Lobbying war under way over copyright laws

Date: 25/06/1998

By Peter Chapman

THE European Commission faced a barrage of lobbying as it prepared to launch its draft directive on information society copyright last December.

EU single market officials were always destined for a rocky ride as they attempted to balance the interests of rights holders, users and the network operators who distribute information along the electronic superhighway.

Now, after a brief respite, the pressure group activity is back in full swing as the European Parliament scrutinises the Commission's proposals and the incoming Austrian EU presidency prepares to hold a key copyright conference next month.

At the same time, the Commission is planning a new directive which will make explicit the liability of network operators and Internet service providers for the way information is used and misused on their networks.

The most conspicuous spender in the lobbying effort now under way in the Parliament has been the music industry's International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).

The IFPI enrolled the silky communications skills of British television personality Michael Rodd, formerly of BBC TV's Tomorrow's World and Screen Test, for a hi-tech demonstration at the Parliament's Brussels headquarters, to try to convince MEPs that the copyright directive needed a large-scale rewrite before it entered the EU's statute books.

The federation, which represents industry giants such as EMI, PolyGram and BMG, complains that the proposed directive ignores the threat of home copying in the online world where private individuals can download and duplicate hundreds of perfect digital clones of original recordings on writable CD machines.

“A consumer who can get a perfect copy for free no longer needs to buy the work,” argues IFPI director of EU affairs Frances Moore. For this reason, she says, there should be no exemption for private copying in the directive.

Moore also warns that the proposals offer far too much scope for temporary copies carried by computer networks and servers.

The telecoms lobby insisted that tight controls on temporary copying would be ridiculous since network operators have little control over the 'packets of data' transferred along their wires, and succeeded in ensuring that such copies were allowed for in the draft directive.

IFPI claim the wide scope of this exemption would leave rights holders open to “all kinds of illegal counterfeit acts”.

At the same time, Moore argues, the directive fails to give music companies full rights to control how they distribute and are paid for works broadcast in digital form over specialised 'multi-channel services' which pump out music and video related to specific themes and artists at regular intervals.

These services, already popular in Japan, can be copied in perfect digital form by consumers, who simply program their 'mini-disc' or recordable CD machines to turn on and off at exact times published by service providers in programme guides. Without control over these services, the IFPI fears consumers will create their own 'compilation' albums without having to buy the recordings.

The lobbying battle is not confined to the music industry. Consumer electronics firms are pinning their hopes on reforms to the levy system for recording media.

Industry sees tape levies as a nagging trade barrier inside the EU single market, pointing out that while most member states impose such regimes, the UK, Sweden, Luxembourg and Ireland do not.

Jerry Wirtz, copyright expert for the European Association of Consumer Electronics Manufacturers (EACEM), insists the issue does not end simply with blank audio cassettes.

He says member states are adding new products all the time to the list of those covered by levy schemes which, in some cases, already include fax machines and scanners.

Industry tolerates the levy schemes on blank tapes, although it would prefer a harmonised system.

Failure to act now, argues Wirtz, could see the scope of such charges widened to include devices which can store digital content such as computers.

EU sources confirm that private copying, including the issue of remuneration schemes, will be discussed at the July copyright summit in Vienna.

However, they say the Commission itself will not propose any changes to its draft copyright directive at that stage, even if there are overwhelming calls for the private copying issue to be revisited.

“It is up to the member states and the European Parliament to decide if they want to do something about private copying,” said one source.

Meanwhile, telecoms firms led by the European Public Telecom Network Operators Association (ETNO), are focusing their attention on a fresh draft directive governing copyright liability which, they hope, will clarify their responsibilities when transporting copyrighted works.

ETNO and its members were pleased with the shape of the draft copyright directive, but fear the concessions they have won could be overturned by Euro MPs before the liability directive is launched in the summer.

If IFPI forces changes to the first directive, ETNO will weigh in to ensure it gets what it wants from the next one.