Christian Engström, Pirat

26 september 2010

After the Gallo report

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 15:26

MEP Marielle Gallo (EPP) won the vote in plenary

It was a defeat when the European Parliament adopted the Gallo report on intellectual property rights enforcement last week. The report calls for harsher measures against file sharers, both through stricter laws and ”non-legislative measures”, which means forcing the Internet service providers to police their customers.

But even if the adoption of the report was a defeat, there are positive things to say about the vote. The report was adopted with 328 votes in favour, 245 against, and 81 abstentions. This means that almost half the parliament was against the measures proposed, or at least unsure about the wisdom of them.

This is the good news. There are a lot of Members of the European Parliament that are unhappy about just doing more of the same, and would want to look for solutions in other directions.

After the final vote, the display looked like this:

Red means no to the Gallo report, green yes, and white abstain. Click to enlarge.

The left half of the European Parliament mostly voted against the report, or abstained. These are the Left, Social Democrat, and Green groups in the parliament. The Liberal group in the middle was split, and its members voted in different directions.

The big Christian Democrat group EPP mostly voted for the report. Together with the small Conservative group ECR, this was enough to have it passed.

But even if the EPP sector of the voting display looks depressingly supportive of the Gallo report when you look at the picture, many of its members voted yes primarily because the rapporteur Ms. Gallo comes from their own group, and they did not want to embarrass her. There were intense discussions within the group, with many EPP members being highly critical of the report.

Even if the voting display does not necessarily make it obvious this time, there are a lot of members from all political groups that are getting fed up with measures that simply don’t work.

There is an intellectual and political process going on in the European Parliament, and the Gallo report was by no means the last word on the issue of file sharing and freedom on the Internet.

So what happens now?

Formally speaking, the Gallo report has no direct legislative effect. It is an ”own initiative report” by the European Parliament expresses its opinion to the Commission, in case the Commission is interested. The Commission is then free to come with proposals in line with the parliament’s opinion, or to ignore it and do something else. An own initiative report has no legal effect by itself.

But on the practical and political level, the adoption of the report of course makes it easier for the forces within the Commission that think that even more enforcement will solve all problems.

This is in particular French commissioner Michel Barnier, who is a real copyright hard-liner from the same party as French president Sarkozy. He was present in plenary at the debate, and he will be very pleased with the outcome of the vote.

Now he can point at the own initiative report by the European Parliament, and say that the parliament has specifically asked him to come up with stricter measures and harsher punishements.

But even if he can truthfully say the the EP has asked for it, it was not a united parliament that did.

There are many MEPs, including some that voted yes this time, who would prefer that we took a step back, examined the real facts and figures, and found a better way to handle copyright in the Internet age.

The political discussion will continue. Next on the agenda are the ACTA negotiations.

…………

Previous articles on the Gallo report

Tags: , , ,

Annonser

22 september 2010

MP kräver hårdare tag mot fildelare

Filed under: informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 14:39

Miljöpartiets EU-parlamentariker Isabella Lövin röstade ja till Gallo-rapporten och hårdare tag mot fildelare

Pressmeddelande från Piratpartiet:

Miljöpartiet sviker fildelningslöfte

Tre dagar. Så lång tid tog det för Miljöpartiet att svika sitt vallöfte om att arbeta för en fullständig legalisering av fildelning. Rösterna har inte ens räknats färdigt.

EU-parlamentet röstade idag igenom den kontroversiella Gallo-rapporten, som kräver hårdare tag mot bland annat fildelning av film, musik och spel på Internet. Miljöpartiets Isabella Lövin röstade för rapporten.

– Det är bedrövligt. Miljöpartiet har framställt sig som fildelarnas vänner under hela valrörelsen, med lika stor framtidstro som Piratpartiet, säger Rick Falkvinge, partiledare för Piratpartiet. Sedan går miljöpartister och röstar igenom en av de mest framtidsfientliga rapporterna som nånsin legat på bordet.

Piratpartiet är mycket missnöjt med Miljöpartiets svek, både mot väljarna och mot framtiden.

Tidigare pressmeddelande från Piratpartiet:

EU-parlamentet går vilse om fildelning

Europaparlamentet-parlamentet antog i dag en rapport som kräver hårdare tag mot fildelning, den så kallade Gallo-rapporten.

Rapporten konstaterar visserligen att det inte finns tillräckligt med fakta om fildelningens effekter och att mer fakta krävs. Men samtidigt vill den inte heller invänta sådana fakta, utan kräver att EU-Kommissionen redan nu tar i med hårdhandskarna mot fildelarna.

En annan märklighet är att rapporten vägrar att skilja på varuförfalskning och fildelning. Det gör att den landar i orimliga slutsatser som att fildelning skulle vara skadlig för folkhälsan.

– Det här är Europaparlamentet när det är som sämst. Istället för att först ta reda på fakta och därefter rekommendera lagstiftning, gör man precis tvärtom. Det här är en illa genomtänkt rapport som till stor del är ett rent beställningsjobb från de stora film- och skivbolagen, säger Piratpartiets EU-parlamentsledamot Christian Engström.

Gallo-rapporten rekommenderar bland annat att internetleverantörerna ska skicka ut varningsbrev till misstänkta fildelare.  Nätaktivister och organisationer som Journalister Utan Gränser har länge varnat för följderna om den går igenom.

– Det här är ytterligare ett steg mot att tvinga internetleverantörerna att agera övervakare på nätet. Vi riskerar att förlora nätets frihet, öppenhet och kreativa dynamik, säger Christian Engström.

Gallo-rapporten antogs med röstsiffrorna 328 mot 245 och 81 nedlagda röster.

– Detta  var naturligtvis inte vad vi hoppats på. Men man kan ändå konstatera  att nästan hälften Europaparlamentets ledamöter var av en annan åsikt  eller osäkra. Nu har vi fyra år på oss att vinna en majoritet för en ny,  reformerad upphovsrätt som inte jagar privata fildelare, säger Christian Engström.

Relaterad bakgrundsinformation:

Undersökningar, från bland annat den norska handelshögskolan, visar att  fildelningen inte har drabbat artisterna, bara skivbolagen och deras förlegade affärsmodell. Artisterna har istället ökat sina inkomster.

Läs mera här: Artists make more money in file-sharing age than before it

…………

Andra som skriver om voteringen: Henrik Alexandersson, Hultin, Lena Ek (C), Europaportalen, TT, Isabella Lövin (MP)

Tags: , , ,

Gallo wins vote on harder measures against file sharers

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 12:35

The Gallo report on copyright enforcement was unfortunately adopted by the European Parliament

The Gallo report on stricter intellectual property rights enforcement was just voted in plenary by the European Parliament. The rapporteur Ms. Gallo from the Christian Democrat group EPP won, and our side lost.

The report was adopted with 328 votes in favour, 245 against, and 81 abstentions.

Before the vote on the report, there was a separate vote on the alternative resolution supported by the Greens (including me as a Pirate), the Social Democrats and the Left group. We lost this vote with 235 votes in favour, 373 against and 48 abstentions.

This was a setback, but the fight for a free and open Internet and sensible copyright reform goes on regardless.

The positive spin on the vote would be that only half the members of the parliament actually supported the report. This was a very controversial report, and the discussions on the matter will no doubt continue.

But today in plenary was a defeat.

…………

Andra som skriver om voteringen: Henrik Alexandersson

Reference links:

The Gallo report as proposed by the rapporteur (EPP group)
Alternative resolution by the Green, Social Democrat and Left groups
Alternative Resolution by the Liberal group

Previous articles on the Gallo report

Tags: , , ,

21 september 2010

”Let’s get the facts before we legislate”

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 14:20

"Let's get the facts and figures before we legislate," was my suggestion in plenary

The Gallo report on intellectual property rights enforcement (i.e.: harder measures against file sharing) will be voted by the European Parliament tomorrow Wednesday.

Yesterday evening, there was a short debate in plenary on the subject. I managed to get 60 seconds of speaking time. This is what I said:

Mr President,

There are several problems with this report, but I will highlight one fundamental problem: inconsistency. It starts out by saying that we do not have the facts and figures necessary to legislate, so therefore we should have this IP Observatory to get those facts and figures. Then the report goes on to criticise the Commission for not having proposed legislation, and goes on to propose non-legislative measures, etc.

I agree with what was said at the outset: we do not have the facts and figures available to us as policy makers. That is the fundamental problem, and the reason why the European institutions have been unsuccessful in finding a good policy for these matters.

I therefore recommend the Greens, Social Democrats and GUE/NGL resolution, which states that we should by all means get the facts and figures, then consider what to do, and then we can legislate.

You can find video from the debate, including my speech, on this page (click ”Enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market” to expand the list of speakers).

60 seconds is not a very long time, and there is of course a lot more that I would have wanted to say. I have written more about the background, and about our alternative resolution, in this blog post from last week.

There is a major risk
that the Gallo report will be accepted by the parliament, but it is not a done deal yet. There is still a chance that either our alternative resolution could be adopted, or that the parliament says no to both the alternative resolution and the original Gallo report.

Either of these outcomes would be a success, and a victory for common sense.

You can help by contacting MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) and explaining to them why they should support the resolution by the Green, Social Democrat and Left (GUE/NGL) groups, and vote no to the Gallo report.

French activist organisation La Quadrature du Net has put together an page with information about how to do and what to say. You should focus on MEPs from the Christian Democrat (EPP), Liberal (ALDE), and Conservative (ECR) groups, as it is these groups that are officially supporting the original hard-line Gallo report.

The vote is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon around 14.00 12.30.

…………

Reference links:

The Gallo report as proposed by the rapporteur (EPP group)
Alternative resolution by the Green, Social Democrat and Left groups
Alternative Resolution by the Liberal group

Previous articles on the Gallo report

Tags: , , ,

16 september 2010

The Gallo report will be voted next week

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 11:18

The alternative resolution by the Green, Social Democrat and Left groups calls for fact and figures before deciding on a course of action

Wednesday next week the European Parliament will be voting on the Gallo report on intellectual property enforcement.

Unfortunately, there is a major risk that the parliament will adopt the report, which would be bad news for the Internet community. I am one of the signatories on an alternative resolution submitted by the Green, Social Democrat and Left groups, but it is doubtful if we will be able to get a majority for it. But we will keep on trying until the final vote.

The Gallo report on intellectual property enforcement starts out by noting that data concerning the scale of IPR infringements is inconsistent, incomplete, insufficient and dispersed, and that an objective, independent impact assessment is needed for any additional legislative proposal.

So far, so good. The astronomical fantasy figures provided by the film and record companies are no sound basis for introducing new legislation, and we would urgently need a more fact based approach.

But after having established that we don’t really have the facts and figures to base any new proposals on, the Gallo report proceeds to make recommendations about new laws and stricter enforcement anyway.

The report urges the Commission to ”complete the legislative framework to introduce a set of measures to combat intellectual property infringements”, and to promote ”voluntary” agreements between Internet service providers and rights holders, to enforce copyright online.

Such ”voluntary” agreements between the content industry and Internet service providers have been promoted by some national governments across the EU to address the issue of file sharing by trying to establish national “graduated response” or ”three strikes” mechanisms.

But they are highly problematic, since they go beyond the regulatory framework to establish practices. The creation of “self-regulatory” systems remove core fundamental rights such as the right to a fair trial and the right to privacy. By turning the Internet service providers into police, judge, jury and executioner, transparent and structured democratic decision-making is also sidelined.

Another problem with the Gallo report is that it consistently mixes up non-commercial illegal file sharing with commercial goods counterfeiting. The impact of counterfeiting, particularly with regard to medicines, can be very serious and even life threatening. By contrast, there have been no known deaths as a direct result of unauthorised file sharing. Even if you think that the music kids listen to nowadays is rubbish, it’s not that bad.

If there are improvements that can be made in the way the EU combats counterfeit goods, we Pirates have no objections to that. But pretending that this is the same thing as illegal file sharing is just silly. They are separate issues, that need to be addressed separately.

Today’s copyright legislation is fundamentally out of touch with the times. Since at least 1999, when Napster appeared on the scene, file sharing on the Internet has continued to grow exponentially year by year, despite all efforts to limit it by stricter enforcement measures.

Whether you think that the Internet is the Great Library of Alexandria 2.0 (as we Pirates do), or a modern day equivalent of the Boston strangler (as some rights holders have suggested), we should at least be able to agree on two things: that the enforcement strategies governments have been pursuing for the last decade are not working, and that any new strategies need to be based on facts and reality.

The European Parliament has a chance to play a constructive role in this debate by adopting the alternative resolution that encourages the Commission to start by collecting scientific research regarding intellectual property rights regulation, and to let that data be the starting point for the discussion on how to proceed.

To me, this is the sensible thing in a situation where we are nowhere near a consensus in the parliament as to what we should do.

To complicate things, the Liberal group has also submitted its own alternative resolution. It is shorter than the original Gallo report, which of course is an improvement, but the substance of it is essentially the same as the original Gallo report.

It too mixes up counterfeiting and file sharing, and recommends stricter enforcement measures to be introduced immediately, without waiting for any data or facts to be collected.

The alternative resolution
by the Greens (including Pirates), the Social Democrats and the Left acknowledges this, and and leaves it open what we should to until we have more data and have had the time to reflect.

I invite members from all political groups to vote for the Green, S&D and GUE alternative resolution.

The ever stricter enforcement policies of the last decade have not worked, and there is no reason to think that more of the same will work any better. It is time to take a deep breath and start a serious discussion about our options.

The European Parliament has a chance to take a lead role in this discussion. I think we should.

…………

Reference links:

The Gallo report as proposed by the rapporteur (EPP group)
Alternative resolution by the Green, Social Democrat and Left groups
Alternative Resolution by the Liberal group

Previous articles on the Gallo report

Andra som skriver: Henrik Alexandersson

Tags: , , ,

5 juli 2010

Vote on Gallo Report postponed until autumn

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 16:33

The Gallo Report on file sharing and intellectual property has been postponed until after the summer

The European Parliament just decided to postpone the vote on the controversial Gallo Report on intellectual property rights enforcement until the autumn.

This was a good decision. All the political groups are divided on the issue, and there is an intelligent political discussion going on in the Parliament. In this situation, it is a sensible cause of action to postpone the vote.

The report will probably come back on the agenda in September, but that is for the Conference of Presidents [of the political groups] to decide.

The decision to postpone was taken by a quite narrow majority: 140 votes against 135. But it was still a good one.

…………

Tags: , , ,

11 juni 2010

”Information and sanctions haven’t worked,” says IFPI

Filed under: Copyright Reform,English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory,Ipred — Christian Engström @ 11:54

The Legal Affairs Committee JURI in the European Parliament has a Working Group on Copyright. I think we have had close to a dozen meetings, where we have invited various experts and stakeholders to educate us about their views on copyright.

This has been a very valuable exercise. I have learned a lot about copyright, both in theory and in practice, from these seminars. As I understand it, the group will continue to meet after the summer break, which I think is very good.

The Working Group on Copyright is chaired by French MEP Marielle Gallo from the large Christian Democrat group EPP. She is also rapporteur (i.e.: the responsible draftsperson) for the Gallo report on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement, that was adopted by JURI last week.

Although the Gallo report and the working group are not formally connected to each other, the working group has provided a very useful opportunity to learn more about the subject covered by the report.

Apart from the experts, we have also had several chances to hear what different stakeholders and special interest lobbyists have had to say.

This week, Mr. Ted Shapiro from the Motion Picture Association MPA and Ms. Olivia Regnier from the record producers’ organization IFPI were kind enough to come and explain their views to the working group, together with two other speakers. MPA and IFPI are typical examples of stakeholder organizations.

Ms. Regnier from IFPI talked about how many fantastic things the record companies would put on the market if only on-line piracy could be eliminated or reduced. To achieve this, she was asking for information campaigns aimed at Internet users, and stricter sanctions against copyright infringers.

She showed this slide:

"The music industry favours an approach which combines the information of Internet users, with sanctions for persistent infringers." (Click to enlarge)

Incidentally, this happens to be exactly what the Gallo report in the form that it was adopted in JURI proposes. Information campaigns about copyright directed at Internet users, and sanctions handed out by the Internet Service Provider companies, without involvement of courts.

But leaving all other aspects aside, do we have any reason to think that this will be effective?

When it was my turn to ask a question, I reminded IFPI and the MPA that they have more than a decade’s experience of this strategy, from both the US and Europe. It was in 1998 that DMCA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, was adopted in the US. In Europe we have seen a number new laws for stricter enforcement being introduced over the years, notably the 2001 Copyright Directive EUCD. We have also seen a number of information campaigns, often equating file sharing with theft.

With so much experience from a number of countries, the rights holder’s organizatons are of course in a very good position to judge how effective the strategy has been.

”Could you tell us about these experiences, and could you give any examples where illegal file sharing in a country had been eliminated or greatly reduced by information campaigns and sanctions?” I asked the representatives from IFPI and the MPA.

Ms. Regnier from IFPI said that so far the strategy had not been very successful. This is because the rights holders are forced to go through the courts to punish illegal file sharers, which severely restricts the number of cases they are able to pursue.

IFPI and the other rights holders would need to make a more wide scale mass response in order to create an effective deterrent, she said. For this reason, she was welcoming the adoption of the Gallo report in the JURI Committee.

When it came to giving an example
of a country where stricter enforcement had led to significantly reduced file sharing, she mentioned Sweden, where the IPRED directive was implemented on April 1, 2009.

So let’s look at the graph for the total Internet traffic in Sweden:

Internet traffic in Sweden, two-year graph by Netnod

It is indeed true that there was a sharp drop in the total network traffic by about 40 per cent on the day the IPRED law came into force. IFPI and the other anti-piracy organizations in Sweden immediately sent out jubilant press releases saying that the IPRED law really worked. This has been the line that they have maintained ever since.

But when we look at the graph, we se that six months later, the network traffic was back to where it used to be. If this was a success for the sanctions strategy against file sharing, it was a very short lived one.

And this is how it has been all over the world. Just like Ms. Regnier told the European Parliament Working Group, information to Internet users and stricter sanctions have so far been unable to stem the tide of illegal file sharing. But they still hope that more of the same will be effective.

I am very grateful to Ms. Regnier for her frank answers to the working group, and for making IFPI’s position so clear.

But I’m afraid that she failed to convince me. I don’t think that more information and sanctions will work any better this time than the previous ones, no matter how much some stakeholders would want them to.

I think it’s time for Europe to start looking for a better way.

…………

Update: I had spelled Ms. Regnier’s name wrong, for which I apologize. I have now corrected that.

Photos by Christian Engström, free for publication CC0.

Andra bloggar om: , , ,

7 juni 2010

Gallo report — Draft alternative resolution

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 14:42

The draft alternative resoluton is based on amendments tabled by JURI members from several different political groups

The ”Gallo report” advocating stricter intellectual property enforcement was adopted last week by the legal affairs committee JURI in the European Parliament.

It is not a good report, in my opinion. The European digital rights organization EDRI called it ”far-reaching, contradictory and, at times, fundamentalist”, and pointed out that some of the views expressed in the report are almost comically absurd.

I have written an alternative resolution, based primarily on the good amendments that were tabled by Members from the Social Democrat, Liberal, and Green groups. Here is the text of the draft alternative resolution (version 0.2, with differences compared to the Gallo report adopted in JURI highlighted).

The alternative resolution attempts to find some sort of common ground, with the aim of finding a position that a majority of the Parliament might support.

It neither calls for stricter enforcement measures nor the legalization of non-commercial file sharing. Instead, it asks the Commission to collect scientific data through the Observatory, evaluate the IPRED directive, and then come back with new suggestions.

Here are some highlights from the draft alternative resolution:

Additional reference

  • having regard to the ACTA resolution of 10 March 2010

Recitals

  • It is goods counterfeiting that can constitute a threat to consumer health and safety, not IPR infringements in general.
  • The territoriality of copyright inhibits the creation of an inner digital market.
  • There are no known connections between non-commercial file sharing and organised crime.
  • Various unsubstantiated claims and calls for stricter enforcement removed.

Introductory paragraphs

  • Does not criticise the Commission for not having made a legislative proposal before data has been collected by the Observatory and the current framework has been evaluated.
  • Stresses that although both counterfeiting and file sharing are illegal, they are different things that should be handled separately.
  • Asks the Commission to consider if the private copy exception could be extended to file sharing in some way, but does not demand it.
  • Does not demand stricter enforcement measures, since the data has not been collected and the IPRED directive not evaluated.
  • Calls on the Commission to do something about an exception for the visually impaired, since the rightsholders have been unable to sort it out on their own.

European Observatory on Intellectual Property

  • Welcomes the creation of the observatory.
  • Thinks the Observatory’s prime objective should be to compile scientific research regarding counterfeiting and IPR regulation.

Cultivating consumer awareness

  • Notes that anti-piracy campaigns so far have been ineffective, and leaves it to the discretion of the Member States if they want to conduct them.

Promoting the internal digital market

  • Cautions against non-legislative measures, as they may circumvent legal safeguards.
  • Does not make a lot of statements about the impact of on-line piracy, since this is what the Observatory is supposed to investigate.
  • Calls on the Commission to identify and remove obstacles to the internal European digital market.

The international dimension and impact on the internal market

  • Raises the problem of customs seizures of legal generic medicines in transit to developing countries
  • Reiterates the core demands from the 10 March 2010 resolution on ACTA.

If you have any comments, please feel free to post them here. Remember that the aim of the resolution is to find a common position that might get a majority in the Parliament, not to express the most radical views imaginable.

I have the impression from the discussions we have had with other MEPs that most of us agree that copyright in the digital age is a problem, but we are not yet in agreement about what we should do about it. In this situation, I think it makes sense to express this, and to call on the Commission to study the matter and come up with suggestions based on those studies.

The next step is that the resolutions will be voted in plenary. It could be as early as the week starting June 14, but hopefully it will be postponed to the session starting July 5, to give the political groups and individual Members a chance to consider the different draft resolutions.

If you agree with the alternative resolution, it is very helpful if you contact Members of the European Parliament from your country and let them know your views.

Europe needs to reflect on how to handle copyright in the digital age, and the European Parliament can take a lead role in that process. A good first step would be to establish which positions most of us can agree on, and which need to be studied and discussed further.

The draft alternative resolution is an attempt to establish such a base line.

…………

Photo by Christian Engström, free for publication CC0.

Andra bloggar om: , , ,

4 juni 2010

Consolidated Gallo Report on stricter IP enforcement

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 16:25

MEP Marielle Gallo (EPP, FR) wants stricter enforcement of copyright on the Internet

Last Tuesday, the European Parliament’s committee for legal affairs JURI voted to adopt a report by French Christian Democrat (EPP) Marielle Gallo, about enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The outcome of the vote in the JURI committee was a victory for the copyright conservatives.

The European digital rights organization EDRI is highly critical of the report:

This week, the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament adopted a far-reaching, contradictory and, at times, fundamentalist non-legislative report on enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The Committee report takes some quite extreme, apocalyptic and sometimes almost comically absurd views of intellectual property infringements, claiming that they ”constitute a danger” for health and safety and even endanger ”our economies and societies”, before making dire warnings about the ”fade-out of innovation in the EU” and demands for criminal sanctions for infringements.

But please have a look at the report for yourself and form your own opinion.

Here you can find the consolidated text that was adopted by the committee, i.e.: the text as it looks with all the amendments that passed edited into it.

All comments are welcome.

…………

Photo by Christian Engström, free for publication CC0.

Andra bloggar om: , , ,

1 juni 2010

Copyright conservatives win vote on Gallo report in JURI

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,IP Observatory — Christian Engström @ 10:25

Rapporteur Marielle Gallo (EPP, FR) in the legal affairs committee JURI just before the vote

This morning, the controversial ”Gallo report” about copyright enforcement was voted in the legal affairs committee JURI in the European Parliament.

It was a defeat for the Pirate/Green/Social Democrat side, who wanted the Commission to start evaluating copyright legislation in a fact based way, with a view to eventually legalizing non-commercial file sharing.

Instead the copyright conservatives won, with a majority consisting in most cases of the Christian Democrat group EPP, the Conservative group ECR, and the Liberal group ALDE.

In the final vote the report was adopted with 13 votes against 8, with some liberals abstaining in the end.

As it now stands, the Gallo report calls for stricter enforcement to be the focus of the Commission’s work on copyright. It asks for more figures on the impact of non-commercial file sharing to be collected, but instead of waiting for those figures to be evaluated, the report jumps the gun and asks for more and stricter enforcement of today’s copyright, regardless of what the facts may turn out to be.

This was a defeat, but the last word has not been said yet.

The next step is the vote in plenary. It is currently scheduled to take place in Strasbourg in the week starting June 14, but it is not at all impossible that it will be postponed to the last Strasbourg session before the summer break, in the week starting July 5. We’ll see, in due course.

In any case, I will be tabling an alternative resolution in plenary. Although the vote in the legal affairs committee JURI was a defeat on more or less all points, we were defeated by a quite narrow majority in most cases.

If we can get in particular the liberal Members of the European Parliament to think about the issue before the final vote in plenary, we have a quite realistic chance of actually winning in the end.

To have a chance, we will have to put in a lot of hard work, but it’s not impossible.

It ain’t over yet.

…………

See also La Quadrature du Net: Copyright dogmatism wins a battle, not the war

Previous articles on the Gallo report (IP Observatory)

Andra bloggar om: , , ,

Nästa sida »

Blogga med WordPress.com.

%d bloggare gillar detta: