IGEL - RSS-Feed http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/feed de Two more EP Committies gang up against free linking http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-12/two-more-ep-committies-gang-up-against-free-linking <p><body> <p> After the European Parliament's Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) voted on its opinion on the new Copyright Directive a month ago, it were the Committees for Culture and Education (CULT) and for Industry, Research and Energy (IRTE) that both had their turns yesterday. The result: the suggestion of an even worse ancillary copyright for press publishers.</p> <p> <strong>Mediocre starting position</strong></p> <p> Regarding the CULT's vote it was of little to no surprise that the European Commission's initial proposal for an ancillary copyright a.k.a. link tax appealed to the majority of MEPs. The draft opinion that had been prepared by the elected rapporteur Marc Joulaud (EPP) did already strongly favour the introduction of a new publisher's right. However, the outcome is nevertheless shocking because the Commission's proposal was not only approved but also changed for the worse!</p> <p> In the case of the ITRE, the starting position looked a bit better as elected rapporteur Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR) proposed a change away from the publishers' right to the presumption that an author had transferred his rights onto the publishers. This would enable the latter to negotiate licence agreements and to fight infringements much easier while at the same time the freedom of the net would be maintained.</p> <p> Tragically, in both Committees the good and fair amendments failed miserably to prevail against the destructive and hypocritical ones.</p> <p> <strong>What was decided?</strong></p> <p> Both Committees' opinions want to expand the publishers' right's scope. Instead of applying to digital uses only, every use of publishers' texts shall be covered be it offline or online. Combined with the untouched Article 18(2) which states that the link tax shall also apply to all press publications published in the past, this would deeply damage the freedom of information.</p> <p> But there are exceptions to it, right? Well, the ITRE also wants to get rid of the exception for scientific and academic papers. Organisations like the International Association for Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) <a href="http://www.stm-assoc.org/2016_09_14_News_Release_STM_response_to_Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Single_Digital_Market.pdf">lobbied hard</a> for their goal to not be excluded from the publishers' right. Although this might sound good at first glance, the consequence will be that people stop linking to these papers as they fear they have to pay a remuneration. This would be a hard blow to all open access initiatives and the free spread of knowledge.</p> <p> The CULT wants a new exception to the link tax to be added that raises a tremendous amount of questions and thus only creates legal uncertainty:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>"The rights granted under this Directive should be without prejudice to the authors’ rights and should not apply to the legitimate uses of press publications by individual users acting in a private and non-commercial capacity."</em></p> </blockquote> <p> What is the definition of a "legitimate use" and whose decision will it be? The publishers'? When can the sharing of a link be regarded as private or non-commercial? Is it private when I share a link on a publicly accessible website? Is it non-commercial when I post a link on a website or platform that has ads?</p> <p> The addition continues:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>The protection granted to press publications under this Directive should apply to content automatically generated by an act of hyperlinking related to a press publication without prejudice to the legitimate use of quotations.</em></p> </blockquote> <p> So we shall not be allowed to share a link when this automatically triggers the display of a snippet? What exactly is the harm to the publishers caused by this? Are they not able to handle all the additional viewers they receive? Do they really think any company will continue to make use of this technique when they have to pay for it?</p> <p> <strong>Any hope?</strong></p> <p> The information of freedom is not yet lost. The Committee in charge of the European Parliament's final text is the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) which will have its final vote on 10th October 2017. Other Committees' opinions only provide something like a "specialized expertise" (although it does not look like this). Unfortunately, the new rapporteur of the JURI is a <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-07-09/parliaments-largest-group-fully-endorse-commissions-proposal-link-tax">strong advocate</a> of the new publishers' right. So don't stop to raise your voice and call your representatives!</p> <p></p></body></p> CULT ITRE committee copyright Europe European Parliament proposal Reform Creative Commons Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:42:14 +0000 Tom Hirche 2373 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Parliament's largest group to fully endorse Commission's proposal for a link tax http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-09/parliaments-largest-group-to-fully-endorse-commissions-proposal-for-a-link-tax <p><body> <p> The European Commission's proposal for an ancillary copyright for press publishers has received a tremendous amount of criticism from many MEPs of all groups of the European Parliament. But now the largest group, the European People's Party (EPP), has adopted a joint position that fully supports the Commission's line while ignoring the European people's voices and all academic advice.</p> <p> <strong>Strong opposition in the Parliament</strong></p> <p> Although the EPP cannot be described as the greatest opposer of the Commission's proposal, there is a number of MEPs that have tabled various amendments to delete the ancillary copyright also known as the link tax, e.g. Andrea Bocskor or Pavel Svoboda. The most prominent was Therese Comodini Cachia. She was not only Member of the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) but also its elected rapporteur and thus responsible for the Parliament’s reaction to the Commission’s copyright reform proposal.</p> <p> In <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-03-20/official-version-comodini-report-published">her report</a>, she recommended to eliminate the link tax and instead grant publishers</p> <blockquote><p> <em>a presumption of representation of authors of literary works [...] and the legal capacity to sue in [the publisher's] own name when defending the rights of such authors for the digital use of their press publications.</em></p> </blockquote> <p> This is a fair compromise between the users' need for a free internet and the publishers' demand to fight alleged online piracy (see also <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2016-11-23/how-solve-only-specific-problem-press-publishers-copyright-without-ancillary-copyright">our suggestions</a> for such a solution).</p> <p> <strong>New rapporteur, old lies</strong></p> <p> The bad news is, the JURI has not yet voted on Cachia's report and sadly a few days ago, she announced to step down from all of her positions and to return to her home country Malta. The even worse news is that the German MEP Axel Voss took her position in the JURI. He alone has tabled 22 (!) amendments to the Commission's proposal in the past, each of them with the clear goal to further extend the publishers' right no matter how harmful it will be to the freedom of information.</p> <p> During his first days, he already managed to convince his colleagues to adopt a shocking joint position:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>[T]he EPP is in favour of a genuine right for press publishers as proposed by the Commission in Art. 11.</em></p> </blockquote> <p> They not only just copy the position but also repeat the same nonsense:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>The EPP Group has strong concerns that the growth of traditional media in the digital sphere is challenged by some news aggregators and online service providers that develop their activities by using right-holders' content without contributing to sustain the investment in its creation [...]</em></p> </blockquote> <p> We have heard this accusation so many times but this does not make any bit more correct. All over Europe, an author's text is protected by copyright and legal actions can be taken against any infringement - if there is one. But news aggregators and other online service providers do not copy the texts. They only show the headline plus a few words (which, at least in the case of Google, could be prevented easily) which is not copyright relevant in the very most cases. Their contribution is to guide millions of users to publishers' websites. That is a pretty heavy one as visitors mean money through advertising.</p> <p> But the joint position does not stop here:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>The EPP is of the opinion that a specific right for publishers provides more legal certainty regarding licensing and enforcement of rights.</em></p> </blockquote> <p> It is very unclear how the EPP came to this opinion without ignoring all facts. The link tax as proposed by the Commission is highly unclear in various points and thus does not provide any legal certainty at all. Also, the situation right now is pretty clear: aggregators either do not need a license because they only show a few words (snippets) or they do need one because they infringe on the authors'/publishers' copyright. What the link tax will do is giving the publishers the new possibility to charge online service providers for showing snippets. This is what they want but not dare to say. Instead, they try to cover up their real intention with a variety of lies and allegations.</p> <p> <strong>German conservatives all the way</strong></p> <p> For some reason, there are several politicians who ignore all scientific evidence and academic advice when it comes to the link tax. Interestingly, it is always German conservative that try to make publishers a big, big present. First, it was Commissioner Günther Oettinger who proposed his <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2016-06-15/beware-neighbouring-right-publishers-ancillary-copyright-steroids-potential-consequences-general-nei">ancillary copyright on steroids</a> roughly a year ago. Now it is Axel Voss who takes the reins and tries to finish what was started. Even if this means pressing others to vote against their belief and to make a fatal decision.</p> <p></p></body></p> Axel Voss EPP European Commission European Parliament proposal Reform statement Creative Commons Sun, 09 Jul 2017 15:47:54 +0000 Tom Hirche 2372 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Google's design changes might soon end all lawsuits http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-03/googles-design-changes-might-soon-end-all-lawsuits <p><body> <p> German courts have to deal with a variety of lawsuits that involve the German ancillary copyright for press publishers. But Google's design changes might bringt a sudden end.</p> <p> <a href="https://www.blog.google/topics/journalism-news/redesigning-google-news-everyone/">On its blog</a>, the company has announced several changes to the desing of Google News. The new UI is said to "<em>make news more accessible and easier to navigate</em>". What immediatly strikes the viewers attention is what cannot be seen anymore: Google obviously decided to remove the snippets. Although not explicitly said, it can be assumed that the ongoing legal battles and the possible introduction of a link tax on European level played a major role in this decision.</p> <p></p></body></p> Google Google News Snippet Creative Commons Mon, 03 Jul 2017 21:18:38 +0000 Tom Hirche 2371 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Cheap trick shall make us think the Spanish link tax works http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-03/cheap-trick-shall-make-us-think-the-spanish-link-tax-works <p><body> <p> The Spanish link tax is indeed no success story. All it "achieved" so far is the permanent shutdown of Google News Spain which led to a large drop in publishers' site views while not accumulating a single euro. Although this situation will change with the just closed deal, it first and foremost tries to shamelessly fool us into thinking that the link tax is actually working.</p> <p> Both Germany and Spain have introduced their ancillary copyrights for press publishers but with slightly different mechanisms. Under the Spanish version news aggregators have to pay levies when they link to articles by displaying news snippets in search results. Different from Germany, the royalty claims are inalienable, i.e. cannot be waived in Spain. So the idea is: aggregators must pay when they bring a user to a news publisher's website.</p> <p> Very unsurprisingly, it did not go as planned. Since the 1st January 2015, when the law came into force against all protests and warnings, it did not generate any income for the publishers (of which <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-03-24/opposition-against-link-tax-gets-big-ally-spain">not everyone is pro link tax</a>). Google News Spain <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/google-news-shuts-shop-spain-thanks-ancillary-copyright-law">did close its doors</a> a few days before and no other news aggregator has concluded a deal with the Spanish copyright collecting society called Reproduction Rights Centre (<a href="http://www.cedro.org/english">CEDRO</a>).</p> <p> At least this was the situation until last Tuesday, when CEDRO <a href="http://www.eldiario.es/economia/Cedro-acuerdo-Google-agregador-noticias_0_658984615.html">announced</a> that it has reached an agreement with the German news aggregator Upday. Good for the publishers you think? Well, you could most certainly say so! Upday <a href="http://www.axelspringer.de/en/presse/UPDAY-starts-in-ten-more-European-countries-with-the-launch-of-the-Samsung-Galaxy-S8_31415489.html">is owned</a> by the German publishing conglomerate <a href="http://www.axelspringer.de/en/index.html">Axel Springer SE</a> which is the intellectual father of the ancillary copyright for press publishers in Germany and one of its strongest advocates not only on a national but also on EU level. This means that effectively not a single euro will be generated because the company that pays the fee is the same that benefits from the payment. It is a classical "left pocket, right pocket" transaction.</p> <p> So what is the reason for the agreement? CEDRO, the Axel Springer SE and other supporters of a link tax will use this deal as (pseudo) precedence to make everyone believe the Spanish link tax has not failed and aggregators are actually willing to pay while Google is abusing its market power. But the whole agreement is nothing more than a cheap trick that is easy to expose. An ancillary copyright for press publishers does not work in practice and never will.</p> <p></p></body></p> Axel Springer CEDRO Upday collecting society Spain tariff Creative Commons Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:54:52 +0000 Tom Hirche 2370 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Ansip only believes in surveys that confirm his view http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-02/ansip-only-believes-in-surveys-that-confirm-his-view <p><body> <p> The European Commission regularly makes use of surveys to gather a wide array of opinions from various stakeholders. But when the result does not meet the preconceived view, its relevance will simply be denied, as it seems.</p> <p> <strong>Successful public consultation</strong></p> <p> From 23 March until 15 June 2016, the European Commission held its <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Consultation_Copyright?surveylanguage=EN">public consultation</a> on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain and on the 'panorama exception'. It included 16 questions on the role of (press) publishers and the possible impact of a new neighbouring right for them. Hereby, the Commission wanted to scrutinize the necessity of such an intervention in the different publishing sectors.</p> <p> Everybody, from individual persons to organisations, was welcomed to take the survey. In the end, a total of 6203 replies were received with 2791 of them gathered by the #FixCopyright campaign that was initiated by Copyright for Creativity. Coming from almost every Member State of the EU, 3957 participants answered the questions on publishers. The replies can be looked up on the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/synopsis-reports-and-contributions-public-consultation-role-publishers-copyright-value-chain">website of the European Commission</a>.</p> <p> For a quick overview on the results of the consultation, the Commission has issued a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2016-37/synopsis_report_-_publishers_-_final_17048.pdf">synopsis report</a> on the publishers section that summarizes the replies and assorts them depending on the specific category of respondent. According to the report, "<em>[t]he majority of consumer, users and their organisations expressed reservations as regards the possible introduction of a neighbouring right.</em>" The ability to link, share and access freely available content was seen threatened. The already existing publisher's rights in Germany and Spain were "<em>often quoted as negative examples</em>" and some consumer expected the prices for cultural products to rise.</p> <p> <strong>Mixed reception by consumer organisations?</strong></p> <p> However, the report also states that "<em>some consumer organisations recognised that a neighbouring right could have a positive impact on the quality of press content and in terms of media pluralism.</em>" This is surprising, given that such a bold statement has only been publicly made by those publishers who for several years now aggressively lobby for their new right.</p> <p> MEP <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/de/96603/NESSA_CHILDERS_home.html">Nessa Childers</a> (S&amp;D, Ireland) seems to have thought the same and thus <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2017-003148+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&amp;language=EN">prepared two questions</a> for the Commission. The first one is:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>Could the Commission indicate what share of consumer organisations’ submissions recognised this potential positive impact?</em></p> </blockquote> <p> Now we finally have the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2017-003148&amp;language=EN">answer by</a> the current European Commissioner for Digital Single Market and Vice President of the European Commission Andrus Ansip. He explains that the abovementioned statement belongs to The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) which currently represents 43 consumer organisations from 31 European countries. Ansip says that BEUC "<em>expressed overall concern as to the possible introduction of a publisher right but also mentioned the stimulation of content production as a possible argument in favour of such introduction.</em>"</p> <p> Although BEUC is an umbrella group for consumer organisations all over Europe, it does not represent all of its members in this case. At least the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv) <a href="http://www.vzbv.de/pressemitteilung/grosse-enttaeuschung-ueber-die-vorschlaege-zum-europaeischen-urheberrecht">described the Commission's plans</a> for a copyright reform as a "<em>big disappointment</em>" that worked through the publishers' wish list. Therefore, the synopsis phrase "<em>some consumer organisations</em>" has to be treated with high caution.</p> <p> <strong>Opposing opinion = no relevance</strong></p> <p> MEP Childers second question is:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>Could the Commission further indicate how many submissions from such organisations expressed reservations or concerns about the introduction of the neighbouring right, as well as the share of submissions from ‘users/consumers/citizens’ that expressed reservations or concerns about this right?</em></p> </blockquote> <p> What Ansip replies is a strong statement against the introduction of a new publisher's right: "<em>around 94% of individual consumers and 81% of the organisations who responded indicated a potential negative impact.</em>" Although a more detailed breakdown of the numbers would have been helpful and interesting (What exactly is meant by "the organisations"?), the result of the public consultation clearly is that the vast majority of participants rejects the Commission's plan.</p> <p> But Ansip is obviously not happy with this outcome:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>Public consultations are for the Commission an essential tool to inform its policy-making. However, the Commission adopts a cautious approach to quantitative data, as responses to consultations are generally not statistically representatives of a target population.</em></p> </blockquote> <p> He simply denies the consultation its relevance although - or rather because - the almost three months long process aggregated several thousand voices against a publisher's right. So this has all been basically for nothing because the Commission's pre-established view has not been confirmed. What makes this even more absurd is the fact that the Commission always asks its critics for numbers and empirical findings. But when confronted with its own findings, they shall not be worth anything?</p> <p> What remains is the question where the Commission has hidden the statistically representative survey that endorses the introduction of a new neighbouring right for publishers. Or do they really just fulfil the publishers' wishes without looking left and right?</p> <p></p></body></p> Andrus Ansip BEUC European Commission Nessa Childers copyright European Union public consultation publisher Reform survey Creative Commons Sun, 02 Jul 2017 17:30:24 +0000 Tom Hirche 2369 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Rogue members try to hijack LIBE Committee http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-06-14/rogue-members-try-to-hijack-libe-committee <p><body> <p> Almost a month ago, in mid May 2017, the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&amp;reference=PE-604.830&amp;format=PDF&amp;language=EN&amp;secondRef=01">draft opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)</a> on the EU-Commission's proposal for a <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-593-EN-F1-1.PDF">new copyright directive</a> has officially been published. As things just turned out, some hardliners suddenly want to amend it so that it will be strongly in favour of an ancillary copyright for press publishers.</p> <p> The initial draft opinion was authored by LIBE Committee's rapporteur Michał Boni (EPP, Poland). The LIBE Committee is responsible for the protection of civil liberties as well as human rights and particularly deals with data protection issues. Thus it is not surprising that it was agreed on to focus solely on article 13 and recitals 38, 39 which deal with upload filtering by internet service providers – a topic that clearly falls into the sphere of the LIBE Committee.</p> <p> But some MEPs seem to totally ignore this agreement and stab their chair in the back (with some being in the same group as Boni). They tabled a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-606.057%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN">couple of amendments</a> to the draft opinion that suddenly address the question of a new publishers' right (see article 11 and recitals 31–35). And to make matters worse, these MEPs want to further extend the absurdity of this right.</p> <p> For example, MEP Axel Voss (EPP, Germany) wants to add wording saying that news aggregators and providers of search engines "have increasingly developed their activities and are making profit from the content of press publishers. These profits are not shared fairly with the creators and publishers." This completely ignores the <a href="http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2016-10-07/verlage-zeigt-her-eure-klicks">vast numbers of viewers</a> that are guided to the publishers' websites by these service providers who rely on this symbiosis. Additionally, Voss wants to expand the scope of the publishers' right to cover analogue uses and aims to clarify that the right "should also apply where the content is automatically generated by, for example, news aggregators."</p> <p> Further amendments come from MEPs Gérard Deprez (ALDE, Belgium), Louis Michel (ALDE, Belgium) and Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE, France). They also want the publishers' right to get applied to analogue uses and additionally strive for the deletion of the exemption concerning periodical academic/scientific publications. On top of that, Deprez and Michel think that a protection term of 20 years is too short and thus prefer a ridiculous long term of 50 years.</p> <p> All these issues have nothing to do with the protection of human rights or civil liberties which makes the LIBE Committee the wrong forum to proclaim them. The proposed publishers' right rather threatens the freedom of information. But the four MEPs have obviously surprised their colleagues with their rogue move as MEP Cornelia Ernst (GUE-NGL, Germany) is the only one that fights against them by demanding the complete deletion of article 11.</p> <p> That is why we need everybody to reach out to their representatives in the LIBE Committee not only to tell them how terrible the amendments of Voss et al. are but also how absurd the whole idea of a publishers' right is. You can find a list of members with links to their profiles with contact information <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/members.html">right here</a>.</p> <p></p></body></p> Axel Voss Gérard Deprez Jean-Marie Cavada LIBE Louis Michel Michał Boni Committee opinion copyright draft opinion European Parliament Reform Creative Commons Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:29:19 +0000 Tom Hirche 2368 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info IMCO supports link tax – several MEPs did not attend the vote http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-06-08/imco-supports-link-tax-several-meps-did-not-attend-the-vote <p><body> <p> This morning, the European Parliament's Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) voted on the Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive (<a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2016/0280(COD)&amp;l=en">2016/0280(COD)</a>) as the first of five committees. The outcome is of great significance to the other votes that are yet to come. Unfortunately, the ancillary copyright for press publishers is still very much alive.</p> <p> <strong>Link tax stays the same</strong></p> <p> The so-called DSM-directive was proposed by the European Commission in last year's September. For a few months now it has been and is still extensively discussed in several committees of the European Parliament. However, the various MEPs of the IMCO Committee could not agree on an own opinion in terms of the ancillary copyright for press publishers a.k.a. the link tax.</p> <p> Each and every of the 22 submitted amendments dealing with article 11 of the Commission's proposal – this article contains the ancillary copyright – were rejected. That was done despite the fact that Rapporteur MEP Catherine Stihler (S&amp;D) prepared a <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-02-24/european-parliament-committee-demands-abolish-ancillary-copyright">sound and balanced draft opinion</a> of the IMCO Committee. It was aimed at ditching article 11 completely and backed by every political group except the EPP. Nevertheless, Stihler's draft opinion was unfortunately not adopted with the result that the IMCO Committee now supports the introduction of a link tax almost exactly as the European Commission had proposed it.</p> <p> <strong>Little joy and plenty sorrow</strong></p> <p> Although article 11 itself remains as terrible as it has always been, a few other amendments have been adopted. The MEPs at least deleted the retroactive application of the ancillary copyright which was provided for by article 18. They also expanded the scope of the exception provision in recital 33 to now cover "acts of a computation referencing or indexing system such as hyperlinking".</p> <p> But that is enough with the good news. What the MEPs also agreed on was to change recital 31 so that it now heavily criticizes news aggregators and search engines for posing "a severe threat to the employment and fair remuneration of journalists and the future of media pluralism". A German regional court <a href="http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2016-02-19/leistungsschutzrecht-vor-landgericht-berlin-update">has already ruled</a> that the relation between search engines and publishers is a win-win-situation and publishing houses <a href="http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2016-10-07/verlage-zeigt-her-eure-klicks">have clarified</a> that they would profit from digital platforms. And what happens when they are forced to shut down <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2014-12-19/spanish-publishers-want-google-back-and-ask-help">could be watched in Spain</a> after the introduction of their link tax.</p> <p> Even more shockingly, due to the agreed on change of recital 32 the whole scope of article 11 gets extended to cover not only digital uses but also print. This is just absurd. If the publishers really only want to be enabled to more easily fight alleged massive online piracy, a mere <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2016-11-23/how-solve-only-specific-problem-press-publishers-copyright-without-ancillary-copyright">presumption of representation</a> would have been completely enough.</p> <p> <strong>How could this happen?</strong></p> <p> The IMCO Committee has a total of 40 members plus another 40 substitute members. Still, the voting result only lists 19 votes for, seven against and six abstentions. Luckily, MEP Pascal Arimont's (EPP) completely unreasonable "<a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-05-31/alternative-compromise-could-hardly-be-worse">alternative compromise</a>" was not even put to vote as it did not find the necessary support. But there had been several amendments that could have been adopted if more MEPs were there. The complete left GUE/NGL group and half of the ECR group <a href="https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/872739139875196932">were missing</a>. They might have good reasons for their absence, but in many cases it has been a very tight vote so that the presence of only a few more members could have made the difference. However, the outcome clearly shows that much more work needs to be done to convince our representatives to not destroy the internet but to enact fair and reasonable rules for the good of the people of Europe.</p> <p></p></body></p> European Parliament IMCO directive draft opinion proposal vote Creative Commons Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:06:15 +0000 Tom Hirche 2367 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info New paper discusses publisher's right – "unnecessary and dangerous" http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-06-01/new-paper-discusses-publishers-right-unnecessary-and-dangerous <p><body> <p> With the support of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (<a href="https://www.ccianet.org/">CCIA</a>), the European Policy Centre (<a href="http://www.epc.eu/">EPC</a>) has published a new <a href="http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_7712_rewardingqualityjournalismordistortingthedsm.pdf">discussion paper</a> titled "Rewarding quality journalism or distorting the Digital Single Market? The case for and against neighbouring rights for press publishers". It is divided into an economy analysis (part I) and a legal analysis (part II).</p> <p> <strong>The economic goals will not be achieved</strong></p> <p> After specifying the Commission's motives for introducing a new publisher's right ("fairer marketplace", "value sharing", financing quality journalism etc.), the paper explains why the proposed goals will not be achieved. The examples from Germany and Spain showed that economic benefits had not been brought "to any of the actors involved (creators, publishers, search engines, news aggregators or users)." They also had not supported quality journalism and even had led to a reduction of competition, consumer "surpluses" and media plurality. Therefore, the authors fear a decrease of freedom of expression, media pluralism and incentives for investment in the media sector at EU level.</p> <p> It is also pointed out that the regulations in Germany and Spain have not been a "source of revenue for the industry". With that said "it would be a risky experiment to act at EU level in the hope of getting different results with a similar legislative instrument." This is why the authors recommend to consider economic measures instead of legal instruments like "reduced taxes (e.g. VAT) for the publishing sector."</p> <p> <strong>Confusion and uncertainty</strong></p> <p> The paper strongly criticizes that the draft proposal does not clarify the relation between the journalist's copyright and the publisher's new right. This would create "a risk that employees or freelance authors will lose their right to compensation. Is it really worth it?"</p> <p> Also unclear is the precise subject matter of the new right:</p> <blockquote><p> If we take the example of a commercial phonogram, it is easy to identify the producer's right (on the fixation of the sequence of sounds), the author's right (on the musical composition) and the performer's right (on the performance). But what about here? How can we distinguish between the author's right (i.e. the journalist's right) and/or the right (s)he transfers to the press publisher) from the neighbouring right part?</p> </blockquote> <p> In the end, the authors conclude that the publisher's right would threaten the future of online services which "would clearly have negative consequences for the pluralism of information" and consequently " might even reduce the economic benefits for all stakeholders involved."</p> <p></p></body></p> CCIA copyright paper Reform Creative Commons Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:25:12 +0000 Tom Hirche 2366 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info The "Alternative Compromise" could hardly be worse http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-05-31/the-alternative-compromise-could-hardly-be-worse <p> In her just published&nbsp;<a href="https://juliareda.eu/2017/05/alternative-compromise/">blog post</a>, MEP Julia Reda (Greens/EFA) draws attention to the alarming developments within the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (<a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/imco/home.html">IMCO</a>) Committee. Instead of joining the committee's internal negotiations, Belgian MEP Pascal Arimont (EPP) is currently gathering support for his own &quot;<a href="https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/arimont-alternative-compromises.pdf">Alternative Compromise Amendment on Publisher’s Right</a>&quot; which is the worst we have seen so far in this debate. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-05-31/the-alternative-compromise-could-hardly-be-worse" title="Den Rest von The &quot;Alternative Compromise&quot; could hardly be worse lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> European Parliament IMCO Pascal Arimont copyright Europe Reform Creative Commons Wed, 31 May 2017 18:20:22 +0000 Tom Hirche 2365 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Welcome Copybuzz! http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-05-10/welcome-copybuzz <p> If you feel confused and/or want to know what is going on with copyright these and the coming days, there is a new website just for you: <a href="http://copybuzz.com/">CopyBuzz</a>!&nbsp;It was launched at this year's <a href="https://re-publica.com/en/17/session/copybuzz-how-copyright-breaking-internet">re:publica</a> and is supported by the <a href="http://copyright4creativity.eu/">Copyright for Creativity</a> (C4C), the&nbsp;coalition that seeks an informed debate on how copyright can more effectively promote innovation, access, and creativity. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-05-10/welcome-copybuzz" title="Den Rest von Welcome Copybuzz! lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> C4C copyright launch website Creative Commons Wed, 10 May 2017 08:03:10 +0000 Tom Hirche 2364 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info EuGH wird über deutsches Leistungsschutzrecht entscheiden http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-05-10/eugh-wird-ber-deutsches-leistungsschutzrecht-entscheiden <p> Die rechtliche Auseinandersetzung zwischen Google und der VG Media wird um ein neues Kapitel ergänzt, bevor das aktuelle abgeschlossen wird. Zunächst wird der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) entscheiden müssen, ob das deutsche Leistungsschutzrecht überhaupt anwendbar ist. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-05-10/eugh-wird-ber-deutsches-leistungsschutzrecht-entscheiden" title="Den Rest von EuGH wird über deutsches Leistungsschutzrecht entscheiden lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Google Landgericht Berlin VG Wort Gesetz Notifizierung Snippets Creative Commons Wed, 10 May 2017 03:09:23 +0000 Tom Hirche 2360 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Streitgespräch auf der re:publica http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-05-09/streitgespr-ch-auf-der-re-publica <p> Am heutigen Dienstag diskutieren auf der Bühne 5 der re:publica Dr. Till Kreutzer und Prof. Dr. Thomas Höppner über das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger. Ohne Moderation wird es dabei zu einem offenen Schlagabtausch der Argumente kommen – wobei für uns jetzt schon feststeht, wer überzeugender sein wird. Dennoch sind wir gespannt, was Professor Höppner, einer der (sehr wenigen) Befürworter eines solchen Leistungsschutzrechtes, vortragen wird. Schaut es euch am besten live an!</p> Dr. Till Kreutzer Prof. Dr. Thomas Höppner Diskussion Veranstaltung Creative Commons Tue, 09 May 2017 13:49:46 +0000 Tom Hirche 2359 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Breiter Widerstand im Europäischen Parlament gegen Presse-Leistungsschutzrecht http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-04-18/breiter-widerstand-im-europ-ischen-parlament-gegen-presse-leistungsschutzrecht <p> Die Reform des europäischen Urheberrechts ist in vollem Gang und erreicht allmählich seine heiße Phase. Was das noch vom ehemaligen Digitalkommissar Günther Oettinger (CDU) vorgeschlagene Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger angeht, zeigt sich ein breiter Widerstand über Fraktionsgrenzen hinweg. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-04-18/breiter-widerstand-im-europ-ischen-parlament-gegen-presse-leistungsschutzrecht" title="Den Rest von Breiter Widerstand im Europäischen Parlament gegen Presse-Leistungsschutzrecht lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Europäisches Parlament Europa Reform Urheberrecht Creative Commons Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:43:45 +0000 Tom Hirche 2357 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Evaluation nur eine Farce http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-04-07/evaluation-nur-eine-farce <p> Vor über drei Jahren hat sich die aktuelle Bundesregierung in ihren <a href="http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2013-11-28/leistungsschutzrecht-im-koalitionsvertrag-erw-hnt">Koalitionsvertrag geschrieben</a>, das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger zu evaluieren. Vergangenen Oktober kam <a href="http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2016-10-28/und-sie-evaluiert-doch">durch eine Kleine Anfrage</a> der Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/DIE GRÜNEN ans Licht, dass der Evaluierungsprozess endlich eingeleitet wurde. Mit einer <a href="http://tabea-roessner.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/KlAnf-Gr%C3%BCne-LSR-18_11551-RS-und-Antwort.pdf">weiteren Kleinen Anfrage</a> hat man sich nun nach dem aktuellen Stand erkundet – und wird beim Lesen der Antwort nur enttäuscht. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-04-07/evaluation-nur-eine-farce" title="Den Rest von Evaluation nur eine Farce lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Bundesregierung Bündnis 90/Die Grünen Europa Evaluation Reform Urheberrecht Creative Commons Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:59:40 +0000 Tom Hirche 2356 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Opposition against link tax gets big ally from Spain http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-03-24/opposition-against-link-tax-gets-big-ally-from-spain <p> Again and again the big (mainly German) publishing houses claim that an ancillary copyright for press publishers will do great good to their industry as a whole. They repeat their mantra despite the fact that several publishers are explicitly rejecting the introducing of such a right since this idea emerged in Germany a few years ago. Now, at a time when the European Parliament <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-03-20/official-version-comodini-report-published">prepares to stop the Commission's plans</a>, a <a href="http://elpais.com/elpais/2017/03/24/inenglish/1490355715_551697.html?">major Spanish publisher joins</a> those &quot;rebels&quot;. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-03-24/opposition-against-link-tax-gets-big-ally-from-spain" title="Den Rest von Opposition against link tax gets big ally from Spain lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> El País European Commission newspaper proposal Reform Creative Commons Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:44:52 +0000 Tom Hirche 2362 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info "Urheberrecht geht alle an" – IGEL im Radio http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-03-22/urheberrecht-geht-alle-an-igel-im-radio <p> Im Rahmen der Sendereihe &quot;Radio Dispositiv&quot; hat sich Herbert Gnauer mit I<span style="font-size: 12.0012px; letter-spacing: 0.120012px;">GEL-Gründer Dr. Till Kreutzer </span><span style="font-size: 12.0012px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;">ausführlich über das Urheberrecht in der digitalen Welt und die Reformpläne der Europäischen Kommission unterhalten. Die Folge </span><span style="font-size: 12.0012px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;">kann man sich <a href="https://cba.fro.at/336771">hier</a> kostenlos anhören und bei Bedarf auch herunterladen.</span> <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-03-22/urheberrecht-geht-alle-an-igel-im-radio" title="Den Rest von &quot;Urheberrecht geht alle an&quot; – IGEL im Radio lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Herbert Gnauer Till Kreutzer Europäische Kommission Europäische Union Interview Radio Reform Urheberrecht Creative Commons Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:41:33 +0000 Tom Hirche 2353 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Official version of Comodini report published http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-03-20/official-version-of-comodini-report-published <p> Last Friday, the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-601.094%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN">official version</a> of MEP Therese Comodini Cachia's (EPP, Malta) draft of her report on the Commission's proposal for a directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) was published. Comodini is the elected rapporteur of the leading committee for legal affairs (JURI). Although some minor changes have already been made compared to the version that was <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-03-08/legal-affairs-committee-also-demands-abolish-ancillary-copyright">leaked a few days ago</a>, the most important points have all been kept.&nbsp;The deadline for tabling amendments is March 30th. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-03-20/official-version-of-comodini-report-published" title="Den Rest von Official version of Comodini report published lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Therese Comodini Cachia dsm directive European Parliament JURI Legal presumption report Creative Commons Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:06:41 +0000 Tom Hirche 2355 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Stop the censorship machine! http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-03-13/stop-the-censorship-machine <p> Besides the introduction of an ancillary copyright for press publishers a.k.a. the link tax, the European Commission also wants internet platforms to apply automated upload filtering technologies to all of their user's content. Together with 27 other civil society organisations, we have signed an <a href="https://stopthecensorshipmachine.net/">open letter</a> addressed to the European Institutions and urge them to delete this proposal. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-03-13/stop-the-censorship-machine" title="Den Rest von Stop the censorship machine! lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> EDRi copyright EU EU Commission open letter proposal Provider upload filter Creative Commons Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:38:01 +0000 Tom Hirche 2352 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Legal Affairs committee also demands to abolish ancillary copyright http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-03-08/legal-affairs-committee-also-demands-to-abolish-ancillary-copyright <p><body>file://localhost/private/var/folders/lm/5lzzjc8w8xj99q0059bpygwh0000gp/T/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_image002.png</body></p> European Parliament JURI Therese Comodini Cachia dsm directive enforcement Creative Commons Wed, 08 Mar 2017 19:02:37 +0000 Till Kreutzer 2351 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info 400 pages of new insights http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-02-24/400-pages-of-new-insights <p> Months ago, Matthias Schindler from the office of MEP <a href="https://juliareda.eu/de/">Julia Reda</a> (Greens/EFA) has <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/2015_and_2016_documents_on_the_a">submitted </a>a freedom of information request to the European Commission and just a few days ago he finally received&nbsp;<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/2015_and_2016_documents_on_the_a#incoming-12549">400 pages</a> (!) of secrets surrounding the proposed European ancillary copyright for press publishers/the publisher's right. POLITICO's <a href="http://www.politico.eu/pro/8-things-hidden-in-400-pages-of-copyright-secrets/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&amp;utm_campaign=b1ad1285c1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_20&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_10959edeb5-b1ad1285c1-189777317">Chris Spillane has identified</a> numerous &quot;things you need to know&quot;. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-02-24/400-pages-of-new-insights" title="Den Rest von 400 pages of new insights lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Chris Spillane Julia Reda POLITICO copyright Europe European Commission Reform Creative Commons Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:48:39 +0000 Tom Hirche 2350 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info