[x-pubpol] Private copying and reprographic levies: Europe's next step?

[Joly MacFie]

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2013/02/private-copying-and-reprographic-levies.html

*While the various Kats are focusing on the thousand-and-one topics* that
rivet their attention, there are always events that escape their collective
consciousness.  One such item may be that which is provided for us below by
Magali Delhaye, whose eyes and ears -- which are generally pointed in the
direction of Brussels -- have often been a useful supplement to the Kats'
sensory apparatus.  Thanks, Magali, for the following (parenthesised
comments are those of the Kats):

 <http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--pvGkkLBxvw/UQuoloQVzgI/AAAAAAAAjUc/1nM_yIUjpEk/s1600/vit.jpg>
"António Vitorino (former European Commissioner for Justice and Home
Affairs) presented his
*Recommendations<http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/levy_reform/130131_levies-vitorino-recommendations_en.pdf>
 *yesterday on private copying and reprography levies to Commissioner
Barnier. These Recommendations are the fruit of the mediation process on
private copying and reprography levies with which he was entrusted back in
November 2011.

 ********
 He recommends two main courses of action:********

 1.    He first proposes encouraging increased reliance on licences and
contractual arrangements as the best way to ensure that right holders are
properly remunerated for their creative efforts and investments *[Yes of
course, says this Kat, but contractual arrangements themselves on
underlying law. It's difficult to license or sell any commodity if
prospective licensees or purchasers can get it elsewhere at no cost].* He
argues that “licensed copies should not trigger the application of levies.
The opposite view would pave the way for double payments. Consumers cannot
be expected to show understanding for such double payments.”*[Ah yes, says
Merpel, but that's not the same as being expect to make such double
payments, a practice which has often attracted little ire, or indeed
attention, when done discreetly and at a relatively low level]. * Therefore,
his recommendation on that matter is to “clarify that copies that are made
by end users for private purposes in the context of a service that has been
licensed by rightholders do not cause any harm that would require
additional remuneration in the form of private copying levies.”********

 2.    He also recommends measures aimed at reconciling disparate national
levy systems within the Single Market.  Although he believes that the
importance of levy systems will probably decline over time, he does not
think that they will be simply abolished in the near future. As a result,
the rest of his recommendations focus on how to improve the functioning of
levy systems from the angle of the Internal Market. His recommendations are
the following:********

 a.  Collect levies in cross-border transactions exclusively in the Member
State in which the final customer resides *[that solution at least has the
virtues of certainly and finality. Remember Case
C-462/09<http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/thuiskopie-opus-and-private-copying.html>
Thiuskopie
v Opus?]*.

 ********
 b.  Shift the liability to pay levies from the manufacturer's or
importer's level to the  retailer's level while at the same time
simplifying the levy tariff system; and obliging manufacturers and
importers to inform collecting societies about their transactions
concerning goods subject to a levy. According to the ex-Commissioner, these
recommendations would solve both the problem of double payments in
cross-border transactions and that of how to comply with the CJEU´s ruling
in Case C-467/08 *Padawan **[noted by the IPKat
here<http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/padawan-v-sgae-more-detail.html>
] *of non-application of private copying levies to professional users.

 c.  When it comes reprography, he argues that more emphasis should be
placed on operator levies (operator levies are defined as usually being
“based on contractual agreements between collecting societies and
organizations heavily engaged in reprographic copying”) compared to
hardware-based levies because the former are undoubtedly preferable from an
Internal Market point of view.

 ********
 d.  Make levies visible for the final customer* [that'll be fun, says
Merpel, who wonders whether any of the lessons drawn from the wonderful
world of labelling of tobacco products might be applied here]*.

 ********
 e.  Ensure more coherence with regard to the process of setting levies by
defining 'harm' uniformly as the value consumers attach to additional
copies in question (lost profit) *[How emotive a term can be: is 'harm' the
right word, within the context of creators of lawfully-created and legally
protected copyright works seeking remuneration?].** *

 ********
 f.  Ensure more coherence with regard to the process of setting levies by
providing a procedural framework that would reduce complexity, guarantee
objectiveness and ensure the observance of strict time-limits.********

 APPENDIX I of the Recommendations lists the stakeholders that have been
involved in the mediation process on private copying and reprography levies
through meetings with the Mediator and/or written submissions.********

 The Press Release can be found
*here<http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-80_en.htm?locale=en>
".*


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.isoc-ny.org/pipermail/x-pubpol-isoc-ny.org/attachments/20130201/3cb1190a/attachment-0001.htm>