Recording Industry: Ifpi Voices New Copyright Concerns

The concept of copyright is a remnant of the past, according to the IFPI. The exception was designed for the pre-digital, or analogue, era where copies and quality were limited owing to technical reasons. However, to apply the same exception to the modern-day digital environment is completely inappropriate. A mere click on the computer mouse and the user not only has a copy but a clone of the original and these clones can be forwarded and reproduced in unlimited quantities. Hence the recording industry's concern that it is not being protected by the latest version of the Directive (compromise agreed by the Committee of Member States' Permanent Representatives to the EU last June 8). This still has to be formally approved by the Council before returning to the European Parliament for a second reading.On the subject of private copying, the Directive fails to harmonise the situation as it offers an optional exception. In other words, the Member States may incorporate this exception into their laws if they so wish. The way the exception is worded is very ambiguous. In essence, through Article 5.2, it states that the Member States shall allow works to be copied (that is, without the author's consent and no matter whatever technology is used) for private but not commercial purposes, provided the entitled beneficiaries receive fair compensation in return. The Directive requires the Member States to provide legal protection for the technical measures, the systems intended to protect works and prevent any fraudulent use (encryption, for example). A bit further on (Article 6.4), the Directive asks the Member States to ensure users may actually apply the exception for private copying, without removing the right of legal claimants to apply technical means for limiting the number of copies.The IFPI's complaints are many and varied. The recording industry reckons the exception is too extensive. As it is worded at present, the Directive allows copies to be made for third parties, a possibility that can be risky in a digital environment. The IFPI wants to see the exception so worded that it limits authorised copying to personal use only. Technical methods, such as the PIN code, are available to enforce this limitation, according to the IFPI. Moreover, exceptions give the Member States the opportunity to compel the owners of the rights concerned to amend the technical measures applied, when the latter prevent copies being made (Article 6.4). Solely the limitation to the number of copies is authorised. Yet this provision is not adapted to some forms of exploitation (the simple cost). The IFPI therefore claims the right to act in some cases to halt coping. It slams the Directive for preparing to create a legislative patchwork, with the Member States being allowed considerable scope in this area. There is a chance of 15 different solutions being devised, with some countries being more relaxed than others about copyright protection. Voluntary agreement between the parties involved admittedly offer an alternative solution, says the IFPI. But there is nothing to stop the Member States bringing out laws if they believe the deals do not provide enough consumer freedom. This kind of reaction is to be feared from the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries. In contrast to France, where creative works are sacred, these countries are traditionally more on the side of consumers and the electronics industry.* Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society

COPYRIGHT 2000 Europe Information Service
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group