given that the various players would be “forced” to meet again, he sought to be constructive in hoping for “dialogue between equals with no preconditions and no obligations”, with the principal aim of combating piracy, where criminals steal content for commercial ends, and the “grey market” which results in artists losing money. He said that in Austria 20% of levies were not collected. Calling for greater legal security for companies, MacGann said that some 40 cases related to the levies system were currently going through the German courts.
Collecting societies too, while also in favour of dialogue, were sticking to their guns. Dialogue was the “best way” of dealing with the issue of private copying levies, “rather than have the European Commission draw up and impose a legislative modal,” said Thierry Desurmont, Vice-President of SACEM (French Music Performers, Composers and Editors Society). He set out the principles for this dialogue: - the business that is founded on artistic creation should also help finance this creation; - private copying levies provide an essential framework for artistic property as applied in 21 member states; - levies are not an obstacle to the development of the internal market, to judge from consumer electronic industry turnover; - the expansion of the digital market does not make the system obsolete. “The situation is extremely serious for artists. This is not the moment to take any steps that will reduce their remuneration,” he said, with figures at the ready.
Within the European Parliament, the dividing line is just as clear between MEPs from member states which apply the levies system and those which don't. Jacques Toubon (EPP-ED, France) felt that levies were not an additional tax, but fair compensation of a right enjoyed by writers. Singers derive a third of their income from this system and writers 5%, he pointed out. He asked for proof that the current system created any competition distortion in the internal market. British Liberal Sharon Bowles, on the other hand, felt the system was too cumbersome, opaque and caused legal uncertainty for the industry. To make sure that it was not applied to electronic goods not used for private copying, she argued for levies to be paid at the point of consumption. Consumers, she said, are well aware of the differences in prices paid for the same product in the various member states. The real effect of levies on the final price of medium allowing private copying remains difficult to determine. (M.B.)