Difference between revisions of "Reda (2015)"
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
|Full Citation=Reda, J., Draft Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament (2014/2256(INI)). | |Full Citation=Reda, J., Draft Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament (2014/2256(INI)). | ||
+ | |Abstract=The purpose of Directive 2001/29/EC (the InfoSoc Directive)was the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. The InfoSoc Directive introduced minimum levels of copyright protection without setting standards for the protection of the public’s and users’ interests. As a consequence, the implementation of the InfoSoc Directive has not led to the EU-wide harmonisation of copyright sought by many parties. In particular, the optional nature of most copyright exceptions and limitations and the failure to limit the scope of protection of copyright and related rights to those outlined in the directive, has led to continuing fragmentation of national copyright laws among Member States. | ||
+ | The Commission’s consultation on the copyright reform provides a thorough picture of the change of context of copyright in the digital age, and reveals the most pressing problems met by many stakeholders in their everyday usage of copyright. | ||
|Reference=Dobusch and Quack (2012); Heald (2013); Buccafusco and Heald (2012); | |Reference=Dobusch and Quack (2012); Heald (2013); Buccafusco and Heald (2012); | ||
− | |Plain Text Proposition=* the vast majority of end-user respondents report face problems when trying to access online services across the Member States, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territorial restrictions. | + | |Plain Text Proposition=* The fragmentation of EU copyright law and the resulting lack of transparency are well understood by the Commission, and are reflected in the Commission’s intention to break down ‘national silos’ in copyright legislation. A particularly pressing issue in this regard is the optional nature of the exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights. |
+ | |||
+ | * The vast majority of end-user respondents report face problems when trying to access online services across the Member States, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territorial restrictions. | ||
|FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare, | |FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare, | ||
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness), A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right), B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction), | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness), A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right), B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction), | ||
Line 20: | Line 24: | ||
|Data Year=2014 | |Data Year=2014 | ||
|Data Type=Primary data | |Data Type=Primary data | ||
− | |Method of Collection= | + | |Method of Collection=Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences), Document Research |
|Method of Analysis=Legal Analysis | |Method of Analysis=Legal Analysis | ||
|Country=European Union; | |Country=European Union; | ||
|Cross-country=Yes | |Cross-country=Yes | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
+ | |Government or policy=No | ||
+ | |Literature review=No | ||
|Funded By=European Parliament; | |Funded By=European Parliament; | ||
}} | }} | ||
|Dataset= | |Dataset= | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 16:22, 21 August 2015
Contents
Source Details
Reda (2015) | |
Title: | Draft Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society |
Author(s): | Reda, J. |
Year: | 2015 |
Citation: | Reda, J., Draft Report on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society, Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament (2014/2256(INI)). |
Link(s): | |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | Commission’s consultation on copyright, with more than 9,500 replies, 58.7% from end users. |
Data Type: | Primary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | Yes |
Comparative Study?: | No |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
|
Abstract
The purpose of Directive 2001/29/EC (the InfoSoc Directive)was the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. The InfoSoc Directive introduced minimum levels of copyright protection without setting standards for the protection of the public’s and users’ interests. As a consequence, the implementation of the InfoSoc Directive has not led to the EU-wide harmonisation of copyright sought by many parties. In particular, the optional nature of most copyright exceptions and limitations and the failure to limit the scope of protection of copyright and related rights to those outlined in the directive, has led to continuing fragmentation of national copyright laws among Member States. The Commission’s consultation on the copyright reform provides a thorough picture of the change of context of copyright in the digital age, and reveals the most pressing problems met by many stakeholders in their everyday usage of copyright.
Main Results of the Study
- The fragmentation of EU copyright law and the resulting lack of transparency are well understood by the Commission, and are reflected in the Commission’s intention to break down ‘national silos’ in copyright legislation. A particularly pressing issue in this regard is the optional nature of the exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights.
- The vast majority of end-user respondents report face problems when trying to access online services across the Member States, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territorial restrictions.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
This Report:
- recommends that the EU legislator further lower the barriers to the re-use of public sector information by exempting works produced by the public sector – as part of the political, legal and administrative process – from copyright protection;
- calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;
- calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;
- Calls on the Commission to make mandatory all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;
- calls for the adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder;
- urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future-compatibility of exceptions and limitations;