[A2k] Collective management of copyright to be discussed in JURI on Tuesday 6 November ASP 1G2 at 11.30-12.30

Erik Josefsson erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com
Sun Nov 4 01:57:27 PST 2012


As far as I can see from the submissions in IPEX France says the CRMD is
not compliant to the principle of subsidiarity and Germany requests to
examine whether the CRMD is fit for all kinds of collecting societies:

    http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/document/COM20120372.do#dossier-COD20120180

Here's what the JURI Report says about Poland (I've uploaded it here
http://erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/JURI-REPORT--10-2012_6.11.2012.pdf):

    "Reasoned opinion by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland

    On 12 October 2012, the Sejm of the Republic of Poland adopted a
    reasoned opinion on the proposal for a Directive of the European
    Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright
    and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in
    musical works for online uses in the internal market (COM(2012)0372)
    in which it states that the proposal for a directive does not comply
    with the principle of subsidiarity. The proposed directive aims to
    put in place an appropriate legal framework for the collective
    management of rights that are administered by collecting societies
    on behalf of rightholders by providing for rules ensuring better
    governance and greater transparency of all collecting societies and
    also by encouraging and facilitating the multi-territorial licensing
    of the rights of authors in their musical works by collecting
    societies representing authors.

    The Sejm argues that an analysis of the proposal does not lead to
    the conclusion that Member States are not able to satisfactorily
    regulate or supervise the domestic civil law relationships between
    collecting societies and authors, or the internal organisation of
    such bodies. According
    to the Sejm, it has not been shown why European Union action in this
    field would be more effective. Neither has it been explained why the
    European Commission is not taking less onerous measures with a view
    to coordinating the cooperation of Member States with respect to the
    granting of licenses.

    In addition, the Sejm maintains that there are no grounds for
    claiming that the objective of ensuring transparency of collecting
    societies cannot be achieved by the Member States acting
    independently and the Polish example shows that, at present, that
    objective may be implemented fully or at an even better level than
    that provided for in the proposed Directive.

    This reasoned opinion, together with the other reasoned opinions
    raising concerns about subsidiarity received from National
    Parliaments since 11 October 2012, will be on the agenda of the JURI
    meeting of 6 November 2012 in view of the Legal Affairs Committee's
    responsibility for determining whether documents transmitted by
    national Parliaments are to be regarded as reasoned opinions or as
    contributions.
     
    In addition, since the Legal Affairs Committee is also responsible
    for the content of this proposal for a Directive, the reasoned
    opinion of the Sejm will be taken into account by the Rapporteur
    Marielle Gallo and the other members of the Committee in the course
    of their legislative work on this matter."

Best regards.

//Erik


On 25/10/12 12:57, Erik Josefsson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please note that some MS are raising subsidiarity concerns. There is a
> clear risk of MS stalling:
>
>     http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/document/COM20120372.do#dossier-COD20120180
>
> Please note that Spain considers in a "Reasoned Opinion" that "in the
> course of the approval procedure some *_changes have to be
> introduced_* in the proposal so that the Directive establishes a set
> of main principles and objectives, _*leaving Member States a wide
> range of possibilities for its implementation according to its
> cultural and legal tradition*_."
>
> This is an expected development in the light of  the adoption of the
> Orphan Works Directive's Article 1.5 saying /*"This Directive does not
> interfere with any arrangements concerning the management of rights at
> national level"*/ and the deletion of the equivalent article in the
> leaked CRM defining */"'management of copyright and related rights'
> means the provision of the following services: the grant of licences
> to users, the auditing of licensees and monitoring of the use of
> rights, the enforcement of copyright and related rights, the
> collection of income derived from the exploitation of rights and the
> distribution of royalties to rightholders;"/* (see
> http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=CRM%2FARTICLES&diff=16090&oldid=16089).
>
> The overlap is obvious and unmanageable, hence deleted.
>
> We expect the Rapporteur MEP Gallo to summarise the key MS
> subsidiarity concerns in JURI on Tuesday November 6, as well as
> provide a timetable outline for the further processing of the directive.
>
> Best regards.
>
> //Erik




More information about the A2k mailing list