20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/9 
Opinion on the Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology—Copyright 
issues requiring immediate action 
(89/C 71/04) 
On 11 July 1988, the Commission decided, in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community, to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee (ESC) on the Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology—Copyright 
issues requiring immediate action. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services was instructed to prepare the work 
on this topic and adopted its Opinion on 4 January 1989. The rapporteur was Mr Moreland. 
The Economic and Social Committee, at its 262nd plenary session, meeting on 25 January 
1989, adopted the following Opinion by 122 votes to 22 with 18 abstentions (vote recorded). 
1. Background 
1.1. There has been concern about copyright and its 
protection in recent years—particularly with the growth 
of piracy and of audio and video taping and of the 
impact of technology generally. This is not just an 
internal matter for the Community; it is also related to 
third countries and is perhaps best exemplified by the 
fact that in 1983 publishers in the Community claimed 
that their lost sales abroad due to piracy corresponded 
to approximately 1 billion US Dollars a year (Green 
Paper 2.2.3). As a result the Commission has drawn up 
a 'Green Paper' on the subject. 
1.2. The Green Paper is divided into seven chapters 
as follows: 
— Chapter I — Copyright and the European Com­
munity, 2.2. The Committee believes that the issue of copy­
right has rightly become a matter of great concern and 
that the need for Community action in this field is clear. 
The issues involved can be complex and the Committee 
congratulates the Commission on its presentation and 
grasp of many issues. The fact that this Opinion tends 
to concentrate on what the Committee considers to be 
deficiencies of the Green Paper in no way diminishes 
its appreciation of the Paper as a whole. 
2.3. The Committee stresses that, while it respects 
the need for copyright protection for interested parties, 
there should be no interference in or restriction on 
individuals' ability to use the fruits of new technology 
in the home. It stresses that the objectives of a Citizen's 
Europe should include the right for private citizens to 
audio- and video-copy in the home. 
— Chapter II — Piracy, 
— Chapter III — Audiovisual home copying, 
— Chapter IV — Distribution right, exhaustion and 
rental right, 
— Chapter V — Computer programs, 
— Chapter VI — Databases, 2.4. The main criticism of the Paper is not of its 
content but rather the absence of certain issues. The 
Committee can recognise that there are a wide range 
of issues involved in this subject. It also notes that the 
Community institutions are overstretched by the bulk 
of legislation at present, and a substantial volume of 
copyright legislation will be difficult to absorb for some 
time. 
Chapter VII — The role of the Community in 
multilateral and bilateral external relations. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee welcomes the Green Paper and 
the desire of the Commission for wide discussion of 
the subject. However the Committee regrets the long 
delay in publishing the Green Paper in all the official 
languages of the Community which has restricted a 
widespread discussion of the subject. 2.5. One can understand that certain issues e.g. relat­
ing to counterfeiting in textiles and fashion can be 
considered distinct from the copyright issues. Neverthe­
less they are important for the interest groups con­
cerned. These specific issues are, of course, part of the 
larger problem of adequate protection for industrial 
designs on which the law and practice within the Com­
munity is in a greater state of disharmony than the 
subject of copyright per se. The Committee, therefore, 
hopes the Commission will not delay consideration of 
this related field of intellectual property too long. 
No C 71/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89 
2.6. However, the Commission has gone beyond 
excluding issues that can be considered as distinct. It 
has excluded, or paid only passing attention to, issues 
which are essentially complementary to those discussed 
in the Paper. In particular they are photocopying, the 
lack of uniformity in the content of copyright and the 
term of copyright. The Committee's comments on these 
issues will be elaborated upon in its comments on 
Chapter I. Suffice to state the Commission should give 
more attention to these issues and consider including 
them in a follow-up paper on the subject. 
2.7. The Committee stresses the importance of bas­
ing legislation on up-to-date information and data. In 
this context it stresses the need for the Commission to 
keep its own database on trends in the copyright field 
up to date both with a view to the legislation flowing 
from this Green Paper and for reviews of the legislation. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Chapter I: Copyright and the European Com­
munity 
3.1.1. Chapter I essentially sets the scene for the rest 
of the Green Paper. The Committee entirely supports 
the fundamental concerns outlined in Section 1.3 and 
in particular underlines that 'to the maximum extent 
possible, creators and providers of copyright goods and 
services should be able to treat the Community as a 
single internal market' (paragraph 1.3.2). 
3.1.2. As stated in Section 2 its main concern is the 
absence of consideration of certain issues which are of 
direct relevance to the Community and no less demand­
ing in urgency than those considered. They are as 
follows: 
3.1.2.1. Photocopying 
The Green Paper omits consideration of the enormous 
volume of photocopying by institutional users, such as 
educational bodies at all levels, public libraries and 
research institutions, as well as photocopying in the 
private sector for commercial purposes, with the conse­
quential impact on national publishing industries (both 
for books and periodicals). The Committee believes 
that this must give rise to concern and requires action 
and believes the Commission should give serious and 
urgent consideration to this subject. The Committee 
understands that it is the intention of the Commission to 
examine this subject with a view to making proposals. 
However, the Committee stresses that such proposals 
should neither be bureaucratic nor interfere in any way in the normal day-to-day photocopying of business and 
of individuals. 
3.1.2.2. Lack of uniformity in content of 
copyright 
The Commission reiterates that the Treaty effectively 
prohibits recourse to copyright law as a means of 
artificially partitioning the market. Yet differences in 
the nature of Member State legislation on copyright 
can create, in effect, significant differences in the nature 
of the intellectual property in what is essentially the 
same product in the different Member States and have 
a serious distorting effect upon the trade in those prod­
ucts. 
For example, in certain Member States the copyright 
in works does not include a rental right whereas in 
other Member States it does. When there is a rental 
right, it may subsist in all categories of protected works 
in some States, whereas in others it subsists only in 
certain categories. Thus in the United Kingdom a rental 
right is being introduced as part of a comprehensive 
law expected to come into force early in 1989; but the 
right will only subsist in sound recording, films and 
computer programs. The copyright owners of the liter­
ary, dramatic, musical and artistic works embodied in 
sound recordings, films and computer programs will 
have no statutory right in the United Kingdom over the 
rental of copies of their works. 
Another example of serious lack of harmony is the 
absence of any protection in certain Member States for 
sound recordings as such and, where States have such 
protection, the considerable differences in national 
laws. This lack of harmony in legislation reflects a 
corresponding situation in the membership of the inter­
national conventions relating to sound recordings—the 
Rome Convention and the Geneva Convention—to 
which all Member States do not yet adhere although 
this would be desirable. 
The Committee is of the opinion, therefore, that the 
Commission should formulate proposals: 
a) to ensure that sound recordings are effectively and 
uniformly protected throughout all Member States 
including protection for rights in respect of public 
performance, broadcasting and cable distribution 
which are at present protected only in certain States, 
and 
b) to establish, on a harmonized level, a rental right 
in all Member States. 
This should be done, where appropriate, by legislation 
and/or by membership of the relevant conventions. 
The Committee welcomes the information that the 
Commission proposes to formulate a draft Directive 
requiring protection for sound recordings in all Member 
States. 
20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/11 
3.1.2.3. Period of protection for copy­
right 
Another significant issue not covered at length in the 
Green Paper is the considerable variation in the periods 
of protection subsisting under the various national intel­
lectual property laws of Member States. In the case 
of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works the 
majority of States apply a protection period of the life 
of the author plus 50 years; but in Spain the post 
mortem period is 80 years, in Germany it is 70; and in 
Belgium, France and Italy the 50 year post mortem 
period is augmented by special wartime extensions; and 
in France the post mortem period in the case of musical 
works only is 70 years. There is therefore considerable 
variation which means that the same work, at any given 
moment, may be protected in some States but is in the 
public domain in others. A similar disparity exists in 
the legislation regarding performing artists. 
One example of this variation of protection within 
the Community is the case of sound recordings. In 
Denmark, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom, 
sound recordings are protected for 50 years; in Spain 
the period is 40 years; in Italy 30 years; in Portugal and 
the Federal Republic of Germany 25 years; in Luxem­
bourg 20 years; and in Belgium, Greece and the Nether­
lands, there is no specific statutory protection based on 
copyright. 
It appears to the Committee, therefore, that there is an 
urgent need for this question to be studied by the 
Commission and formulae found for bringing about 
harmonization of the protection periods for the various 
categories of works and other products; which is 
increasingly necessary if the internal market of the 
Community is to operate at optimum efficiency. 
3.1.2.4. Other issues 
There are other issues which are either not covered, or 
are not covered fully and which could be given more 
attention directly by the Commission: 
a) moral rights—particularly as regards 'integrity'; 
b) the collective administration of rights by copyright 
owners;-
c) the protection of new forms of creativity, particu­
larly those with transnational ramifications, such as 
cable programmes; 
d) the inadequate, and non uniform, protection for the 
rights of performers; 
e) lack of uniformity regarding a statutory licence to 
record musical works, which is said to be causing 
distortion of trade in the music industry; f) a number of specific problems relating to the protec­
tion of the interests and rights of authors of works 
of art. 
3.1.2.5. Chapter II: Piracy 
The Green Paper adopts the general definition of piracy 
as 'the unauthorised reproduction of works protected 
by copyright or allied rights for commercial purposes 
as well as all subsequent commercial dealing in such 
reproductions'. However, the Committee would point 
out that this phrase reflects more the historical origins 
of copyright and perhaps needs revising to take into 
account the fact that—particularly under the impact of 
twentieth century technology—reproduction is only one 
of the many ways in which intellectual property is used 
by the public—for example pirate broadcasting and the 
piracy of broadcast programmes. Further the notion of 
piracy should be interpreted broadly and should 
include, for example, 'passing off or other forms of 
unfair competition which do not necessarily involve the 
reproduction of protected works. 
Nevertheless the conclusions set out in paragraph 2.11 
of the Green Paper appear, in principle, to be sensible 
and acceptable. The Committee would make points on 
four issues: 
a) The Commission suggests that Member States 
should introduce systems for licensing commercial 
equipment for duplicating digital audio tape. The 
Commission must give further consideration to the 
practicality of this proposal and must spell out the 
distinction between duplicating equipment which 
is 'commercial' and equipment which is not. The 
Commission should also address itself to the ques­
tion of the extent to which licensees should be 
required to maintain records of what the equipment 
is used to reproduce, and the extent to which the 
records should be open for inspection either by 
the authorities or even copyright owners (without 
setting up a bureaucratic jungle). 
b) The Commission recommends that right owners 
should be entitled 'to request public prosecution in 
respect of acts of piracy'. Given the tendency in 
some Member States for Government to regard 
the enforcement of rights of copyright as a purely 
private matter, the Commission should emphasize 
its view that it is the responsibility of governments 
to ensure that copyright laws are respected. The 
effective protection of the interests of all right 
owners in the face of piracy requires that the legal 
enforcement procedures be strengthened and 
extended, and applied by, or with full support from, 
the public authorities. 
c) As outlined in paragraph 2.3.3 of the Green Paper 
'another exacerbating factor contributing to the 
No C 71/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89 
attractiveness of video piracy has been the normal 
distribution of film producers'. The Committee 
recognizes the necessity for film producers to be 
able to plan the marketing of their products but 
emphasizes that they could examine their own prac­
tices which could in themselves encourage piracy, 
in particular delays before videos of major films 
are distributed or shown on television. Also the 
Commission could examine in the context of Com­
munity competition legislation restrictive practices 
in film and television distribution policy (as pro­
posed by the ESC in its Opinion on 'A fresh boost 
to culture in the European Community' (CES 460/ 
88M1). 
d) The Committee accepts the need for appropriate 
customs procedures enabling apparently pirated 
goods to be stopped on entry to the Community 
from third countries pending an adjudication on 
their legitimacy (see Green Paper paragraphs 2.5.3 
and 2.6.5.3). However the force of this procedure 
will be lost if it is used as an excuse to delay and 
examine many legitimate goods, i.e. this procedure 
should be used for its legitimate purpose and not 
as protectionism in disguise. 
3.1.2.6. Chapter III: Audiovisual home 
copying 
The Committee commends the Commission for its care­
ful analysis of this subject, and recognizes that its 
conclusions reflect the wide divergence of views, not 
only between the various interest groups affected by 
audio-visual home copying, but also among the govern­
ments of Member States; moreover, these differing 
views also exist within the Committee. 
In these circumstances the Committee supports the view 
that Community legislation should cover only those 
areas where the diversity of national legislation creates 
problems in meeting the objectives of the Community— 
particularly in the context of completing the internal 
market. 
It is the opinion of the Committee, therefore, that the 
most helpful thing it can do is to enumerate certain 
important considerations which, in its opinion, the 
Commission must take into account when it finally 
formulates its views and proposals. These essential 
considerations are the following: 
a) In principle, technology is a benefit to society and 
the public should not be denied the use of the 
facilities it makes available to them. b) The copyright system also serves the public interest 
in providing incentives for creative people and for 
their business partners to produce and disseminate 
their varied products. 
c) If the copyright system within the Community is to 
be in compliance with the Berne Convention and 
the Universal Convention on Copyright (UCC) (to 
which all Member States belong) national copyright 
laws cannot ignore the reproduction of audio and 
audio-visual recordings by members of the public 
at home. The benefits of the new technologies which 
enable this to be done must be balanced by the need 
to protect the livelihood of the copyright owners 
whose works are copied. 
d) No action should be taken that is detrimental to 
specially disadvantaged people, such as the blind, 
who rely heavily on home taping. 
Whilst the Committee respects the needs of right hol­
ders, it stresses that it is opposed to any interference in 
the individual's right to take full advantage of modern 
technology in the home. Consequently it is opposed to 
technical devices that restrict home taping including 
measures to limit the reproduction of digital audio 
recordings in the home. 
3.1.2.7. Chapter IV: Distribution right 
exhaustion and rental rights 
The conclusion (4.12.1) that a rental right is required 
in the case of sound and video recordings and that a 
Directive to the effect should be issued, is to be wel­
comed. The question whether such a right should be a 
right of control or merely a right to equitable remuner­
ation should undoubtedly be answered in favour of a 
right of control for the following reasons: 
a) This is the trend of Member State legislation: it is 
the law in France, Spain and Portugal already and 
will come into law in the United Kingdom. 
b) It is essential to the effective dissemination to the 
public of such works through maximum commercial 
exploitation for the right owners to have a full right 
of control. 
c) The Commission's conclusion that the distribution 
right requires no Community action at present 
seems reasonable; but the issue is both important, 
and complex, and should be kept under constant 
review. 
(*) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 40-46. The conclusion that a specific rental right, as a com­
ponent of copyright (4.12.2) is not required in the case 
of other products which are protected by copyright, or 
20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/13 
embody protected works, notably books, may require 
re-consideration. If, as several Member States already 
recognise, it is right that authors receive remuneration 
for the lending of their books, even if lending is non­
commercial, a fortiori it must be the case that lending 
a book for profit justifies a right of control for the 
author and his business partner, the publisher. 
3.1.2.8. Chapter V: Computer programs 
The overall conclusion expressed (paragraph 5.7.1) that 
computer programs should be protected 'within the 
framework of copyright and related rights' reflects the 
almost universal consensus recorded at the successive 
international meetings on this subject covered by the 
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and 
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO). There is, however, consider­
able variation in the manner in which this general 
approach has been implemented. For example, in the 
United Kingdom, computer programs are brought 
under the copyright law by a simple provision declaring 
them to be a form of literary work so that the copyright 
law applies to them in the same way as it applies to 
literary works (subject to any express reservations); 
whereas in France, the copyright law was amended in 
1985 to incorporate within the copyright statute a spe­
cial set of provisions carefully designed to suit the 
special nature of computer programs; and it might be 
helpful to the Commission, in its task of divising a 
model for the Community, to see how the French 
approach works in practice. 
As regards the conclusions in paragraph 5.8.2, the Com­
mittee would make comments on the following clauses: 
Clause (b): It is acceptable to apply the concept of 
'originality' to computer programs, but the exclusion 
of programs which are 'commonplace' might introduce 
a new nuance, not in accord with the existing under­
standing of what originality means. There appears to 
be considerable anxiety within the computer industry 
that new concepts of originality may, in their appli­
cation to computer programs, seriously put at risk the 
industry's considerable investment in the production 
and use of this new form of intellectual property. 
Clause (c): Access protocols and interfaces are, in the 
field of computerized systems, one of the latest manifes­
tations of human creativity; they make possible the 
interaction of computer systems and computer pro­
grams. In general terms they are concerned with the 
compatibility of programs with each other; and are, 
certainly in most cases, no different, in copyright terms, 
from any other programs and therefore should be eli­
gible for copyright protection. In so far as access proto­
cols and interfaces give rise to possible anti-competitive 
action, this should be dealt with under the laws and 
practices relating to unfair competition and not by 
modifying the normal application of copyright prin­
ciples. Clause (d): In view of the special characteristics, and 
purposes, of computer programs it may be that the 
ambit of the forms of use be wider than, or at least 
different from, those applicable to traditional categories 
of protected works. 
Clause (e): In general the Committee agrees with this 
clause but points out that where a user is not a licensee 
and has acquired a copy of a program for the purpose 
of a use which does not require adaptation, it does 
seem questionable that he should be entitled to adapt 
it for some personal purpose. 
Clause (g): The Commission may face difficulties with 
different national laws on the term of protection where 
Member States include computer programs under gen­
eral copyright legislation. The Committee believes it is 
desirable to have the same term of protection in all 
Member States. This would foster the functioning of 
the internal market for computer software. 
Clause (h): The Committee questions if it is desirable 
to leave authorship to different Member State laws. 
This issue affects the qualifications for protection and 
also, where duration is related to the death of the 
author, affects the term of protection. 
Clause (i): The Commission should proceed with cau­
tion as some third countries do not fulfil their obli­
gations under international agreements in this field. 
Clause (j): Consideration should be given to a much 
broader approach to the onus of proof including auth­
orising affidavit evidence on both the subsistence and 
ownership of rights and establishing a presumption of 
accuracy as to the contents of such affidavits with the 
onus on the defendant to present evidence refuting 
the presumption. In any case the need for measures 
facilitating proof in copyright litigation is not limited 
to the protection of computer programs but is a general 
one, of particular importance in relation to piracy. 
3.1.2.9. Chapter VI: Databases 
The Committee notes from the documentation of meet­
ings of UNESCO/WIPO that, although there may be 
general agreement on the justification and need for 
protecting compilations held in databases, there are 
significant differences of opinion regarding the question 
whether protection should be provided under copyright 
and in accordance with normal copyright principles, or 
by a new sui generis system. As thinking on these 
questions is still evolving it may be desirable for the 
Commission to proceed with caution in this field. How­
ever the Committee would make the following com­
ments: 
No C 71/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89 
a) In answer to the Commission's subquestion (a) 
(6.7.1) there seems no argument against stating that 
the compilation within a database of works which 
are protected by copyright should enjoy copyright 
protection just as existing compilations (e.g. of liter­
ary or musical works) enjoy copyright, provided 
they involve an appropriate measure of originality 
as normally understood for copyright purposes. 
b) Subquestion (b) (6.7.1) appears based on a misun­
derstanding of the basis on which compilations are 
entitled to protection. The nature of the material is 
not relevant to the question whether or not the 
compilation is entitled to copyright protection. 
3.1.2.10. Chapter VII: Role of the Com­
munity in multilateral and 
bilateral external relations 
The Committee underlines the fundamental importance 
of using the full weight of the Community to obtain 
arrangements with third countries. However the 
examples of negotiations with Korea (which was not a 
success) and with Indonesia (which was successful) 
underlines the need for such negotiations to be carefully 
planned and evaluated. Given that the Community 
includes the 'homelands' of most major languages of 
the world, no Member State would be happy to see the 
lead on aspects of copyright which involve language 
considerations slip to third countries because of ineffec­
tive negotiation by the Community. (For example for 
the United States to be seen to take the lead on matters 
that affect the English language). 
As regards the questions posed by the Commission 
(paragraph 7.8.1): 
Clause (a): The measures needed for the effective pro­
tection of intellectual property internationally has been 
the subject of considerable examination, nationally and 
internationally and there is general agreement—which 
the Committee supports—that these measures must 
cover: 
Done at Brussels, 25 January 1989. — a comprehensive set of substantive provisions relat­
ing to all categories of intellectual property (includ­
ing computer software, data bases, broadcasts, 
sound recordings and the protection of performers' 
interests), matching the standards of the Berne Con­
vention and including new rights, for example 
rental, made necessary to provide protection in 
relation to new forms of use made possible by 
contemporary technology, 
— a comprehensive set of enforcement provisions 
covering updated penalties which are truly deter­
rent, powers of search and seizure not only for 
infringing copies but for the purpose of obtaining 
information, provisions facilitating proof including 
presumptions as to subsistence and ownership of 
rights as well as the admissibility of evidence by 
affidavit or certificate. 
Clause (b): The Community should support the initiat­
ive in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
(GATT) to incorporate a code for the better protection 
of intellectual property, containing the measures men­
tioned in the previous two paragraphs. 
Clause (c): The Committee points out that multilateral 
conventions such as Berne, UCC, Rome and Geneva 
have satisfactorily provided the framework within 
which copyright relations internationally have been 
developed and maintained throughout this century. The 
appearance in this field during the last few years of 
bilateral treaties is, in principle, undesirable. The Com­
mittee realised that in particular cases, there may be no 
alternative if relations are to be established with a 
particular country. Nevertheless, in such a situation, 
whether negotiations are conducted by an individual 
State or by the Community, it should be stressed that 
the bilateral relationship is regarded as a transitional 
measure and that as soon as possible it should be 
replaced by membership of one of the multilateral con­
ventions. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/15 
APPENDIX 1 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Voting 
A roll-call vote was taken on the Opinion as a whole. The following members, present or represented, voted 
in favour of the Opinion : 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Arena, Ataide Ferreira, Bagliano, Black, Bleser, Boddy, Bos, Bredima Savopoulou, Breyiannis, 
Briganti, Broicher, Calvet Chambon, Campbell, Carroll, Ceballo Herrero, Christie, Alves Conde, Cortois, 
Coyle, van Dam, Dassis, von der Decken, Delhomenie, Delia Croce, De Tavernier, Dodd, Dos Santos, Drago, 
van Eeckert, Elstner, Etty, Eulen, Flather, Flum, Forgas, Frandi, Fresi, Freeman, Geuenich, Giacomelli, 
Glesener, Gomez Martinez, Gredal, Green, Haas, Hilkens, Horsken, Houthuys, Hovgaard Jakobsen, Jenkins, 
Kaaris, Kazazis, Kelly, Kenna, Kirchfeld, Kitsios, Kroger, Laca Martin, Landaburu, Liverani, Lojewski, Low, 
Machado Von Tschusi, Maddocks, Mainetti, Mantovani, Margalef Masia, Margot, Morales, Moreland, 
Morselli, Muhr, Murphy, Neto Da Silva, Nierhaus, Nieuwenhuize, Noordwal, de Normann, Panizo-Arcos, 
Pearson, Petersen, Petropoulos, Poeton, Proenca, Pronk, Raftopoulos, Riera Marsa, Roseingrave, Santillan 
Cabeza, Schmitz, Schnieders, Schoepges, Speirs, Spijkers, Staedelin, Storie-Pugh, Telles, Tukker, Vidal, Wick, 
Whitworth, Williams. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Arets, Aspinall, Beretta, Cal, Gavel, Collas, Donck, Droulin, Dunet, Hancock, Laur, Pardon, 
Proumens, Ribiere, Robinson, Rolao Goncalves, Saiu, Salmon, Tiemann, Tixier, Yverneau. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Amato, Aparacio Bravo, Berns, Cavazzuti, Corell Ayora, Drilleaud, Hagen, Lustenhouwer, 
Mourgues, Nielsen B., Nielsen P., Nugeyre, Orsi, Rouzier, Termes Carrero, Vallejo Calderon, Velasco 
Mancebo, Vercellino. 
APPENDIX 2 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendment 
The following amendments, based on the Section Opinion and tabled in accordance with the rules of 
procedure, were rejected during the debate: 
Point 2.3 
Reword this point as follows: 
'In the Committee's view, full attainment of the Single Market is impossible without effective copyright 
protection in the Community. Europeans must be entitled to use new technologies in the intimacy of their 
home, provided that they do not infringe the rights of those who create and produce music and other works, 
thereby taking unfair advantage of this possibility.' 
Reasons 
Account must be taken (a) of the de facto situation and the public's desire to be able to copy works and (b) 
the need to remunerate authors, artists/performers and producers for the use of works which they have 
helped to create. 
Voting 
For: 48, against: 58, abstentions: 7. 
No C 71/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89 
Point 2.3 
Redraft as follows: 
'The Committee recognises that the economic benefits of a dynamic Single Market will only be fully realised 
if intellectual property rights are effectively protected within the Community. On the other hand private 
citizens must be able to avail themselves of the benefits of new technology by using all available non­
professional equipment, without check once purchased, in the privacy of their homes. The challenge is to 
devise measures which maintain a fair balance between these sometimes opposing interests.' 
Explanatory statement 
The amendment seeks to achieve a fair balance between the interests of all parties. 
Voting 
For: 46, against: 52, abstentions: 29. 
Point 2.4 
Substitute the following text: 
The main criticism of this paper, apart from its omission of certain issues, is that it fails to draw attention 
to the acknowledged rights of authors, artists/performers and producers to authorize and control the 
dissemination and all forms of exploitation of their works.' 
Reasons 
This statement of a fundamental principle upheld by all rights-holders in a work's creation or production is 
self-explanatory. 
Voting 
For: 30, against: 49, abstentions: 35.