This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Durchsetzungsbericht der IPR – zweiter Meinungsaustausch im EP

A discussion on the IPR Enforcement report took place in the European Parliament (EP) on 9-10 November 2009. At the beginning of the discussion, the Parliamentarian in charge of the dossier, Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) gave details of the current timetable for the dossier. The presentation of the draft report is estimated for 27-28 January 2010, while the deadline for amendments is 6 February. The vote in the Committe could take place on 23 February, while the EP plenary might consider the report in April 2010.

Ms.Gallo explained that the report should take a sector-by-sector approach as diffent types of content need to be handled in different ways, so a single policy would work . She also said it was important to stress the need for education to protect copyright. Most people would not dream of picking up a book and walking out of a shop with it without paying, but this is exactly what happens when people share books online. The Directive on sanctions is still stuck in the Council and the EP will need to work with the Spanish Presidency to get that dossier moving again.

She also considers that "online piracy is a problem and IPR law is there to protect rightsholders. We don't say that taxes should not exist because tax laws are widely broken. In the same way, we should not remove IPR law." Young people need to understand that they need to pay for content. For multi-territorial licences, a sectoral approach is needed. With regard to technical protection measures, the EP needs to examine how we can standardise content recognition. With regard to the international dimension of the issue, strong requirements on piracy in international agreements are necessary.

The Parliament needs to give some thought to the follow-up of the Communication. Should the adoption of new legislation be encouraged or should existing legislation be revised? Ms Gallo concluded her introduction by saying that she had lots of input from IPRs lobbyists and was open to contributions from other members.

She also considers that "online piracy is a problem and IPR law is there to protect rightsholders. We don't say that taxes should not exist because tax laws are widely broken. In the same way, we should not remove IPR law." Young people need to understand that they need to pay for content. For multi-territorial licences, a sectoral approach is needed. With regard to technical protection measures, the EP needs to examine how we can standardise content recognition. With regard to the international dimension of the issue, strong requirements on piracy in international agreements are necessary.

The Parliament needs to give some thought to the follow-up of the Communication. Should the adoption of new legislation be encouraged or should existing legislation be revised? Ms Gallo concluded her introduction by saying that she had lots of input from IPRs lobbyists and was open to contributions from other members.

Several MEPs commented on Ms. Gallo introduction. Among them Christian Engstroem (Greens/EFA, Sweden (Pirate Party)) said that Ms Gallo's intervention demonstrated the problem. This Communication is almost exclusively about counterfeiting of goods (which is a real problem and should be illegal and ha has no objections to this, he said), while Ms Gallo talks almost exclusively about file sharing. While, at the moment, the fact that sharing of protected content is illegal can be conceded, this is a hot political topic and how it should be handled is far from clear. It is inappropriate for the Commission to be spending money on advocating for moving in one particular direction - making enforcement harsher.

Joanna Geringer (S+D, Poland) argued that the Internet is more like a library than a bookshop and that filesharing is not really theft. Legislation must be adapted accordingly. There is a crime only if there is an advantage being drawn from it and profit is being made. Young people see content being made available and that they are accessing it without having to break any protection measures. For individual users (filesharers) we should consider the Internet as a library. We should fight against counterfeit goods and other illegal activity but we should not confuse this with filesharing. Therefore, she agrees with Mr Engstroem that these two issues should not be in the same document.

Françoise Castex (S+D, France) said that this was a broad question and that the Committee needed to avoid becoming polarised and also to avoid focusing on one sector and ending up with something that is less appropriate for other sectors. Tackling just illegal downloads should be avoided, as there is a wider range of issues such as patents, exchange of knowledge, generics etc. The Parliament has time to get this right.

Cecelia Wikström (ALDE, Sweden) said that a balance must be struck between property rights (whether physical or not) and the fact that we live in an age where the Internet is an important source of information that allows us to share our heritage. Intangible rights need to be protected as well as tangible ones and we need to recognise that legal instruments are necessary to allow us to use the Internet legally.

Eva Lichtenberger (Greens/EFA, Austria) said that the subjects of the report needed to be split. There is a difference between copyright and patents and we cannot have the same strategy for both. The Internet undermines the logic that copyright is based on. On the Internet, we need to improve awareness, we need to reform the whole package of legislation to reflect the realities of the Internet. We need to deal with different activities differently.

Mereille Gallo closed the discussion by saying that the debate demonstrated that this was a fascinating subject. It is clear that the subjects need to be split up and that a clever approach is needed. Action is needed and all technologies must be taken into account. If the issue is the Internet today, there might be an even more powerful technology to consider in the future.

(contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)