Doc. 1
Doc.2
Doc.3
Swobbl UG
Säntisblick 8
88719 Stetten
Stetten, den 14.10.2016
Swobbl UG | Säntisblick 8 | 88719 Stetten
Europäische Kommission
Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200
1049 1049 Brüssel
Belgien
z.Hd. Günther Oettinger
EU Kommissar für Digitale Wirtschaft und Gesel schaft
Sehr geehrter Herr Oettinger,
nach einem gescheiterten Versuch, das Leistungsschutzrecht in Deutschland und Spanien
einzuführen, versuchen Sie nun auf europäischer Ebene das Model in verschärfter Form
auf den Weg zu bringen. Hierbei, so scheint mir, ist Ihr einziges Ziel, den Lobbyrufen
einzelner Verleger gerecht zu werden. Dass Sie hiermit den freien Meinungs- und
Informationsaustausch einzuschränken drohen, sollte Ihnen als EU-Kommissar für Digitale
Wirtschaft und Gesel schaft in meinen Augen eigentlich klar sein.
Weshalb wollen Sie Suchmaschinen und News-Aggregatoren, deren Aufgabe und Ziel es
ist, Benutzer den Weg zu den gewünschten Informationen wie z.B. Zeitungsartikeln zu
ermöglichen, zur Kasse bitten bzw. zwingen Ihr Angebot einzustellen?
Sind Sie ernsthaft der Meinung, dass der Zahlzwang den Zugang der Benutzer zu den
gesuchten Informationen positiv beeinflusst?
Halten Sie es nicht für möglich, dass gerade Online-Zeitungen ein großer Umsatzverlust
durch den Wegbruch von Nutzern entstehen wird, sollten Suchmaschinen und News-
Aggregatoren gezwungen werden, ihre Arbeit einzustellen? Erinnern Sie sich zum Beispiel
an den Einbruch der Nutzerzahlen auf der Webseite Bild.de, die nach der Umsetzung des
deutschen Leistungsschutzrechtes durch Google und die damit einhergehende
Beschneidung der Suchergebnisse, gemäß des deutschen Leistungsschutzrechtes für
Mitglieder der VG Media, knapp 80% ihres Besucheraufkommens einbüßte? Der
finanzielle Schaden bewegte sich laut Springer-Chef Mathias Döpfner bezogen auf das
Gesamtjahr im siebenstelligen Bereich pro Marke.
In einer Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts vom 27.11.2012 zum Gesetzesentwurf
für eine Ergänzung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes durch ein Leistungsschutzrecht für
Verleger in Deutschland wurde festgestellt, dass Suchmaschinen und News-Aggregatoren
kein Substitutionsgut für Online-Medien sind, sondern vielmehr ein Komplementärgut
darstellen, da sie für eine Steigerung der Besucherzahlen auf den Online-Angeboten
sorgen.
Swobbl UG
xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
Commerzbank
Säntisblick 8
Tel.: 01234/5678910
IBAN: DE62 6904 0045 0279 5060 00
88719 Stetten
Web:
h
ttp s://www.swobbl.eu
BIC: COBADEFFXXX
Paypal: xxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
Swobbl UG
Säntisblick 8
88719 Stetten
Stetten, den 14.10.2016
Ist Ihnen nicht klar, dass Sie durch das geplante Gesetz gerade junge und innovative
Start-Ups in die Geschäftsaufgabe zwingen werden und eine Benachteiligung kleiner
Anbieter droht, da Verleger dem marktbeherrschenden Dienst eine Genehmigung erteilen
können, dies jedoch kleineren Anbieter verweigern und somit eine marktbeherrschende
Position z.B. für Google verstärken, wie es bereits von den Mitgliedern der VG Media
versucht und durchgeführt wurde?
Was wären die Folgen eines europäischen Leistungsschutzrechtes?
Presseverlage sind nicht in der Lage, auf die Dienste von Suchmaschinen und News-
Aggregatoren zu verzichten. Wenn selbige jedoch Aufgrund des Leistungsschutzrechts die
Auslieferung von Ergebnissen auf den Seiten der Presseverlage einstellen, sind die
Verlage gezwungen, mit der Erteilung von Gratislizenzen wiederum die Auslieferung zu
ermöglichen. Dies führt auf der einen Seite das Leistungsschutzrecht ad absurdum und
birgt erneut die Gefahr einer Benachteiligung gerade von kleineren Diensten. Denn nun
müssen die Dienstanbieter wieder prüfen, ob alle benötigten Genehmigungen der
zahlreichen Verlage vorliegen, was einen unglaublichen Aufwand, unnötige Kosten und die
Gefahr der Benachteiligung einzelner Dienste mit sich bringt. Ein kompletter Wegfal von
europäischen Nachrichten wiederum würde zu einer Verlagerung zu außerhalb der
Europäischen Union stehenden Medien führen, was wiederum zu einer Schwächung der
Verlage führt.
Weiter besteht auch jetzt schon die Möglichkeit, mit Hilfe der „robots.txt“ das Scannen und
die Indexierung durch Suchmaschinen bzw. News-Aggregatoren zu unterbinden. Die
Tatsache, dass diese Möglichkeit nicht genutzt wird, zeugt davon, dass die Presseverleger
ebenso von positiven Effekten der Anzeige in Suchergebnissen wissen.
Abschließend möchte ich ihnen noch die Lektüre folgender im Internet frei verfügbarer
Analysen zum Thema Leistungsschutzrecht ans Herz legen, welche die in diesem Brief
genannten Argumente ergänzen und verstärken.
Stühmeier, 2011: Das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger: Eine ordnungspolitische
Analyse
Max Planck Institut für Immaterialgüter und Wettbewerbsrecht: Stel ungnahme zum
Gesetzesentwurf für eine Ergänzung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes durch ein
Leistungsschutzrecht für Verleger
Swobbl UG
xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
Commerzbank
Säntisblick 8
Tel.: 01234/5678910
IBAN: DE62 6904 0045 0279 5060 00
88719 Stetten
Web:
h
ttp s://www.swobbl.eu
BIC: COBADEFFXXX
Paypal: xxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
Swobbl UG
Säntisblick 8
88719 Stetten
Stetten, den 14.10.2016
Hiermit bitte ich Sie um eine persönliche Stellungnahme und möchte Sie freundlich
daraufhin weisen, dass ich diesen offenen Brief an verschiedene Medien mit der Bitte um
Veröffentlichung versendet habe.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Swobbl UG
xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
Commerzbank
Säntisblick 8
Tel.: 01234/5678910
IBAN: DE62 6904 0045 0279 5060 00
88719 Stetten
Web:
h
ttp s://www.swobbl.eu
BIC: COBADEFFXXX
Paypal: xxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
Doc. 4
Doc. 5
Doc. 6
Doc. 7
Meeting between John Higgins, Digital Europe, and Commissioner OETTINGER
________________________________________________________________
Out of
SCENE SETTER
scope
Out of
Digital Europe's position on the copyright reform
scope
1
1
Out of
Our objectives:
scope
LINE TO TAKE
Out of
scope
I. On copyright reform
2
2
Out of
II. Specific issue: Text and data mining
scope
.
III. Specific issue: Neighbouring right for press publishers
Out of
scope
We are currently considering introducing a neighbouring right for press publishers at
EU level in order to recognise the important role of press publications for a pluralistic
society and democratic debate and in order to address their problems to reach
agreements and monetise use of their content by online service providers. This new
neighbouring right is not about hyperlinking and it is not an ancillary right like in ES
or DE.
IV. Specific issue: private copying levies
Out of
scope
3
3
4
4
DEFENSIVES
Second copyright package
Out of
scope
5
5
Press publishers right
Why is the Commission looking into neighbouring rights when it was a failure in
Germany and Spain?
The news publishing industry (publishers of newspapers and magazines) has been
affected in a very specific way by the transition from print to digital. News content is
increasingly read online and it is redistributed by new internet players such as social
media and news aggregators. However, only a very small part, if at all, of the revenues
generated through news content online eventually trickle down to the publishers of
this content.
This is a sector which is key for the democratic value of the European society and
media pluralism. This situation is not acceptable and should be tackled at EU level
through the introduction of a new related right for news publishers.
Germany and Spain tried to address the problems of news publishers in the recent past
through national legislation which has not always given the desired results. However, I
believe that intervention at EU level will have the necessary scale to provide a much
needed added value to the news publishing industry.
6
6
BACKGROUND
Press release by Digital Europe following the adoption of the Communication on the
modern and more European copyright framework of 9 December 2015
DIGITALEUROPE supports European Commission efforts to reform copyright levies
BRUSSELS (December 9th 2015) – The European Commission has, after over a decade of
hesitation, today made a political commitment to reform the outdated and inefficient
mechanism that is copyright levies.
The decision to tackle this thorny issue comes as part of a Communication on how the
Commission intends to reform copyright more widely next year. In addition to addressing old
problems like the inefficient way levies are collected to compensate rights holders, the
Communication also addresses more recent issues such as how to deal with ancillary
copyright and data mining.
In its Communication the Commission identifies a need for action to ensure that the levies
imposed by some countries don’t distort the single market. It also asks whether any economic
harm is incurred by artists when their works are copied by private individuals. Levies are seen
as a way to compensate artists for private copying of content such as music or movies from
one digital device to another.
The Communication also promises to address the issue of double payments. You often pay
twice or more times for the same copyright: first when you buy a CD or a download, and then
every time you buy a new storage or copying device, such as a smart phone, laptop, tablet,
external hard drive, USB stick or printer, even if you don’t use that device to store or copy the
copyright protected material.
“We are delighted that the Commission has finally acknowledged what a mess the levies
system is. We have been raising these issues with lawmakers for over ten years by now and
urging them to reform the system in light of the digital technologies most of us now use every
day of our lives,” said John Higgins, Director General of DIGITALEUROPE.
Levies are a lucrative source of revenues for the organisations that collect the levies. The
Commission is sure to come under pressure from them to maintain the status quo. “We urge
the Commission to stick to its guns and not be swayed from this important reform,” Mr
Higgins said.
In addition to levies, the Commission’s Communication addresses the issue of ancillary
copyright, where an Internet portal carries snippets of news articles from newspaper websites.
There are calls for some form of compensation to the newspapers for the snippets. However,
news publishers themselves are divided about whether such compensation is necessary, with
many in France, Spain and Germany now arguing that the traffic to their websites that these
snippets generate is worth more to them than any compensation.I
7
7
When Spain introduced ancillary copyright last year, causing a leading Internet news
aggregator to close its service, newspapers suffered. The same will happen across Europe if
ancillary copyright is introduced across the EU.
Similarly, the Communication looks into data mining, asking whether the owners of the data
should receive compensation for its re-use.
“It’s important for research purposes and for the broad benefit of society that data isn’t overly
restricted,” said Mr Higgins, adding: “The Commission must find a way to balance the
interests of rights holders, while also allowing society to take the maximum advantage of the
free circulation of knowledge and creative works.”
8
8
V. Attachments
Out of
scope
1. CV John Higgins
2. Company Profile Digital European Commission
Out of
scope
9
9
10
10
11
11
Doc. 8
SCENE SETTER
Out of
scope
Position of the S&D group
Our objectives:
LINE TO TAKE
I. On copyright reform
1
12
A
Out of
II. Specific issue: Related right for press publishers
scope
.
2
13
The new neighbouring right is not about hyperlinking and it is not an ancillary right
like in ES or DE.
III. Specific issue: SatCab
3
14
DEFENSIVES
Out of scope
I. RELATED RIGHT FOR NEWS PUBLISHERS
4
15
Why is the Commission looking into these rights while it was a failure in Germany and
Spain?
The new related right for publishers that the Commission is considering now at EU level
would leave news publishers a greater margin of manoeuvre to negotiate different types of
agreements with service providers than it has been the case in DE and ES and is therefore
expected to be more effective for them in the long run (notably as it will allow news
Out of
publishers to develop new business models in a flexible way).
scope
.
III. SatCab
5
16
III. Value Gap
Out of
scope
6
17
Author:
, DG CNECT I.2, Tel.
7
18
V. Attachments
1. Letter of 80 MEPs from 17 December 2015
[see separate Annex]
https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/open-letter-ancillary-copyright.pdf
Out of
scope
2.
8
19
Doc.9
Meeting between Digital Europe and Claire BURY on 09/09/2016
BASIS Request 5895
________________________________________________________________
I. Scene setter
Out of
scope
Digital Europe's views on telecoms framework review:
Digital Europe's views on copyright review:
1
20
II. Speaking points
DSM general - speaking points
Out of
scope
Telecoms review
2
21
Copyright reform
Out of
scope
3
22
o
Text and data mining
Neighbouring right for press publishers
We are currently considering introducing a neighbouring right for press publishers at EU
level, in order to recognise the important role of press publications for a pluralistic society
and democratic debate and in order to address their problems to reach agreements and
monetise use of their content by online service providers. This new neighbouring right is
not about hyperlinking and it is not an ancillary right like in Spain or Germany.
Private copying levies
Out of
scope
4
23
III. Defensives
Telecoms review
Out
of
scope
5
24
Out
of
scope
6
25
Out of
scope
Copyright reform
Out of
scope
Out of
scope
7
26
Why is the Commission looking into neighbouring rights when it was a failure in Germany
and Spain?
The news publishing industry (publishers of newspapers and magazines) has been
affected in a very specific way by the transition from print to digital. News content is
increasingly read online and it is redistributed by new internet players such as social
media and news aggregators. However, only a very small part, if at all, of the revenues
generated through news content online eventually trickle down to the publishers of
this content.
This is a sector which is key for the democratic value of the European society and
media pluralism. This situation is not acceptable and should be tackled at EU level
through the introduction of a new related right for news publishers.
IV. Background
Out of scope
8
27
Out of
scope
Telecom Review - policy options and issues
Out of
scope
9
28
10
29
11
30
Contact:
, CNECT F.1.,
12
31
Doc.10
Commissioner Oettinger (or CAB member) meeting with Google
September 2016
Copyright contribution
Scene setter
Out of
scope
Their Position
a) News aggregators and press publishers' rights
o
Google has been critical of national initiatives in favour of press publishers and
claimed that their activity benefits press publishers by increasing the traffic in
their websites. CCIA (of which Google is a member) has raised in the public
consultation on platforms deep concerns about possible new rights for press
publishers at EU level, as for example implemented in Germany and Spain.
Out of
scope
b) Exceptions and limitations to copyright
The current EU framework laying down a closed list of exceptions optional for
Member States to harmonise is too rigid and not harmonised enough.
Google would rather support a more flexible approach, as it is the case for the
US fair use doctrine (jurisprudential construction). Google has consistently
Copyright reform
1/6 32
Commissioner Oettinger (or CAB member) meeting with Google
September 2016
c) Value gap (use of copyright protected content by online intermediaries
o
Line to take
I. The second copyright package
Out of
scope
The second set of copyright modernisation legislative proposals, to be adopted
within weeks, wil include the following main items:
Measures to facilitate rights' clearance for cross-border online transmissions of
TV and radio programmes (inspired by the existing regime in the Satellite and
Cable Directive). It would focus on online live transmissions by broadcasters
and broadcast-related ancil ary services. It would also look into retransmissions
on various third party platforms.
Modernising the EU framework of exceptions and limitations for education,
research - including text and data mining - and access to knowledge. The
general objective is to modernise the rules on exceptions and make them work
better in the digital single market.
Achieving a wel -functioning copyright market place. The objective is to ensure
that right holders get a fair share of benefits generated by the online uses of
their works. This includes the discussion on publishers and the role of online
intermediaries when they distribute copyright-protected content and
II. Specific issues
A. Related right for press publishers.
Out of
scope
The Commission has carried out a public consultation on the role of publishers
in the copyright value chain that was open from 23 March until 15 June 2016.
Views expressed and information gathered have helped us to understand
whether there are problems in the exploitation of rights on publications and to
assess the need for a Commission initiative.
We are considering to introduce a neighbouring right for press publishers at EU
level in order to recognise the important role of press publications for a
Copyright reform
2/6 33
Commissioner Oettinger (or CAB member) meeting with Google
September 2016
This new neighbouring right is not about hyperlinking and it is not an ancil ary
right like in ES or DE.
B. Value gap
Content is no longer distributed only directly by a digital service provider to end
users with the involvement of right holders. Online services that store and give
access to large amounts of content which has been uploaded by the users of
these services and not rightholders, have become an important source of online
content consumption.
At the same time there is a feeling among rightholders that the value generated
by these services is not shared with them on a far basis.
Defensives
I. RELATED RIGHT FOR NEWS PUBLISHERS
Out of
scope
The new related right covering news publications is aimed at ensuring that the
organisational and economic contribution of news publishers (such as
newspaper and magazine publishers) is recognised and incentivised in EU law,
as it is today the case for other creative sectors (film and phonogram producers,
broadcasters).
The relationship authors-publishers is meant to be left untouched. News
publishers wil stil need to acquire the authorisation of authors (journalists,
photographers, etc.) to publish their contributions in a newspaper or a
magazine, as they do today. The Commission believes that
Copyright reform
3/6 34
Commissioner Oettinger (or CAB member) meeting with Google
September 2016
The introduction of a new related right for news publications wil have no impact
on the question as to whether and to what extent reproducing snippets is a
copyright relevant act, nor affect the question whether hyperlinking are today
copyright relevant under EU law or not.
Today, press publications are already protected by the copyright of their
authors. Making available or reproducing parts of them may already be a
copyright relevant act or not today, depending on the criteria set out by the
CJEU in its jurisprudence.
Why is the Commission looking into these rights while it was a failure in Germany
and Spain?
The new related right for publishers that the Commission is considering now at
EU level would leave news publishers a greater margin of manoeuvre to
negotiate different types of agreements with service providers than it has been
the case in DE and ES and is therefore expected to be more effective for them
in the long run (notably as it wil al ow news publishers to develop new business
models in a flexible way).
II. VALUE GAP
Out of
scope
Copyright reform
4/6 35
Commissioner Oettinger (or CAB member) meeting with Google
September 2016
Already today MS can under the ECD require service providers who host
information provided by recipients of their services to apply duties of care which
can be "reasonably expected from them" without it depriving them from the
benefits of Article 14 and 15 of ECD.
The obligation which the Commission is considering would remain within the
limits of what can reasonably be expected from the covered services given the
specific nature of these services and their importance on the content market.
Additional y, the envisaged measures should be applied in cooperation with right
holders, which means that the services would need to have in place the effective
measures, for example content recognition technologies, but they would be
applied to the content that is identified by the right holders. The services would
therefore not be faced with an abstract obligation to monitor al the content on
their servers to detect potential y unauthorised content.
The current approach would not prescribe the use of any specific technology
but, when implementing the envisaged obligations, service providers would
need to make sure that the measures they take are appropriate, proportionate
and effective.
The Commission is considering different approaches to help the fair functioning
of the online market place. The role that content recognition technologies can
Contact:
, DG CNECT, I2, Tel.
, e-mail:
Copyright reform
5/6 36
Commissioner Oettinger (or CAB member) meeting with Google
September 2016
Annex
Out of
scope
Copyright reform
6/6 37
Doc.11
Call between Dr. Stefan von Holtzbrinck and Commissioner OETTINGER
________________________________________________________________
I. Scene setter
Out of
scope
Objective(s):
1
38
LINE TO TAKE
I. On copyright reform
Out of
scope
.
II. Specific issue: Text and data mining
Out of
scope
2
39
III. Specific issue: Reprobel
IV. Specific issue: Related right for press publishers
Out of
scope
3
40
DEFENSIVES
Out of
I. Text and Data Mining
scope
II. RELATED RIGHT FOR PRESS PUBLISHERS
Out of
scope
4
41
Why is the Commission looking into these rights while it was a failure in Germany and
Spain?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for news publishers differs from the earlier
attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain. Germany and Spain have passed legislation
in the last few years to grant specific rights to publishers. These laws follow specific
approaches but they are different from the related right proposed at EU level as they both aim
at giving publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their
content by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In
particular:
The "ancillary" right granted to news publishers in DE can only be exercised against
specific categories of online service providers and it also covers snippets of texts that
may previously been without copyright protection
the Spanish law introduced an unwaivable compensation (i.e. it requires online
services to pay for the use of newspapers online).
The new related right for publishers that the Commission is considering now at EU level
would leave news publishers a greater margin of manoeuvre to negotiate different types of
agreements with service providers than it has been the case in DE and ES and is therefore
expected to be more effective for them in the long run (notably as it will allow news
publishers to develop new business models in a flexible way).
III. Reprobel judgment of the CJEU and Vogel-Judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof
Out of
scope
5
42
Out of
scope
6
43
Author:
, DG CNECT I.2, tel.
7
44
Out of
scope
IV. Attachments
1. CV
2. Recent DE press coverage of copyright reform / press publishers right
hmk. BRÜSSEL, 4. September. Seit Jahren streiten sich die Zeitungsverleger und Google
darüber, ob der Suchmaschinenbetreiber für die Nutzung kurzer Zeitungsausschnitte für
seinen Dienst Google News zahlen muss. Die Zeitungsverleger verlangen Geld für die Nutzung
der von ihnen produzierten geistigen Leistung. Google aber weigert sich und argumentiert, die
Verlage profitierten davon, wenn die Suchmaschine die Nutzer auf deren Internetseiten leite.
Vor etwas mehr als einer Woche sickerte durch, dass die Europäische Kommission den
Verlagen beispringen und die von ihnen produzierten Artikel durch ein neues
Leistungsschutzrecht schützen will (F.A.Z. vom 26. September). Seither hagelt es Kritik. Die
Kommission zerstöre das Internet, biete auch private Nutzer zur Kasse und funktioniere
ohnehin nicht, wie die deutsche Erfahrung gezeigt habe.
„Alles Unsinn“, sagt der verantwortliche Kommissar Günther Oettinger nun im Gespräch mit
dieser Zeitung. Die Kritiker wie die Europaabgeordnete der Piraten Julia Reda verständen den
Vorschlag in vielen Punkten schlicht falsch. Zudem begriffen sie die Stoßrichtung des
Vorschlags nicht, sagt der Digitalkommissar. „Um es ganz klar zu sagen: der
Gesetzgebungsvorschlag, den wir im September offiziell vorstellen werden, richtet sich nicht
hauptsächlich gegen Google“, sagt Oettinger. „Google ist Vergangenheit.“ Es gebe längst neue
Geschäftsmodelle, die den von Zeitungen oder Zeitschriften produzierten Inhalt nutzten, ohne
dafür zu zahlen. Wer sein Iphone anschalte oder auf Facebook gehe, werde dort mit
Hinweisen auf Artikel versorgt. Beinahe täglich kämen neue innovative Modelle hinzu. „Wir
wollen die Verlage mit dem Leistungsschutzrecht nicht zuletzt gegenüber diesen Anbietern
stärken.“
Mit dem Leistungsschutzrecht werden die produzierten Artikel nach dem durchgesickerten
Entwurf zwanzig Jahre lang geschützt. Dabei geht es nicht nur – wie im deutschen
Leistungsschutzrecht – um kurze Anreißer (sogenannte Snippets), sondern den gesamten
Artikel, weshalb ein Schutz von einem Jahr wie derzeit hierzulande nach Ansicht der
Kommission auch nicht ausreicht. „Tatsächlich ist der Schutz von zwanzig Jahren verglichen
mit den sonst für vergleichbare Rechte üblichen fünfzig Jahren für sogenannte verwandte
Schutzrechte, sogar recht kurz“, sagt Oettinger. Zudem soll das neue Recht nicht nur für
Suchmaschinen und Nachrichtenaggregatoren gelten. Damit müsste Google auch dann zahlen,
wenn es Artikel nur indexiert, also eine Kopie in seine Datenbank aufnimmt, ohne den Text
öffentlich zugänglich zu machen. „Warum auch nicht“, fragt Oettinger. „Ohne kommerzielles
Interesse machen sie das nicht – und sie schaden damit potentiell den Pressearchiven.“
8
45
Findet der Vorstoß die nötige Unterstützung von Europaparlament und Ministerrat, müsste
künftig jeder kommerzielle Nutzer mit den Verlagen über den dafür zu zahlenden Preis
verhandeln. „Es geht nicht im private Nutzer“, stellt Oettinger klar. „Die können auch
weiterhin Fotos und Links zu Zeitungsartikeln – inklusive kurzer Anreißer – auf ihrer Facebook-
Seite oder Twitter veröffentlichen, ohne dafür zu zahlen.“ Daran ändere sich, anders als von
manchen behauptet, gar nichts. Das gelte auch für kommentierte Link-Listen zu Artikeln, die
Politiker oder andere ohne kommerzielle Ziele ins Internet stellten. Anders sieht das für
kommerzielle Nutzer aus. Sie dürfen zwar den nackten Link verwenden. Sobald sie aber Zitate
aus dem Text aufgreifen, um auf den Link aufmerksam zu machen, müssen sie nach dem
Entwurf der Europäischen Kommission auch dafür bezahlen. „Wobei wir dabei nicht von rein
faktischen Überschriften wie ‚Flugzeugabsturz in Afrika‘ reden“, sagt Oettinger. „Es muss
schon um eine eigene intellektuelle Leistung gehen.“
Die Aussichten, dass die Verlage ihre neue Rechte durchsetzen können, bezeichnet Oettinger
auch gegenüber deren Hauptkontrahenten Google als gut. Bisher sei Google nur in
Deutschland und in Spanien mit einer Art Leistungsschutzrecht konfrontiert worden. Das habe
es dem Konzern leicht gemacht, die Ansprüche der Verleger zu ignorieren. Tatsächlich hat
Google, das hierzulande einen Markanteil von 90 Prozent hat, in Deutschland die Verlage
ausgelistet, die ihm keine kostenlose Lizenz erteilt haben. Nachdem diese einen starken
Rückgang der Zugriffe auf ihre Internetseiten verzeichnet hatten, erteilten auch sie schließlich
Google kostenlose Lizenzen. Der Konzern wertet das als Beleg für seine Argumentation, dass
Google letztlich reiner Dienstleister sei, der den Verlagern Nutzer zuführe. Oettinger teilt das
nicht: „Wenn Google argumentiert, sein Nachrichtendienst sei auch nichts anderes als eine
Linkliste für Restaurants, die diesen Kunden zuführe, führt das in die Irre. Tatsächlich gleicht
der Nachrichtendienst mit den durchaus informativen Anreißern eher einer Restaurantliste,
bei der die Kunden vorab eine Kostprobe des Menüs bekommen und dann in vielen Fälle
schon satt die Reservierung im Restaurant wieder stornieren.“
Die Kommission setzt darauf, dass Google auf EU-Ebene eher bereit ist, mit den Verlagen über
eine angemessene Bezahlung für die Nutzung der Artikel zu verhandeln. Einen Zwang zum
Abschluss solcher Vereinbarungen („Kontrahierungszwang“) sieht der Vorschlag allerdings
nicht vor. In Spanien hatte dieser dazu geführt, dass der Suchmaschinenbetreiber seinen
Dienst Google News schlicht abgeschaltet hatte. Befürworter des Kontrahierungszwangs
argumentieren, dass Google sich das auf EU-Ebene nicht erlauben könne, der Zwang zur
Einigung deshalb die Presseverlage gegenüber dem dominanten Marktteilnehmer Google
stärken könne. Der Kommission geht ein derart starker Eingriff dennoch zu weit. „Natürlich
hat Google momentan eine enorme Marktmacht“, sagt Oettinger. „Die daraus entspringenden
Probleme können wir aber nicht mit dem Leistungsschutzrecht lösen.“ Dafür habe die EU das
Wettbewerbsrecht.
Company Profile
9
46
10
47
Doc.12
Press conference on adoption of the second copyright and telecom package
Commissioner OETTINGER
Strasbourg, 14th September 2016, 14.30
_________________________________________________________________
Defensives
1) ENSURING WIDER ACCESS TO CONTENT
Out of
New rules on online transmission and retransmission of television and radio programmes
scope
1
48
Out of
scope
2
49
Out of
scope
New rules to make more audiovisual works available on video-on-demand platforms
Out of
scope
3
50
New rules for out-of-commerce works
Out of
scope
2)
ADAPTING
EXCEPTIONS
TO
DIGITAL
AND
CROSS-BORDER
ENVIRONMENTS
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities
Out of
scope
Text and Data Mining
Out of
scope
4
51
Will the new exception cover also commercial uses?
Out of
scope
3) MARRAKESH TREATY TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO PUBLISHED WORKS
FOR PERSONS WHO ARE BLIND, VISUALLY IMPAIRED OR OTHERWISE
PRINT DISABLED
Out of
scope
5
52
4) ACHIEVING A WELL-FUNCTIONING MARKETPLACE FOR COPYRIGHT
Related right for press publishers
Out of
scope
Why is the Commission looking into these rights while it was a failure in Germany and
Spain?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the earlier
attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving publishers
very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content by online
services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In Spain online
services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law provides for a
mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the Commission
proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing to
use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a
flexible way.
6
53
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of
press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more effective
in the long run than different national initiatives.
out of
scope
"Value Gap"
Out of
scope
7
54
.
Remuneration of authors and performers
Out of
scope
Author:
, DG CNECT I.2, tel.
8
55
Accompanying measures
Out
of
scope
9
56
10
57
11
58
Doc.13
Commissioner OETTINGER at COREPER I lunch
At 13:00 on 23 September 2016
_________________________________________________________________
I. Scene setter
Out of
scope
.
Curriculum vitae – A. Micovcin
Out of
scope
1
[p.2-21 : Telecom review - Out of scope]
59
Copyright
Out of
Speaking points
scope
22
60
23
61
Defensives
Out of
New rules on online transmission and retransmission of television and radio programmes
scope
RELATED RIGHT FOR PRESS PUBLISHERS
24
62
Out of
scope
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's ancillary
rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the earlier
attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving publishers very
specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content by online services such
as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In Spain online services were also
obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law provides for a mandatory
compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the Commission
proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing to use
press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of press
content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more effective in the
long run than different national initiatives.
25
63
Out of
scope
Author:
, Unit I2, tel:
26
64
Doc. 14
Briefing for Commissioner Oettinger – Mission to the U.S. (Oct 2016): Berkeley Center
for Law & Technology Faculty, 11 October 2016
Copyright
_________________________________________________________________
I. Scene setter
Out of
scope
II. Speaking points
1
65
2.
III. More specific speaking points if required
On the modernisation of exceptions:
On the functioning of the copyright marketplace:
2
66
Author:
, Unit I2, tel: 6
IV. Defensives
Text and Data Mining
Out of
scope
3
67
Value Gap
Related right for press publishers
4
68
Why is the Commission proposing these rights while it was a failure in Germany and Spain?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the earlier attempts
in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to publishers.
These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving publishers very specific rights
over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content by online services such as news aggregators
(often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In Spain online services were also obliged to pay for the use of
newspapers online, as the law provides for a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory
collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the Commission proposes
now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press publishers to
negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing to use press content.
This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of press
content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more effective in the long run
than different national initiatives.
Out
of
scope
5
69
Remuneration of authors and performers
Out of
scope
6
70
Doc.15
Speech at Stanford
on 12 October 2016
Defensives on copyright
Value Gap
1
71
2
72
Related right for press publishers
Why is the Commission proposing these rights while it was a failure in Germany and Spain?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the earlier
attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving publishers
very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content by online
services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In Spain online
3
73
services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law provides for a
mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the Commission
proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing to
use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a
flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of
press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more effective
in the long run than different national initiatives.
Out of
scope
4
74
Text and Data Mining
Out of
scope
General
5
75
Out of
scope
6
76
7
77
Other areas of the package
New rules on online transmission and retransmission of television and radio programmes
Out of
scope
8
78
Out of
scope
9
79
Out of
New rules to make more audiovisual works available on video-on-demand platforms
scope
New rules for out-of-commerce works
Out of
scope
Remuneration of authors and performers
Out of
scope
10
80
Contact:
, CONNECT.I.2, Tel:
11
81
Doc.16
Meeting of Claire Bury with U.S. economic diplomats on digital policy
12 October 2016
Briefing on copyright
BASIS Request CNECT/5942
________________________________________________________________
Scene setter
Out of
scope
Expected position of the US industry on the copyright package:
Out of
scope
-
82
Out of
Line to Take
scope
Speaking points
Out of
scope
2
83
3
84
Out of
Defensives on copyright
scope
Out of
scope
Value Gap
4
85
.
5
86
Related right for press publishers
Out of scope
Why is the Commission proposing these rights while it was a failure in Germany and Spain?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the earlier
attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving publishers
very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content by online
services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In Spain online
6
87
services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law provides for a
mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the Commission
proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing to
use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a
flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of
press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more effective
in the long run than different national initiatives.
Out of
scope
7
88
Text and Data Mining
Out of
scope
New rules on online transmission and retransmission of television and radio programmes
Out of
scope
8
89
9
90
10
91
Out of
General
scope
11
92
Out of
Other areas of the package
scope
New rules to make more audiovisual works available on video-on-demand platforms
12
93
New rules for out-of-commerce works
Out of
scope
Remuneration of authors and performers
Out of
scope
13
94
Background
Out of
scope
1. Cross-border access to content
Out of
scope
2. Exceptions
Out of
scope
14
95
Out of
3. A fair marketplace
scope
Author:
, CNECT I2,
15
96
Lisbon Global Forum
Lisbon, 7 November 2016
Doc.17
Briefing contribution for VP Ansip
Scene setter
Out of
Copyright reform and portability proposal
scope
The Commission has adopted the
on 14 September,
including a regulation on online transmissions and retransmissions of TV and radio
programmes, a directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market, two further
instruments (a directive and a regulation) to implement the Marrakesh Treaty and an
accompanying Communication. Discussions in the Council have just begun on this
second package (end of September).
Discussions on the
are ongoing:
The Council reached a general approach at the Joint Telecoms /
Competitiveness Council on 26 May 2016. Among other things, the definition of
'temporary presence' was changed to mean presence in a Member State other
than the Member State of residence
.
In the European Parliament, JURI is in the lead with IMCO and CULT
associated. CULT, IMCO and ITRE have already adopted their Opinions; JURI
Overview of the Portugal (PT) Position on the copyright reform and portability proposal
Out of
The PT position is informal at this stage as regards the second copyright package on
scope
which discussions have just begun. First (informal) impression at technical level for PT
about the package suggests that they may be cautious about the new Regulation and
Regarding the second objective of the reform relating to the modernisation of EU rules
on key exceptions and limitations in the areas of research, education, and preservation
of cultural heritage, Ms. Mineiro (Ministry of Culture) highlighted the need to ensure a
fair balance between right holders and users.
As regards the third objective of the reform which consists in introducing fairer rules of
the game for a better functioning copyright market place, Ms. Mineiro (Ministry of
Culture) considered the fair remuneration for rights holders and transparency for
creators as priorities.
Line to take
Content portability: our approach aims at avoiding situations where
Briefing contribution for VP Ansip
1/5 97
Lisbon Global Forum
Lisbon, 7 November 2016
by the verification mechanism for residence. We need to deliver an ambitious
instrument to the benefits of Europeans.
With the adoption of the copyright modernisation package two directives, two
regulations and an accompanying Communication - the Commission is delivering
on a key part of the Digital Single Market strategy which was announced at the
beginning of its mandate.
The Copyright package aims to support cultural diversity, increase content
available online and establish up to date and clearer rules for all market players.
The ultimate objective of the copyright modernisation initiative is a fairer framework
that delivers more in terms of access for users, opportunities for creators,
competitiveness for the cultural and creative sector, and predictability for online
players.
We need to maintain a copyright environment in Europe that gives the incentives to
invest in creative content.
Our proposals focus on three main objectives:
, with specific focus on TV and radio
.
Defensive points
New rules on online transmission and retransmission of television and radio
programmes
Out of
scope
Briefing contribution for VP Ansip
2/5 98
Lisbon Global Forum
Lisbon, 7 November 2016
catch-up TV/radio services). Applying the country of origin principle does not jeopardise
the territoriality of copyright.
The proposal is pragmatic and targeted rather than a complete overhaul of the system.
It maintains intact the way in which the creative, especially audiovisual, content is
financed and distributed.
The portability proposal is about cross-border portability of online content services to
which consumers subscribed in their country of residence and which they want to
continue using when travelling in the Union. For example, a French consumer who
subscribed to MyTF1 film and series service wil be able to continue using the service
and to rent new films while on holidays in Spain or on a business trip in Lithuania.
The new proposal also improves access to content, however, from a different angle: it
will promote cross-border access to TV and radio programmes from other Member
States. This proposal wil make it easier for broadcasters to offer their online services
ancil ary to broadcast across borders because it wil facilitate clearance of copyright.
Therefore, consumers wil have more choice to watch and listen to online programmes
transmitted by broadcasters established in other Member States. For example,
members of linguistic minorities or Europeans who moved to another Member State wil
have better possibilities to follow programmes in their mother tongue.
This proposal wil also make it easier for retransmission operators to clear the rights in
programmes from other Member States. Thus retransmission operators will be able to
offer to their users more programmes from across the Union. For example, Belgian
Proximus TV which offers TV packages to Belgian customers using IPTV technology
will be able to clear more easily rights in channels from other Member States.
Related right for press publishers
Out of
scope
The new related right covering press publications wil ensure that the organisational
and economic contribution of press publishers (such as newspaper and magazine
publishers) is recognised and incentivised in EU law, as it is today the case for other
creative sectors (film and phonogram producers, broadcasters). It wil give them a
stronger position when negotiating with other market players to license online uses of
their content.
It wil also allow press publishers to effectively act against il egal uses of press
Briefing contribution for VP Ansip
3/5 99
Lisbon Global Forum
Lisbon, 7 November 2016
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's
ancillary rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the
earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific
rights to publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at
giving publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their
content by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancil ary
rights"). In Spain online services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers
online, as the law provides for a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory
collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the
Commission proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for
press publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service
providers wishing to use press content. This wil al ow press publishers to develop new
business models in a flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation
of press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more
effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
Value Gap
Out of
scope
Briefing contribution for VP Ansip
4/5 100
Lisbon Global Forum
Lisbon, 7 November 2016
Article 15 ECD prevents Member States from imposing on hosting service providers
covered by Article 14 ECD a general obligation to monitor the information that they
transmit or store.
The obligation established in the copyright proposal cannot be assimilated to a general
monitoring obligation.
The measures imposed only apply to hosting service providers that store and give
access to the public to large amounts of protected content uploaded by their users (and
not for example to ISPs or cloud services that do not give access to the public to the
content that individuals may store for their own purposes ). Already today MS can
under the ECD require service providers who host information provided by recipients of
their services to apply duties of care which can be "reasonably expected from them".
The obligation provided for in the proposal is one which can reasonably be expected
from the covered services given the specific nature of these services and their
importance on the content market.
Contact:
, Unit I2, Copyright (DG CNECT) tel.:
Briefing contribution for VP Ansip
5/5 101
Doc. 18
Briefing for Commissioner OETTINGER – Meeting with Business Europe CEO Event
on 8 November 2016
Copyright
_________________________________________________________________
Out of
I. Line to take / speaking points
scope
.
1
102
II. Defensives
Out of scope
Online transmissions – Country of origin
2
103
•
Retransmissions
Out of
scope
3
104
TDM
Out of scope
.
Related right for press publishers
Out of scope
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's ancillary
rights?
4
105
•
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the
earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
•
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific
rights to publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at
giving publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their
content by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary
rights"). In Spain online services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers
online, as the law provides for a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory
collective management.
•
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the
Commission proposes now.
•
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for
press publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service
providers wishing to use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop
new business models in a flexible way.
•
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital
exploitation of press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore
expected to be more effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
Out of scope
Value Gap
5
106
Out of scope
Transparency in the remuneration of authors and performers
6
107
Out of
Background: Copyright package September 2016
scope
1. Cross-border access to content
2. Exceptions
Out of
3. A fair marketplace
scope
7
108
8
109
Claire Bury meeting EDiMA, CCIA and companies 9 November 2016
Doc. 19
Copyright package
Scene setter
Out of
scope
Out of
scope
KEY messages
1
110
Out of scope
The copyright package adopted on 14 September
More specific speaking points
Out of scope
On the functioning of the copyright marketplace:
2
111
On the modernisation of exceptions:
Out of scope
.
Defensives
Related right for press publishers
Out of
scope
3
112
Why is the Commission looking into these rights while it was a failure in Germany and
Spain?
The new related right for publishers that the Commission is considering now at EU
level would leave news publishers a greater margin of manoeuvre to negotiate
different types of agreements with service providers than it has been the case in DE
and ES and is therefore expected to be more effective for them in the long run
(notably as it will allow news publishers to develop new business models in a flexible
way).
Value Gap
Out of scope
4
113
TDM exception
Out of
scope
5
114
Annex
Minutes of the meeting with EDiMA, 22/9/2016
Out of
scope
Main Questions (EDiMA) and Answers (Commission)
Q: New neighbouring publishers' right: impact on hyperlinking and snippets; no
precedent in international or national law; what is the rationale and need for it, especially
in light of the failure of similar ES and DE laws; does it have a retroactive effect?
A: Commission explained that the new related right does not change the current scope of
the copyright relevant acts and so it will not affect the question whether certain uses of
works or parts of works, including hyperlinking and snippets are today copyright relevant
under EU law or not. If kept the way it is now drafted, the new right would apply to
creations up to 20 years before the (future date of the) adoption of the new law but only
as of the date of the adoption regarding the exploitation of the new right.
Out of
scope
6
115
7
116
Doc. 20
Speech at the 33rd Vorarlberg International Economic Forum,
Festspielhaus Bregenz
10.11.2016 at 14h
______________________________________________________________
Out of scope
I. Scene Setter
Agenda
Out of
scope
Speakers
Out of
scope
1
117
.
2
118
II. Speaking points for the speech
Out of scope
Einleitung
3
119
4
120
Out of scope
Zum Urheberrechtspaket
:
5
121
1.
Out of scope
Zum faireren Markt
6
122
Out of
scope
7
123
.
Out of
scope
,
8
124
Out of scope
Zum Zugang zu Inhalten
9
125
z.
10
126
11
127
.
Zu Ausnahmen und Beschränkungen
Out of scope
12
128
13
129
Out of scope
Neue Chancen für Europa im Bereich Soziale Medien
14
130
Out of scope
Schluss
.
15
131
.
16
132
III. Defensives
Out of scope
1.
ONLINE TRANSMISSIONS – COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
17
133
2.
ON PUBLISHERS' RIGHTS
1 Judgement in Case C-5/08, Infopaq Int'l A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening.
18
134
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's ancillary
rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the
earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving publishers
very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content by online
services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In Spain online
services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law provides for
a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the Commission
proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing
to use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a
flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of
press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more
effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
19
135
Out of
scope
3.
ON EXCEPTIONS: TDM
Out of scope
4.
VALUE GAP
Out of scope
20
136
5.
R
Out of scope
EMUNERATION OF AUTHORS AND PERFORMERS
21
137
6.
ON PROMOTION OF EUROPEAN WORKS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE REVISED AVMSD
Out of
scope
22
138
2 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD)
- Trends in linear television
revenues
3 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD)
- Investments in original
content by audiovisual services
4 Ibid
23
139
24
140
IV. Background
Out of
Copyright package September 2016
scope
Out of scope
1. Cross-border access to content
Out of
2. Exceptions
scope
Out of
3. A fair marketplace
scope
25
141
Cross-border portability proposal: state of play
Out of scope
ad) will vote on 29
November. Trilogues are expected to start after the vote in JURI.
Legislative proposal for a revision of the AVMSD
Out of scope
-
26
142
-
Authors:
(CNECT I.2), Tel.
(CNECT I.1), Tel.
(CNECT I.4), Tel.
27
143
Doc. 21
Keynote Speech and introduction of debates by
Commissioner Günther H. OETTINGER
at the Conference "Digital technologies: an opportunity for creation?"
organised by European Coalitions for Cultural Diversity
on the 14 Nov 2016.
Out of
scope
I.
Scene setter
II.
Speaking points
Out of
scope
1. General
1
144
2. Availability of and access to content across the EU
Out of scope
2
145
In the context of the review of the AVMS:
Out of scope
a.
3
146
.
3. Fairness in the digital single market
Out of scope
4
147
a.
b.
I.
Defensives
Out of scope
COPYRIGHT
OBJECTIVE 1: Facilitate cross-border access to copyright-protected content online
148
6
149
.
OBJECTIVE 2: Adapt the exception to copyright framework that this essential to
Out of
the functioning of the DSM
scope
TDM exception
7
150
.
OBJECTIVE 3: Better functioning market place
Out of scope
Press publisher
8
151
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's ancillary
rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the
earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving
publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content
by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In
9
152
Spain online services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law
provides for a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the
Commission proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing
to use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a
flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of
press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more
effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
Value Gap
Out of
scope
10
153
Out of
Remuneration of authors and performers
scope
AVMSD
Out of scope
Video-sharing platforms
11
154
12
155
Out of
Audiovisual commercial communications
scope
.
13
156
Promotion of European works
Out of
scope
14
157
15
158
Authors:
(tel.
0) and
(tel.
DG CNECT I.2
(tel.
)
DG CNECT I.1
16
159
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS1: (resumes hereinafter)
Out of scope
*************
*************
1 Information is based on the latest programme available.
17
160
Out of scope
SPEAKERS2
2 Information is based on the latest programme available.
18
161
-
19
162
Doc. 22
Speaking points for the panel "What future for copyright in the digital
single market"?
Claire Bury
at the Conference "Digital technologies: an opportunity for creation?"
organised by European Coalitions for Cultural Diversity
on the 14 Nov 2016.
Out of scope
I. Scene setter
II. Speaking points
Out of scope
1
163
1.
2
164
3
165
4
166
Out of scope
I.
Defensives
OBJECTIVE 1: Facilitate cross-border access to copyright-protected content online
5
167
6
168
Out of
scope
OBJECTIVE 2: Adapt the exception to copyright framework that this essential to
the functioning of the DSM
TDM exception
7
169
OBJECTIVE 3: Better functioning market place
Out of
scope
Press publisher
8
170
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's ancillary
rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the
earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving
publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content
by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In
Spain online services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law
provides for a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the
Commission proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing
to use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a
flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of
press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more
effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
Out of
Value Gap
scope
9
171
Remuneration of authors and performers
Out of
scope
10
172
Authors:
(tel.
) and
(tel.
)
DG CNECT I.2
11
173
Out of scope
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS1: (resumes hereinafter)
*************
*************
1 Information is based on the latest programme available.
12
174
SPEAKERS2
Out of scope
I. FIRST DEBATE
-
II. SECOND DEBATE
-
2 Information is based on the latest programme available.
13
175
-
.
14
176
Doc. 23
Briefing for Commissioner Oettinger VG Media event -
discussion: presentation of study by Urlich Di Fabio on 16th
November 2016 at 12:45
Request: CAB OETTINGER/914
Out of
scope
I. Scene setter
Agenda:
Safeguarding Fundamental Rights in Digital Systems
Welcome Note
Secretary of State Heike Raab
The Plenipotentiary for Federal and European Affairs of the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate,
for Media and Digital Affairs
Maren Ruhfus
177
Managing Director, VG Media
Short presentation
Prof. Dr. Dr. Udo Di Fabio
Discussion
Prof. Dr. Dr. Udo Di Fabio
Günther Oettinger, EU Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society
Moderated by
Dominik Wichmann
Managing Director & Editor in Chief, DLD Media GmbH
Objectives:
Out of
Di Fabio's Position:
scope
178
Out of scope
Our Position:
II. Speaking points
Out of scope
Media freedom and pluralism: challenges
179
Out of
Actions by the Commission: AVMSD and EU-funded projects
scope
Digital transformation of media
Out of scope
180
eady
181
Fairness in B2B relations
Out of scope
.
182
Out of scope
Moral aspects of Artificial Intelligence
183
Data Protection / ePrivacy
Out of scope
184
III. Background
Out of scope
Platforms (LTT)
o
.
185
o
Recent EU legislative actions having an impact on media freedom and pluralism
Out of
scope
The Commission's proposal remains neutral as regard press publishers' business model.
Indeed, in contrast to the earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain, the
Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press publishers
to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing to use press
186
content. It does not contain any tax nor impose any payment. This will allow press publishers
to develop new business models in a flexible way. The EU-scale of the new right guarantees
a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of press content in the EU. The Commission
proposal is therefore expected to be more effective in the long run than different national
initiatives.
Out of
scope
EU-funded projects in the field of media freedom and pluralism
Out of
scope
General Data Protection Regulation
Out of
scope
187
The ePrivacy Directive
Out of
scope
188
Out of scope
IV. Curriculum Vitae
2017
Contributor:
(CNECT),
/
(CNECT),
189
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the Doc. 24
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
VP5/2016/142.01 Conference on Copyright Enforcement in the Online World
Out of
Scene setter
scope
Objective(s)
Out of
scope
1 Communication "Towards a modern, more European copyright framework" (2015)626 dated 9/12/2015
and Communication "Promoting a fair, efficient and competitive European copyright-based economy in
the Digital Single Market" (2016)592 dated 14/09/2016.
Title of the briefing contribution
1/12 190
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Out of
Speaking points
scope
Title of the briefing contribution
2/12 191
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Title of the briefing contribution
3/12 192
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Title of the briefing contribution
4/12 193
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Title of the briefing contribution
5/12 194
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Defensive points (enforcement/regulation on TV and radio programms/press
publisher/value gap)
Out of
scope
ENFORCEMENT
Title of the briefing contribution
6/12 195
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Out of scope
REGULATION ON RADIO AND TV PROGRAMMES
Title of the briefing contribution
7/12 196
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Out of scope
PRESS PUBLISHER
Title of the briefing contribution
8/12 197
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's
ancillary rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from
the earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific
rights to publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at
giving publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of
their content by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as
Title of the briefing contribution
9/12 198
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
"ancillary rights"). In Spain online services were also obliged to pay for the use of
newspapers online, as the law provides for a mandatory compensation subject to
compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the
Commission proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for
press publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service
providers wishing to use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop
new business models in a flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital
exploitation of press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore
expected to be more effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
Out of scope
VALUE GAP
Title of the briefing contribution
10/12 199
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Out of
Background notes
scope
Title of the briefing contribution
11/12 200
Conference on "Copyright Enforcement in the Online World", organised by CEIPI (the
Center for International Intellectual Property Studies).
European Parliament, Strasbourg, 22.11.2016
Out of scope
Contact(s):
CNECT I2,
0
, GROW F.5,
, GROW F.5,
Title of the briefing contribution
12/12 201
Doc. 25
Briefing for Commissioner OETTINGER – Competitiveness Council on 28 November
2016
Copyright
_________________________________________________________________
Out of scope
I. Scene setter
II. Speaking points
1
202
2
203
o
3
204
III. Defensives
Out of
scope
New rules on online transmission and retransmission of television and radio programmes
Exceptions
Out of
scope
4
205
Out of
Related right for press publishers
scope
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's ancillary
rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the
earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving
publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content
by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In
Spain online services were obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law
provides for a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the
Commission proposes now.
5
206
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers
wishing to use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business
models in a flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation
of press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more
effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
Out of
Value Gap
scope
6
207
IV. Background
Out of
scope
Copyright package September 2016
Out of
scope
1. Cross-border access to content
.
Out of
2. Exceptions
scope
Out of
3. A fair marketplace
scope
7
208
.
Out of
Cross-border portability proposal: state of play
scope
r.
Author:
, Unit I2, tel:
8
209
Doc. 26
Meeting with Wirtschaftsrat der CDU e. V.
On 5 December 2016 at 10:00, Berlin
___________________________________________________________________________
Out of
I. Scene Setter
scope
.
1
210
Out of scope
II. Speaking points
Zum Urheberrechtspaket
2
211
.
3
212
4
213
o
Zum neuen Verlegerrecht
5
214
6
215
Out of scope
Text- und Data-Mining (TDM)
Zu Urhebern / Transparenz
Out of scope
,
7
216
Out of scope
Zum Zugang zu Inhalten (einschließlich Portabilitätsverordnung)
8
217
o
9
218
.
Out of scope
Schluss
10
219
.
Contact:
, CNECT.I2,
11
220
Out of scope
III. Relevant defensives
PUBLISHERS
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's ancillary
rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the
earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving
publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content
by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In
Spain online services were obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law
provides for a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the
Commission proposes now.
12
221
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing
to use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a
flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of
press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more
effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
Out of
scope
13
222
(
14
223
Out of
TDM
scope
15
224
.
Out of
REMUNERATION OF AUTHORS AND PERFORMERS
scope
.
16
225
REGULATION ON RADIO AND TV PROGRAMMES
Out of
scope
17
226
18
227
Out of scope
VALUE GAP
19
228
IV. Background
Out of scope
Copyright package September 2016
1. Cross-border access to content
Out of scope
2. Exceptions
Out of scope
20
229
Out of scope
3. A fair marketplace
Out of scope
Cross-border portability proposal: state of play
.
Author:
(CNECT I.2), Tel.
21
230
Doc.27
Briefing for Commissioner OETTINGER
Meeting with Mme Therese Comodini Cachia
in Strasbourg, on 13 December 2016
Copyright
_________________________________________________________________
I. Scene setter
Out of scope
.
Out of scope
CV:
1
231
II. Line to take
Out of scope
More detailed speaking points on the proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital
Single Market
Out of scope
2
232
Out of scope
3
233
III. Defensives
1) ENSURING WIDER ACCESS TO CONTENT
Out of scope
New rules for out-of-commerce works
New rules to make more audiovisual works available on video-on-demand platforms
Out of scope
4
234
2)
ADAPTING
EXCEPTIONS
TO
DIGITAL
AND
CROSS-BORDER
ENVIRONMENTS
Text and Data Mining
Out of scope
5
235
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities
Out of scope
6
236
Technological Protection Measures
Out of scope
3) ACHIEVING A WELL-FUNCTIONING MARKETPLACE FOR COPYRIGHT
Out of scope
Related right for press publishers
7
237
How is the proposal different from recent attempts in Germany and Spain's ancillary
rights?
The Commission proposal for a new related right for press publishers differs from the
earlier attempts in this direction in Germany and Spain.
Germany and Spain have passed legislation in the last few years to grant specific rights to
publishers. These laws follow individual approaches but they both aim at giving
publishers very specific rights over the use of snippets or small excerpts of their content
by online services such as news aggregators (often referred to as "ancillary rights"). In
Spain online services were also obliged to pay for the use of newspapers online, as the law
provides for a mandatory compensation subject to compulsory collective management.
This is different from the broader and general concept of related right that the
Commission proposes now.
The Commission proposes an exclusive right that leaves margin of manoeuvre for press
publishers to negotiate different types of agreements with online service providers wishing
to use press content. This will allow press publishers to develop new business models in a
flexible way.
The EU-scale of the new right guarantees a uniform approach to the digital exploitation of
press content in the EU. The Commission proposal is therefore expected to be more
effective in the long run than different national initiatives.
Out of scope
8
238
9
239
Publishers as beneficiaries of compensation for uses under exceptions
Out of
scope
10
240
Out of scope
Value Gap
11
241
12
242
Out of scope
Remuneration of authors and performers
13
243
4. ISSUES NOT COVERED BY THE PROPOSAL
Out of scope
14
244
Out of scope
IV. Background
The Copyright package
1. Cross-border access to content
Out of scope
2. Exceptions
Out of scope
15
245
3. A fair marketplace
Out of scope
Authors:
CNECT I2,
, CNECT I2,
16
246
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni Doc. 28
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Michal Boni on copyright
Out of scope
Scene setter
Line to Take / Speaking points
Out of scope
1. On copyright
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
1/10 247
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
On TDM
On press publishers
Out of scope
2. On Connectivity
Out of scope
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
2/10 248
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
3/10 249
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
Background
Out of scope
1. On copyright
Proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market
1. Modernisation of copyright exceptions
Out of scope
2. Introduction of new mechanisms facilitating licences and access to
content online
Out of
scope
3. Better functioning of the copyright marketplace
negotiating
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
4/10 250
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
EPP hearing on press publishers and value gap – 11 January 2017
Presentation by Ms Comodini Cachia.
Out of scope
Video-message by Commissioner Navracsics.
1st panel: Publishers’ rights
(Mozil a) considered the COM proposal a non-credible and
unworkable solution, as proven by experience in DE and ES. She considered it a lose-
lose situation, at the potential expense of small market players and legal certainty.
(CEIPI) sees no causal link between the introduction of the new right
and the benefits for press publishers and referred to failing laws in DE and ES, with
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
5/10 251
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
bad effects on smaller publishers, which is bad for freedom of expression.
Out of
scope
2nd panel: Transfer of value
Out of
scope
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
6/10 252
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
7/10 253
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
2. On Connectivity
Out of scope
Report of a meeting between MEP Boni and Anthony Whelan, 22 November 2016,
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
8/10 254
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
2025 connectivity objectives
Out of scope
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
9/10 255
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
Contact(s):
(tel:
),
(tel:
4), CNECT I2
(CNECT B5)
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Boni on copyright
10/10 256
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017 Doc.22
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
Out of scope
Scene setter
Line to Take / Speaking points
Out of scope
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
1/8
257
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
On press publishers
Out of scope
On value gap
Out of scope
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
2/8
258
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
3/8
259
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
Background
Proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market
1. Modernisation of copyright exceptions
2. Introduction of new mechanisms facilitating licences and access to
content online
3. Better functioning of the copyright marketplace
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
4/8
260
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
EPP hearing on press publishers and value gap – 11 January 2017
1st panel: Publishers’ rights
(Mozil a) considered the COM proposal a non-credible and
unworkable solution, as proven by experience in DE and ES. She considered it a lose-
lose situation, at the potential expense of small market players and legal certainty.
(CEIPI) sees no causal link between the introduction of the new right
and the benefits for press publishers and referred to failing laws in DE and ES, with
bad effects on smaller publishers, which is bad for freedom of expression.
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
5/8
261
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
2nd panel: Transfer of value
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
6/8
262
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
right holders. Moreover, 50% of the revenue paid out to the music industry by Youtube
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
7/8
263
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia
Strasbourg, 17 January 2017
Contact(s):
(tel:
),
(tel:
), CNECT I2
Meeting VP Ansip – MEP Comodini Cachia on copyright
8/8
264
Document Outline