[wos] Fwd: Copyright Term Extension Directive press release

[Volker Grassmuck]

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:

> Von: Martin Kretschmer <mkretsch at bournemouth.ac.uk>
> Datum: 11. März 2009 13:28:29 MEZ
> An: Martin Kretschmer <mkretsch at bournemouth.ac.uk>
> Betreff: RE: Copyright Term Extension Directive press release
>
> The final version is now available here (please delete older  
> versions):
>
> http://www.cippm.org.uk/copyright_term.html
>
> Please feel free to post and circulate.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Martin Kretschmer
> Sent: 10 March 2009 13:20
> To: Martin Kretschmer
> Subject: Copyright Term Extension Directive press release
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> This is probably the last update before the plenary vote in the  
> European Parliament on 23 March. Attached is a press release that  
> will go out tomorrow. If you have not seen it already, please check  
> that you are represented correctly.
>
> The JURI vote in February went with the rapporteur Brian Crawley  
> (McCreevy's mate) and Toubon (French Gaullist, EPP shadow for this  
> directive). Not surprising, and immediately covered by a press  
> release: "Music copyright to be extended to 95 years". Good politics.
>
> In the Council of Ministers, the Czech presidency has now put  
> forward a compromise of 70 years, and the UK apparently has  
> suggested at the 3 March meeting making the transitional measures  
> permanent, and to extend use-it-or-lose-it to the existing term.
> Opposition to any extension is still coming from the Nordic  
> countries, Belgium and Italy.
>
> A response by academics to the UK government's U-turn on Gowers is  
> here:
> http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/news/article.php?section=25&article=889
>
> For the EP plenary, one needs to reach the Groups/Parties as they  
> have not yet discussed the directive in their working groups. The  
> JURI vote is no indicator of general approval yet, and there is  
> realistic hope that EP and Council will not agree at first reading  
> on a common text. If it goes to second reading, it will move into  
> the next Parliament.
>
>> From the Commission I hear that many officials in DG Market are not  
>> committed to the proposed directive, and that with a new Commission  
>> after June, everything may be back in play.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
> ________________________________________
> From: Martin Kretschmer
> Sent: 21 January 2009 21:09
> To: Martin Kretschmer
> Subject: RE: Copyright Term Extension Directive
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Another update is due.
>
> The procedures in the European Parliament and in the Council are  
> reaching their decisive moment.
>
> On Monday, January 26th is a meeting of the Council where all member  
> states for the first time formally reveal their national positions.
>
> On Wednesday or Thursday, February 11th or 12th, JURI votes on a  
> total of 106 amendments which include rejection, inclusion of audio- 
> visual, reversion of rights from extension to performers, and some  
> blatant IFPI stooges (such as allowing labels to deduct costs before  
> the 20% “social fund” rule applies, and removing use-it-or-loose-it).
>
> As I understand it, the JURI vote decides which amendments will go  
> to the plenary.
>
> In a positive move, which almost surprised us, the Technology  
> Committee ITRE (Industry, Research, Energy) on 11 December adopted  
> the amendments tabled by the Greens (drafted by Bently, Pollock and  
> myself). They all are now tabled in JURI.
>
> Within JURI, there is a small chance as the Socialists are split,  
> and EPP (centre right) also have dissidents. A delay is certainly  
> possible which would enable the sceptical Czech presidency to move  
> the Directive past the European elections in June.
>
> Rufus Pollock and I will be in the European Parliament next Tuesday  
> (27th) for a conference organised by OpenRights and the Greens.
> http://soundcopyright.eventbrite.com/
>
> This is perhaps the last opportunity to influence wavering MEPs. A  
> swing of only a few votes in JURI could kill the Directive.
> OpenRights is offering to consider travel costs for those of you who  
> want to come at this short notice (in particular if you represent an  
> organisation). I hear representatives of the Czech presidency will  
> attend too. Please contact Gavin Hill: gavin at openrightsgroup.org
>
> Alternatively, writing to MEPs in JURI can be effective. The list is  
> hear: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/membersCom.do?language=EN&body=JURI
> Once you worked out how the e-mails are constructed, you can also  
> reach the members who withhold their address.
>
> Lastly, many of you will have seen the UK Secretary of State for  
> Culture, Media and Sport’s attempt to raise his profile. It is a  
> good read.
> Gowers:
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba280756-ca07-11dd-93e5-000077b07658.html
> Burnham:
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ca0a7c6-cadd-11dd-87d7-000077b07658.html
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
>
> PS. No publication of this e-mail until the JURI vote.
> ________________________________________
> From: Martin Kretschmer
> Sent: 28 November 2008 15:12
> To: Martin Kretschmer
> Subject: Copyright Term Extension Directive
>
> Copyright Extension Directive
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Many of you have asked for an update. The process has become so  
> complex that it is hard to provide a short summary.
>
> Both European Parliament and Council of Ministers have to agree a  
> joint text. The procedures run in parallel.
>
> In the Council of Ministers, the French Presidency is pushing very  
> hard to come to an agreement at the Competitiveness Council next  
> week but there is considerable resistance. Only Estonia and Cyprus  
> appear to have come out in favour. I believe an official ‘against’  
> position is recorded from Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Finland,  
> Sweden – and a position ‘something for performers but not in this  
> form’ from UK, Poland, Belgium.
>
> It is very likely that the Directive will be pushed into the Czech  
> presidency which takes over in January (and will be much less keen).
>
> In the European Parliament, the lead committee is Legal Affairs  
> (JURI). The rapporteur is Brian Crowley, an Irish party colleague of  
> McCreevy, and strongly in favour. Feeding committees (which all can  
> propose amendments) are Culture and Education (CULT), Industry,  
> Research and Energy (ITRE), and Internal Market and Consumer  
> Protection (IMCO).
>
> Lionel Bently (who spoke as invited expert) and I both attended the  
> JURI public hearing on 4 November. I attach Lionel’s address.
>
> Tilman Lüder, head of the Copyright Unit at DG Market made a heated  
> statement, attacking the joint academic position. He was subject to  
> a point of order.
>
> IFPI has been mounting a sustained operation, and we saw numerous  
> industry lobbyists a work. In return, Open Rights made a valiant  
> effort, and Open Rights’ sound copyright campaign is still a key  
> ally (http://www.soundcopyright.eu).
>
> Several MEP assistants told me that they had received offers for  
> concert tickets of famous artists. All the rapporteurs of the  
> feeding committees had been cultivated, and wrote supportive reports  
> BEFORE the public hearing (mostly asking for an inclusion of audio- 
> visual performers). Within committee politics, rejection did not  
> seem an option to most MEPs we spoke to. For MEPs it is troublesome  
> that performer organisations speak in favour of extension. Critical  
> MEPs lack a publicly persuasive lobby partner.
>
> The feeding committees will vote in early December. Rufus Pollock,  
> Lionel Bently and I have fed a number of amendments to receptive  
> MEPs. There also have been moves from the European broadcasters  
> (mandatory collective administration for extended term as applying  
> to digital broadcasting archives). It has to be said that the  
> broadcast lobbyists woke up much too late.
>
> The only openly sceptical parliamentary group are the Greens. Sharon  
> Bowles (liberal/ALDE MEP in JURI) is making an effort with a set of  
> amendments, linking extension to a registration system for instances  
> of inadequate remuneration for the performer (administered via OHIM,  
> the European Trade Mark Office in Alicante, and subject to licences  
> as of right). EPP (centre right) and PES (socialists) as  
> parliamentary groups appear to support 95 years.
>
> The best we can hope for in the European Parliament is that there  
> are enough irreconcilable amendments voted through in ITRE (11  
> December), so that JURI (scheduled vote 19/20 January) will ask for  
> more time, or an independent study.
>
> As we stand, a plenary vote is scheduled for February. Any spanner  
> in the works may take us into the next parliament and a new  
> commission (European elections: 4 June).
>
> In the UK, DCMS is still sitting on the fence, but DIUS is holding  
> the line (backed by Cabinet Office).
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7749416.stm
>
> Lastly, I attach a set of three amendments (mainly in Lionel  
> Bently's words) that may form the nucleus of an acceptable way  
> forward (if there is a stalemate between Council and Parliament).  
> The basic idea is to give an extension to performers only (life or  
> 50 years, the current Greek law), and address the access issues via  
> collecting societies. In addition, we propose a use-it-or-lose-it  
> provision during the current term. This third amendment needs some  
> work on procedure for recovering rights.
>
> In summary, everything hangs in a delicate balance. Any appearance  
> of dissent in the media will be important.
>
>
> --
> Martin Kretschmer
> Professor of Information Jurisprudence
> Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management
> Bournemouth University
> Talbot Campus, Poole
> UK - Dorset BH12 5BB
> Tel: +44 (0)1202 965369
> Fax: +44 (0)1202 965261
> Email: mkretsch at bournemouth.ac.uk
> URL: www.cippm.org.uk
> --
>
> Primary Sources project:
> www.copyrighthistory.org
>
>
> The UK's no. 1 new university
> The Guardian University Guide 2009
>
> This email is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed  
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this  
> email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email,  
> which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other  
> person.
> Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and  
> do not necessarily represent those of Bournemouth University or its  
> subsidiary companies. Nor can any contract be formed on behalf of  
> the University or its subsidiary companies via email.
>
>

---

http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck/