COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(88)172final
Brussels ,7June1988
GREENPAPER
ONCOPYRIGHT ANDTHECHALLENGE OFTECHNOLOGY -
COPYRIGHT ISSUESREQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION
Communication fromtheCommission .

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(88)172final
Brussels ,7June1988
GREENPAPER
ONCOPYRIGHT ANDTHECHALLENGE OFTECHNOLOGY -
COPYRIGHT ISSUESREQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION
Communication fromtheCommission .

©1988GREEN PAPER
ONCOPYRIGHT AND THE CHALLENGE OFTECHNOLOGY -
COPYRIGHT ISSUES REQUIRING IMMEDIA TEACTION
Communication from theCommission .
Commission oftheEuropean Communities .
Reproduction isauthorized ,except forcommercial
purposes ,provided thesource isacknowledged .

-I-
CONTENTS
Pages
CHAPTER 1:COPYRIGHT ANDTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITY
1.1.Emergence ofimportant copyright issuesatCommunity Level..1
1.2.Thegrowingimportance ofcopyright toindustry and
commerce. 2
1.3.TheCommunity 'sconcerns ingeneral. 3
1.4.Cultural considérations. 5
1.5.TheEECTreatyandtheCommunity 'spowersinrelation to
copyright goodsandservices. 8
1.6.TheCommunity 'spriorities :thepurposes andscopeofthis
consultative document. 15
1.7.Summary.....'. 16
1.8.Conclusion. 16
CHAPTER 2:PIRACY
2.1.Thenatureofpiracy. 19
2.2.Theimportance ofpiracybysector. 20
Books. 21
Soundrecordings. 21
Filmsandvideorecordings. 28
Computer programs. 35
2.3.Mainreasons fordifferences between sectors. 36
2.4.Different basesforprotection attheinternational level...38
Books,filmandvideorecordings. 38
Soundrecordings. '. 39
Broadcasts andcabletransmissions. 40
2.5.Necessary conditions fortherepression ofpiracy. 42

II
Pages
2.6.Presentsituation insidetheCommunity. 45
Substantive legalprovisions. 45
Procedures facilitating legalactionandproof :. 54
-searchandseizureprocedures. 54
-customs seizure. 61
Remedies andsanctions :. 65
-damages orotherfinancial relief. .65
-injunctive relief. 67
-disposal ofinfringing products andequipment usedto
produce them. 68
-dissuasive criminal sanctions. 69
2.7.Theorganizational framework forenforcement. .71
Rightholdersandtheirorganizations. 72
Publicauthorities. 74
2.8.Theinternational context forfutureinitiatives and
developments atCommunity level. 80
2.9.Futuredevelopments andinitiatives atCommunity level.83
2.10.Summary. .. 90
2.11.Conclusion. 91
2.12.Timetable forsubmissions. 93
CHAPTER 3:AUDIO-VISUAL HOMECOPYING
3.1.Introduction. 99
3.2.Theearlydevelopment ofhomecopying. 101
3.3.Theinternational legalframework .. 102
3.4.Thelegalposition intheMemberStates .. 103
MemberStatesappearing totreathomecopyingasan
infringment ofcopyright orrelevant neighbouring rights....104
MemberStatesappearing totreathomecopyingaspermitted
undernational législation. 104
Radioandtelevision broadcasts andcabletransmissions.107
Legislative trendsintheMemberStates. 108

-III-
Pages
3.5.Homecopying inpractice. 109
Themarketforrecording equipment ,blanktapeand
audio-visual recordings. 110
Theeffectofhomecopying onthemarketforaudio-visual
recordings. 113
Impactofcopying ontheexploitation ofprotected works....116
3.6.Newtechnical possibilities. 118
Digitalrecording techniques. 118
Technical protection devices. 119
3.7.Theviewsofinterested parties. 120
Demands forgreaterprotection. 120
Opposition todemands forgreaterprotection. 122
A"payatsource"approach tothehomecopyingproblem.125
3.8.ThemainissuesfortheCommunity. 125
3.9.TheCommission 'spresentorientations. 126
3.10.Possible legislative responses. 127
Principles. 127
Solutions :. 128
-mandatory technical solutions. 128
-levies. 132
-the"Payatsource"approach. 135
3.11.Associated policies. 135
3.12.Summary. 136
3.13.Conclusion. 137
3.14.Timetable forsubmissions. ..138
3.15.Appendix :Technical protection 139

IV
CHAPTER 4;DISTRIBUTION RIGHT,EXHAUSTION ANDRENTALRIGHT
4.1.Distribution right :therighttocontrolcommercial
exploitation. .. 146
4.2.Exhaustion ofdistribution rights :national law. 147
4.3.Exhaustion ofrights :Community law. 148
4.4.Distribution rightsandexhaustion :outstanding issues.152
4.5.Thedistribution ofsoundandvideorecordings. 155
4.6.Thepresentposition concerning therentalof
soundrecordings. 157
4.7.Thepresentposition concerning therentalof
videorecordings. 159
4.8.Recentlegislative proposals concerning therentalof
soundandvideorecordings. 160
4.9.TheCommunity dimension oftheproblem. 160
4.10.Thefuturedevelopment oftheCommunity 'ssoundandvideo
recording industries andthegeneralintroduction of
arentalright. 161
4.11.Summary. 165
4.12.Conclusion. 166
4.13.Timetable forsubmissions. 166
CHAPTER 5:COMPUTER PROGRAMS
5.1.Subjectmatter .. 170
5.2.Theeconomic ,industrial andtechnological context. 171
5.3.Thelegalresponse...j. 175
5.4.Community involvement todate. 180
5.5.Copyright :thefocusforaCommunity initiative. 181

-V-
Pages
5.6.Clarification andadaptation ofexisting copyright regimes ..186
Availability ofprotection. 186
Originality andindependent intellectual effort. 187
Fixation. 189
Scopeofprotection :restricted acts. 189
-restricted acts:reproduction ,translation ,adaptation
anduse. 190
-restricted acts:adaptation toimproveperformance. 192
-reproduction forprivatepurposes. 192
-thetermofprotection. 193
-authorship. 196
-computer-generated programs. 196
-moralrights. 197
-beneficiaries ofprotection. 197
-problems ofproof. 199
5.7.Summary. 200
5.8.Conclusion. 200
5.9.Timetable forsubmissions. 201
CHAPTER 6:DATABASES
6.1.Subjectmatter. 205
6.2.Thecreation ofthecommoninformation market. 207
6.3.Legalproblems arisingfromthestorageandretrieval of
information usingdatabases. 208
Storageofinformation. 209
Theretrieval ofworksstoredincomputerized databases.....210
6.4.Protection ofdatabasesassuchagainstcopying. 211
6.5.Datastoredondiscsandtapes. 215
6.6.Summary. 215
6.7.Conclusion. 216
6.8.Timetable forsubmissions. 216

-VI
Pages
CHAPTER 7:THEROLEOFTHECOMMUNITY INMULTILATERAL AND
BILATERAL EXTERNAL RELATIONS
7.1.External relations :Multilateral andbilateral. 218
7.2.Multilateral relations. 219
TheWorldIntellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 219
UnitedNationsEducational ,Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO ). 221
GeneralAgreement onTariffsandTrade (GATT). 221
Organization forEconomie Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD)224
International LabourOffice (ILO). 225
Council ofEurope. 225
7.3.Bilateral relations :general. 226
7.4.Bilateral relations inthecontextofexisting arrangements ..229
Designproblems ofthetextileandclothing industry. 230
7.5.TheLoméConventions. 231
7.6.Thenewtradepolicyinstrument. 232
7.7.Summary. 236
7.8.Conclusion .. .. 236
7.9.Timetable forsubmissions 236

CHAPTER 1:COPYRIGHT ANDTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITY
1.1.Emergence ofimportant copyright issuesatCowunity level
1.1.1Thedevelopment ofcopyright lawsintheCommunity andelsewhere reveals a
continual re-examination ofthoselawstoachieve anappropriate balance ,
inthelightofconditions prevailing atthetime,between important
objectives thatarepartially intension .Protection oftheeconomic
interests oftheauthorandothercreators ,thepromotion ofreadyaccess
toinformation ,andthepursuit ofcultural goalshaveallhadtobe
pursued andreconciled .Inrecentyearsandwithincreasing frequency ,this
1challenge hasbeenraised,intermsofcopyright lawandpolicy,at
Community level.
1.1.2Thedirectly applicable provisions oftheCommunity Treatyconcerning the
freemovement ofgoodsandfreedom toprovideservices haveproduced a
numberofleadingcasesontheextenttowhichcopyright ,ofnecessity
national inscope,mayberelieduponiftheresultistopreventgoodsand
services beingsupplied acrosstheCommunity 'sinternal frontiers .As
elsewhere inthefieldofintellectual property rights,theEuropean Court
ofJusticequicklyestablished theprinciple that,wheregoodsarelawfully
placedonthemarketinaMemberState,copyright cannotberelieduponto
restrict thefreecirculation ofthosegoodselsewhere intheCommunity .
Morerecently ,ithasbeencalledupontodefinemoreclearlythelimitsof
thatprinciple ,forexample ,asregardsthecontinuing possibility for
rightholderstorelyontheirrightsinrelation toperformances of
2imported filmsandsoundrecordings andtotherentalofvideorecordings .
1.1.3Copyright issueshavealsoemerged inothercontexts .Reference mustbe
madetoinitiatives takentodevelopCommunity actioninthecultural
sector topossible applications ofCommunity competition lawtocertain
situations involving theexercise ofcopyright andindustrial designs ;to
problems posedbythearrivalofnewtechnologies including television by
4 5 6cableandsatellite ,semiconductors ,computer technologies ,andnew
audio-visual recording techniques andtotheimportant commercial
problems causedtoCommunity rightholdersbylackofeffective protection
8fortheirrightsinmanynon-Member States

-2-
1.1.4.Theemergence ofalltheseissuesatCommunity levelwithinrecentyearsis
notduetopurechance .Itisinlargepartareflection oftheprofound
changeswhichhavebeenoccurring intheworldeconomy,involving asthey
doimportant structural adaptations notleastintheindustrialized
countries .
1.2.Thegrowingimportance ofcopyright toindustry andcommerce
1.2.1.Thestructural adaptations thatareunderwaycanbesaidtobe
characterized bythefollowing phenomena ,allofwhichhaveservedto
emphasize theimportance ofcopyright protection toindustry andcommerce .
1.2.2.First,ashifthascontinued intheeconomic activity ofindustrialized
countries awayfromtheproduction ofgoodshavingthecharacter primarily
ofstaplecommodities andtowardstheproduction ofgoodstowhich
considerable valuehasbeenaddedthroughtheapplication oftechnology ,
skillandcreativity .Thesuperior performance andnon-material attributes
ofsuchgoods,suchastheirdesignorimage,constitute theirmain
competitive advantages .Ifsomeorallofthosefeatures canbereadily
appropriated byothersthroughcopyingforcommercial purposes ata
fraction ofthecostofdeveloping acompeting original ,thenthe
9production andmarketing ofsuchhighadded-value goodsisputatrisk
1.2.3.Second,theindustrialized countries' manufacturing activities haveoften
provedlessdynamicthantheservicesector,ofwhichtheinformation and
entertainment industries formanimportant part.Thoseindustries arealso
particularly vulnerable todamagethroughmisappropriation ,inparticular
10byunauthorized copying .Thustheveryactivities whichofferthebest
hopeforeconomic expansion ,andareconsequently thesubjectof
considerable newinvestment ,arethosewhichareparticularly exposedto
lossesthroughcopyingandaccordingly havebeenseekingappropriate forms
ofprotection ,including suitably adaptedcopyright laws.

-3-
1.2.4.Third,technological innovation itselfparadoxically generates notonlythe
possibility fornewkindsofeconomic activity but,atthesametime,the
meanswherebytheresults oftheefforts ofotherscanbereadily
misappropriated .Inthefieldofsemiconductor designs ,forexample ,ithas
beenestimated thattheoriginal development ofasophisticated chipcould
involve aninvestment of100milliondollars ,whereasreproduction ofan
11existing designwouldcostbetween50,000and100,000dollars .Acomplex
computer program representing manymanhoursofworkandotherinvestment
besides canbecopiedperfectly andalmostinstantaneously atthetouchof
abutton .Multiple copiesofasoundorvideorecording canbemadewith
equipment littlemoresophisticated thanthatusedintheaveragehome.
1.2.5.Insum,thegrowingeconomic importance oftheindustries needing copyright
12protection against readymisappropriation oftheirproducts ,
particularly bycopying ,hasnaturally produced pressure forthe
modernization ofexisting copyright protection systems atbothnational and
Community level.
1.3.TheCoamunity 'sconcerns ingeneral
1.3.1.IntheCommission 'sview,theCommunity 'sfundamental concerns inthis
fieldshouldbefour-fold .
1.3.2.First,theCommunity mustensuretheproperfunctioning ofthecommon
market .Tothemaximumextentpossible ,creators andproviders ofcopyright
goodsandservices shouldbeabletotreattheCommunity asasingle
internal market .Thisrequires theelimination ofobstacles andlegal
differences thatsubstantially disrupt thefunctioning ofthemarketby
obstructing ordistorting cross-frontier tradeinthosegoodsandservices
aswellasdistorting competition .

-4-
Thismatterisexplored ingreaterdetailinthenextsection ofthis
chapter .Itsuffices tonoteherethatsignificant differences inthe
protection available toparticular classesofcopyright workscanclearly
fragment theinternal marketinthoseworksinanundesirable way.
Similarly ,ifinanumberofMemberStates,effective actionisnottaken
toeliminate audio-visual piracy,thebenefits ofaCommunity-wide internal
marketwillbedeniedtotheEuropean production industry sinceitwillnot
beabletooperatesuccessfully inthosepartsofthemarketwhereitwill
beundercut byunfaircompetition frompirateproducts .ActionatCommunity
levelisneededtoremovedifferences innational lawsandprocedures
creating problems ofthiskindandtopreventnewandharmfuldivergences
fromarising .
1.3.3.Second,inframingmeasures toensuretheproperfunctioning ofthe
internal marketincopyright goodsandservices ,theCommunity should
developpolicies thatwillimprovethecompetitiveness ofitseconomy in
relation toitstradingpartners ,particularly inareasofpotential growth
suchasthemediaandinformation .Inaddition toproject-oriented measures
suchasESPRIT,accompanying measures arealsoneeded,amongthem
legislative initiatives inrelation tointellectual property ,sothat
European creators andfirmscanrelyonlegalprotection fortheirproducts
andactivities atleastasfavourable totheirdevelopment asthatenjoyed
bytheirprincipal competitors intheirhomemarkets .
1.3.4.Thethirdgeneralconcernmustbethatintellectual property resulting from
creative effortandsubstantial investment withintheCommunity shouldnot
bemisappropriated byothersoutsideitsexternal frontiers .Itshould
enjoyafairreturnwhenexploited innon-Member States .Thisisfrequently
13notthecaseatpresent

-5-
1.3.5.Ontheotherhand,copyright isanexclusive rightgrantedbylegislation
toanindividual .Oneofitseffects isinevitably tolimittoacertain
extentthenormalfreedom ofthirdpartiestocompetebymarketing similar
products .Inthemoretraditional domains ofcopyright applying to
literary ,musicalanddramatic works,thishasnotposedasignificant
problemsinceindependent worksofthesamegenrecaninlawandpractice
stillcompetewitheachotherquitefairly .Inareaswhichhavedeveloped
morerecently ,however ,therestrictive effects ofcopyright protection on
legitimate competition haveonoccasion riskedbecoming excessive ,for
example ,inrespect ofpurelyfunctional industrial designsandcomputer
programs .Insuchcontexts ,copyright protection withoutsuitable limits
caninpractice amounttoagenuinemonopoly ,undulybroadinscopeand
lengthy induration .
1.3.6.Itfollowsthat,indeveloping Community measures oncopyright ,dueregard
mustbepaidnotonlytotheinterests oftherightholderbutalsotothe
interests ofthirdpartiesandthepublicatlarge,since,particularly
withregardtoproducts ofanindustrial character ,worksareplacedonthe
marketbyadecision oftherightholderhimself .
1.4.Cultural considérations
1.4.1.Theeconomic interests whichcopyright lawaimsatprotecting are
inextricably interwoven withcultural interests andcultural needs.New
dissemination andreproduction techniques havedeveloped withan
ever-increasing speedandhaveadded,atacorresponding rateofspeed,to
thecomplexity ofthisrelationship .Thesenewtechnologies haveentailed
thedefactoabolition ofnational frontiers andincreasingly makethe
territorial application ofnational copyright lawobsolete ,while,atthe
sametime,permitting forbetterandforworseineverycountryevermore
rapid,easy,cheapandhigh-fidelity reproduction .Thishasatoneandthe
sametimebeenacauseofsatisfaction andconcern .

-6-
1.4.2.Satisfaction hasbeenexpressed because thecreatorneverbeforehas
enjoyedcomparable possibilities ofmakinghisworkknownatthenational ,
European orevengloballevelataspeedwhichcontinues toincrease .Thus,
itismoreandmorecommonplace thattheaudience ,foraspecific workor
performance ,consists ofhundreds ofmillions orevenbillions of
spectators .Atthesametime,itraisesconcernbecausenewtechnologies
renderthecontrol oftheexploitation oruseofaworkdifficult oreven
impossible ,therebyreducing thevalueofcopyright protection basedonthe
provisions ofnational lawandtheexisting framework ofinternational
conventions .
1.4.3.Seenintheperspective ofthecompletion oftheInternal Market,the
Commission cannotbutwelcomethepossibilities ofrapid,simultaneous
dissemination ofintellectual creation intheCommunity .Inanycase,the
trendtoeverincreasingly rapiddissemination cannotbereversed or
repressed .TheCommunity mustmeetthischallenge .
1.4.4.AnyactionattheCommunity levelistobebasedonthefollowing
considerations .Intellectual andartistic creativity isaprecious asset,
thesourceofEurope'scultural identity andofthatofeachindividual
State.Itisavitalsourceofeconomic wealthandofEuropean influence
throughout theworld.Thiscreativity needstobeprotected ;itneedstobe
givenahigherstatusanditneedstobestimulated .
1.4.5.Ingeneral,theprotection ofcreativity impliesthatcreators enjoydue
respectfortheintegrity oftheirworkandtherighttoauthorize theuse
madethereof .Remuneration mustbeadequate andingeneralcorrespond to
theusemadeofthework.Togiveahigherstatustocreativity impliesthe
searchfortheappropriate meansofrapidandextensive dissemination ;and
thestimulation ofcreativity impliesthat,inaddition totheprotection
fromwhichtheworkmaybenefit,thecreator isofferedadditional
advantages intermsofroyalties ,newwaysofdissemination and
exploitation ,andnewmarkets .

7
1.4.6 .Itisevident thatthethreeobjectives areattheoneandsametime
interactive andcontradictory .Theyareinteractive sincethepurposeof
protection canonlybethesearchforhigherstatusandstimulation .They
arecontradictory becauseundueprotection mayhamperthepossibilities of
dissemination aswellasconstitute thebasisofundulyhighremuneration .
Ontheotherhand,uncontrolled dissemination maymakeprotection
inoperative andtherebyprejudice thepossibilities ofgenerating adequate
income .
1.4.7.TheCopyright GreenPaperisintended toconstitute thebasisofabroad
consultation ofinterested circles .Forthispurpose ,thepapercontains an
analysis ,legalandeconomic ,ofthevariouspriority issuesinrespect of
whichnewtechnologies haveraisedquestions .
1.4.8 .Ineachchapter anumberoflegislative ortechnical solutions havebeen
suggested sothatfuturepolitical decisions canestablish thedelicate
balancewhichneedstobestruckbetween theconflicting objectives ,
therebypromoting attheCommunity leveltheprotection ,theincreased
statusandthestimulation ofintellectual andartistic creativity .
1.4.9.However ,Community legislation shouldberestricted towhatisneededto
carryoutthetasksoftheCommunity .Manyissuesofcopyright law,donot
needtobesubject ofactionatCommunity level.SinceallMemberStates
adheretotheBerneConvention fortheProtection ofLiterary andArtistic
WorksandtotheUniversal Copyright Convention ,acertainfundamental
convergence oftheirlawshasalreadybeenachieved .Manyofthe
differences thatremainhavenosignificant impactonthefunctioning of
theinternal marketortheCommunity 'seconomic competitiveness .
Differences innational approaches toauthors' moralrights,forexample ,
donotingeneralproducesituations whichneedtobeaddressed by
Community legislation .Forthisreason,themattercanforthemostpartbe
lefttoberegulated bynational lawswithintheframework ofArticle6bis
14oftheBerneConvention .Thesameapplies tomanyothermatters
including ,forexample ,theintroduction ofapublicdomainsubjectto
payment andartists' resalerights .

-8-
1.4.10 .TheCommunity approach shouldtherefore bemarkedbyaneedtoaddress
Community problems .Anytemptation toengageinlawreformforitsownsake
shouldberesisted .
1.5.TheEECTreatyandtheCommunity 'spowersinrelation tocopyright goods
andservices
1.5.1.Inlaw,theCommunity 'sobjectives inthecopyright fieldasinothersare
definedbytheTreaty,whichalsospecifies themeansbywhichtheyareto
beachieved .
1.5.2.Therightsofauthors ,performers andothersundernational lawsof
copyright arenotabstractions butareinpractice exercised inrespectof
specific goodsorservices .Manyprovisions oftheEECTreatygovernthe
movement ofgoodsandtheprovision ofservices ;andintheabsence ofany
explicit exception concerning goodsandservices subjecttocopyright
protection ,thesearecovered likeallothersbytheprovisions in
question .Anexamination ofthemostimportant oftheseprovisions shows
thatthegeneralconcerns setoutabovecorrespond totheCommunity 's
competence asdefined bytheEECTreatyandthatitdisposes ofthepowers
necessary toprovidesolutions .
1.5.3.Theobjectives oftheCommunity asspecified byArticle 2oftheEECTreaty
(hereafter EEC)aretopromotethroughout theCommunity aharmonious
development ofeconomic activities ,acontinuous andbalanced expansion ,an
increase instability ,anaccelerated raisingofthestandard oflivingand
closerrelations betweentheMemberStates .Theseobjectives aretobe
realized byestablishing acommonmarketandprogressively approximating
theeconomic policies oftheMemberStates .

-9-
1.5.A.Forthesepurposes ,theCommunity mustcarryoutanumberofactivities
ListedinArticle 3EEC.Thesecanbegroupedunderthefollowing
headings :first,theelimination asbetweenMemberStatesofquantitative
restrictions ontheimportandexportofgoodsandonallmeasures having
equivalent effect;second,theestablishment ofacommoncommercial policy
towardsnon-Member States;third,theabolition asbetweenMemberStatesof
obstacles tofreedom ofmovement forpersons ,services andcapital ;fourth,
theinstitution ofasystemensuring thatcompetition inthecommonmarket
isnotdistorted ;andfifth,theapproximation ofthelawsofMemberStates
totheextentrequired fortheproperfunctioning ofthecommonmarket .In
addition ,MemberStatesareunderanobligation tofacilitate the
achievement oftheCommunity 'stasksandtoabstain fromanymeasures which
couldjeopardize theattainment oftheobjectives oftheTreaty .Also,
withinthescopeofapplication oftheTreaty,andwithoutprejudice toany
otherspecialprovisions ,anydiscrimination ongrounds ofnationality is
prohibited.
1.5.5.ManyoftheCommunity 'stasksarefurtherelaborated insubsequent
provisions oftheTreatyandtheapplication ,actualandpotential ,ofall
thoseprovisions inthecopyright fieldwouldoccupymanypages .For
presentpurposes ,itsuffices toconcentrate ontheelimination ofall
measures havingequivalent effecttoquantitative restrictions ;onthe
approximation ofthelawsoftheMemberStatestotheextentrequired for
theproperfunctioning ofthecommonmarket;ontheremoval ofobstacles to
thefreeprovision ofservices and,finally ,ontheestablishment ofa
commoncommercial policytowardsnon-Member Statesandtootherpossible
basesforcommonactionasregardstheCommunity 'sexternal relations .

-10-
1.5.6.UndertheTreaty,quantitative restrictions onimportsandexportsandon
measures havingequivalent effectareprohibited betweenMemberStates
(Articles 30to34EEC).Theseprovisions arewidelyinterpreted bythe
CourtofJustice .Theyareoneofthemosteffective instruments ofthe
Treatyforensuring thefreecirculation ofgoods.Theyare,however ,
subjecttocertainqualifications .Theydonot,forexample ,preclude
prohibitions orrestrictions onimports ,exportsorgoodsintransit
justified onthegrounds ofprotection ofindustrial andcommercial
property ,although suchprohibitions orrestrictions maynotconstitute a
meansofarbitrary discrimination oradisguised restriction ontrade
between MemberStates (Article 36EEC).
1.5.7.Asalreadymentioned ,casesconcerning thefreemovement ofgoodssubject
tocopyright ortosimilarrightshavealreadyreachedtheCourtof
Justice .Although thenumberofcasesisnotyetasgreat,northerangeof
conflicts aswide,asthosewhichhavecausedlitigation inotherareasof
intellectual property rightssuchaspatentsandtrademarks ,itisalready
clearthat,asregardscopyright goods,theprinciples whichforbida
partitioning ofthemarket_are applicable incopyright casesjustasthey
areincaseswheretheindustrial property rightinquestion isapatentor
atrademark.However ,thoseprinciples donotexcludetheapplication of
copyright toimported products whereexploitation isthrough aperformance
ofthework,unlessreliance ontherightconstitutes ameansofarbitrary
15discrimination oradisguised restriction ontradebetweenMemberStates
1.5.8.Accordingly ,theeffectoftheprovisions oftheTreatyonfreecirculation
ofgoodsmaybesaidtoapplybroadly ,mutatismutandis ,togoodssubject
tocopyright ;and,inparticular ,recourse tocopyright lawasameansof
artificially partitioning themarketisaseffectively prohibited ,being
equivalent ineffecttoaquantitative restriction ,asrecourse topatent
ortrademarklaw.Inaddition ,itfollowsthatconditions maywellarise
inwhichharmonization ofnational copyright rulesmightbenecessary .Such
couldbethecaseinparticular whereArticle36,andnotablyitsexemption
ofrestrictions justified ongroundsofprotection ofindustrial and
commercial property ,appliestonational ruleswhichwouldotherwise be
contrary toArticles 30or34EEC.

-11
1.5.9.TheTreatyconfersontheCouncilthepowerandtheduty,acting
unanimously onaproposal fromtheCommission ,toissuedirectives forthe
approximation ofsuchprovisions laiddownbylaw,regulation or
administrative actioninMemberStatesasdirectly affecttheestablishment
orfunctioning ofthecommonmarket (Article100EEC).Untilrecently ,this
powerconstituted themostlikelybasisforactionatCommunity levelin
thefieldofcopyright law.Itisavitalinstrument fortheharmonization
ofdiffering national lawsandforcreating astandard throughout the
Community ,evenwheresomeMemberStateshavenolawsgoverning the
subjects atissue.Theprovision wasaccordingly usedasthemainlegal
basisfortherecently adopteddirective onthelegalprotection of
16topographies ofsemiconductor products
1.5.10 .AftertheentryintoforceoftheSingleEuropean Act,Article100AEEChas
becomeavailable formeasures aimedattheestablishment ofaninternal
market .Thisprovision permits suchmeasures tobeadoptedbyqualified
majority .Accordingly ,wheredifferences inthecopyright lawsofthe
MemberStatesaffectthefunctioning oftheinternal markettothepoint
thatlegislative actionisrequired ,theCommunity isnowabletorelyon
thisnewpossibility toremovetheobstacles anddistortions inquestion .
1.5.11 .Performances subjecttocopyright andneighbouring rightsprotection may
fallintothecategory ofservices withinthemeaning oftheTreaty;this
isthecaseiftheyarenormally provided againstremuneration andifthey
arenotgoverned bytheprovisions relating tofreedomofmovement for
goods,capitalandpersons .Consequently ,theyarecoveredbythe
provisions oftheTreatyabolishing restrictions onfreedomtoprovide
services withintheCommunity (Articles 59to66EEC).Whilethereisample
caselawonthegeneralapplication oftheseprovisions ,thereislittlein
thespecific fieldofcopyright services .However,thereisnodoubtfrom
suchcaselawasisavailable thatcertainservices relating tocopyright
goodsarefullycoveredbytheprovisions inquestion .Moreparticularly ,
17theyhavebeenexplicitly heldtocoverbroadcasting services

-12-
Article57EECmayaccordingly haveanimportant roletoplayasthelegal
basisfordirectives designed tofacilitate theprovision ofservices
subjecttocopyright throughtheco-ordination ofprovisions regulating the
takingupandpursuitofsuchactivities .Thecopyright chapterofthe
proposal foraCouncildirective concerning broadcasting activities
constitutes thefirstuseofArticle57EECforthispurpose .
1.5.12 .Obstacles tointer-State tradeingoodsandservices flowingfromcopyright
havebeenbroughttotheCommission 'sattention inseveralfields .It
suffices toreferagainbywayofexampletoproblems thathavearisen
concerning broadcasting andtherentalofvideocassettes .
1.5.13 .However ,inaddition tosuchobstacles ,differences incopyright lawscan
clearlyhaveotherdirectandnegative effectsonthefunctioning ofthe
commonmarketbydistorting thecompetitive conditions underwhich
enterprises operate indifferent partsoftheCommunity .
1.5.14 .Injurisdictions wherecopyright isdifficult toenforce ,forexample ,
workswilltendtobemisappropriated morereadilythaninjurisdictions
wherecopyright offerseffective protection .Moreover ,theillegally copied
workswillinmanycasesbeproduced atalowercostthantheoriginals and
willthenbeabletoundercut thelatterinthemarketplace.The
functioning ofthecommonmarketwillbedirectly affected inthat,in
MemberStatesoffering relatively weakprotection ,illegally copiedworks
willtendtooccupyabiggermarketsharethantheydoelsewhere .
1.5.15 .Moreover ,theriskofsuchcopiedworksfindingtheirwayontonational
marketswheretheoriginal isprotected isarealone.Thefunctioning of
thecommonmarketisinthiswayfurtherdisturbed sinceworkslawfully
produced inoneMemberState,thoughlegallycopied,cancirculate until
actionistakentostoptheminMemberStateswheretheoriginal is
protected bywhichtimetheymaybeinthehandsofinnocent economic
operators .Atthesametime,theneedtotakeactionagainstimported goods
thatinfringe copyright intheimporting Statetendstoperpetuate controls
attheCommunity 'sinternal frontiers whichinevitably produceadverse
I
consequences forthemovement oflegitimate products .

13-
1.5.16 .Finally asregardstheelimination ofobstacles anddistortions ,itshould
benotedthatthefunctioning ofthecommonmarketisabroadconcept
embracing themovement ofallthefactors ofproduction acrossthe
frontiers oftheMemberStatesincluding directinvestment .Divergent
levelsofprotection offered bycopyright andotherintellectual and
industrial property lawswillaffectnotonlytradeflowsinthegoodsand
services concerned butmorefundamentally thescaleandnatureofthe
connected productive activities indifferent MemberStatesandthe
investment therein .
1.5.17 .Mention shouldalsobemade,inaddition tothepowertoissuedirectives
fortheharmonization ofnational laws,toafurtherenabling powerinthe
Treaty,whichprovesrelevant tosomeareasofcopyright law.Ifactionby
theCommunity shouldprovenecessary toattain,inthecourseofthe
operation ofthecommonmarket,oneoftheobjectives oftheCommunity ,and
theTreatyhasnotprovided thenecessary powers,theCouncilhasthepower
anddutytotaketheappropriate measures ;andthesemeasures mayconsist
ofdirectives ,regulations orotherinstruments (Article235EEC).Thisis
inthenatureofthingsasupplementary meansofaction .Itwouldnotbe
appropriate asregardsharmonization measures tocomplete theinternal
marketforwhichArticle100AEECprovides aspecific legislative basis,
butitcouldwellbeoneofthepowerstobeusedindealingwithproblems
forwhichharmonization alonemaywellnotprovide anadequate solution ,
suchaspiracy .TheCouncilRegulation layingdownmeasures toprohibit the
19release forfreecirculation ofcounterfeit goods constitutes an
interesting precedent inthisregard .

-14-
1.5.18 .TurningtotheCommunity 'sexternal relations ,piracyincopyright goodsis
oneofseveralwaysinwhichcopyright problems extendbeyondthe
boundaries oftheCommunity itself;anditistheobjective ofthe
Community 'scommercial policytoensurethesettingupofauniform
commercial policyinrelation tothirdcountries .Thecustomsunionis,as
itwere,thestarting pointforthecommoncommercial policy,forby
establishing acustomsunionbetweenthemselves .MemberStatesaimto
contribute totheharmonious development ofworldtrade,totheprogressive
abolition ofrestrictions oninternational tradeandtothelowering of
customsbarriers .Butthecommoncommercial policyalsoincludes such
mattersastheconclusion oftradeagreements andmeasures toprotectand
promoteexternal trade.Tariffandtradeagreements areincreasingly used
asinstruments forfurtherprotecting goodsandservices coveredby
intellectual property rights .ThenewGATTroundincludes aconsideration
ofpossible actiontoaddressthetraderelatedaspectsofintellectual
property rights Inareasofthiskind,Article113EECmayberelied
upontoarriveataCommunity position .
1.5.19 .Inaddition ,theprovisions oftheTreatygoverning thecommoncommercial
policyalsoinclude aprovision totheeffectthatMemberStatesare
required inrespect ofallmatters ofparticular interest tothecommon
markettoproceedwithintheframework ofinternational organizations ofan
economic character onlybycommonaction;anditisfortheCommission to
submittotheCouncilproposals concerning thescopeandimplementation of
suchcommonaction (Article116EEC).Thisprocedure hasbeenadopted in
relation totheWorldIntellectual Property Organization ,inrespectof
negotiations ontheRevision oftheParisConvention fortheprotection of
industrial property and,ifsimilarnegotiations takeplaceinthefuture
concerning theBerneConvention fortheprotection ofcopyright orfor
othercopyright orneighbouring rightsconventions administered byWIPO,if
necessary ,similarprocedures wouldapply.TheneedtorelyuponArticle
116EECwillinanyeventdiminish totheextentthattheCommunity adopts
legislation harmonizing thecopyright lawsoftheMemberStates .Insuch
circumstances ,thelegalbasisforCommunity actionwillbetheAETR
21decision oftheCourtofJustice

-15
1.5.20 .Aconsideration oftheLegalpowersoftheCommunity pursuant totheEEC
Treatywouldnotbecomplete without areference toArticle 222.This
articleprovides thattheEECTreatyshallinnowayprejudice therulesin
MemberStatesgoverning systems ofproperty ownership .TheCommission has
alreadyexplained insomedetailtheinterpretation tobegiventothis
22article inthefieldofintellectual property .Inessence ,thecontents
oftheprovision arethattheassignment ofproperty toprivate orpublic
ownersandhencethequestion ofwhetherproperty istobenationalized or
transferred frompublictoprivateownership remainsthepreserve ofthe
MemberStates .However ,thecontent ofproprietary rights,thescopeof
protection afforded tothemandthelimitsontheirusemayberegulated by
theCommunity totheextentrequired byitsobjectives ,andinparticular ,
totheextentrequired fortheproperfunctioning ofthecommonmarket .The
scopeforCommunity actionthusremainsconsiderable .
1.6.TheCommunity 'spriorities :thepurposes andscopeofthisconsultative
document
1.6.1.Forsometimenow,theCommission hasbeenkeepingunderreviewthe
copyright fieldasawholewithaviewtopublishing aconsultative
document thatwoulddealcomprehensively withtheissuesthathaveemerged
asmeriting discussion anddecision atCommunity level.TheEuropean
Parliament hasalso,onnumerous occasions ,inparticular bysubmitting
23questions totheCommission ,expressed itsinterest inlearning the
Commission 'sposition oncurrentcopyright issues .Theissuesdealtwithin
thisdocument arenottheonlyonesrequiring attention atCommunity level
butconstitute theissuesconsidered mosturgent .
1.6.2.Inbrief,theyarepiracy;homecopyingofsoundandaudio-visual material ;
distribution andrentalrightsforcertainclasses ofwork,inparticular ,
soundandvideorecordings ;theprotection available tocomputer programs
anddatabases;andfinally ,thelimitations ontheprotection available to
Community rightholders innon-Member States .

-16-
.6.3.Othermatters,suchasproblems inrelation totheprotection ofdesigns
andmodels,havenotbeenforgotten .Theywillcontinue tobeaddressed
bothonthebasisoftheTreaty'sdirectly applicable provisions andwitha
viewtopossible furtherlegislative initiatives whenthetimeisripe.At
present ,however,itwouldbeunrealistic tothinkthatsuchlegislative
proposals couldbelaunched withareasonable chanceofsuccess .Theywould
alsorequire anallocation ofadditional resources .Eventhoseinitiatives
thatareproposed asamatterofpriority willposeproblems inthisregard
andwillrequire aparticular efforttobemadetoensurethatresultsare
achieved withinareasonable periodoftime.
1.7.Summary
Thescopeofthisconsultative document hasbeenlimitedtopiracy,tothe
homecopyingofsoundandaudio-visual works,tothequestion of
distribution andrentalrightsforsoundandvideorecordings ,tothelegal
protection ofcomputer programs ,legalproblems relating totheoperations
ofdatabasesandtotheexternal aspectsofcopyright protection .
1.8.Conclusion
TheCommission wouldwelcome theviewsofinterested parties onthe
specific suggestions madeintheensuingchapters ofthisconsultative
document .Tofocusandfacilitate theconsultative process ,thekeyissues
onwhichviewsaresoughthavebeenlistedinasummaryconclusion toeach
chapter .However,allrelevant commentiswelcome,including reactions to
thegeneralpropositions contained inthisintroductory chapter .
\

-17-
1i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12Whenusedwithoutqualification ,"copyright "inthisdocument signifies
thebroadrangeofrightsthatareperhapsmorecorrectly referred toas
copyright andneighbouring rights,thatis,inaddition toauthors'
rights,analogous rightsgrantedto,amongstothers,performers ,
producers ofaudiovisual works,andbroadcasting organizations .Different
viewsexistastowhether somerightsshouldbeconsidered tobe
"copyright "evenifitisusedinthisbroadsense,forexample ,rights
indesignsandmodelsorsemiconductor topographies .Forthepurposes of
thisdocument ,suchrightsaretobeconsidered asbeingincluded unless
thecontrary isspecified .
SeeChapter 4belowforfurtherdetails .
SeeCommunity ActionintheCultural Sector,Bulletin oftheEuropean
Communities ,Supplement 6/77,andStronger Community Actioninthe
Cultural Sector,Bulletin oftheEuropean Communities ,Supplement 6/82.
Seetheproposal foraCouncilDirective onthecoordination ofcertain
provisions laiddownbylaw,regulation oradministrative actionin
MemberStatesconcerning broadcasting activities of6June1986,O.J.No.
C179of17July1986,p.4and"Television withoutfrontiers ",agreen
paperontheestablishment ofthecommonmarketforbroadcasting ,
especially bysatellite andcable,C0M(84 )300finalof14June1984.
SeeCouncilDirective 87/54/EECof16December 1986onthelegal
protection oftopographies ofsemiconductor products ,O.J.L24/36of27
January1987.
SeeChapter 5below.
SeeChapters 2and3below
SeeChapter 7below.
TheCommunity 'stextileindustry constitutes agoodexample .
SeeChapter 7,paragraphs 7.4.4.to7.4.8.below.
SeeChapters 2,3and5below.
SeeRobertW.Kastenmeier andMichael J.Remington ,Minnesota Law
Review,Vol.70No.2,December 1985page437-438 .
Anumberofattempts havebeenmadeinrecentyearstoquantify the
economic importance ofcopyright .Naturally suchattempts have
confronted seriousdefinitional andmeasurement problems .Taken
together ,however ,suchstudiessuggestthat,intheindustrialized
countries ,copyright activities generate atleast2%to3%ofGross
Domestic Productandprobably muchmore.Higherestimates areinthe
regionof5%to6%.Available evidence alsoindicates unsurprisingly
thatthesepercentages arerising .
See,inparticular ,J.Philipps ,TheEconomic Importance ofCopyright ,
TheCommonLawInstitute ofIntellectual Property ,1985;J.S.Cramer,
J.M.Meigering ,T.J.M.Nijssen,TheEconomic Importance ofCopyright in
theNetherlands in1982,Stichting voorEconomisch Onderzoek der
Universiteit vanAmsterdam ,1986;A.H.Olsson,Copyright intheNational
Economy ,inCopyright ,WorldIntellectual Property Organization ,April
1982;UnitedStatesCopyright Office,SizeoftheCopyright Industries
intheUnitedStates,ReporttotheSubcommittee onPatents,Copyrights

-18-
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23andTradeMarksoftheCommittee ontheJudiciary oftheUSSenate,
1984;,OfficeofTechnology Assessment oftheUSCongress ,Intellectual
Property RightsinanAgeofElectronics andInformation ,1986.
SeeChapter 2,paragraphs 2.2.2.to2.2.31below.
Thisapproach wasadopted ,forexample ,intheproposal foraCouncil
directive concerning broadcasting activities ,loc.cit.,Article20.For
onepossible butlimitedexception ,seeChapter4,paragraph 4.4.4.
below.
SeeChapter 4,paragraphs 4.3.5.,4.3.6.and4.9.1.below,
loc.cit.
Coditel v.Ciné-Vog Films(1980)ECR881.
loc.cit.
CouncilRegulation 3842/86/EECof1December 1986,O.J.No.L357of18
December 1986.
SeeChapter 7,paragraphs 7.2.5.to7.2.8.below.
Commission v.Council (1971)ECR263.SeealsoChapter 7,paragraphs
7.2.2.and7.2.3.below.
Mostrecently in"Television withoutfrontiers ",op.cit.,pages323to
328
See,forexample ,writtenquestion no.1977/86(O.J.no.C124of11May
1987,page26),writtenquestion no.1157/86(O.J.no.C149of9June
1987,page8),writtenquestion no.656/87(O.J.no.C315of26
November 1987,page3).

-19
CHAPTER 2:PIRACY
2.1.Thenatureofpiracy
2.1.1 ."Piracy"forthepurposes ofthischapterembraces theunauthorized
reproduction ofworksprotected bycopyright oralliedrightsfor
commercial purposes aswellasallsubsequent commercial dealing insuch
reproductions .Thecommercial purpose andfrequently thescaleonwhich
theactivity iscarried outarecharacteristic features whichdistinguish
thepractice fromotherformsofunauthorized reproduction orusesuchas
homecopying .Piracyinthissenseincludes "bootlegging ",thatis,the
unauthorized recording ofperformances andthesubsequent marketing of
copiesoftherecording .Itisfrequently associated with
"counterfeiting ",thatis,unauthorized useofalegitimate product's
commercial presentation ,inparticular ,itstrademarkorsomeother
protected indication .
2.1.2 .Defined inthisway,piracyincludes thepiracyofcomputer programs .
However ,sincemostdiscussion inrecentyearshasconcentrated onthe
question ofwhethercomputer programs couldbeorshouldbeassimilated to
worksprotected undercopyright lawsinforce,ithasbeenfeltmore
appropriate togiveanaccount ofthisdiscussion separately inChapter 5.
However ,insofar asthetrendintheMemberStatesisinfavourofthe
protection ofcomputer programs throughcopyright oraneighbouring right,
theobservations madeinthischapterarefrequently applicable mutatis
mutandis tocomputer programs also.

2.1.3 ._20_
2.1.3.Similarly ,commercial misappropriation ofdesignsfallswithinthisconcept
ofpiracy .Incertainfields,suchastextiles andclothing ,piracyand
counterfeiting constitute asignificant problem forCommunity firms.
However ,sincetheproduction ,thoughnotthemarketing ,ofsuchgoods
embodying pirateddesigns istakingplaceprimarily outsidetheCommunity ,
theproblem isconsidered forthemostpartinthecontext ofChapter 7of
thispaperconcerning theCommunity 'sexternal relations .Nevertheless ,
muchofwhatissaidinthischapter isalsoapplicable topiracyof
designs ,inparticular ,observations concerning measures directed at
importsintotheCommunity ofinfringing products .
2.1.4.Inrecentyears,piracyhasemerged asaseriousproblem forcopyright
industries andforcreative artistsdepending uponduerespect ofcopyright
fortheirliving .Itisthusnotacoincidence that,inJune1984,
Ministers ofCulture ,duringtheirveryfirstformalmeeting atCommunity
levelspentconsiderable timeonthesubjectpreparing aresolution on
measures tocombataudio-visual piracy,aresolution whichwasadopted on
124July1984byrepresentatives ofthegovernments oftheMemberStates .
2.2.Theimportance ofpiracybysector
2.2.1.Thesignificance ofpiracyinpractice variesfromsectortosectorand
withthepassage oftime.Recentdevelopments inthemainsectors
concerned canbesummarized asfollowsthoughnecessarily information on
suchillicitactivities hasfrequently totaketheformofinformed
estimates ratherthanrigorously controlled data.

21"
Books
2.2.2.Thereappeartobenostatistics available evenonanestimated basisasto
thescaleofpiracyofbookswithintheCommunity ,butthegenerally held
viewinthepublishing industry isthattheshareofpiratebooksonthe
internal marketisnegligible compared tothatoflegitimate publications .
Somesourceshaveexpressed apprehension astothefuture,however ,
including fearsastothedevelopment ofsophisticated reproduction
techniques inpartsoftheworldknownaspirate-havens inrespect ofother
products whichmightleadtoincreased importsintotheCommunity of
illegally produced books.Atpresent ,theproblemdoesnotseemtobe
significant.
2.2.3.Insharpcontrast ,outsidetheCommunity ,theproblemmustbeConsidered
serious ,especially forbooksintheSpanish ,FrenchandEnglish languages ,
thelatterforming thegreatest partoftheillegitimate traffic .Piracy
occurstosuchanextentinIndia,Pakistan ,theMiddleEast,SouthEast
Asia,LatinAmericaandAfricathatpublishers claimed in1983thattheir
lostsalesduetopiracycorresponded toapproximately 1billionUSdollars
2 3b..•_ _ __l .I..I•_e• •II_I•J..J_ayear.Itisconsidered thatthisfigureisstillvalidtoday
Soundrecordings
2.2.4.Formanyyears,thesoundrecording industry hassuffered considerable
lossesduetothepiracyofrecordsandtapes.Thepiracyproblemhasbeen
anissueofconstant concern totheindustry whichhasmadegreatefforts
andtakennumerous initiatives toimprovethelawanditsenforcement in
ordertocombatpiracyaseffectively aspossible .Likewise ,atthelevel
ofcompetent international organizations ,piracyofsoundrecordings has
beenthesubject ofnumerous conferences anddiscussions .

"22
2.2.5.Inordertoobtaindetailed information onthepenetration ofpirate
products intheindividual MemberStatesandonspecific legalproblems
connected withtheprotection ofsoundrecordings ,theCommission has
commissioned studiesandconsulted experts inthefield.Onpiracyof
soundrecordings ,astudywascarried outattheCommission 'srequestby
GillianDavies,Associate Director-General oftheInternational Federation
4ofProducers ofPhonograms andVideograms .Thestudycontains awealthof
information ontheproblemwhichneednotberepeated initsentirety here
Thefollowing remarks onpiracyofsoundrecordings areareaction tothat
studyand,inparticular ,toitsconclusions astotheimportance ofthe
piracyproblem asitaffectssoundrecordings .
2.2.6.Thetablesinthe1984version ofthestudyshowedalarming figures onthe
estimated lossescausedbypiracyintheCommunity andworldwide .Forthe
purposes ofthispaper,thosetableshavetotheextentpossible been
updatedandenlarged tocoveralsothenewMemberStatesoftheCommunity .

I.Estimated Lossofearnings resulting fromphonogram piracy-1984
(InMillions ofNational Currency andUSdollars )
Country Authors / Performers Distributors Producers
Music Of
Publishers Phonograms
Belgium BF3.8 BF7.1 BF8.2 BF8.2
US$0.06 US$0.11 US$0.13 US$0.13
Germany DM2.9 DM5.4 DM6.3 DM6.3
US$0.9 US$1.8 US$2.0 US$2.0
Greece Dr.i>24.0 Dr.!520.0 Dr.480.0 Dr.480.0
US$1.8 US$2.5 US$3.9 US$3.9
Spain Pst.4420.0 Pst.780.0 Pst ,.900.0 Pst ,.900.0
US$1.9 US$4.5 us$5.2 US$5.2
France FF7.8 FF14.6 FF16.8 FF16.8
US$0.8 US$1.5 US$1.8 US$1.8
Italy L6,‘720.0 L12,480.0 L14 ,,400.0 L14,,400.0
US$3.5 US$6.5 US$7.5 US$7.5
Netherlands Dfl1.3 Dfl2.4 Dfl2.8 Dfl2.8
US$0.4 US$0.7 US$0.8 US$0.8
Portugal ESC308.7 ESC573.3 ESC661.5 ESC661.5
US$1.9 US$3.4 US$4.0 US$4.0
UnitedKingdom £0.8 £1.6 £1.9 £1.9
US$1.0 US$1.9 US$2.3 US$2.3
(Thelevelofphonogram piracyinDenmark ,IrelandandLuxembourg is
considered tobeinsignificant ).
Source :Information obtained fromIFPI

24-
2.2.7 .Evenifallowance ismadeforthefactthatnoteverysaleofapirate
productnecessarily substitutes forthesaleofalegitimate recording ,
theeconomic importance ofthelossesseemsundeniable .Moreover ,
thoughthemarketshareofpirateproductswithintheCommunity has
declined since1978(seeTablesIIandIII),thisshouldnotbe
interpreted asindicating thattheproblemhasbeensolved .
(3)

II.Unitsalesofpiratephonograms asapercentage ofthetotalmarket
(pirateandlegitimate markets )in1978and1984
197811984D
Tapes DiscsLPs
Belgium and
Luxembou rg15.0%
3.0%■BIHMIII
□113.0%
01.0%
Germany 9.0%■III· 12.0%
5.0%□ 01.5%
Greece 78.0%ΙΙ·ΙΙΙΙΙ··ΙΙ·ΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙ·ΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙΙ Verylow
64.0%I.. -. ' J Verylow
Spain- -
50.0%f..... _ ..._ .]
France 12.0%min 11.0%
5.0%:j I0.5%
Ireland 20.0% II3.0%
3.0%□ Verylow
Italy 40.0% (III6.5%
25.0%: ~i r::g7.0%
Netherlands 10.0%■mi III!7.0%
5.0% C:J Π3.0%
Portugal_ -
80.0% r. ' ■.' · ■ .ï
United 7.0%III! ■2.0%
Kingdom 5.0%LLJ Γ1.0%
Source :Information received fromIFPI

-26-
III.Retailvalueofpiratephonograms asapercentage ofthetotalmarket
(pirateandlegitimate markets )in1978and1984
1978■1984□
Belgium and
Luxembourg6%III
1%ö
Germany 4%IN
2% D
Greece
28%CZ...--Z)
Spain
26% I_ I_ I
France 4%II
1.5%fl
Ireland 6%INI
0.5%l
Italy
14%Z-.ZZ1
Nether lands 6%111
3%Zi
Portugal
23%tzn.._j
UnitedKingdom 6%III
2%0
Source :Information received fromIFPI

27-
2.2.8.First,thedecrease ispartlyduetothecontinuing effortsofthe
industry ,sometimes underdifficult circumstances ,tosuppress piracy .
Second,whilethoseeffortsappeartohavehadpositive results ,a
substantial partofthedecrease duringthelastfewyearsisprobably due
tothefactthatpirateshavebeenconcentrating forsometimeonvideo
products which,aswillappearfromwhatfollows ,atleastforaperiodof
time,haveoffered amoreprofitable andtherefore moreattractive target .
Finally ,itisimportant tobearinmindtheparticular characteristics of
thesoundrecording industry .Theoverwhelming majority ofsound
recordings releaseddonotmakeaprofit^.Thereturnsonthesmall
proportion ofprofitable releases ,whichcanbeconsiderable ,areusedto
finance newreleases andmaintain abreadth ofrepertoire thatwould
otherwise beimpossible .Butthepirates ofcoursetargetprecisely the
recordings whicharealreadyknowntobeincurrentdemandandinthisway
theoverallprofitability oftherecording industry isreduced .
2.2.9.TableIVgivesanindication oftheprovenance ofpiratesoundrecordings
soldwithintheMemberStatesoftheEuropean Community .
IV.Homemarkets ofEECMemberStates (exceptPortugal andSpain)-
provenance ofpirateproducts sold
ICountry |
I I%Imported into |
thecountry |Provenance of
imported product I
I I
iBelgium and |I
40% IMainlyEECI
!
[Luxembourg | I
IDenmark | 100% IEEC&Row I
iGermany | 40% IMostlyEEC(Belgium , I
I I IItaly,Netherlands ). I
iGreece | 0% l I
IFrance |over50%Arabrepertoire |EEC&Row I
I Ilow%ofotherrepertoire |(inparticular : I
I i IItaly,Netherlands I
I I ISouthEastAsia). I
IIreland | 85% I50/50EEC/Row. I
¡Italy i 5%tapes |Non-EEC (USA, I
I I 80%records |Singapore ). I
[Netherlands | 99% I50/50EEC/Row. I
iUnitedKingdomj
I Iverylow |
IEEC&Row I
I
Row=Restoftheworld
Source :Basedoninformation contained inPiracyofPhonograms ,Gillian
Davies,secondedition1984.

-28-
2.2.10 .Thecross-frontier natureofthetrafficemergesclearly,bothasbetween
MemberStatesandbetween MemberStatesandnon-Member countries .
2.2.11 .OutsidetheCommunity ,theMiddleEastisrifewithpiracy .Combined with
Africa,theproblem isestimated tobeintheregionof355milliondollars
ofpirateproductssoldeachyear^.Equallyimportant istheprobleminthe
FarEast,inparticular ,inIndia,Malaysia ,Taiwan,Indonesia and,until
recently ,Singapore wherenewcopyright legislation andenergetic
anti-piracy actionshaveconsiderably reducedtheprevious levelofpiracy .
Itisestimated thatthevalueofsalesofpirateproducts inthisarea
amounts to350milliondollars ayear.Onaworldwide basis,itis
estimated thatthevalueofpirateproducts soldrepresents 1,200million
US$compared toaglobalturnover ofabout10,000milliondollars .A
considerable proportion ofthispiratetradeconcerns recordings of
European origin .Incontrast totheposition intheCommunity ,themarket
shareofpirateproducts intheareasmentioned doesnotshowatendency to
decline .
Filmsandvideorecordings
2.2.12 .Owingtovideorecording beingarelatively recentphenomenon ,available
information concerning theindustry andthepiracyoffilmsandothervideo
products intheearlyyearsofthevideorecorder (VCR)islessextensive
andlessdetailed .Themagnitude ofthepiracyproblem isclear,however .
Illegitimate videorecordings onthemarketbothwithinandoutsidethe
Community havebeenfoundtosuchanextentthattheysometimes outnumber
thoselegitimately produced .Incountries withrelatively fewvideo
recorders theproblem islessserious ,butintheUK,forexample ,where
thepenetration ofvideorecorders ishigh,thegovernment madeanestimate
according towhichthemarketshareofpirateproducts in1983was66%.
Afteramendment ofcopyright lawanditsmoreenergetic enforcement ,itis
estimated thatthemarketshareofpirateproducts hasbeensignificantly
reduced ,thoughtoastillsubstantial 20%orso.
2.2.13 .TableVshowstheestimated penetration ofVCRsinCommunity households in
1985and1986.

-29-
V.Penetration ofVCRinhomes (atyearend)
i
ICOUNTRY
iI 1985 I 1986 I
Ipercentof
IhouseholdsNumber |
C'OOO)Ipercentof
householdsNumber
('000)I
I
IBelgium I14.9% 471 I18.7% 595 I
IDenmark I23.0% 430 I28.5% 545 I
IGermany I22.0% 5,250 I26.0% 6,250 I
IGreece I6.9% 200 I 8.3% 250 I
ISpain I13.8% 1,500 18.4% 2,000 I
IFrance I14.0% 2,800 17.0% 3,500 I
IIreland i22.0% 220 I27.0% 250 I
IItaly I3.0% 500 I 5.0% 800 I
ILuxembourg I26.4% 24 I34.0% . 31 I
iNetherlands I29.0% 1,500 I35.0% 1,850 I
iPortugal I10.0% 200 I15.0% 300 I
iUnited I I I
iKingdom i40.0% 8,500 I46.0% 9,800 I
Source :Information obtained fromIFPI
2.2.14 .TableVIshowsindustry estimates ofvideopiracyasapercentage ofthe
market.
VI.Extentofvideopiracy intheCommunity
Marketshareofvideopirateproducts
intheCommunity
I1983 I1984 I1985 I1986
Belgium and
LuxembourgI
I30-40%I
I30-40%I
I 25%I
I25%
DenmarkI5-10% I5-10% I5-10% I5-10%
Germany I40-50% I40-50% I 65% I45%
Greece 60-70% I60-70% I 50% I50%
Spain I60-70% Í 40% I 35% I30%
France 30-40% I20-25% I 30% I25%
Ireland i80% ¡ 60% I 40% I30%
Italy !50% I 50% I 50% I40%
Netherlands !50-65% I50-60%I 45% !40-45%
Portugal ¡90-95% I90-95% I75-85% i70-75%
UnitedKingdom I60-70% i35-40%1under20% i
Source :Statistics provided bytheMotionPictureExportAssociation of
America fortheCommission inOctober 1986.

-30-
2.2.15 .Astothenatureandoriginofpirateproducts intheMemberStates,
information provided bytheindustry givesthefollowing pictureofthemain
features ofrecentpirateactivities .
2.2.16 .InBelgium ,piracyhasdecreased slightly since1983andisbelieved nowto
represent around25%ofthemarket .Itisimpossible toknowhowmuchpiracy
consists ofcopyingbyretailers butitisbelieved tobesubstantial .Most
piracy,however ,isindustrial incharacter .Piratecopiesavailable in
Belgium aremanufactured inthecountry aswellasimported fromthe
Netherlands whichshareacommonlanguage .Pirateproducts arealsoexported
totheNetherlands .Somemasters areimported fromtheUnitedKingdom orthe
USAbutthenneedtobesubtitled ordubbedbeforecopiescanbeduplicated .
2.2.17 .Denmark hasthelowestincidence ofpiracyintheCommunity .Piracyis
estimated torepresent nowaround5%ofthemarketascompared tomorethan
50%someyearsago.Thisstriking reduction isprobably duetothe
organization ofthelegitimate rentalmarket .Anetwork ofprimarily rental
outletswithanappropriate territorial coverage hasbeencreated and
distributors organized withintheAssociation ofDanishVideoDistributors
(ADV)whichcoversthelegitimate marketinnearlyitsentirety .Membership
ofthisorganization andrespectforitsrulesisinreality acondition for
accesstolegitimate material .TheAssociation ofDanishVideoDistributors
hasalsobeenenergetic intakingsuccessful anti-piracy action .
Nevertheless ,piracyoccursandasubstantial numberofpiratecassettes
havebeenseizedduringraidscarriedoutasaresultofinvestigation by
theADV.Piratecopiesarebelieved tobeimported fromtheUnitedKingdom
ortheUSA.

-31
2.2.18 .InGermany ,contrary tothetrendoutlined inotherCommunity countries ,
videopiracywasuntil1985ontheincrease andatthattimestill
represented 65%ofthetotalmarket .Twofactorsarereported ashaving
contributed toachangeinthepicture .Oneisthecreation inDecember 1984
ofGVU"GeselIschaftzurVerfolgung vonUrheberrechtsver letzungen "whichis
theGermanFederation againstcopyright theftbasedinHamburg .Theother
factoristhe1985amendment ofcopyright lawwhichintroduced heavyprison
termsforpiracyandmadepiracya"publicoffence "enhancing police
participation ininvestigation anddetection .Through 1985,GVUbecame
activeandinstigated morethan450raidsonoutletscarrying piratestock
andobtained morethan500convictions .Asaresultthemarketshareof
pirateproducts inGermany ,domestically produced orimported from
neighbouring Germanspeaking countries suchasAustria andSwitzerland ,is
nowreported tobeonthedecrease ,for1986beingestimated at45%ofthe
market .
2.2.19 .InGreece,thevideoindustry isstillataveryearlystageofdevelopment
sinceonly8%ofhouseholds ownavideorecorder .Piracyhas,however ,
bedevilled theGreekvideoindustry fromthestart .However ,recentcourt
actionsresulting inheavyprisonsentences andfinesforthepirates have
hadtheresults ofreducing thelevelofpiracyquitenoticeably toaround
50%ofthemarket .
2.2.20 .InSpain,themarketshareofpirateproducts hasnowbeenbroughtdownto
around30%.Thedecrease seemstofollowtheactivities undertaken by
ADICAN,anational distributors association formedbymajorcompanies
engaged inthedistribution ofvideoproducts ,whichhasbeenableto
inspire adifferent approach tothepiracyproblem bytheauthorities andin
particular theSupreme Court.In1985,theAnti-Piracy Federation (FAP)was
established underthestewardship oftheMotionPictureExportAssociation
ofAmerica .Thisorganization hascarriedoutanumberofsuccessful
activities againstpirates ,thussucceeding inmakingthemarketshareof
pirateproducts decrease inasignificant way.

-32-
2.2.21 .InFrance,videopiracyisestimated torepresent 20%to25%ofthemarket .
Pirateproducts aremadealmostexclusively inFrance .Thisisduetothe
factthatFranceusestheSECAMsystemwhichisdifferent fromthePAL
systemusedinmuchoftherestoftheworld (apartfromtheUSAwhichuses
theNTSCsystem).Thistechnical difference aswellastheneedtohavemany
videosdubbedinFrenchprobably protects Francefromahigherincidence of
videopiracythaniscurrently thecase.
2.2.22 .InIreland ,piracyhasdecreased overthepastfewyearsandnowaccounts
for30%ofthemarket .PiratecopiesaremadeinIreland aswellas
imported ,mostlyfromtheUnitedKingdom .Piratecopiesareoftenmadefrom
private homesandthensoldbyvideoclubsorfrommarketstallsorvans.
2.2.23 .InItaly,videopiracyisbelieved toaccount for40%to50%ofthetotal
marketwithaslightly decreasing tendency .Thistotalturnover ,however ,is
relatively smallsincethevideomarketisinanearlystageofdevelopment
inItaly .Thereareonly800,000 VCRsinthecountry whichrepresents a
penetration ofonly5%ofhouseholds .Thevideomarkethasdeveloped more
slowlyinItalythaninmostotherEuropean countries probably inpart
because ofthesuperabundance ofTVchannels andthewiderchoiceof
entertainment thusavailable tothepublic .Thelessimportant formof
piracyconsists ofcopyingbyretailers .Asregardsthemoreserious
industrial piracy,copiesaremadefrommasters ofnewlyreleased feature
filmsorevennewfilmswhichhavenotyetbeenreleased .Byandlarge,
•featurefilmsarelegitimately released onvideooneyearafterthe
theatrical exploitation .Pirateproducts thusconsistmainlyoffilmswhich
arenotyetreleased forvideoexploitation .Piratecopiesaremainly
manufactured inItaly,hereagainforlanguage reasons .Onlymasters are
sometimes imported fromabroad .
2.2.24 .AsfarasLuxembourg isconcerned ,piracyhasnotbeenreported asbeinga
significant problem ,thoughanumberofanti-piracy actionswerecarriedout
in1985and1986.

-33-
2.2.25 .IntheNetherlands ,foraconsiderable time,pirateproducts hadadominant
shareofamarketmarkedbytheincreasing penetration ofVCRs,toreacha
levelin1986ofaround35%ofallhouseholds .Theimportance ofthepirate
tradeinthiswell-organized andnormally law-abiding societyhastickled
thecuriosity ofmanypeoplebutindications thatvideopiracyisinthe
handsofwellorganized criminal circles havebeensoconstant andso
numerous thattheycannotsimplybedismissed .SinceJanuary 1984thefight
againstvideopiracyhashoweverbeenincreasingly successful .Atthattime
theDutchCinematographic Association together withtheMotionPicture
ExportAssociation ofAmerica ,theN.O.S. (theDutchtelevision ),theSTEMRA
(theCollecting Society forMechanical Rights )andtheNVPI(Nederlandse
Vereniging vanProducenten enImporteurs vanBeeld-engeluidsdragers )
formedafederation against copyright theft,theStichting VideoVeilig .The
organization haswiththeassistance ofSTEMRAcarried outalargenumberof
*raidsleading tonumerous convictions andimportant seizures ofpirate
material .Duetoenergetic actionfromrightholders thelevelofpiracyhas
nowdecreased to40%to45%ofthemarket .
2.2.26 .InPortugal thepenetration ofVCRshasreached15%ofhouseholds in1986
according tothelatestestimates .Pirateproducts dominate themarketwith
amarketshareof70%to75%.Itisdifficult toexplain clearly whythe
piracyproblem issoacuteinPortugal .Thereseemstobeavariety of
reasons ofwhichtwoseemparticularly important .First,amoderncopyright
lawgivingsubstantive rightstoallrightholdershasonlyrecently come
intoforce.Second,therentalmarketinrespect oflegitimate products is
notorganized tothesameextentas,forexample inDenmark ,and,asa
result,rentaloutletsarenotabletoofferconsumers anadequate choiceof
legitimate titlesinallpartsofthecountry .

-34-
2.2.27 .TheUnitedKingdom hasalsoseenastriking decrease intheLevelofvideo
piracyoverthepastfewyears,whichisnowbelieved tobearound20%of
themarketorless.FACT(theFederation againstCopyright Theft)whichhas
beenactively engaged inanti-piracy actions ,believes thatithasnow
stoppedthetheft (or"borrowing ")ofnewlyreleased filmsfromUKcinemas
forpiracypurposes .Asystemof"marking"filmsplayedacrucial rolein
stopping piracyofnewlyreleased filmssincethosemarkings enabledpolice
andFACTinvestigators toidentify thecinemafromwhichthecopyhadbeen
"borrowed ".Although twomajorringsoflocalvideopirateshavebeen
broken,thereisstillasteadystreamofimports ofpiratecassettes from
abroad,mainlytransfers fromtheNTSCAmerican formatimported fromthe
USA.Thereisalsoevidence ofimportation offilmsfromtheFarEastwith
Malay,ChineseandIndiansubtitles .
2.2.28 .Mostpiratevideocassettes foundonthemarketwithintheCommunity appear
tobeofCommunity origin .Thisisduetovariousfactors .Language ,
technical equipment andknow-how playarole,asdodifferent colour
television standards .ThechoiceofLondonandAmsterdam asproduction
centres intheearlydaysofvideopiracywasduepartlytothefactthat
thePALsystemusedintheUnitedKingdomandtheNetherlands haswidespread
application elsewhere intheworld .Moreover ,aconsiderable proportion of
theproduction mostindemandisreleased relatively quickly ontheUnited
Kingdommarket,forexample ,Britishtelevision programmes ,filmsanda
largenumberofpopularAmerican productions .Productions inother
languages arefurnished withEnglishsubtitles whentheyareshowninthe
UnitedKingdomandcanthenbecopied,notnecessarily intheUnitedKingdom
itself,andrapidlyintroduced onmajormarketsallover*theworld.

-35-
2.2.29 .Thegeneraltrendinrespect ofadecrease inthemarketshareofpirate
products ofthevideomarketfrom1983to1986shownintableVIhas
continued during1987.According toinformation provided bytheMotion
PictureExportAssociation ofAmerica totheCommission inNovember 1987,
theestimated mid-1987 European piracylevelsappeartobeslightly lower
thanthefigures forthepreceding years .
2.2.30 .Outside theCommunity ,videopiracyisnaturally mostprevalent inthose
countries withahighlevelofvideorecorder ownership suchastheUnited
States,CanadaandJapan .Production ofpirateproducts ,however ,isnot
limited tosuchcountries ,beingfoundalsoincertaindeveloping countries ,
forexample ,inSouthEastAsia.Aconsiderable proportion ofthepirated
worksareofEuropean origin .
Computer programs
2.2.31 .Recently computer software andinparticular computer programs havebecome a
veryvulnerable targetforpirateactivities .Aslongastheuseof
computers wasrestricted mainlytoprofessional useinbusiness and
administration ,thepenetration ofillegally reproduced programs wasnot
alarming .Sincethemicrocomputer hasbecomepopular thepicture has,
however ,changed .Programs forcomputers andinparticular gamesaresold
overthecounter asconsumer goodstikerecords andtapes .Programs are
easilyreproduced atcostswhichonlyrepresent atinyfraction ofthecosts
involved intheiroriginal development .Thishascausedconsiderable harmto
thepackaged software industry .Forexample ,theFederation AgainstSoftware
Theft (FAST)hasestimated thatsalesoflegitimate programs lostthrough
piracyintheUnitedKingdom in1986amountto£150million .

-36-
2.3.Mainreasonsfordifferences between sectors
2.3.1 .Thedifferences intheimportance ofpiracyinthemainsectorsconcerned
areexplained byanumberoffactors .Someofthesearelegalinnatureand
thesearefurtherconsidered below,buttheprincipal factorsappeartohave
aneconomic character .Thusthecurrentprevalence ofvideopiracyis
undoubtedly dueinlargeparttotheconsiderable profitmarginavailable to
theillegalproducer whichismuchgreater thaninthecaseofeitherbooks
orsoundrecordings .Unauthorized reproduction ofbooks,forexample ,
permits royalties tobesaved .Theseamountingeneral toabout10%to15%
oftheretailprice .Butthebooksstillhavetobeprinted anddistributed
atcostssimilar tothoseoflegitimate products .Likewise ,evenifsound
recordings canbereadily andcheaply reproduced ontape,theiraverage
retailsellingpriceismuchlessthanthatofavideorecording ,whichcan
8alsobeprofitably exploited through rental .Thevideorecording isthusa
muchmoretempting target .
2.3.2.Forsomeyearstoorightholders infeaturefilmsundoubtedly contributed to
thecreation ofamarketforpirateproducts bywitholding licences to
markettheirworksonvideocassettes .Instead ofwelcoming thisnewmedium
asasupplementary sourceofincomeforproductions alreadyshownin
cinemas ,forproductions whichhadnotbeenacommercial successandfor
childrens' movies,forexample ,manyproducers wereopposed tothenew
mediumandtriedunsuccessfully toresistitbyrefusing licences .Theysaw
television andvideoasathreattofilmproduction instead ofasan
important newoutlet .

-37-
2.3.3 .Anotherexacerbating factorcontributing totheattractiveness ofvideo
piracyhasbeenthenormaldistribution policyoffilmproducers .Contrary
tomusicalproductions whicharenormally released simultaneously onall
markets ,newfilmsarereleased onthevariousmarkets atdifferent times,
depending onwhenitisthought mostlucrative torelease thework.In
addition ,modernproductions areoftensoexpensive thatamajorpublicity
campaign hastoprecede therelease ofafilmtomaximize box-office
receipts .Thepublicity campaign ismeanttocreate ademandforthework
andnormally doesso,butunfortunately alsoinareaswherenoimmediate
release willfollow orwherenorelease willfollowonvideocassettes .The
practice thuscreates areadymarketforpiratecopiesandanalmost
irresistible temptation forracketeers .Whatever viewistakenofnational
lawsoragreements designed toensuretheexploitation offilmsincinemas
priortotheirmarketing asvideorecordings ,bygeneralizing and
institutionalizing thedelaybetween thetwoformsofmarketing ,they
contribute tothepiracyphenomenon andaccordingly reinforce theneedfor
effective meanstocombatpirateactivities .
2.3.4 .Thedecreasing marketshareofpiratevideoproducts whichhasbeenobserved
inthelastfewyearscanbeattributed ,likethedecline inpiracyofsound
recordings ,toavariety offactors .Improved legislation andmoreenergetic
actionbyrightholders areundoubtedly twoimportant reasons .Butprobably
mostimportant ofallareeconomic factors .Thepriceofhighquality
pre-recorded material isfallingdramatically .IntheUSthepurchase price
9ofafeaturefilmonvideocassette islessthan20$andthe"rental"
pricelessthan1$.ThoughpricesintheCommunity generally arehigherthan
intheUSitisafactthattheprofitmarginforvideopirates hasbeen
dramatically reduced inthelastfewyears,takingawayamajorincentive to
engageintheactivity .

-38-
2.3.5.Piracyinrespectofcompactdiscsissorareastobeunheard of,probably
becausethemanufacture ofCDsistoocostlyandtechnically complicated for
pirates .However ,thearrivalofdigitalaudiotaperecording (DAT)may
againstimulate audiopiracy .SinceDATisconsidered ,however ,primarily to
raiseissuesrelating tounauthorized privatereproduction ,detailed
discussion onDATwilltakeplaceinChapter 3onhomecopying .
Nevertheless ,thepiracyaspectshouldnotbeoverlooked .
2.4.Different basesforprotection attheinternational Level
2.4.1.Books,soundrecordings ,filmsandvideorecordings arenotprotected inthe
samewayattheinternational level.Theextentandquality ofthe
protection variesfromonesectortoanother ,particularly asbetweenbooks
andvideoproducts ontheonehandandsoundrecordings ontheother .The
basisonwhichbroadcasts andcabletransmissions areprotected alsohasa
particular character .
Books,filmandvideorecordings
2.4.2.Booksareprotected asliterary worksattheinternational levelbythe
BerneandUniversal Copyright Conventions .AllCommunity MemberStatesare
10parties totheBerneConvention andnational lawsofMemberStates
accordingly vestintheauthortheexclusive righttoauthorize the
reproduction ofhiswork.Similarly ,inconformity withtheBerne
Convention ,cinematographic worksareprotected inallMemberStates,the
ownership ofthecopyright beinghowevergoverned bynational legislation
withintheframework established byArticle 14bisoftheConvention .Video
recordings appeartohavebeenassimilated tofilmsinaccordance withthe
BerneConvention 'sdefinition ofcinematographic workasincluding "works
11expressed byaprocessanalogous tocinematography ".Somecontemporary
legislation ,however ,expressly protects videorecordings which,together
withcinematographic works,arethensometimes referred toasaudiovisual
works .

-39-
Soundrecordings
2.4.3.Thelegalprotection ofsoundrecordings ismuchlessuniform .Neither the
BernenortheUniversal Copyright Conventions requireprotection tobegiven
tosoundrecordings assuchasdistinct fromtheliterary andmusicalworks
thatmayberecorded .Accordingly ,theydonotensureprotection ofthe
performers andproducers responsible forsoundrecordings .However ,
provision tothiseffecthasbeenmadebytheInternational Convention for
theProtection ofPerformers andProducers ofPhonograms andBroadcasting
Organizations signedinRomein1961,generally calledtheRomeConvention
onneighbouring rights .TheRomeConvention offersproducers ofphonograms
therighttoauthorize orprohibit thereproduction oftheirphonogram fora
periodofatleast20yearsfromthefirstfixation .Performers are
protected againstinteraliatheunauthorized fixation oftheir
performances .ThisConvention has,however ,beenratified byonlythe
following Community MemberStates :Denmark ,Germany ,Ireland ,Italy,
Luxembourg ,UnitedKingdomandFrance .Atotalof31Statesaremembers as
of1September 1987.
2.4.4.Thelimitedratification oftheConvention hadtwomaincauses :first,at
thetimeofitsadoption in1961itwasinadvance ofmanynational
legislations ,sothatmostcountries hadtolegislate beforetheycould
adheretoit.Second,itcontains anon-obligatoryprovision ontherightof
performers andproducers toreceive ,equitable remuneration whenrecordsare
playedbyradioandtelevision orotherwise communicated tothepublic .This
provision hasbeenvigorously opposedfromtheoutsetbybroadcasting
organizations .Ontheotherhand,theConvention hasbeenactively promoted
bythesoundrecording industry andperformers' organizations whohave
constantly pressed forfullprotection underitsprovisions .Sufficient
consensus topermittheadoption oflegislation hasaccordingly sometimes
beendifficult toachieve .

-40-
2.4.5.However ,theproblem ofpiracyhadbecomesoacuteby1969thatthesound
recording industry wasobliged toseekprotection bymeansofanother
international instrument inviewofthelimitedapplication oftheRome
Convention .AsaresulttheConvention fortheProtection ofProducers of
Phonograms againstUnauthorized Publication oftheirPhonograms wassigned
inGeneva in1971.ThisConvention allowsStateswhoarenotinfavourof
theequitable remuneration ofperformers tosubscribe tomeasures directed
againstpiracy .Thefollowing Community MemberStateshaveratified this
Convention :Denmark ,Germany ,Spain,France,Italy,Luxembourg andUnited
Kingdom .Atotalof39Statesarecurrently members .
2.4.6.Incontrast totheRomeConvention of1961,contracting StatestotheGeneva
Convention arenotrequired toadheretotheBerneUnionortheUniversal
Copyright Convention .TheConvention ,dealingspecifically withthe
unauthorized reproduction ,importation anddistribution ofsoundrecordings ,
offersachoiceoffourpossible methods oflegalprotection :copyright ,a
specific orneighbouring right,unfaircompetition laworpenalsanctions or
combinations ofthesepossibilities .Community MemberStateswhoareparties
totheConvention havechosendifferent methods ofimplementing it,aswill
appearingreaterdetailfromtheanalysis below.
Broadcasts andcabletransmissions
2.4.7.Theprotection accorded tobroadcasts andcabletransmissions assuch,as
opposed tothataccorded toliterary andotherworkswhenbroadcast or
transmitted ,alsofallsoutsidetheBerneandUniversal Copyright
.*•12Conventions
(4)

-41
2.4.8 .TheRomeConvention provides fornational treatment tobeaccorded to
broadcasting organizations inothercontracting States .Italsoprovides
inArticle 13thatbroadcasting organizations shallenjoytherightto
authorize thefixation oftheirbroadcasts and,withincertain limits,the
reproduction ofsuchfixations .Broadcasting isdefined aswireless
transmission forpublicreception ofsoundsorimagesandsounds .
Transmissions exclusively bycablearethusnotcovered eveniffixation of
abroadcast signalre-transmitted bycablemightnevertheless beregarded
asaninfringement ofthebroadcaster 'srightwherethere-transmission is
instantaneous .
2.4.9 .TheEuropean Agreement ontheProtection ofTelevision Broadcasts of1960
provides forbroadcasting organizations tohavetherighttoauthorize any
fixation oftheirbroadcasts oranyreproduction thereof .Theprotection
applies tothevisualandsoundelements oftelevision broadcasts ,butnot
thesoundelementwhenbroadcast separately (Article 5).Nodefinition of
broadcasting isgiven,butifbroadcasting meanswireless transmission as
intheRomeConvention ,thentheAgreement wouldnotappeartoprotect
transmissions exclusively bycableagainstunauthorized fixation orany
reproduction thereof .Belgium ,Denmark ,Germany ,Spain,Franceandthe
UnitedKingdomaremembers oftheConvention .
2.4.10 .Thelegalprotection available tobroadcasts orcabletransmissions assuch
isamatterofconsiderable andgrowingimportance giventhefactthatthey
constitute areadilyaccessible sourceofaccesstoasteadily increasing
rangeofaudio-visual works,someofwhichmaynotbeprotected otherwise .
Aswithsoundrecordings ,theexisting international instruments leavea
considerable degreeoflibertytotheMemberStatesasthesubsequent
analysiswillshow.
2.4.11 .Beforeproceeding tosuchananalysis ,however ,theconditions necessary
fortherepression ofpiracyshouldperhapsbesummarized ,ifinsomewhat
idealized terms,asabasisforevaluating thestrengths andweaknesses of
thepresentsituation intheMemberStatesoftheCommunity .

-42-
2.5.Necessary conditions fortherepression ofpiracy
2.5.1.Thenecessary conditions fortherepression ofpiracyareessentially
four-fold :clearsubstantive legalprovisions givingprotection tothe
interests thatpiracycandamage;effective procedures fortakinglegal
actionagainstandprovingpirateactivity ;adequate sanctions and
remedies ;andorganized andco-ordinated enforcement efforts ofinterested
partiesandrelevant publicauthorities .Theseconditions aretoacertain
extentinter-related .Forexample ,procedures andremedies maywellbe
dependent onthekindofsubstantive legalprovisions enacted ina
particular MemberState .Nevertheless ,considering eachofthemseparately
helpstoclarify ananalysis oftheproblem .
2.5.2 .First,theremustbeclearrulesofsubstantive lawprotecting the
important economic interests inquestion fromthemainactsofpiracy .The
lawshouldclearlyspecifywhatinterests areprotected andagainstwhat
formsofactivity .Themaininterests tobetakenintoaccountappearto
bethoseoftheauthors ofrelevant literary ,musical andartistic works;
oftheperformers whohaveparticipated inthemakingofasoundor
audio-visual recording orfilm;oftheproducers responsible therefor ;
andofbroadcasters andcableoperators .Themainactsofpiracyshould
alsobeclearlyprohibited .Theseincludenotonlyunauthorized
reproduction oftheworksinquestion ,butalsotheimportation ,
exportation anddistribution ,including possession forcommercial purposes ,
ofillicitcopies .Asregardsperformers ,unauthorized fixation oflive
performances shouldbeclearlyprohibited .

-43-
2.5.3 .Second ,,effective procedures fortakingLegalactionagainstandproving
pirateactivity shouldpermitrightholdersandrelevant publicauthorities
tobeginlegalproceedings withanadequate chanceofsuccessagainstthose
whomtheyhavereasonable grounds tobelieve areengaged inpiracy .In
particular ,provision shouldbemadeforsearchandseizureprocedures
enabling plaintiffs andprosecuting authorities toobtaininterimorders,
preferably onanex^partebasis,permitting themtoenterthepremises of
thepresumed infringer ,searchforevidence ofpirateactivity and,if
necessary ,seizesuchevidence pendingtrialoftheaction .Such
procedures helptoensurethatpirates cannothide,destroy orotherwise
dispose ofpiratedmaterial oncetheyknowtheyaresuspected .The
evidence thusobtained notonlyprovestheexistence oftheinfringement ,
butalsogivesanindication ofthescaleonwhichthepiracyisbeing
carried outandthuscontributes totheimposition ofanadequate sanction .
Italsoensures thatanypiratematerial seizedcannotcontinue to
circulate inthemarket .Safeguards againsttheabuseofsuchprocedures
areclearlynecessary andcanbereadilyincorporated ,forexample ,by
meansofsecurity requirements orundertakings topaydamagesconcerning
lossestherebyinflicted oninnocent defendants .Inaddition ,appropriate
customsprocedures enabling apparently piratedgoodstobestopped onentry
totheCommunity fromthirdcountries pending anadjudication ontheir
legitimacy canplayanimportant role.Theopportunity existsfor
suspected goodstobecontrolled atthispointmuchmoreefficiently than
whentheyarepassedfurtherdownthedistribution system .

-44-
2.5.4.Third,theremedies andsanctions applicable afterfinaljudgement should
besuchastoensurenotonlythatadversely affected interests are
compensated tothefullextentpossible ,butalsothatpirateproducts can
nolongercirculate andthatpiratesareprevented ordissuaded from
continuing theirillicitactivities .Damages tocompensate theright
holderforhislossesclearlyhavearoletoplay,butdifficulties may
wellariseowingtotheplaintiff notbeingabletoestablish thereal
extentofhisloss.Inanyevent,sophisticated pirateenterprises may
wellbeprepared toruntheriskofpayingdamages ,asandwhenproved,in
theknowledge thatthiswillfrequently notbepossible inpractice and
that,inanycase,awardsofdamages canbeavoidedbyensuring that
realizable assetsarenotavailable tomeetthem.
2.5.5.Forthisreason,damages tocompensate rightholders forlossneedtobe
accompanied byothermeasures .Injunctive relief,damages notlinkedto
proofofeconomic lossandcriminal sanctions ,including imprisonment for
particularly serious orrepeated cases,mayallmakeacontribution inthis
respect .Inaddition ,destruction ofseizedmerchandise ensures thatno
profitwillbemadefromitattherightholder'sexpense .Similarresults
canbeachieved ifseizedmerchandise isrequired toberendered
unmarketable ortransferred totherightholder .Finally ,destruction of
themeansofproducing infringing copiesensuresthatnewactivity willnot
immediately beginusingtheequipment thatledtotheoriginal
infringements .
2.5.6.Fourth,whatever rights,procedures ,remedies andsanctions areprescribed
bylaw,theyhavetobeapplied inpractice .Moreover ,experience suggests
thatwhenpiracyhasbeenallowedtodevelop onacertainscaleitbecomes
muchmoredifficult torepress .Oncerelatively sophisticated
organizations havebeenallowedtoestablish themselves ,theytendtohave
theresources andtechniques toavoidbeingeasilycaught .Alsoapublic
acceptance oftheirpractices candevelopthatmakesitharderforright
holdersandpublicauthorities toeliminate theillicittrade.Accordingly ,
rightholdershavetoequipthemselves tobevigilant andactiveintheir
owndefenceandprocedures mustbeestablished thatfacilitate co-operation
betweenthemandrelevant publicauthorities ,whohaveanequallyimportant
roletoplay.

-45-
2.6.Presentsituation insidetheCommunity
2.6.1 .Theparagraphs whichfollowseektoanalysethepresentsituation inthe
Community inthelightofthemodelsetoutinthepreceding paragraphs .
2.6.2 .Itshouldbeemphasized fromtheoutsetthatthepresentsituation inmany
respects ismaterially different fromthesituation inJuly1984whenthe
representatives ofgovernments oftheMemberStateswereforthefirsttime
addressing thepiracyissueandadopting aresolution oncombatting
13piracy .Theresolution anditsimplementation werediscussed onthe
25June1985duringaspecialmeeting ofrepresentatives ofnational
authorities concerned withthefightagainstpiracywithintheframework of
theCouncil (WorkingPartyofCultural AffairsAttaches ).Thatdiscussion
andsubsequent eventsbothdemonstrate thatsubstantial improvements inlaw
andinpractice canproduce positive results .
Substantive legalprovisions
2.6.3 .Intheareaofsubstantive legalprovisions ,theprotection giventobooks
seemstogivesatisfactory results inpractice .Asregardsfilmsand
audio-visual recordings ,thesituation couldinsomejurisdictions be
improved .Themainweaknesses ,however ,appeartoconcernsoundrecordings ,
broadcasting andcabletransmission .
2.6.4.Tobeginwithbooks,authors ofliterary worksareclearlyprotected inall
MemberStatesandthenormalcontractual relationships betweenauthors and
publishers appeartoenablethelattertoacteffectively againstpirates
inpractice insofarastheneedarises .
2.6.5 .Asforfilmsandvideorecordings ,theseseemtobeprotected everywhere as
cinematographic worksor,insomerecentlaws,asaudio-visual worksor
videographic works.However ,thequestion ofwhoownstheexclusive rights
orwhoispresumed tobeabletoexercise theeconomic rightsonbehalfof
allwhohaveparticipated inthecreation oftheworkissettleddifferently
fromonejurisdiction toanother .

-46-
2.6.6.Forhistorical reasons ,thefilmproducer doesnotnormally represent the
authorofthefilmmusic.Duringthesilentmovieeraitbecamepractice
thatcollecting societies representing theauthorofthemusicplayedas
accompaniment tothefilmbyabandorapianoplayerinmovietheatres
collected royalties fortheuseofthemusicactually playedduringshows .
-Thearrival ofthe"talkingmovie"didnotchangethispattern .Theauthors
ofthefilmmusicstillcollectindependent royalties through their
collecting societies onthebasisofboxofficereceipts .Thistradition may
14beexpressed explicitly inthelawasforexample inFrance andthe
15Netherlands butevenwhenitisnot,thesamegeneral pattern canbe
recognized inalljurisdictions .Thefilmproducer doesnotrepresent the
authoroffilmmusic,whichhasprovedtobeanimportant targetforpirates
evenquiteindependently ofthecinematographic workitself .
2.6.7.Asregardsrightsincinematographic worksassuch,onegroupofMember
Statesgrantstherightsexplicitly tothefilmproducer whoeitheractsas
thesolerightholderorthelegalrepresentative ofallauthors inrespect
ofthecollective workwhichthefilmrepresents .Thisgroupconsists of
Spain,Ireland ,Luxembourg ,theNetherlands ,Portugal andtheUnited
Kingdom .Italyachieves asimilarresultsince,thoughcopyright originates
withthepersonswhocreatethecinematographic work,withincertain limits,
theexploitation rightspassimmediately byoperation oflawtothefilm
producer .AnothergroupofStatesconsisting ofGermanyandFranceprovides
that,unlessthecontrary isproved,therightsofthosewhocreatethework
arepresumed tobetransferred totheproducer .Finally ,inBelgium ,Denmark
andGreece,copyright isvestedinthepersonsmakinganartistic
contribution tothecreation ofthefilm.Transfer oftheserightstothe
producer hasacontractual basis .

-47-
2.6.8.Inpractice ,eveninthoseStateswhereproducers arenotautomatically
grantedrights,whetherdirectly orbyreasonofatransfer byoperation of
law,contractual arrangements havefrequently beenreachedwhichenable
producers toactagainstpirates .Therebuttable presumptions applicable
insomejurisdictions playanimportant role,butevenintheirabsencethe
necessary rightsareinpractice frequently transferred totheproducer by
contract .Nevertheless ,itwouldbepreferable if,inallMemberStates,
producers ofaudio-visual workshadtheirownrights,thoughwithout
prejudice totherightsofotherpersons ,onthebasisofwhichtheycan
actagainstpirates .Sucharesultcouldbeachieved eitherbythelaw
granting suchrightsdirectly orthroughtheimmediate transfer by
operation oflawoftherightsofthosewhohaveparticipated inthe
production .Itisnoteworthy inthisrespectthat,asregardsvideo
recordings ,therecentFrenchandPortuguese lawsdirectly grantjustsuch
arighttotheproducers ofthenewandseparate category ofaudio-visual
works .
2.6.9.Theneedtograntrightstopersonsotherthantheproducer orhis
successor intitle,inthecontextoftherepression ofaudio-visual
piracy,islessevident ,thoughclearlyothersocialandcultural
considerations weighstrongly infavourofrightsbeinggrantedtothose
whocontribute tothecreation ofsuchworksorperform inthem.However ,
piracyisbyitsnatureprimarily aneconomic problemanditisthe
producer whonormally assumes theeconomic risksinvolved inaproduction .
Hehasthepressing economic interest inrepressing piracyandaboveall
needsafirmlegalbasisonwhichtoact.Forthisreason,therightsof
othercontributors andofperformers ,important astheyare,arenot
furtherconsidered inthiscontext .Incidentally ,itmaybeobserved ,that
asregardsperformers ,audio-visual bootlegging ofliveperformances isfor
obvioustechnical reasonsnotaproblem ofthesamepractical importance as
bootlegged soundrecordings .

-48-
2.6.10 .Turning tosoundrecordings ,theMemberStateswhichareparties tothe
RomeConvention haveenacted lawsgivingprotection toproducers ofsuch
recordings independently oftherightsoftheauthorofanyworkrecorded .
Likewise ,theyprotectperformers againsttheunauthorized fixation of
theirliveperformances thoughinthecaseofIreland andtheUnited
Kingdomthisisachieved byapplication ofthecriminal lawalone .However ,
inNovember 1987,theUKgovernment ,withinthecontext ofanewcopyright
16bill,hasproposed tomakecivilremedies available toperformers
2.6.11 .InotherMemberStates,thesituation islessclearandcangiveriseto
problems .
2.6.12 .InBelgium ,wherethecopyright lawdatesbackto1886,nolegalprovision
givesproducers andperformers aspecific righttoauthorize reproduction
ofsoundrecordings .Insteadproducers andperformers havesoughtprotec¬
tion,inparticular ,undertheLawof14July1971onTradePractices .
Article 54ofthislawprohibits actscontrary tohonestcommercial usage
bywhichatraderharmsorattempts toharmtheprofessional interests of
oneormoreothertraders .Actionsbrought byproducers andperformers
underthislawhavebeenquitesuccessful andthesystemofprotection is
reported tobeconsidered relatively effective byproducers .Nevertheless ,
certainproblems remainwhichwouldbesolvedifproducers andperformers
17wereprotected byarightanalogous tocopyright .Inparticular ,search
andseizureprocedures mightbecomeavailable facilitating theproofofan
infringement andofitsimportance .Thisisdiscussed furtherbelowin
paragraphs 2.6.27 .-2.6.40 .

-49-
2.6.13 .InGreece,thereisnospecific Legislative protection forproducers and
performers againstcopying ofrecordings butinpractice theGreekcourts
haveaccepted theviewthattheprotection enjoyed byauthorsunder
copyright Lawhasbeenassigned tophonogram producers bymeansoftheir
contracts formechanical reproduction .Thishasenabledproducers toact
onthebasisofcopyright lawandsuchproblems asariseintheirregard
concernprimarily theadequacy ofavailable sanctions .Astoperformers ,
legislation waspassedinSeptember 1980providing amongstotherthingsfor
performers tohavetherighttoauthorize orprohibit therecording oruse
18oftheirperformance inanymanner .Unfortunately ,thenecessary
Presidential Decreetobringthelawintoforcehasnotsofarbeenissued .
2.6.14 .Spainhasratified theGenevaConvention fortheProtection ofProducers of
Phonograms againstUnauthorized Duplication oftheirPhonograms butnotthe
RomeConvention .Therequirements oftheGenevaConvention havehitherto
beenfulfilled through theprovisions oftheDecreeof10July1942onthe
Protection ofPhonographic Worksconfering upontherecordproducer the
rightsdescribed inArticle 19etseq.ofthelawof1879onintellectual
property .Theserightsincluded therighttoauthorize orprohibit the
reproduction oftherecording .Theseprovisions have,however ,recently been
19replaced bytheprovisions ofArticles 108-111 ofthe1987copyright law
conferring uponthephonogram producer therighttoauthorize reproduction
ofphonograms foraperiodof40yearscomputed fromtheproduction or
publication ofthephonogram .Inrespect ofperformers ,however ,itappears
tobeaquestion ofinterpretation whether therightfortheperformer laid
downbyArticle102ofthe1987copyright acttoauthorize reproduction of
hisperformances alsoapplies inrespect ofrecordings .

-50-
2.6.15 .IntheNetherlands ,wherenospecific rightsinrespect ofreproduction
havesofarbeengranted toproducers andperformers ,protection against
unauthorized reproduction hasinpractice tobesoughtbyjoiningforces
withtheauthors' society ,STEMRA .Thisisduetothefactthatthe
remedies available toproducers andperformers ,namely,actionsbrought
underthelawofunfaircompetition placeaheavyburdenofproofonthe
plaintiff .Hehasfirstofalltoprovideproofoftheillegalact,that
is,themanufacture ofordealing inpirate,counterfeit orbootleg
products .Further ,hehastoprovethatthepirateactedinbadfaithand
kneworatleastshouldhaveknownthattheseactswereillegal .The
actualprejudice suffered bytheplaintiff mustalsobeprovenand
quantified andalsothefactthattheprejudice suffered iscausedbythe
actsofthedefendant .Theselimitations andtheallegedconcentration of
pirateactivity intheHaguemaythusbemorethanacoincidence .
Fortunately ,legislation appearstobeinpreparation tointroduce specific
20neighbouring rightsforrecordproducers andperformers

-51
2.6.16 .Portugal isnotacontracting partytotheRomeConvention nortotheGeneva
21Convention butin1985itenacted newlegislation whichputsitina
position toratifytheRomeConvention ,ifitwishes .ByvirtueofArticle
178ofthelaw,performers aregiventherighttoauthorize thefixation of
theirperformances andthereproduction oftheirfixedperformances .By
Article 184,producers ofphonograms aregiventherighttoauthorize the
reproduction anddistribution oftheirrecordings .Theconditions for
protection ofperformers aslaiddowninArticle 190arefulfilled whenthe
performer isofPortuguese nationality ;orwhentheperformance ison
Portuguese territory ;orwhentheoriginal performance isfixedorbroadcast
forthefirsttimeonPortuguese territory .Likewise forphonograms ,
protection isaccorded totheproducer onthecondition thatheisa
Portuguese national orhashisheadquarters onPortuguese territory ,orthat
thefixation hastakenplaceinPortugal ;orthatthefirstpublication has
takenplaceinPortugal orsimultaneously inPortugal withthepublication
forthefirsttimeelsewhere .Theprovisions givingperformers andproducers
therighttoauthorize thereproduction ofrecordings isconsequently of
limitedvaluetoforeign rightholders ,exceptwhereprotection in
accordance withArticle 193follows frombilateral ormultilateral
*22arrangements
2.6.17 .Provision forproducers' andperformers' rightsinrelation tosound
recordings inallMemberStateswouldclearlybeanimprovement .Moreover ,
thereareparticular factors atworkinthissectorwhichdifferentiate it
fromothersandreinforce thecaseforsuchrights .Producers ofsound
recordings arenotnecessarily inaclose,contractual relationship with
authorsholding rightsintheworksthattheyrecord .Statutory or
compulsory licensing systemsexistinsomeMemberStates (Germany ,Ireland ,
theNetherlands ,Portugal andtheUnitedKingdom )whichenablesecondor
subsequent versions ofrecorded musicalworkstobemadewithoutthe
authorization oftheauthors .Inthefieldofclassical music,many
recordings ,involving considerable investment ,willinanycaserelateto
worksonwhichcopyright hasexpired .Finally ,asregardsperformers ,only
thestarperformer mayhaveasignificant interest inpursuing bootleggers
andsecuring thecooperation ofauthorsmayprovedifficult .

-52-
2.6.18 .Accordingly ,quiteindependently ofthequestion ofthedesirability ofall
MemberStatesratifying theGenevaandRomeConventions intheir
23entirety ,thegeneralintroduction ofproducers' andperformers' rights
insoundrecordings wouldappeartobeadesirable development thatwould
contribute totheeffective repression ofpiracyandtherefore merits
serious consideration .
2.6.19 .Turning tobroadcasts andcabletransmissions ,protection against
24unauthorized fixation andreproduction forcommercial purposes exists
onlyinpart.Rightsmayoftenexistofcourseinbroadcast ortransmitted
works,butthisisnotalwaysthecase.Inthesesituations ,theexistence
ofcopyright oraneighbouring rightinthebroadcast ortransmission as
\'
suchisofparticular importance .Evenwhenabroadcast ortransmission
concerns protected works,suchrightsprovide aclearlegalbasisforthe
broadcasting orcableorganizations totakeactionontheirownbehalf
againstpirates .
2.6.20 .IrelandandtheUnitedKingdomhavelongextended copyright protection to
broadcasts bothdomestic andforeign inconformity withtheirinternational
obligations undertheRomeConvention and,asregardstelevision inthe
UnitedKingdom ,theEuropean Agreement .In1984theUnitedKingdom
modified itslawtogiveexplicit protection tocableprogrammes evenwhen
25thesehavenotbeenbroadcast inthetraditional way.
2.6.21 .Denmark ,Germany ,France,Luxembourg andPortugal accordbroadcasters a
neighbouring rightthroughprovisions virtually identical withthoseof
Article 13oftheRomeConvention whichprovides thatbroadcasting
organizations shallhavetherighttoauthorize thefixation oftheir
broadcasts andreproductions thereof .Italyarrives atthesameresult
throughtheprovisions ofArticles 79and203ofitscopyright law.

-53-
2.6.22 .InBelgium ,whichdoesnotyetadheretotheRomeConvention ,the
protection oftelevision broadcasts isbasedontheEuropean Agreement
ratified byBelgium byalawof14January 1968pending newlegislation
26whichwillallowBelgium toadheretotheRomeConvention
2.6.23 .Spainratified theEuropean Agreement on23October 1971.Further ,the
1987copyright lawhasconferred uponbroadcasters arighttoauthorize
fixation oftheirbroadcasts andreproductions thereof foraduration of40
27
years
2.6.24 .InGreeceandtheNetherlands ,nospecific protection isgivento
broadcasts ortransmission asopposed totheworksfromwhichprogrammes
maybecomposed ,thoughreformisreported tobeunderconsideration inthe
28latterState
2.6.25 .EveninthoseMemberStatesthatprovide forit,theextenttowhich
protection accorded tobroadcasting appliestotransmissions bycableis
frequently farfromclear .Whereabroadcast isbeinginstantaneously
re-transmitted bycable,astrongargument canclearlybemadethat
unauthorized fixation ofthecablesignalisanunauthorized fixation of
thebroadcast .Wherethecabletransmission isnotbeingcontemporaneously
broadcast overtheair,however ,ornotbroadcast overtheairatall,such
aconclusion ismuchmoredifficult' toreach .
2.6.26 .Accordingly ,itwouldappearthat,aswithsoundrecordings ,the
introduction ofrightsfororganizations engaged inbroadcasting to
authorize orprohibit thefixation oftheirbroadcasts forcommercial
purposes wouldbedesirable wheretheydonotexistalready .Similarly ,
giventhelikelydevelopment ofcablesystemscarrying bothre-transmitted
andoriginal material ,clearprovision prohibiting unauthorized fixation of
cablesignalsandthereproduction thereofwouldalsoserveauseful
purpos e.

-54-
Procedures facilitating legalactionandproof
Searchandseizureprocedures
2.6.27 .Searchandseizureprocedures areavailable inmostMemberStates,though
theirefficacity variesnotonlyfromonejurisdiction toanother but
depending onthenatureoftherightsbeingprotected .Aminority of
MemberStateshasnotyetdeveloped procedures ofthiskind.
2.6.28 .InBelgium ,Article 29ofthecopyright lawof1886provides foraseizure
procedure onsimplerequest oftherightholderasregardsworksprotected
bycopyright initsnarrowsenseandsubject tothepossibility ofa
guarantee beingconstituted bywayofsecurity inaccordance with
Article 31.Thisprocedure isnotavailable ,however ,undertheprovisions
oftheunfaircompetition lawuponwhichproducers ofsoundrecordings and
performers arestillobliged torelyinthemanneralreadydescribed .
Instead aprovision ismadeunderArticles 70to72ofthatlawfora
seizureprocedure incasesofinfringements committed inbadfaithwithin
themeaning ofArticle 61.Thisprocedure isdependent ontheco-operation
ofthepublicofficials responsible forenforcing thelawand,inaddition ,
therequirement thatbadfaithbeshownlimitsitsapplication .
2.6.29 .InDenmark ,searchandseizureprocedures werepreviously notavailable in
29thecopyright field.In1985,however ,thecopyright lawwasamended to
providemoreeffective remedies andsanctions forpiracy .Rightholders ,
including theproducers ofsoundrecordings andperformers ,arealsonow
entitled torequestthepublicprosecuting authorities toproceedagainst
pirates .ByvirtueofArticle 55ofthecopyright lawasamended in1985
searchandseizureprocedures pursuant toChapters 72and73oftheLawon
CivilandCriminalProcedure^havebeenmadeapplicable tocasesof
piracy.

-55-
2.6.30 .InGermany ,searchandseizureprocedures areavailable forviolations of
copyright andneighbouring rightsunderthegeneral lawofcriminal -
31procedure .Whereascopyright infringement normally issubject topublic
prosecution onlyonrequest ofaninjuredparty,the1985amendment of
theGermancopyright lawconcerning thereinforcement ofremedies introduced
asystemofpublicprosecution exofficioalsoifthepublicinterest
requires theinvolvement ofpublicauthorities .Thewording ofthenew
Article109showsthatthiswillnormally bethecasewherethereis
commercial piracyforwhichpenalties havebeenlaiddowninArticle 108a.
Thenewprovisions onsanctions havemadenormalprocedures incriminal
casesincluding searchandseizuremeasures fullyapplicable topiracy .
2.6.31 .UnderGreekpenalprocedure ,seizure canbeordered asaninterimmeasure
bylawenforcement authorities .
2.6.32 .InSpain,thepolicemayinpiracycasesunderthetermsofthePenalCode
request acourtordertosearchthepremises ofasuspect .Ifthereis
primafacieevidence ofinfringement takingplacepiratecopieswillbe
seizedandplacedincustody oftheCourt .

-56-
2.6.33 .InFrance,Articles 66to69ofthecopyright lawof1957provideforthe
summaryseizure ofillicitcopiesofworksprotected bycopyright inits
narrowsenseonthesimplerequestoftherightholder,subjectunder
certainconditions totheconstitution ofaguarantee bywayofsecurity .
Theseprocedures havebeenconsidered sufficiently valuable forthenewlaw
of1985toincludeprovisions introducing similarthoughnotidentical
procedures inthecontext ofthenewneighbouring rightsgranted to
performers andproducers ofsoundandvideorecordings andtoaudio-visual
communications undertakings .Thenewlawalsoprovides foraprocedure
wherebyofficials oftheNational CentreforCinematography mayhaveaccess
toaccounts andrecordstoestablish theoriginordestination ofvideo
recordings reproduced ordistributed aswellastheoperating receipts of
personsreproducing ordistributing videorecordings forprivateuseby
membersofthepublic^.Suchprocedures clearlyfacilitate thetaskof
demolishing complete networks forthedistribution ofpirateproducts ,
enabling actiontobetakenagainst allinvolved .

-57-
2.6.34 .Section 27oftheIrishCopyright Act,1963contains provisions onsearch
andseizure astoinfringing copiesofcopyright worksincluding sound
recordings ,butexcluding cinematographic works .IftheDistrict Courtis
satisfied byinformation onoaththatthereisreasonable groundfor
suspecting thatanoffence isbeingcommitted onanypremises ,theCourt
maygrantasearchwarrantauthorizing amemberofthepoliceforceto
enterthepremises ,ifneedbebyforce,andtoseizeanycopiesofany
workoranyplatesinrespect ofwhichhehasreasonable grounds for
suspecting thatanyoffence isbeingcommitted .Thesamesectionalso
provides thattheDistrict Court,ifsatisfied byevidence thatthereare
reasonable grounds forbelieving thatinfringing copiesofacopyright work
arebeinghawked,carried about,soldoroffered forsale,maybyorder
authorize amemberofthepoliceforcetoseizethecopieswithoutwarrant
andtobringthembeforetheCourtwhichmayorderthemtobedestroyed or
delivered uptotheownerofthecopyright .Theextension ofsection 27to
includecinematographic worksisunderactiveconsideration .Ordersofthe
34AntonPillertypeareavailable incivilcopyright proceedings beforethe
Irishcourts'*"’ .Thesecanbeobtained incasesinvolving cinematographic
works .However ,noneoftheseremedies appeartobeavailable tohelp
performers combatbootlegging .

-53-
2.6.35 .InItaly,forworksprotected bycopyright initsnarrowsense,searchand
seizureprocedures areavailable inaccordance withArticle 161ofthe
copyright law.Noticetoandhearing ofthepresumed infringer ,though
normally required ,canbedispensed withincasesofextremeurgency
(periculum inmora).Aguarantee bywayofsecurity mayberequired except
whereproceedings arebegunbythenational organization representing
authors^.Asregardsneighbouring rights,thepossibility ofrelyingon
Article161iscontroversial .Caselawexistsdenyingthepossibility^,
38whilecertaincommentators argueotherwise .Inanyevent,Article700
ofthecodeofcivilprocedure canbereliedupon.Thispermits thecourt
toorderwhatever measures itconsiders necessary infavourofanyperson
whohasreasonable causetofearthatduringtheperiodneededtoestablish
hisrightsunderthenormalprocedure ,hewillsufferaprejudice thatin
practice cannotbecorrected .
2.6.36 .InLuxembourg ,nopossibility appearstoexistofsearchandseizurein
copyright casesundercriminal procedure .Incivilproceedings ,however ,
SeizuremaybeorderedunderArticle37oftheCopyright Act.Sucha
possibility doesnotapplytocasesofinfringement oftherightsof
producers ofsoundrecordings orperformers .

-59-
2.6.37 .IntheNetherlands ,copyright ownerscanseizeinfringing copiesunder
Article 28oftheCopyright Act.Theprocedure issubject tolittle
formality ,theorderbeinggranted ontherequest oftherightholderto
thepresident ofthecourt .Seizure isalsopossible incopyright cases
underthecriminal law.However ,sinceproducers ofsoundrecordings and
performers ,ashasbeenseen,areatpresent notprotected bycopyright or
aneighbouring right,noneoftheseprocedures appeartobeavailable to
themintheirownright .Itisunderstood ,however ,thatthenewlawnow
inpreparation introducing neighbouring rightsforproducers andperformers
willalsointroduce seizureprocedures similar tothosealready applicable
incopyright cases .Further ,licensees willalsobeentitled torequest
seizure .
2.6.38 .InPortugal ,copyright infringement issubject topublicprosecution .The
lawof1985provides fortheseizure ofallillegally produced copiesas
wellastheirpackaging andanymachines orotherinstruments anddocuments
whichareinvolved intheinfringement .Inflagrante delicto ,various
branches ofthepoliceandotherenforcement authorities havethe
competence toproceed toseizure

-60-
2.6.39 .IntheUnitedKingdom ,following thedecision oftheCourtofAppealin
40AntonPillerKGv.Manufacturing Processes Ltd.,thepractice has
developed ofallowing aplaintiff toobtainaninterimorder,withoutprior
notification tothedefendant ,permitting himtoinspectthelatter's
premises ,takephotographs ,andseizematerials infringing copyright and
neighbouring rightsinthedefendant 'spossession .Naturally ,suchan
orderisonlygrantedwherecertainconditions aremetandsubject to
safeguards .Thustheremustbeastrongprimafaciecasethatinfringement
hasoccurred ,thedamagetotheplaintiff mustbeactually or'potentially
serious ,andagravedangermustexistthatvitalevidence willbe
destroyed ifthedefendant isputonnotice .Inaddition ,theinspection
mustbecarried outaccording tocertainprocedures andtheplaintiff must
giveanundertaking indamages tocompensate thedefendant forlosses
resulting frominspections thatproveunjustified .Associated interim
ordersmayalsobegrantedcompelling thedefendant torevealrelevant
information totheplaintiff ,including thenamesofpersonsfromwhom
infringing articles havebeenobtained ortowhomtheyhavebeen
41 ., _..42distributed ,andalsopreventing himfromdisposing ofhisassets .By
43theCopyright (Amendment )Act1983powersformagistrates tograntthe
policewarrants forsearchandseizure onsuspicion ofpiracyhasbeen
introduced forfilmsandsoundrecordings andextended bythe1985Copyright
44
(Computer Software )Amendment Acttocomputer programs .TheGovernment
has,however ,nowproposed thesepowersbeextended toallcategories of
copyrightmaterial ^.Asforperformers ,theseremediesarenotavailable
tocombatbootlegging ,sinceithasbeenheldthatthelegislation makingit
anoffence tomakeordistribute unauthorized recordings ofaperformance
46createsnocivilrightsofaction .Thegovernment has,however ,now
proposed thisgapbeclosedbymakingordersforsearchandseizure
47available toperformers also

-61
2.6.40 .Insummary ,searchandseizureprocedures ,subject toappropriate
safeguards ,couldbemadeavailable moregenerally inBelgium ,Luxembourg
andtheNetherlands .Inparticular ,inthosecountries ,theyneedtobe
placedatthedisposal ofboththeproducers ofsoundrecordings and
performers .Thelatterwouldalsobenefit fromsuchprocedures beingmade
available inIrelandandtheUnitedKingdom .Consideration mightalsobe
giventothemoregeneral adoption ofpowerssuchasthosealreadyfoundin
FranceandtheUnitedKingdom whichrequirepirates todisclose fromwhom
infringing copieshavebeenobtained andtowhomtheyhavebeen
transferred .
Customs seizure
2.6.41 .Seizure bycustomsauthorities ispossible insomeMemberStatesthoughnot
inothers .Moreover ,wherethesystems exist,theyvaryastotheextent
towhichtheycanbeusedinpractice .
2.6.42 .Belgium andLuxembourg ,whichoperate acomplete customsunion,giveno
legalpowerstothecustomsauthorities inrelation tocopyright orindeed
tointellectual property generally .Customsauthorities thusplaylittle
ornopartinthedetection orproofofpiracy .However ,consideration is
nowbeinggiventoamoreactiveroleforthecustomsauthorities as
regardscounterfeiting oftrademarksfollowing theadoption ofCouncil
Regulation No.3842/86onmeasures toprohibit therelease forfree
48circulation ofcounterfeit goods
2.6.43 .InDenmark ,thereareatpresent noprovisions incopyright ortrademark
lawenabling customsauthorities tointervene topreventtheimportation of
pirateproducts .Again,however ,actionwillnowbetakentogiveeffectto
CouncilRegulation No.3842/86.

-62-
2.6.44 .InGermany ,theLawprovides abasisforcustomsauthorities toactto
seizeimports ofgoodswithfalseindications ofthesourceortheidentity
ofproducts inaddition togoodsbearingtrademarkswithouttheconsentof
49theirowners .
2.6.45 .InGreece,nospecific provisions ofGreekLawauthorize customs
authorities tointervene topreventimportation ofpiratedgoods.However ,
sincetheBerneConvention isconsidered partofGreeknational copyright
Lawandprovides thatinfringing copiesofworksprotected bythe
Convention shallbeliabletoseizureonimportation^,theCustoms
Investigative Servicedoesintervene inpiracycasestoseizeillicit
.51
copies
2.6.46 .InSpain,therearenospecific provisions underlegislation currently in
forcewhichenablecustomsauthorities tointervene toprevent the
importation ofpiratedgoods.Inpractice ,however ,thecustomsauthorities
arereported tohavebeenco-operating withtheSpanishAuthors' Society
(SGAE)andtherecordindustry inthecontrol oftransborder traffic in
copyright goods.
2.6.47 .InFrance,importing articles whichinfringe Frenchcopyright law
constitutes acriminaloffenceunderthePenalCode^.Thispermits
customsauthorities toexercise adegreeofcontroloverimportsofsuch
goods.Since1977,whenaseriesofdirectives weredrawnuponthis
matter,actionhasbeenregularly takenonthisbasis,atleastasregards
importedsoundrecordings "^.

-63-
2.6.48 .Section28oftheIrishCopyright Act,1963enablestheownerofrightsin
anypublished literary ,dramatic ormusicalworkorsoundrecording ,but
notcinematographic works,togivenoticetothecustomsauthorities that
heistheownerofthecopyright inaparticular workorrecording ,andto
requirethem,forafixedperiodoftime,totreatcopiesoftheworkor
recording asprohibited goods .Thisprocedure enables thecustoms
authorities topreventimportation ,exceptforprivateanddomestic use,of
anyinfringing copyoftheworkoroftherecording .Theformofnotices
andthefeespayable inrespectthereofareincluded inmattersprescribed
inRegulations madeundertheActbythecompetent customsauthority .
Arrangements havebeenmadebetween rightholders' organizations andthe
customsauthorities todefinethecircumstances inwhichconsignments will
54beinspected .Similarprovisions existundertheIrishtradeand
merchandise markslegislation .
2.6.49 .InItaly,customsauthorities havepowerstoprevent theimportation of
goodswhichhavebeendeliberately misdescribed ^^orwhichbearcounterfeit
trademarks3.Theyhavenospecificpowersasregardsinfringements of
copyright orneighbouring rights .
2.6.50 .IntheNetherlands ,nospecific provision ismadeforcustomsauthorities
tointervene toprevent theimportation ofpirateproducts .Thoughthey
mayinspect allgoodsinthecourseoftheirimportation ,theirpowersto
intervene arelimited tothecontrol ofimportformalities ,including the
accuracy ofthedeclared valueofthegoods .Thecustomsauthorities are
alsosubject toobligations ofsecrecy .Customsintervention hasthusnot
developed asanimportant instrument intherepression ofpiracy,thoughon
occasions information hasbeenpassedoninappropriate casestothepolice
ortorightholders'organizations 3.TheInterministerial WorkingGroup
makesnoproposal ontheinvolvement ofCustomsAuthorities initsreporton
58piracy ,butactionwillnowbeneededtogiveeffecttoCouncil
Regulation No.3842/86.

-64-
592.6.51 .InPortugal ,Article229ofthelawonIndustrial Property confersupon
customsauthorities thepowertoseizecounterfeit goodsatthefrontier .
Thisprovision ishoweverapplicable onlywhereatrademarkoran
appellation oforiginhasbeenfalsified .
2.6.52.IntheUnitedKingdom ,section22oftheCopyright Act1956provides that
theownerofthecopyright inanypublished literary ,dramatic ormusical
workmaybynoticerequirethecustomsauthorities totreatcopiesofa
givenworkasprohibited goodsandpreventtheirimportation .This
provision doesnotapplytosoundrecordings orcinematographic works,
however .Similarprovision ismadeasregardsgoodsbearinginfringing
trademarksundersection 64(a)oftheTradeMarksAct1938.This
provision isofcourseavailable toproducers whoareownersoftrademarks
appropriated bypirates .Initscopyright billofOctober1987the
government hasinserted aprovision aimingattheintroduction ofthesame
possibility inrespectoffilmsandrecords ,thoughrightholderswillhave
togiveanadvancenoticeastothetimeandplaceoftheexpected
importation inrespect ofinfringing copiesoffilmsandrecordings
Thesenoticerequirements can,however ,limittheutility ofthese
61procedures fromthepointofviewofrightholders
2.6.53 .Itwouldthusappearthat,inmanyMemberStates,customsseizure atthe
Community 'sexternal frontiers couldbedeveloped asamoreeffective
instrument intherepression ofinfringements ofcopyright .Atthe
Community 'sinternal frontiers ,nocontrolcanbeexercised after1992.
Thisdoesnot,however ,excludecustomsseizurewhentheexistence of
illegitimate merchandise isbroughttotheattention ofcustomsauthorities
or,whenthey,intheexercise ofinternal controlfunctions ,detectfraud.
However,attentionwillhavetobepaidtothepracticaldifficulties^
involved ifthecustomsservices arenottobediverted fromtheir
principal tasks,whileatthesametimeprocedures cannotbesoburdensome
torightholdersthattheyareoflittleornopractical use.

-65-
2.6.54 .InDecember 1986,theCounciladopted aregulation layingdownmeasures to
prohibit therelease forfreecirculation ofcounterfeit goods,thatis,
goodstowhichatrademarkhasbeenimproperly affixed^.Thisregulation
creates commonrulesontheprocedure tobefollowed topreventcounterfeit
goodsbeingimported intotheCommunity .Theregulation islimitedto
goodsbearing infringing trademarksbut,asstatedintheexplanatory
memorandum oftheCommission 'sinitialproposal ,atalaterstage,
consideration mightbegiventoapplying theprocedures toother
intellectual property rights,inparticular ,copyrights .Suchanextension
oftheregulation wouldensurethatcustomsseizureprocedures madea
uniformcontribution totherepression ofcopyright piracyattheexternal
frontiers oftheCommunity .
Remedies andsanctions
2.6.55 .Arelatively comprehensive State-by-Statedescription ofthecurrent
situation wouldinvolve aconsiderable degreeofdetail .Itseems
preferable toconcentrate onalimitednumberofimportant issues,namely
theavailability ofdamages orotherfinancial relieftothosewhoserights
havebeenviolated ;theavailability ofinjunctive relief;thepossibility
ofdisposing ofdiscovered pirateproducts andequipment usedtoproduce
theminwayswhichensurethattheywillnotcontinue tocirculate tothe
rightholders' disadvantage ;and,finally ,thepossibility ofimposing
sufficiently dissuasive criminal sanctions ,including imprisonment for
serious offences .
Damages orotherfinancial relief
2.6.56 .Asregardsdamages ,whereexclusive rightshavebeengrantedunderthe
civillaw,damageswillofcourseinprinciple beavailable ,asmayan
actionforanaccount ofprofits .Similarly ,whereunfaircompetition law
canberelieduponinacivilaction,damages canbeobtained for
consequent financial losses .

-66-
2.6.57 .Ontheotherhand,ashasbeenseen,certainimportant interests maynotbe
protected bycivilrightsofaction .Thisappliesnotonlytocaseswhere
theinterest issimplynotlegallyrecognized ,suchasthoseofthe
producers ofsoundrecordings intheNetherlands ,butalsotojurisdictions
whichprotectcertaininterests exclusively bythecriminal lawandwithout
provision forcompensation withinthecriminal framework .Ashasbeen
seen,thisisatpresentthecaseasregardstheunauthorized recording of
liveperformances intheUnitedKingdomandprobably Ireland .The
introduction ofcivilrightsofactionasalreadyannounced bytheUnited
64Kingdomgovernment wouldclosethisparticular gap
2.6.58 .Moregenerally ,claimsfordamages arenormally dependent onproofofthe
damagesustained orincomeforegone .Insomejurisdictions ,thedamagemay
includedamageofamoralcharacter thoughthisisnormally limitedto
authors'andperformers' claims .OnlyinIreland0andtheUnited
Kingdom^isprovisionmadeenablingcourtstoawardconversion damages
equivalent tothefullvalueofinfringing copiesdetained orconverted
and,inflagrant cases,additional exemplary damages .Evenso,awardsof
theformerdependonproofofthenumberofcopiesinquestion andawards
ofthelatteraresubjecttoanumberofrestrictive conditions makingthem
unusual inpractice .Further ,theUKGovernment hasrecently announced its
intention toabolishconversion damages whichareregarded as
objectionable inparticular inthefieldofdesigncopyright .Insteadthe
powersofthecourtstoawardadditional damageswillbestrengthened by
removal ofexisting limitations ontheirapplicability .

67-
2.6.59 .Thenecessity ofproving thedamagesustained orincomeforegone canpose
problems sincethequantities ofpirateproducts infactsoldmaynotbe
ascertainable withanydegreeofcertainty ,evenwheresearchandseizure
procedures havebeensuccessfully used.Inthecaseofbootlegrecords ,
theaddeddifficulty arisesthatanestimation ofthedepressive effectof
theappearance ofabootleg recording onsalesoflegitimate records is
frequently speculative incharacter .Theseproblems ofproving thequantum
ofdamages ,aswellasthepractical difficulty ofenforcing awardsagainst
themanypirateenterprises whicharecareful tokeeptheirrealizable
assetsrelatively small,meanthatdamagesneedtobecomplemented byother
remedies ifpirates aretobeeffectively dissuaded fromcontinuing their
activities.
Injunctive relief
2.6.60 .Animportant instrument inthisrespect isinjunctive relief,thatis,the
availability ofjudicial orderswhichwillenablecontinuing orfuture
pirateactivity tobesubject tosanctions ofapenaltype.Suchremedies
areavailable insomewhat different formsinBelgium ,Denmark ,Germany ,
Ireland ,Luxembourg ,theNetherlands ("astreint "or"dwangsom ")andthe
UnitedKingdom ,subject ofcoursetowhathasalreadybeensaidconcerning
limitations astothesubstantive rightsconferred bythelawandthe
availability ofcivilrightsofaction .Theymayalsobeavailable onan
interim oraccelerated basiswhichhastheconsiderable advantage of
enabling actiontobetakenthatcanpreventpirateproducts beingplaced
onthemarketinthefirstplace.
2.6.61 .InGreece,injunctive reliefisavailable and,undercertainconditions ,as
aninterimmeasurealso^.
2.6.62 .InSpain,injunctive reliefisavailable undertheprovisions ofthe1987
copyright lawandundercertainconditions asaninterimmeasurealso

-68-
2.6.63 .InFrance,however ,injunctive reliefappearsnottobeavailable andit
hasbeensuggested thatitsintroduction wouldinmanycasesbehelpful ,
particularly tocombatmoresophisticated andpersistent lawbreakers^.
71ThenewFrenchlawdoesnotalterthisposition ,thoughitprovides for
72othermeasures whichareaimedatthedetermined pirate
2.6.64 .InPortugal ,injunctive reliefisnotavailable underthelegislation in
force .
Disposal ofinfringing products andequipment usedtoproducethem
2.6.65 .Different techniques existforensuring thatpirateproducts thathavebeen
discovered willnotcontinue tocirculate totherightholders'
disadvantage .
2.6.66 .Thus,undertherulesofcivilandcriminal procedure inforceinmost
MemberStates,proceedings fortheinfringement ofrightsinbooks,films
andsoundandvideorecordings mayleadtothecourtordering that
infringing copiesbedestroyed or,insomecases,berendered unusable or,
inothersbetransferred totherightholder .
2.6.67 .Likewise ,provision isfrequently madeforequipment usedtoproduce
infringing copiestobedestroyed withaviewtopreventing pirateactivity
fromcontinuing inthefuture .

-69-
2.6.68 .Themaingapsinthisareaappeartobeconsequential oncertaininterests
notbeingprotected bythesubstantive rulesofcivilorcriminal law
ratherthanweaknesses intheprocedural provisions alone.Someofthese
haverecently beenclosed .Forexample ,inFrance,thenewlawhas
introduced confiscation forsoundandvideorecordings infringing the
substantive neighbouring rightswhichthelawnowhasintroduced for
performers andproducers .Suchapossibility haslongexisted forbooks
andfilms Othergapsremain,however ,notably thoseflowingfromthe
absence ofspecific protection forproducers ofsoundrecordings andfor
performers inGreeceandtheNetherlands .Inaddition ,theBelgian lawof
1971onTradePractices which,ashasbeenseen,playsanimportant rolein
theprotection ofsoundrecordings ,appears nottopermitconfiscation ora
similarremedyineithercriminal orcivilproceedings .
Dissuasive criminal sanctions
2.6.69 .Thenatureofmanypirateoperations requires substantial criminal
penalties tobeavailable todissuade thosewhoseektoavoidthefull
effectofciviljudgements andareskilful insodoing .Inaddition ,
providing forseverepenalties ,including imprisonment formoreserious
offences ,givesaclearindication tolawenforcement authorities ofthe
needtoactagainstpiracyandarealincentive todoso.Ontheother
hand,iftheseauthorities knowthatevenasuccessful prosecution will
leadonlytoasmallfine,whichwillprobably beregarded bypirates
simplyasanirritating taxontheircontinuing activities ,itis
understandable thattheyprefertoconcentrate theirlimitedresources on
othermatters .

-70-
2.6.70 .ManyStateshavealreadyrecognized theimportance ofhavinganadequate
rangeofcriminal sanctions available tosecureeffective policeinvolvement
inthedetection ofpiracyandtheenforcement oflawandalsotoconstitute
effective disincentives topirates .Thus,inspiteofthegeneraltendency
intheCommunity toreducecriminal penalties ,inparticular ,those
consisting ofimprisonment ,sanctions available incaseofpiracyhavebeen
substantially reinforced inmanyMemberStatesinaccordance withthe
objectives setoutintheresolution byrepresentatives ofgovernments of
74theMemberStatesof24July1984 .Whereas theUnitedKingdomhadalready
75 76 77 78increased itsmaximumpenalties in1983 ,Denmark ,Germany France ,
79andPortugal haveallintroduced increased penalties inthepasttwo
years.InItalythepenalties introduced forpiracyinrespect ofrecordings
80 81in1981weremadeapplicable forfilmandvideopiracyin1985
Further ,anincrease ofpenalties available isunderactiveconsideration in
IrelandandtheNetherlands .Inshort,deterrent sanctions arealready or
willbeshortlyavailable inDenmark ,Germany ,Greece,France,Ireland ,
Italy,Luxembourg ,theNetherlands ,Portugal andtheUnitedKingdom .
2.6.71 .However,inthefollowing casesinparticular ,thecriminal sanctions
applicable seeminneedofreinforcement .
2.6.72 .Thus,inBelgium ,imprisonment isnotpossible forcopyright infringement
assuch,whatever thenatureoftherightinfringed orthescaleor
character oftheoffence .However ,whereconviction isobtained for
counterfeiting orunderArticle 191,498or505ofthePenalCodesentences
ofimprisonment maybeimposed .
2.6.73 .Asregardsproducers' rightsinsoundrecordings ,ashasbeenseen,these
arenotprotected intheNetherlands andafortiori penalsanctions arenot
82available ,thoughtheirintroduction isbeingconsidered
2.6.74 .Finally ,thepenalties applicable tobootlegging inIrelanddonotinclude
imprisonment .

-71
2.6.75 .Inaddition ,however ,theeffectiveness ofcriminal sanctions dependsnot
onlyonthecharacteristics ofthepenalties ,butalsoonthedegreeof
certainty thattheywillinpractice beapplied .Thisinturndepends in
largepartonlawenforcement authorities takinganactivepartinthe
prosecution ofoffenders .Substantial penalties ,atleastforserious or
repeated offences ,ashasalreadybeenstated,actasanincentive forlaw
enforcement authorities toactwheretheyhavepowertodoso.However ,it
appearsthat,insomecases,copyright infringements ,thoughcriminal
offences ,canbeprosecuted onlyonacomplaint fromaninjuredparty,as
inBelgiumandLuxembourg orevenonlybytheinjuredpartyhimself asin
Greece .
2.6.76 .
àTheexplanation forthisstateofaffairsseemsinpartatleasttobean
understandable reluctance togivelawenforcement authorities
responsibilities incasesofthemoreclassical anddelicate typeinwhich
oneauthorisalleging thatanotherhasplagiarized hiswork.However ,
modern,commercial copying isclearly distinguishable fromsuchcases :the
copiesarecomplete ornearlyso,noattemptbeingmadetopresentthework
asdifferent fromtheoriginal .Moreover ,thescaleofthephenomenon is
suchthatitshouldrankasaneconomic crimeofthefirstorderdamaging ,
notonlytoindividual rightholders ,butalsototheviability of
important areasofeconomic andcultural activity .Forthesereasons ,most
MemberStatesauthorize lawenforcement authorities toprosecute ontheir
owninitiative asregardslargescalecopyingandtraffic inpirate
products oratleastencourage publicprosecution onrequestbytheinjured
party.Suchapproaches shouldbeadopted byallMemberStates .
2.7.Theorganizational framework forenforcement
2.7.1 .Theorganizational framework forenforcement activities iscomplexand
variesfromStatetoState .Itincludes individual rightholders ,
organizations representing suchrightholdersandpublicauthorities .

-72-
Rightholdersandtheirorganizations
2.7.2.AuthorsareinallMemberStatesorganized insocieties whichareengaged
primarily inthecollecting ofroyalties forliterary andmusicalworks.
Separate societies mayexistfordifferent classesofwork,forexample ,
societies dealingwithdramatic anddramatic musicalworksarefrequently
distinct fromthosedealingwithotherformsofmusicandlyricsincluding
popular songs.Thenational organizations aremembers ofaninternational
83
,organization ,CISAC .Otherrightholders arealsoorganized atnational
andinternational level.Thusproducers ofsoundandvideorecordings are
organized inallMemberStatesandthesenational organizations ,together
wihothers,formtheInternational Federation ofProducers ofPhonograms
84....... 85andVideograms (IFPI).Filmandvideoproducers 0anddistributors 0are
86alsoorganized atnational andinternational levelasarepublishers ,
broadcasters 0,andperformers 0.
2.7.3.Inanincreasing numberofcases,thecurrentprevalence ofpiracyhasled
atbothnational andinternational levelstonewinitiatives ,including the
formation ofadhocanti-piracy organizations bringing together different
interest groups,tocombineresources andoperatewithgreater
effectiveness .Newtechniques havebeendeveloped tofacilitate
enforcement suchasthemarking offilmstoenablethesourceofseized
copiestobeidentified moreeasily .

-73-
2.7.4 .Forexample ,intheUnitedKingdom ,theBritishPhonograph Industry (BPI)
hasbeendealingwithpiracyofsoundrecordings ,whiletheFederation
AgainstCopyright Theft (FACT)wasfounded in1982andhassinceplayedan
important partinreducing themarketshareofpiratevideorecordings .In
1983,asimilaractiongroupwasfounded tocombatvideopiracyinthe
Netherlands knownasFoundation VideoSafe.InIreland ,theIrishNational
Federation AgainstCopyright Theft (INFACT )beganoperations in1984and
fromthebeginning of1985,theBelgianAnti-Piracy Federation (BAF)and,
inGermany ,theSociety fortheProsecution ofCopyright Infringement
(GW,Gesellschaft zurVerfolgung vonUrheberrechtsverletzungen )havebegun
similaroperations .Theseexamples and,inparticular ,thesuccessachieved
intheareaofvideopiracyintheUnitedKingdom haveinspired the
creation ofsimilarorganizations inotherMemberStates :inFrance,
l1AssociationdeLuttecontrelaPiraterie Audiovisuel le(ACPA);inSpain :
Federacion Antipirateria(FAP);andinDenmark ,theForeningen afDanske
Videogramdi stributdrer .
2.7.5.Attheinternational levelalso,theproducers ofsoundandvideo
recordings havecreated anorganization inco-operation withthe
International Chamber ofCommerce andtheCommonwealth Secretariat .The
International Maritime BureauoftheInternational Chamber ofCommerce
contributes totheproject itsparticular expertise inmonitoring the
transportation ofgoods.IFPIcontributes amongstotherthings
intelligence collected byitsnational andregional groupsthroughout the
world.Theorganization ,knownastheJointAnti-Piracy Intelligence Group
89
(JAPIG),achieved significant resultsfromtheoutset

-74-
2.7.6.Thisconcentration ofanti-piracy interests atnational andinternational
levelisawelcomedevelopment .Bycentralizing relevant information and
activity onalimitednumberoffocalpoints,itnotonlyincreases the
effectiveness andefficiency ofanti-piracy efforts ,itshouldalso
facilitate thedevelopment \offruitful co-operation between rightsholders
andpublicauthorities byproviding alimitednumberofcontactpoints
which,withoutprejudice totherightsandpossibilities ofothers,can
developparticularly productive relations withrelevant national
administrations .
Publicauthorities
2.7.7.Atnational level,different agencies maybeinvolved depending onthe
x^tateinquestion including thecustoms,thepoliceandpublicprosecuting
autfiorities aswellasagencies responsible fortaxation andconsumer
protection .
902.7.8.Ashasalreadybeenindicated ,limitations ontheroleandpowersofsome
oftheseagencies sometimes exist,forexample ,asregardsthepoliceand
thecustoms .Removing theselimitations wouldincrease thecontribution
thattheywouldmaketotherepression ofpiracy .Inparticular ,ensuring
thatcustomsauthorities areinlawandinpractice abletoinformright
holders ofpossible violations oftheirrightssothatthelattercanact
toprotectthemselves ,whereappropriate ,seemstobeadesirable
objective.

-75-
2.7.9.However ,thisinvolves notonlyremoving thelegallimitations towhich
reference hasalreadybeenmade,butalsoensuring thattherearereadily
usablelinesofcommunication between theauthorities ontheonehandand
rightholders' organizations ontheother .Ashasbeenseen,theformation
ofadhocanti-piracy actiongroupsisalreadymakingasignificant
contribution inthisrespect .Totheextentthattheremaybeweaknesses ,
rightholders areinaposition toimprovetheposition intheshortrun
forthemselves bytakingactionalongthelinesalreadytracedbyothers .
Inthelongerterm,attention mightalsobegiventothecreation of
systemsusingmoderninformation technology toensurethatuseful
information ismadeavailable totheparties atthelowestcostpossible .
Further reference willbemadetothispossibility subsequently .
2.7.10 .Conversely ,theeffectiveness ofthepublicauthorities dependsontheir
havingthefullco-operation ofthoseinterest groupswhichareadversely
affected bypiracy .Theactivities ofpublicauthorities aresubjectto
inevitable resource constraints .Therestrictive effectofthose
constraints canbesignificantly reduced totheextentthatthose
immediately concerned canprovide theauthorities withinformation enabling
themtoactwithefficiency .Inthecustomscontext ,forexample ,oneof
theobstacles tomoreeffective intervention isthedifficulty andcostof
establishing thatgoodsareprobably piratedandtheidentity ofthose
whoserightshavebeeninfringed .Thepossibility ofextending theCouncil
Regulation ,towhichreference has'alreadybeenmade,onreleaseofgoods
intofreecirculation ,toincludeotherformsofintellectual property ,
including copyright ,depends insubstantial partonsolutions beingfound
tothesepractical problems .

-76-
2.7.11 .Again,moderninformation technology mayhelptoprovide thesolution .
Fromtimetotime,thesuggestion hasbeenmadeatCommunity levelofthe
creation ofaregister ofrights incinematographic oraudio-visual
91works .This hasbeen regarded primarily asaninstrument tofacilitate
thefinancing offilmproduction anduptonowagreement onthecreation of
92suchasystemhasnotprovedpossible .However ,aregister ofrightsin
respect ofsoundrecordings ,videorecordings andfilmscouldalsoplaya
roleintherepression ofpiracybymakingitrelatively easytoidentify
whohastherighttoexploit aworkinagivenjurisdiction .Thiscould
facilitate intervention bycustoms andotherauthorities sincetheyshould
beabletoestablish moreeasilyandrapidlywhethermerchandise seems
likelytobeinfringing ornotandwouldalsobeabletoinforminterested
parties ofconsignments ofapparently piratedproducts .Withinthe
framework ofWIPO-UNESCO ,aCommittee ofGovernmental Expertswilldiscuss
inMarch1988thesettingupofanInternational register ofaudiovisual
works .Depending ontheoutcome oftheWIPO-UNESCO meeting ,theworkat
Community levelcouldbeco-ordinated withfutureworkattheinternational
level .
2.7.12 .Inordertomakesuchasystemworkable inpractice fromthepointofview
ofcustomsauthorities ,rightholderswouldneedtonotifythose
authorities periodically ofworksinrelation towhichaparticular riskof
piracyexists.

77-
2.7.13 .TheCommission hasin1985submitted toCouncil acommunication onthe
co-ordinated development ofcomputerized administrative procedures ,the
93C.D.project ,whichtheCouncilendorsed bydecision of4February
941986 .Thesystemenvisaged couldprobably beusedtoorientcustoms
checksinthepiracycontext .Detailed examination ofthispossibility
wouldnotbeappropriate inthecontext ofthispaperbutshouldformpart
oftheworkleading tothedevelopment ofthesystem .Astotheregister
itself,oneofthemainobjections inthepasthasbeenthecosttothe
publicofitscreation andadministration .Butthequestion clearly arises
astowhether itwouldnotbepossible foraregister tobeorganized and
paidforbythosewhowillderivethebenefit fromit,thatis,theright
holders concerned .Ifsuchanapproach werepossible ,Community
involvement couldbelimited toensuring thattheregister couldbe
accessed bycustoms andotherrelevant authorities withintheframework of
theC.D.project andpossibly toproviding asimplelegalframework togive
theregistry andtheinformation thatitcontains legalrecognition .
2.7.14 .Inaddition toco-operation between publicauthorities ontheonehandand
rightholders ontheother,co-operation between relevant public
authorities atnational ,international andCommunity levelsisalso
important .

-78-
2.7.15 .Atthenational level,MemberStatesareinaposition totakefor
themselves thenecessary measures inthelightoftheirparticular
administrative structures .However,astrongcasecanbemadeforthe
creation ordesignation offocalpointshavingparticular responsibilities
inrelation topiracyandassociated problems .Asregardstheaudio-visual
field,theroleoftheCentreNational delaCinematographic inFrance
constitutes aninteresting example .Suchfocalpointsnotonlyfacilitate
co-ordination oftheactivities ofallpublicauthorities concerned and
co-operation betweenthem.Theycanalsoperformtheroleofnatural
interlocutor forrightholdersandtheirorganizations which,ashasbeen
explained above,arefrequently intheprocessofcreating similarfocal
pointsforthemselves .
2.7.16 .AttheCommunity andinternational levels,procedures forco-operation
between lawenforcement agencies alreadyexistwhichcanbeusedin
95appropriate casesincluding ,forexample ,theservices ofInterpol .The
general legislative tendency tosanction piracyasaseriousoffence
punishable byimprisonment shouldmakeiteasiertousetheseprocedures
sinceitmakesitlesslikelythatpiracywillbeperceived asamatterof
minorimportance .
2.7.17 .TheInterpol GeneralAssembly atits46thsession inStockholm in1977
adopted aresolution onaudio-visual piracyandhassincemadeefforts to
expanditsactivities tocombatpiracy .Itshouldberemembered however
thatco-operation withinInterpol consists ofvoluntary actsofmutual
assistance andisbasedonthepossibilities offeredbynational lawsof
itsMemberStates,theirnational sovereignty beingstrictly respected .
Theyretainpowertodecidewhether ornottoco-operate ;theydonothave
tojustifytheirdecisions andnomeasures maybetakeniftheydonot.
Theselimitations ontheco-ordinating possibilities oftheInterpol arean
important qualification onitsabilitytoactintherepression ofpiracy .

-79-
2.7.18 .Forthefuture,atCommunity Level,aLogicalconsequence oftherecent
adoption ofaCommunity regulation ontherelease intofreecirculation of
counterfeit goods^mightbetoconsidercounterfeit asamatterthat
shouldfallwithinthemutualassistance regimecreated bytheCouncil
Regulation onmutualassistance between theadministrative authorities of
theMemberStatesandco-operation between thelatterandtheCommission to
ensurethecorrectapplication ofthelawoncustoms andagricultural
97matters .Thisprovides forbothassistance onrequest andspontaneous
assistance .Ifnecessary ,arelatively simpleamendment couldbeadopted
toclarify theposition .Itwouldalsofollowthatifitprovespossible to
extendtheregulation onreleaseintofreecirculation tootherformsof
intellectual property infringement ,including copyright ,themutual
assistance regimecouldapplyequally insuchcases.Finally ,theC.D.
Project willprovide thetechnical meanswhereby suchmutualassistance can
98beefficiently managed .
2.7.19 .Attheinternational level,theCustomsCo-operation Council (CCC)has
provedanefficient instrument forincreasing co-operation betweennational
customsauthorities .In1953,itadopted aRecommendation onMutual
Administration Assistance aimingatproviding information onnewmethods or
meansofcustomsfraudandtoofferonrequest ofanotherMemberStatethe
maintenance ofaspecialwatchonparticular consignments ,onpersonsknown
tobeengaged insmuggling oronsuspectvehicles .Furthermore ,in1975,
theCounciladopted aRecommendation onthePooling ofInformation
concerning CustomsFraud.Theinformation collected andsubsequently
communicated toStatesrelates topersonsconvicted ofsmuggling orcustoms
fraud,methods ofsmuggling andvesselsinvolved insmuggling .These
instruments donotrelatedirectly tocopyright goods,buttheycanplaya
rolewhentradeinpirateproducts involves ,asitoftendoes,customs
fraud.However ,in1983,theCCCembarked onastudyoftheroleofthe
customs inimplementing copyright andindustrial property law.Theaimof
thestudypartlycarriedoutbymeansofaquestionnaire addressed to
MemberStatesandinternational organizations wastodefinetheroleof
customsauthorities ingeneralanti-piracy actionandhowtheparticipation
oftheseauthorities couldbemademoreregularandeffective .Thestudy
99wascompleted in1984

-80-
2.7.20 .Thestudyhasbeendiscussed bythecompetent Committees oftheCCC,that
istheEnforcement Committee andthePermanent Technical Committee .The
Enforcement Committee reachedthefollowing conclusions .First,customs
enforcement ofintellectual property lawwouldbeapermanent itemonthe
Committee's workprogramme sothattheCommittee couldcontinue toexchange
viewsaboutdevelopments inthisfield.Secondly ,theCCCSecretariat
shouldnowproposepractical meansofassisting administrations which
alreadyhavecompetence inthisfield.Thirdly ,theSecretariat should
continue tomaintain contacts withtheinternational organizations which
areconcerned withthisquestion ,andtoco-ordinate theactivities ofthe
Enforcement Committee andofthePermanent Technical Committee whichwas
responsible fortheadministrative aspectsofthequestion .Fourthly ,the
Secretariat shouldfurtheranalyse theenforcement instruments oftheCCC
withaviewtodetermining theextenttowhichtheycouldbeusedfor
purposes ofcombating piracyandcounterfeiting pendingfurther
consideration ofanewinstrument .ThePermanent Technical Committee has
finished itsworkindeveloping amodellawwhichgivescustomsauthorities
powertoactincounterfeiting andpiracycases.
2.7.21 .TheCCC'sprogramme inrelation topiracyandcounterfeiting clearlymerits
theCommunity's fullsupport .
2.8.Theinternational contextforfutureinitiatives anddevelopments at
Community level
2.8.1.Beforeproceeding fromtheanalysis setoutabovetoaconsideration of
possible futureinitiatives anddevelopments atCommunity level,the
broader international context inwhichsuchinitiatives anddevelopments
maybetakenshouldbeconsidered insofarasthiscontexthasnotyet
beencovered .

-81
2.8.2 .Theinternational organizations whichadminister therelevant copyright and
related rightsconventions haveseveraltimesaddressed thepiracyissueto
alertthepublictothedamagedonetocultural activity bypiracyandto
promote ,inthevariouspartsoftheworldwherepiracyconstitutes a
seriousproblem ,actions tocombatpirateactivities .
2.8.3.AttheleveloftheRomeConvention^^,theIntergovernmental Committee in
October 1979adopted arecommendation toMemberStatesoftheUnited
Nations inwhichtheadministering organizations recommended UNMember
101StatestoaccedetotheConvention .Thisrecommendation wasrenewed by
theIntergovernmental Committee duringitseighthOrdinary Session in
November1981^^.
2.8.4.AttheWIP0level,afirstworldwide ForumonthePiracyofSoundand
Audiovisual Recordings washeldinGenevainMarch1981.Aresolution was
adopted recommending stepstobetakenbothindeveloped anddeveloping
countries tobringintoforceappropriate legislation topreventpiracyand
103toensuretheapplication ofsuchlegislation .Asecondworldwide forum
wasorganized inWIP0inMarch1983,thistimeon"PiracyofBroadcasts and
thePrintedWord".Theresolution adopted astheconclusion ofthe
104meeting expressed concernoverthespreadofpiracy .Itconsidered that
thesearchforpractical measures forcombating piracywithmoreefficiency
shouldcontinue andrecommended thattheAssembly oftheBerneUnionadopt
arecommendation onthesubject .Thesubjectwasaddressed againata
meeting ofgovernment expertson2-6June1986organized byUNESC0/WIP0and
aresolution adoptedcalling forstronger penalsanctions against
105
piracy
2.8.5 .TheResolutions adoptedwithinWIP0canrealistically onlyaimatbringing
totheattention ofnational governments theneedtoadoptappropriate
measures againstpiracyatthenational level.Evenwhentakingageneral
position astothepiracyissue,thewording ofaresolution mustbechosen
withdelicacy ifanimportant numberofdeveloping countries arenotto
findittoodifficult toendorse .Forthem,theimportance ofduerespect
ofintellectual property rightsmustnormally bebalanced against
recognition oftheneedforreadyaccesstocopyright material .

-82-
2.8.6.TheUNESCOSecretariat hasprepared adocument entitled "Analysis ofthe
repliestotheUNESCOquestionnaire onthephenomenon ofthepiracyof
printedmaterial ,phonograms ,audiovisual material ,films,andradioand
television programs ,"whichsummarizes andanalyses therepliestothe
questionnaire givenbyitsMemberStates .
2.8.7.Atthelevelofthe.CouncilofEurope,Ministers ofCultureadopted a
106resolution inMay1984inviting MemberStatestoorganize ,atnational
andEuropean level,actiontorepressaudio-visual piracy .On18January
1071988,theCommittee ofMinisters adopted aRecommendation toMember
Statesonmeasures tocombatpiracyinthefieldofcopyright ,and
neighbouring rights .
2.8.8.WithintheGATT,thepossibility ofactiononthetradeaspects of
counterfeiting hasbeenactively discussed since1982.In1984,agroupof
expertswassetuptopursuethematter .ThisGATTinitiative aimedat
providing aframework fortheparticipation ofcustomsauthorities inthe
detection andseizure ofcounterfeit merchandise ,whichisatpresent
defined asmerchandise onwhichatrademarkallegedly hasbeenplaced
without theconsent ofthetrademarkowner.Insofar aspirates copynot
onlytheworkbutalsothepacking,whichforaudio-visual worksis
frequently thecase,thisinitiative isalsoofinterest tothecopyright
holder .However ,theworkwithinGATThasnotresulted inanagreement on
counterfeit merchandise ,becauseofopposition bynumerous thirdcountries ,
inparticular developing countries .

-83-
2.8.9 .Thisworkhadresulted inthatatleastoneareaofintellectual property
rightscouldbedealtwithbyGATT.InSeptember 1986,theMinisters of
Tradeofcontracting Statesmeeting inPuntadelEstadecidedthat,ina
moregeneralsense,tradeaspects ofintellectual property shouldbe
included ontheagendaofthemultilateral negotiations ,whichtheyhad
justopened .Consequently ,thesenegotiations willalsoincludeother
issuesofintellectual property ,whichhaveanimpactontradeflowsand
traderelations .Itisclearfromthepreliminary discussions onthisissue
whichhavetakenplacethatthereisamarkedwillingness atCommunity
leveltoexamine thepossibilities ofeffectively reinforcing legislation
oncopyright andrelated rightswithintheframework ofGATT,inparticular
tocombatbook,phonogram andvideogram piracy,onthebasisofthework
alreadycarriedoutoncounterfeit goods.
2.8.10 .Finally ,itshouldbenotedthattheCommunity hasrecently takenup
intellectual property problems withthirdcountries ,inparticular as
regardsthebarriers whichcertainintellectual property systemsconstitute
inrespect oftradeflowsandinvestment byCommunity enterprises .It
appearsworthwhile atthisstagetoconsider thepossibility ofusingthese
contacts moresystematically tocombatpiracy .Thisquestion willbe
examined inmoredetailinChapter 7.
2.9.Futuredevelopments andinitiatives atCommunity level
2.9.1 .Thepresentsituation asregardspiracyintheMemberStatesofthe
European Community andintherestoftheworldcanbesummarized as
follows .Although inseveralMemberStatessubstantial progress hasbeen
madeintherecentpast,piracyofsoundrecordings andaudio-visual works
remains asubstantial problembothwithinandoutside theCommunity .
Piracyofbooksalsoremainsserious ,thoughinthiscasetheproblem
existsessentially incertainnon-Member countries .

-84-
2.9.2.OutsidetheCommunity ,positive trendscanbeperceived onlyinWestern
European countries ,theUnitedStates,Canada,Japan,Australia ,Hong-Kong
andrecently Singapore .Manyothercountries donottakeeffective
anti-piracy actionandinsomecases,display adegreeofcomplacency that
suggests connivance ,evencomplicity .Theexternal dimension ofthepiracy
problemseemslikelytoremainsignificant forsometimetocome.The
Community hasaclear -interest inusingitscollective weighttoensure
betterprotection forthecreations ofitsauthors ,performers and
producers innon-Member States .Thenatureofpossible Community actionsto
thisendandtheframeworks withinwhichsuchactions canbetakenis
discussed indetailinChapter 7.
2.9.3.InsidetheCommunity ,thereisgoodreasontobelievethatprogress recently
madeinrepressing piracycanbemaintained ,evenincreased .Copyright laws
havebeenamended orareundercurrentreviewinmanyMemberStates .The
Council Resolution of1984hasdrawntheattention ofMemberStatestothe
piracyproblem .Asaconsequence ,reinforced legislation ,deterrent
sanctions andbetterenforcement procedures cannowberelieduponina
numberofcases.Further ,rightholdershaveintherecentpastorganized
themselves inanti-piracy organizations andareactively takingaction
againstpiracy .
2.9.4.Nevertheless ,manyimprovements remaintobemadeinparticular
jurisdictions .Moreover ,itcouldbedangerous torelaxtoosoon,
particularly whennewreproduction technology maygivefreshimpetusto
pirateactivity .
2.9.5.Asstatedinparagraph 2.3.5.,piratecompactdiscsarevirtually unknown
duetothefactthatthemanufacture istechnically complicated andrequires
highinvestments .Thelaunchofthedigitalaudiotaperecording equipment
(DAT)whichoffersthesamesoundquality asthecompactdiscmaychangethe
picture inrespect ofpiracyofhighfidelity soundrecordings .Digital
soundsources ,whether compactdiscsordigitaltape,canbeperfectly
reproduced andcontrary toanalogue copies,digitalcopiesdonot
deteriorate bysuccessive copying .Onthebasisofa"clone"copy,
generations ofcopiesmaybereproduced ,eachcopyserving asamastercopy.

-85-
2.9.6 .Inanefforttoreducethepiracyproblem ,Japanese producers haveagreedto
implement infullthestandards ofprotection fordigitalrecordings laid
downintheR-DATconference standard of1986.Guidance fromMITIhasled
allmajormanufacturers ofDATinJapantoaccepttheconference standard
whichincludes thefollowing measures :asampling ratefordigital
recording (48kHz)whichisdifferent fromthesampling rateusedforcompact
discs (44,1kHz ).Thishastheeffectofexcluding thereproduction ofa
compact discthrough thedigital inputsocketoftheDATrecorder and
therebyexcludes theproduction of"clones"onthebasisofCDs,unless a
rateconverter isapplied .Further ,theMITIguidelines provide fortheuse
ofdetector circuitry toidentify copy-inhibit codesinserted inthe
sub-codes ofpre-recorded digital software ,bothCDandeventually DAT.This
rendersdigitalcopying ofCDontoDATimpossible butdoesnotprevent
copyingviatheanalogue outputofaCDplayer .MITIguidance alsosuggests
thatlicenceagreements withnon-Japanese firmstoproduce DATshould
maintain boththeseanti-copying measures .
2.9.7 .Theuseofdigitalaudiotapeisseenbytherecording industry primarily as
apotential problem inrelation tohomecopying andisconsequently dealt
withinChapter 3belowwhereanumberofpossible protection measures are
discussed .Apiracyproblem remains ,however ,sincethedescribed measures
relating totheprevention ofdirectdigitalcopyingwillnotprevent the
determined piratefromproducing suchillegitimate copiesasthemarketmay
demand .
2.9.8 .Massproduction ofpre-recorded digital tapewilleventually takeplaceby
meansofcontactprocessprinters allowing copiestobemademanytimes
fasterthanonarecorder .Thedangerthatsuchmachines ,inthewrong
hands,mightbeusedtoproducelargequantities ofpiratecopiesisreal.

-86-
2.9.9.Ontheotherhand,manufacturers ofrecorded musicareLimited innumberand
theidentity oflegitimate manufacturers intheCommunity isknowntoright
holders andtheirorganizations .Sinceconsiderable economic interests are
atstake,consideration mightbegiventolimiting thesaleofDATprinters
toprofessional userssuchasrecordcompanies andtomakingthesaletoa
userandhispossession oftheequipment dependent onalicencetobeissued
byapublicauthority ofaMemberState.Thispublicauthority wouldkeep
trackofallmachines soldonitsterritory tomakesurethatequipment is
notsubsequently transferred tonon-licensed users.Licences couldbe
revocable onproofthattheuserhadengaged inpirateactivity .
2.9.10 .Sincecontactprinting equipment isnotyetonthemarketoratleastina
verylimitednumberonly,suchameasurewouldbeeffective andwouldnot
necessarily implytheintroduction ofunreasonably burdensome bureaucratic
procedures .Itcouldwellbecompared tothefirearmlicence inusein
MemberStateswiththequalification thatthelicencewouldbedelivered to
anypersonbeingabonafideproducer ofpre-recorded DAT.
2.9.11 .Ifalicensing schemeweretoprovesuccessful withintheCommunity ,
consideration couldthenbegiventopersuading othercountries todo
likewise .

-87-
2.9.12 .Moregenerally ,thatpiracyofcopyrighted goodsintheCommunity hasa
significant cross-frontier dimension isclear.Aconsiderable proportion
ofpirategoodssoldintheMemberStateshavebeenimported fromthe
countries bothfromwithinandoutside theCommunity .Inaddition ,even
whenpirateproducts areproduced intheMemberStateofsale,the
protected workmaywellhaveitsorigininanotherMemberState,having
beenprocured orcopiedfromabroadcast originating there.Thislast
phenomenon islikelytoincrease ascross-frontier television broadcasting
andcabletransmission becomeincreasingly commonintheCommunity .
Accordingly ,strategies fortherepression andprevention ofpiracythat
areconceived exclusively withinnational frameworks areunlikely toprove
satisfactory .Suchapproaches willnotbeabletotacklethesourceof
muchoftheproblem and,insofarastheywillbeobliged toconfront
pirateimportsessentially atthenational frontier ,theyriskhaving
negative effects onlegitimate commerce betweenMemberStates .Theycould
accordingly haveadirect,andadverse ,effectonthefunctioning ofthe
commonmarket .
2.9.13 .Astrongcasecanthusbemadeforconcerted actions atCommunity levelto
reducetothemaximum extentpossible production ofpiratedworksby
sourceswithintheCommunity andtradeinpirateproducts ofwhatever
provenance ororigin .Themainactionsthatmightbetakenfollowfromthe
analysis alreadymade.
2.9.14 .First,quiteindependently oftheratification ofrelevant international
conventions ,substantive rightsshouldbeenactedwheretheyarelacking at
present ,inparticular ,infavourofproducers offilmsandsoundandvideo
recordings ,performing artists ,broadcasters andcableoperators .They
shouldbeentitled toauthorize thefixation andreproduction for
108commercial purposes andthecommercial distribution bywayofsale of
theirworks (seeparagraphs 2.6.3.to2.6.26 .above).

-88-
2.9.15 .Second,effective searchandseizureprocedures ,subjecttoappropriate
safeguards ,shouldgenerally bemadeavailable inbothcivilandcriminal
proceedings .Consideration shouldalsobegiventothegeneraladoption of
powers,againsubject toappropriate safeguards ,toenforcedisclosure of
sourcesanddestinations ofpirateproducts (seeparagraphs 2.6.27 .to
2.6.40 .above).
2.9.16 .Third,consideration shouldbegiventoextending theCouncilRegulation on
prohibiting thereleaseforfreecirculation ofcounterfeit goodsto
includegoodsinfringing copyrights .Nowthattheregulation hasbeen
adopted ,experience willsoonbegainedastoitsoperation (seeparagraphs
2.6.41 .to2.6.54 .above).
2.9.17 .Fourth,asregardsremedies andsanctions ,appropriate damagesshouldbe
available tothosewhoseinterests havebeendamaged ;injunctive relief
shouldbeavailable todealwithpersistent offenders ;confiscation of
infringing goodsandequipment usedtoproducethemshouldbeintroduced
wheretheyarenotpossible atpresent ;andpiracyshouldbetreated asa
criminal offence ,subject topublicprosecution andentailing the
possibility ofimprisonment forserious orrepeated offences (see
paragraphs 2.6.55 .to2.6.76 .above).

89-
2.9.18 .Fifth,theefforts ofrightsholdersandtheirorganizations todevelop
structures enabling themtoacteffectively againstpiratesshouldbe
developed andencouraged ,notleastbythepublicauthorities responding in
areciprocal fashion .Thisinvolves boththeremoval ofcertain formal
constraints onco-operation betweenpublicauthorities andrightsholders
and,inaddition ,practical measures toimprovetheeffectiveness ofsuch
co-operation whilerespecting theinevitable resource constraints onpublic
administrations .Inthiscontext ,consideration mightbegiventothe
creation atnational levelofadministrative focalpointstofacilitate
co-operation bothbetweenconcerned publicagencies andbetween the
administration asawholeandrightsholdersandtheirorganizations .
Consideration mightalsobegiventothecreation byrightholders'
organizations ofaregister orregisters ofrightsinprotected worksina
computerized form.Thepossibility ofexploiting thisinformation inorder
tostrengthen customscontrols shouldbeexplored inthecontext ofthe
C.D.project fortheco-ordinated development ofcomputerized
administrative procedures (seeparagraphs 2.7.10 .to2.7.13 .above).
2.9.19 .Sixth,co-operation betweencompetent authorities shouldbepromoted at
national ,Community andinternational level.Inthiscontext ,atthe
Community level,consideration shouldbegiventoanextension ofthe
mutualassistance regimetoincludefirstcounterfeit andthencopyright
infringements (seeparagraph 2.7.18 .above).
2.9.20 .Finally ,attheinternational level,theinitiatives withinGATTand
CustomsCo-operation Council inthisfieldshouldbeactively supported by
theCommunity ,whileduplication ofeffortsshouldbeavoided .Atthesame
time,consideration shouldbegiventousingmoresystematically the
variouschannels opentotheCommunity toinfluence countries whichare
knowntobesources ofpirateproducts toactagainsttheproducers (see
paragraphs 2.7.19to2.8.10 .aboveandchapter 7below).

-90-
2.9.21 .Someoftheactionslistedaboveclearlycallforformallegislative
activity bytheCommunity 'sinstitutions ,forexample ,theextension atthe
appropriate timeoftheregulation onthereleaseofcounterfeit goodsand
themutualassistance regime .Equallyclearly ,someotheractionsarenot
legislative incharacter ,forexample ,thecreation ofadministrative focal
pointsandtheinitiatives attheinternational level.Inbetween ,are
actions astowhichbindingCommunity legislation wouldbepossible ,butas
towhichlessformal,andprobably lesslengthy ,responses mayalsobe
possible .Intothiscategory falltheactionsdesigned toassurethe
generalintroduction ofdeterrent sanctions inrespectofpiracy,for
example .Atthisstage,however ,theadvantages intermsoflegalsecurity
offeredbyabindingCommunity legalinstrument seemtooutweigh the
advantages ofothertechniques insofarasmeasures concerning the
availability andlegalenforcement ofrelevant intellectual property rights
areconcerned .
2.10.Summary
Whereasmeasures tocombatpiracyoutsidetheCommunity 'sjurisdiction is
dealtwithinChapter7ontheCommunity 'sexternal relations ,thefindings
ofthepresentchaptercanbesummarized asfollows :
Therepression ofpiracyofsoundandvideorecordings intheCommunity
requires theexistence ofclearsubstantive legalprovisions infavourof
authors,producers andperformers andbroadcasting organizations inrespect
oftheirrighttoauthorize thereproduction forcommercial purposes of
theirrecordings andbroadcasts .
Suchsubstantive legalprovisions mustbeaccompanied byappropriate
procedures facilitating legalactionandproofagainstactsofpiracy,in
particular provisions onsearchandseizure .

-91
Efficient remedies mustbeatthedisposal ofrightholdersininfringement
casesanddissuasive criminal sanctions available fordealingwith,in
particular ,organized professional piracy .Finally,anappropriate
organizational framework permitting aneffective cooperation betweenright
holdersandpublicauthorities ,inparticular lawenforcement authorities ,
mustexist.Specific measures ,suchasthecontrolofcommercial tape
duplication equipment ,shouldbeadoptedwhereappropriate .
2.11.Conclusion
TheCommission wouldaccordingly welcome theviewsofinterested partieson
thefollowing matters .
*Theintention oftheCommission tosubmittotheCouncil asamatterof
priority aproposal forabinding legalinstrument :
a)requiring allMemberStatestoprovide ,throughonelegaltechnique or
another ,forrightsforproducers ofcinematographic works,videograms
andsoundrecordings toauthorize thereproduction forcommercial
purposes ofthoseworksandtheircommercial distribution ;
b)requiring allMemberStatestoproviderightsforperforming artiststo
authorize thereproduction forcommercial purposes oftheirfixed
performances andtheircommercial distribution ;
c)requiring allMemberStatestoproviderightsfororganizations engaged
inbroadcasting toauthorize thefixation andreproduction for
commercial purposes oftheirbroaccasts ,asweltasthecommercial
distribution ofsuchfixedbroadcasts andtheintroduction ofsimilar
rightsinrespect ofsignalstransmitted bycableinfavourofcable
television operators ;
d)requiring theintroduction inallMemberStatesofregimesmakingthe
possession ofdigitalaudiotapecommercial duplicating equipment
dependent uponalicencetobedelivered byapublicauthority andthe
maintenance ofaregister orregisters inrespectoflicensed equipment .

*Theintention oftheCommission tosubmittotheCouncil induecoursea
proposal foraregulation : ^
e)extending CouncilRegulation (EEC)no.3842/86layingdownmeasures to
prohibit thereleaseforfreecirculation ofcounterfeit goodstocover
equallygoodsundercopyright ;
f)extending themutualassistance regimetoincludefirstcounterfeit and
thencopyright infringements ;
*Thedesirability of:^
g)recommending toMemberStates-to provide forrightsforauthors ,
producers ofphonograms andvideograms andperformers torequestpublic
prosecution inrespectofactsofpiracy;
h)recommending toMemberStatestheintroduction ofminimumrequirements
asregardssearchandseizureprocedures incasesofsuspected piracyof
copyright goods;
i)recommending toMemberStatestheintroduction ofminimumrequirements
astocriminal sanctions andcivilremedies ;
j)creating attheappropriate Community orinternational levelaregister
orregisters ,financed byrightholders ,ofrightsinsoundrecordings ,
videorecordings andfeaturefilms,eventually linkedtotheC.D.
project .
k)settingupanagreement ataninternational levelontheseizureof
counterfeit goods,applicable notonlyasregardsthecounterfeit of
trademarksbutalsoasregardsotherintellectual property rights
including copyright andrelatedrights .

-93-
L)theinclusion insuchanagreement ofmeasures relating notonlytothe
importation ofcounterfeit goodsbutalsoontheirexportation andof
measures tobetakenwithinthecountrywherethegoodsareproduced or
commercialized .
2.12.Timetable forsubnissions
2.12.1 .General comments onChapter 2shouldbesubmitted totheCommission no
laterthan1December 1988.However ,giventheurgency ofthematter,
comments onthecontrol ofdigitalcommercial duplicating equipment are
requested bytheendofJuly1988.

-94-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
150JNo.C204of3August1984,page1.
Statement byMr.CliveBradley oftheUnitedKingdomPublishers
Association totheWIP0Worldwide ForumonthePiracyofBroadcasts and
thePrintedWord,Geneva,March1983(PF/11/S/2).
Statement oftheUnitedKingdomPublishers Association tothe
Commission ,7January 1987.
PiracyofPhonograms byGillianDavies,secondedition1984,Commission
document SG/Culture /52/84.
Asmanyas90%ofreleases donotmakeaprofit,seeMusicandVideo
PiracyintheEEC,IFPI1984.
Source :Extentofpiracyofsoundrecordings worldwide in1984.IFPI
1985.
SeeChapter 4onrentalrights .Thereseemstobeaclearlinkbetween a
lowlevelofpiracyandtheexistence ofrightsoftheauthorto
authorize therentalofvideograms .
SeeChapter 4.
Sincetherentalmaybeconsidered illegal ,many"rental"contracts in
theUnitedStatespresentthemselves asarrangements forpre-viewing
priortopossible purchase .
TheBerneConvention fortheProtection ofLiterary andArtistic Works
isinthepresent contextmoreimportant thantheUniversal Copyright
Convention (UCC),towhichallCommunity MemberStatesalsoadhere,
because theBerneConvention incontrast totheUniversal Copyright
Convention contains animportant catalogue ofminimum rights .
Article2(1).
Thischapter isconcerned withpiracyasdefined inparagraph 1above.
Itdoesnotaddress itselftoprovisions concerning re-broadcast or
re-transmission ofsignalswhicharediscussed inthegreenpaper
"Television withoutfrontiers ",June1984,COM(84)300final.
Seeparagraph 2.1.4.above.
Seearticle 63-1ofLawno.85-660of3July1985.
Seearticle45ofthecopyright law1912asamendedbyLawof30May
1985(Staatsblad no.307ofJune18,1985).

-95-
Copyright ,DesignsandPatentsBill(H.L.12)of28October1987,
section 175-177 .
SeeBillpresented byMr.Desmarets andothersof29May1986.Senate
1985-1986 ,p.282andBillNr.615of18July1987presented byMr.
Lallemand andothers .
Lawno.1075/1980of23September 1980.
Leydepropiedad intelectual no.22/87of11November 1987,Boletin
Oficial delEstadono.275of17November 1987.
SeealsoPiracyofcopyright protected works,InterimReportofthe
Interdepartmental WorkingGrouponPiracy,1984,pages28and29.
CodeofCopyright andRelatedRights (No.45/85,17September 1985).
Thequestion ofthecompatibility ofthenewPortuguese lawwiththeEEC
Treatyisnotconsidered here.Thematterisunderdiscussion withthe
Portuguese authorities .
SeeResolution of24July1984oftherepresentatives ofthegovernments
oftheMemberStatesonmeasures tocombataudio-visual piracy,0JNo.
C204of3August1984,page1.
Forageneraldiscussion ofissuesrelated torecording forprivate
purposes ,seeChapter 3.
CableandBroadcasting Act1984,section 22.
SeeBillof29May1986,loc.cit.
27.loc.cit.
28Letter of9November 1984fromtheMinister ofJustice totheChairman
oftheSecondChamber ;Piracyofcopyright protected works,loc.cit.
p.28.
29Lawno.274of6June1985.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37"Retsplejeloven ".
Section 94andfollowing oftheStrafprozessordnung .
Lawof24June1985,Bundesgesetzblatt no.33of27June1985.
Lawno.85-660of3July1985,article52.'
Seethepassagebelowconcerning theUnitedKingdom ,paragraph 2.6.39 .
SeeHouseofSpringGardensLtd,v.PointBlankLtd,,(1980)FSR359.
Societaitaliana degliautoriededitori .
PreturaRoma,9May1947published inForoItaliano 1947-1-871and1May
1955inDirittocommerciale ,1956-11-69.

-96-
MarioFabiani ,IlDiritto diAutoreNellaGiurisprudenza ,CedamPadova
1972,page220.
Lawno.45/85of17September 1985,article 201.
(1976)1WLR162.SeealsotheSupremeCourtAct1981,section72.
SeeEMILtdv.SarwarandHaidan (1977)FSR146andtheSupremeCourt
Act1981,section 72.
SeeCBSUnitedKingdomLtd,v.Lambert (1983)FSR127andtheSupreme
CourtAct1981,section 37.
Copyright (Amendment )Act1983(1983c.42),13May1983.
Copyright (Computer Software )Amendment Act1985(1985c.41),16.July
1985.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55Bill(H.L.12)loc.cit.,sections 89and104.
SeeRCACorporation v.Pollard (1983)FSR9andShelley v.Cunane (1983
FSR390).
Bill(H.L.12)loc.cit.,sections 177and183.
CouncilRegulation (EEC)No.3842/86of1December 1986layingdown
measures toprohibit therelease forfreecirculation ofcounterfeit
goods,O.J.No.L357/1of18December 1986.
SeeArticle 28oftheTradeMarkLawof5May1936,asrevisedon
2January 1968andArticle 2oftheLawratifying theMadridAgreement
forthePrevention ofFalseandMisleading Indications asbasisfor
customsseizure insomecasesofpiracy .
Article16.
SeeDavies,op.cit.,p.69.
Articles 425,427etseq.
SeeDavies,op■cit.,p.63.
SeeDavies,op.cit.,p.71.
Article 57oftheCustoms Law.
Lawno.1322of15December 1954,Chapter IIB1and2;Article303of
theCustomsLaw,no.43of23January1973andArticle483ofthePenal
Code.
SeeDavies,op.cit.,p.81.
Piracyofcopyright works,InterimReportbytheInterministerial
WorkingGroup,August1984.
Lawdecreeno.30679of24August1940.

-97-
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84Bill(H.L.12),loc.cit.section102.
SeeDavies,op.cit.,p.88.
Forapossible solution tooneofthesedifficulties ,seeparagraphs
2.7.13 .and2.7.18 .
CouncilRegulation (EEC)No.3842/86of1December 1986layingdown
measures toprohibit thereleaseforfreecirculation ofcounterfeit
goods.O.J.no.L357/1of18December 1986.
Seeparagraph 2.6.39supra.
Copyright Act1963sections 22and24.
Copyright Act1956sections 17and18.
Bill(H.L.12)loc.cit.,section87.
SeeArticle 682and691oftheCodeofCivilProcedure .
Loc.cit.,articles 123and126.
SeeP.Chesnais atp.366ofInternational Copyright andNeighbouring
rights,ed.S.M.Stewart ,1983.
loc.cit.
Seeparagraph 2.6.68 .below.
SeeArticle57ofthelawno.85-660of3July1985andArticle73of
theLawof1957onliterary andartistic works.
O.J.no.C204of3August1984.
Copyright (Amendment )Act1983.
Lawno.274of6June1985.
Lawof24June1985.
Lawno.85-660of3July1985.
Law45/85of17September 1985.
Lawno.406of29July1981.
Lawno.400of20July1985.
SeePiracyofcopyright protected works,op.cit.
Confédération internationale dessociétés d'auteurs etcompositeurs .
Fédération internationale desassociations deproducteurs deFilms
(FIAPF)andFédération européenne desréalisateurs del'audiovisuel
(FERA).

-98-
85Fédération internationale desassociations dedistributeurs desfilms
(FIAD).
86., • i„1.1•i_ ._ ^ _ ....International Publishers Association andOrganisation internationale
d'editeurs depresse .
87European Broadcasting Union.
88International Federation ofActorsandInternational Federation of
Musicians .
89Statement bytheJAPIGrepresentative totheCouncilWorkingParty;25
June1985.
Seeparagraphs 2.6.41,2.6.54 .and2.6.75-2.6.76 .above.
Proposal forafifthCouncilDirective forthepurposes ofco-ordinating
certain laws,regulations andadministrative provisions concerning the
filmindustry ,O.J.No.C106/23of23October 1971.
92
93
94
95
96
97TheCommission 'sproposal wasformally withdrawn in1981.
O.J.No.C15/1of16January 1985.
Decision 86/23/EEC,OJno.L33/28of8February 1986.
SeeStatement ofMr.A.Waldman onbehalfofInterpol totheWIP0
Worldwide ForumonthePiracyofSoundandAudiovisual Recordings ,
Geneva,March1981(PF1/15). „
Seeparagraph 2.6.54 .above.
CouncilRegulation (EEC)No.1468/81of19May1981,O.J.No.L144/1of
2June1981.
Paragraph 5.6.4.2.oftheCommission 'scommunication suggests ,under
systemsinterconnection ,"realtimeexchanges ofdatarequired for
mutualassistance andotherpurposes ".
StudyontheRoleoftheCustoms inImplementing Intellectual Property
Law,30October 1984,TE7-80108.
1Administered byUNESCO,WIP0and,becauseoftheelementofprotection
ofperformers intheconvention ,bytheILO.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108Document IL0/UNESC0 /WIP0/ICR7/11of1979.
Document IL0/UNESC0/WIP0/ICR8/7of1981.
WIP0PF/I/21of27March1981.
PF/II/9of18March1983.
Document UNESC0 /WIP0/CGE/AWP/4.
Council ofEurope,Document CMC(84)6 .
Recommendation no.R(88)2of18January1988.
Forissuesconcerning rental,seeChapter 4.

-99-
CHAPTER 3:AUDIO-VISUAL HONEC0PYIN6 .
3.1.Introduction
3.1.1.Theterm"audio-visual "isusedthroughout thischapter todenoteboth
soundandvisualworks.Wherereproduction withoutpermission ofprotected
audio-visual workstakesplaceforcommercial purposes ,itisaclear
copyright infringement .Forthis,theterm"piracy"hasbeenusedinthis
document .Theproblem ofpiracyandpossible Community responses havebeen
discussed inthepreceding chapter .Thepresentchapterdealswiththe
unauthorized reproduction ofaudio-visual material inthehome,thatis,
reproduction bytheindividual consumer tosatisfyhispersonal needs,
without reference totheowneroftherightsintheworkforpermission to
copy.Thischapterdoesnotdealwithreproduction ofaudio-visual material
inthe"semi-private "sphere,thatis,forexample ,ininstitutions suchas
educational establishments .Copying ofaudio-visual material insuch
circumstances raisesdifferent issuesfromhomecopyingandisrelevant to
thediscussion oftheissuesraisedinthischapteronlyinsofarasthe
approach takentohomecopyingmayhaveimplications forcopying inthese
othercontexts .
3.1.2.Untilrecently ,theaudio-visual material inquestion consisted ofsound
andvideorecordings ,radioandtelevision broadcasts andcable
transmissions .Recenttechnical developments seemlikelytobroaden the
rangeofmaterial toincludevariouskindsofinformation ,possibly
together withimagesandsound,recorded digitally onasupportofonekind
oranother .Thesedevelopments needtobetakenintoaccount .
3.1.3 .Thetopicofaudio-visual homecopying isripefordiscussion atCommunity
levelforanumber ofreasons .

-100-
3.1.4.First,someoftheindustries mostconcerned havebroughtclaimstothe
attention oftheirnational governments andtotheCommission andother
international bodies .Theseclaimsrelatetotheallegedeconomic harmdone
totheiractivities bythepractice ofhomecopying,tothenegative effect
onrightownersgenerally andtotheneedforgreaterprotection against
whattheyconsider tobeinfringement ofrights .Recently ,developments in
technology suchasdigitalaudiotaperecorders havegivennewimpetusto
suchclaims .Inturn,theclaimshaveprovoked counterclaims frominterests
thatviewhomecopyingasonbalancepositive .
3.1.5.Second,theclaimsforgreaterprotection haveresulted inanumberof
measures beingintroduced atnational levelbysome,butnotall,Member
States,andbyanumberoftradingpartners amongnon-Member States,in
ordertocompensate rightownersbymeansoftaxesorlevies .Thishas
creatednewdivergences inintellectual property lawamongMemberStates
overandabovethosealreadyexisting forlongstanding ,historical
reasons .Concern hasbeenexpressed thatthedivergences mayhave
significant ,negative effectsonthefunctioning oftheinternal market .
3.1.6.Third,newtechnical developments areincreasing theeaseand
attractiveness ofhomecopyingofaudio-visual material :highspeed
copying ,improvements inthequalityofhomemadecopies,andnowthe
arrival ofdigitalaudiotaperecording (DAT)withitscapacity formaking
perfectcopiesbothrapidlyandcheaplyhaveraisednewquestions astohow
copyright lawsshoulddealwiththematter .Inaddition ,inopeningupnew
possibilities forthecreation ofinnovative kindsofaudio-visual work,
technical developments haveraisedthequestion ofhowtheconsiderable
investment oftime,effortandmoneyneededforthecreation ofsuchworks
canbesecured ifanentireworkonthescaleofanencyclopedia canbe
perfectly ,rapidlyandcheaplycopiedbymachines accessible toalmost
anyone .

-101
3.2.Theearlydevelopment ofhomecopying .
3.2.1.Theearlymachines forplayingphonograms wereunabletomakerecordings of
sound.Theycouldonlybeusedtoplaythephonograms whichtheconsumer
hadpurchased orborrowed .Home,copying firstbecamewidespread whenthe
marketing ofcassette taperecorders permitted theordinary consumer to
obtainrelatively cheapandeasilymanagedequipment totransfer recorded
soundfromonesupporttoanother ,perhapsediting itintheprocess .
3.2.2.Thecompactcassette alsogavetheconsumer thefreedomtocarrysound
recordings aroundfromplacetoplaceandtocompileselections of
favourite tracksforuseincarsorelsewhere outside thehome.Compared
withitspredecessor ,theblackvinyldisc,easilydamagedandrequiring
cumbersome playingequipment ,orevenbycomparison withthereelsoftape
foruseonreeltoreelrecorders ,thecompactcassette markedarevolution
inthepopularmusicfield,soongainingpopularity attheexpense
primarily ofthevinyldisc.
3.2.3.Itwassometime,however ,beforeafullrangeoftitlesbecameavailable
inpre-recorded cassette form.Moreover ,thequality ofblanktapeusedin
theearlystagesdidnotalwaysmatchuptothesoundqualityoftheblack
vinylrecord,andnotsurprisingly ,theconsumer soonlearnedtomakehis
owncassette recordings usingabetterqualityofblanktapetocopyhis
ownorborrowed records ortorecordofftheairfrombroadcasts .
3.2.4.Thevideocassette recorder (VCR)permitstheplaybackofpre-recorded
material andtherecording ofbothsoundsandimages,primarily ,inthe
firstinstance atleast,fromtelevision broadcasts .
3.2.5.In1983thelaunchofcompactdiscagainre-introduced theconceptof
play-only machines ,butwithagreatlyenhanced soundqualityand
durability compared withthevinylrecord .Re-usable opticaldiscswhich
wouldallowthetransfer ofmaterial fromonecompactdisctoanotherhave
notyetbeencommercialized forhomeuse,although developments inthis
fieldseempromising .

-102-
3.3.Theinternational legalframework
3.3.1.TheBerneConvention inits1967revisedStockholm textcontains in
Article 9(1)thebasiccopyright principle thatauthorsshallhavethe
exclusive rightofauthorizing thereproduction oftheirworksinany
mannerorform.Itwashoweverclear,evenin1967,inspiteofthe
emerging popularity ofaudiovisualmediaandthecorresponding riskofan
increase inthepractice ofhometaping,thatthisprinciple couldnotbe
upheldwithoutexception ,inparticular inrespectofprivateuse.
Therefore itwasfeltnecessary tofindameansbywhichcopyingwhich
tookplaceintheprivatespherecouldcontinue .Suchcopyingwouldbein
anyevent,uncontrollable ,butitwasbelieved thatMemberStatesshould
befreetopermitcertainkindsofreproduction wheretheauthors'
interests wouldnotbeunreasonably prejudiced .Thewordingofthe
exception clausewithintheframework ofaninternational treatyhad
necessarily tobefairlygeneraltofindapproval byallsignatory States .
Consequently thefollowing waslaiddowninArticle9(2):
"Itshallbeamatterforlegislation inthecountries of
theUniontopermitthereproduction ofsuchworksin
certainspecialcases,provided thatsuchreproduction
doesnotconflict withanormalexploitation ofthework
anddoesnotunreasonably prejudice thelegitimate
interests oftheauthor".
ThiswordingleavesStateswhicharesignatories totheBerneConvention
fairlywideroomformanoeuvre anditisconsequently notsurprising that
thelegalposition hasdeveloped insomewhatdifferent directions inthe
MemberStates .

103-
3.3.2.Thus,theabsence ofprovisions intheoldercopyright lawsofsomeMember
States,andthefailureoftheBerneConvention todealexplicitly withthe
question ofhomecopyingshouldbesituated inthecontext oftheevolution
ofhomecopyingdescribed above.Evenafterthe1967revision oftheBerne
Convention ,itwassometimebeforelegislation wasintroduced inanumber
ofMemberStatesinresponse togrowingpressure fromtherecording
industry toprovideremuneration forrightholders foractsofhome
copying .
3.3.3.Noactionshaveyetbeenbrought byrightholdersagainstindividual home
taperswithintheCommunity .Intheabsence ofeitherexpressprovisions in
national legislations orofcaselaw,theissueofthelegality ofhome
tapingremainsunclear inanumberofMemberStates .
3.3.4.However ,inthoseMemberStateswhichhaveintroduced levyortaxsystems
toprovideremuneration foractsofhomecopying ,itwouldseemevident
thatinreturnforsuchpayment ,homecopying isthenpermitted .Theredoes
notseemtobeanyindication ofatrendinMemberStatestowardsexpressly
permitting homecopyingperse(withoutremuneration )withinpresent
interpretations ofArticle9(2)oftheBerneConvention .
3.4.Thelegalposition intheMemberStates
3.4.1.Thepositions takeninMemberStatesmaybedefined asfollows :
-inonegroupofStates,theposition isundefined bynational legislation
orisdefined sobroadly thatsomeinterested partieshaveclaimedthat
homecopyingmightbeinterpreted asnotpermitted undertherelevant
provisions .Therearenoknowncasestoprovethevalidity ofthis
.interpretation ,andgiventhelikelihood thataCourtinaMemberState
wouldprefernottointervene inwhatanindividual doesinhisownhome,
thesituation intheseMemberStatesisatbesttheoretical ;

-104-
-inasecondgroupofStates,expressprovision hasbeenmadetopermit
homecopying,eitherfreeofchargeunderthegeneralexception provision
contained withinArticle9(2)oftheBerneConvention oragainst
remuneration wherelevyschemeshavebeenbrought in.
MemberStatesappearing totreathomecopyingasaninfringement of
copyright orrelevant neighbouring rights
3.4.2.InIrelandandtheUnitedKingdom ,theproducers ofbothcinematographic
films,aconceptthatincludes videotapesanddiscs,andofsound
recordings havetheexclusive righttoauthorize theirreproduction .In
addition ,anyrecorded literary ,musicalanddramatic worksarealso
protected againstunauthorized reproduction subjecttofairdealing
provisions thatareunlikely tobeapplicable totheactivities ofthe
typicalhomecopier^.Belgium,GreeceandLuxembourg makenoprovision for
fairdealing orprivateuseandaccordingly unauthorized reproduction would
appeartoinfringe relevant rights .Italymakesprovision ofanarrowkind
forprivatecopyingofprotected worksforthepersonal useof"readers"
provided thecopying isdonemanually orbysomemeansunsuitable for
publicdiffusion' 5.Itisdifficult toseehowthehomecopierofsoundor
videorecordings couldsuccessfully relyonthisprovision .
MemberStatesappearing totreathomecopyingaspermitted undernational
legislation
3.4.3.IntheNetherlands ,homecopyingofaudio-visual recordings ispermitted .
Thecopyright lawprovides forthemakingofalimitednumberofcopiesof
protectedworks^forthesolepurposeofthepersonalpractice,studyor
useofthepersonwhomakesthecopiesorwhoordersthemtobemade^.The
permission tocauseathirdpartytomakeacopyforthisprivatepurpose
doesnotextendtoreproductions madebyrecording aworkinwholeorin
partonanarticleintended forcausingtheworktobeheardorseen.
Nevertheless theresultisthathomecopyingofsoundandvideorecordings
bypersonsfortheirownpersonal useinnotatthistimeconsidered an
infringement ofDutchcopyright law.

-105-
3.4.4.Similarly ,inDenmark ,Germany ,Spain,FranceandPortugal copyingof
audio-visual recordings forprivateuseisexplicitly permitted byrelevant
legislation 0.Moreover ,inGermany,Spain,FranceandPortugalprovision is
alsomadeforcompensation ofrightholdersotherthanbroadcasting
organizations fortheprivatecopying oftheirworks.
3.4.5.Article 54oftheGermancopyright law,asamendedbyLawno.33of27June
1985provides thatcertainrightholderscanclaimremuneration through
acollecting societyfortheopportunity tomakecopiesoftheirworksfor
personal useonvideoorsoundsupports .Therightholders inquestion are
authors,performers andrecordproducers .Broadcasting organizations have,
8however,beenexcluded fromthescopeofapplication oftheprovision .
Thisremuneration isfinanced bymeansofalevybothonrecording
equipment andonblanktape.Thelevyhasbeenfixedat2.50DM(1.20ECU)
onaudiorecorders andat18DM(8.66ECU)onvideorecorders .Thelevyon
tapehasbeenfixedat0.12DM(0.06ECU)perhourplayingtimefor
audiotape andat0.17DM(0.08ECU)perhourplayingtimeforvideotape .
Theproceeds ofthelevyaredividedbetweentherelevant rightholders .
3.4.6.TitleIIIoftheFrenchlawof3July1985ontheamendment ofthe
o
copyright lawprovides thatrightholdersshallhavetherighttoreceive
remuneration fortheprivatereproduction ofphonograms andvideograms .The
rightholders inquestion areauthors ,performers andproducers of
phonograms andvideograms .Toprovide asourceofremuneration ,alevyhas
beenimposedonblankrecording tapes,theproceeds ofwhicharepaidtoa
collecting societytobedividedbetweenthevariousrightholders .

-106-
3.4.7.Whilethelawestablishes theprinciple thatthelevyshallbecalculated
onthebasisofplayingtime,thesizeofthelevyandcertaintechnical
detailsastoitscollection andthedistribution oftheproceeds are
decided byacommission composed ofrepresentatives ofthevarious
10interests involved .Thiscommission decided thatthelevyistobe
1.50FF(0.17ECU)perhourplayingtimeforaudiotape and2.25FF(0.33
ECU)perhourplayingtimeforvideotape .Forreproduction ofaudio
material ,authorsaretoreceiveonehalf,whereasperformers andproducers
eachreceiveonequarter ofthetotalproceeds .Fromthelevyon
videotapes ,thethreegroupsmentioned eachreceiveonethirdofthe
proceeds .
3.4.8.InDenmark ,theCopyright LawCommittee suggested inareportcompleted in
111982thatalevyshouldbeintroduced onaudioandvideotape to
compensate certain rightholdersforprivatereproduction .Theright
holders inquestion were,according totheproposal ,tobeauthors ,
performers andphonogram producers .However ,byLawno.257of9June1982,
theParliament introduced anewfiscalmeasureapplicable toboth
videorecorders andvideotapes ,subsequently repealed astovideotapes by
Lawno.184of9April1987.Nobillhasyetbeenintroduced concerning a
copyright levy.
123.4.9.InPortugal ,thenewcopyright lawof1985provides inArticle82fora
levytopromotecultural activities andcompensate authors ,artistsand
producers ofphonograms andvideograms butnotbroadcasters .Thelevyisto
beimposedonallformsofrecording andreprographic equipment and
supports .Theamountofthelevyandtheprecisemannerinwhichitisto
beappliedaretobefixedbyadecreewhichhasnotyetbeenadopted .The
provision thusatpresenthasthecharacter ofaprogramme forfuture
actionratherthanadirectly applicable system .

-107-
133.4.10 .InSpainanewcomprehensive Copyright Lawcontains inArticle25
provisions makingreproduction forprivateuselegitimate against
compensation torightowners,tobefinanced through alevyonblanktape
andrecording equipment .Detailed rulesontheamountofthelevyandthe
shareofdifferent groupsofrightholders intheproceeds ofthelevyare
tobelaiddowninadministrative regulations .
Radioandtelevision broadcasts andcabletransmissions
3.4.11 .Astohomecopying ofradioandtelevision broadcasts andcable
transmissions ,thelegalposition isbroadlysimilartothatofaudio¬
visualrecordings thoughsomedifferences alsoexist.Onenotable legal
14difference concerns thegeneraladmission inIreland andtheUnited
15Kingdom ofhomecopying ofbroadcasts assuchand,intheUnited
16Kingdom ,ofprogrammes transmitted bycable .However ,sincethe
programmes beingbroadcast ortransmitted frequently involvetheuseof
protected workstowhichonlythemuchmorelimitedfairdealingexceptions
17apply ,thepractical significance ofthislegaldistinction ismuch
reduced .Ofmuchgreatersignificance inbothlawandfactistheexclusion
ofbroadcasters fromparticipation intheproceeds ofthelevyschemes in
Germany ,Spain,FranceandPortugal .
3.4.12 .Nevertheless ,whatever thedetailofthedifferences ,theessential result
isthatinonegroupofStatesprivatecopyingofaudio-visual material
beingbroadcast ortransmitted bycableisinterpreted aslawful,whilein
18_ 19«.20othersitnormally isnot.ThusinDenmark ,Germany ,Spain ,
21 ,_. .22France andPortugal expressprovision ismadeauthorizing private
copying,whileintheNetherlands broadcasts ,cabletransmissions andsound
recordings arenotprotected bycopyright oraneighbouring rightatall,
23andprivatecopyingofbroadcast worksisexpressly authorized

-108-
Ontheotherhand,inBelgium,Greece,Ireland,Italy,Luxembourg andthe
UnitedKingdom,privatecopyingisnotexpressly authorized ,exceptfor
broadcasts assuchinIrelandandtheUnitedKingdomandcable
transmissions inthelattercountry .However,ashasbeenseen,these
exceptions areoflimitedsignificance giventhatprogrammes frequently
involvetheuseofprotected works.Thestatusofcabletransmissions may
beuncertain insomecountries ,however,particularly iftheprogramme
beingtransmitted isnotbeingbroadcast overtheaireithersimultaneously
oratall.Butforthepurposes ofthepresentdiscussion ofprivate
copyingthiscomplexquestion willnotbefurtherexplored .
3.4.13 .Beforeconcluding thissummaryofthepresent legalposition ,however ,it
shouldbenotedthatrelevant international agreements ,namely,inaddition
totheBerneConvention fortheprotection ofliterary andartistic
24works ,theRomeConvention fortheprotection ofperformers ,producers of
phonograms andbroadcasting organizations andtheEuropean Agreement on
26theprotection oftelevision broadcasts ,allcontainprovisions which
allowMemberStatestopermitexceptions tobemadeforprivatecopying .
Legislative trendsintheMemberStates
3.4.14 .Reference hasalreadybeenmadetothelawsrecently adopted inGermany ,
Spain,FranceandPortugal asaresponse totheproblem ofprivatecopying .
Consideration isalsobeinggiventolegislative reforms inthisrespect in
otherMemberStates .ItwouldappearthatinthoseMemberStateswhichhave
introduced orwhicharecontemplating theintroduction ofalevyonblank
tapestheaveragelevelofsuchlevyamountstoaround8-10%ofthesales
priceofablankaudiotape.
273.4.15 .InBelgium ,aPrivateMembersBillwasintroduced intheSenateinMay
1986permitting reproduction forprivatepurposes ofaudio-visual works
againstcompensation torightowners .Thecompensation wastobefinanced
through alevyonrecording equipment andblanktape.AsecondBillhas
28recentlybeenintroduced intheSenate ,according towhichthesizeof
thelevyistobefixedat8%ofthesalesprice,theproceeds tobe
divided50%toproducers ,authorsandperformers and50%topromote
cultural activities andtrainperformers .

3.4.16 .
3.4.17 .
3.4.18 .
3.4.19 .
3.5.
3.5.1 .-109-
ForDenmark ,reference hasalreadybeenmadeinparagraph 3.4.12 .tothe
proposal oftheCopyright Committee inrespectofablanktapelevy.The
proposal hasnothowevermadetangible progress towardsbecoming law.
InItaly,anamendment oftheexisting provision oftheCopyright Law
29permitting reproduction "byhand"hasbeenconsidered forsometime.
Pending afinalgovernment position ,aPrivateMembersBillwasintroduced
totheParliament inJuly1986^proposingtomakehomeaudioandvideo
copyinglegitimate against alevyonrecording equipment andblanktape.
Theproposal ,whichisexpected tobere-introduced inthenewParliament ,
issufficiently recentthatrelatively newequipment ,suchastwin-cassette
decktaperecorders ,hasbeentakenintoconsideration andforthoseahigh
levyhasbeenproposed .
IntheNetherlands ,agovernment memorandum favourable totheintroduction
ofprivatecopyingroyalties wasissuedinFebruary 1987andabillhas
beenapproved bytheCouncil ofMinisters on23October1987andisnow
awaiting adoption byParliament .
IntheUnitedKingdom ,thegovernment hasdecidedagainsttheintroduction
ofablanktapelevyintheCopyright DesignsandPatentsBillpublished on
28October1987.TheMinister ofTradeandIndustry indicated thatitwas
feltthatthelevyproposals wentbeyondtheprinciple oftheGovernment
providing legalprotection totheintellectualproperty ofacreative
artist,andthatanyfinancial benefittocopyright ownersandperformers
wouldbeoutweighed bytheadverseeffectsthelevywouldhavehadon
consumers ,especially visually handicapped people .
Hoaecopying inpractice
Theincreasing facility withwhichhomerecordings canbemadeandtheir
steadily improving qualityhasforsometimecausedunderstandable concern
totherelevant rightholders,whoclaimthatthepractice ofhometaping
isnotonlyharmfulbutalso,according totheirinterpretation ofnational
legislation andinternational conventions ,unlawful .

-110-
3.5.2.Whether itisinfactlawfulornot,however,theprivatecopyingof
audio-visual recordings andprogrammes isclearly acommonpractice .
3.5.3.Muchstatistical information hasbeenmadeavailable totheCommission from
interested industries andorganizations onthesizeandevolution ofthe
marketforaudio-visual recordings ,blankrecording tapeandrecording
equipment .
3.5.4.Manystudieshavealsobeensubmitted bythenumerous interest groups
involved inthehometapingissueinsupportoftheirclaims .Toreferin
detailtoallthesestudiesandsubmissions wouldundesirably extendthe
lengthofthisdocument .Themainarguments whichtheycontainare,
however ,summarized inthesections whichfollow .
Themarketforrecording equipment ,blanktapeandaudio-visual recordings
3.5.5.Studiessubmitted totheCommission showthatalthough soundrecording
equipment hasbeenonthemarketforalongtime,ahighpenetration did
nottakeplacebeforethemarketing ofthecassette recorder whichiseasy
touseandcheaptoacquire .InlargerMemberStateslikeGermany ,France
andtheUnitedKingdom,over70%ofprivatehouseholds possessatleastone
31recorder .Figuresfromsmallercountries butwiththesamedegreeof
industrialization pointtothesamelevelofpenetration .Audiocassette
recorders areindeedtodaywithinthereachofalmosteveryone ,eventhose
ofmodestmeans.Manymanufacturers includeportable andin-carrecorders
andplayersamongtheirrangeofproducts .
3.5.6.Thesesoundrecording facilities arecertainly used,asavailable figures
onsalesofblanktapeclearlyshow.Salesoftapeincreased steadily year
byyearfrom1977through1985,reaching particularly highlevelsin
GermanyandtheUnitedKingdomandfortheCommunity asawhole(286
million unitsin1985)

-111
3.5.7.Astovideorecording ,beingamorerecentphenomenon ,ithasyetto
developonthesamescaleasaudiorecording .Inaddition ,the
substantially higherpriceofvideorecording equipment isaconstraining
factor .Nevertheless ,suchfiguresasareavailable showexpanding
penetration ofvideorecorders inhouseholds throughout theCommunity ,
particularly inGermany ,FranceandtheUnitedKingdomwhereapproximately
40%ofallhouseholds possess atleastoneVCR .Likewise ,available
figuresshowthatsalesofblankvideotapehaveincreased steadily in
recentyears,againreaching particularly highlevelsinGermanyandthe
34UnitedKingdom .Theincreasing miniaturization andportability ofvideo
equipment indicate thatitmayintimeoccupyaposition similartothatof
portable soundrecording /playingequipment .
3.5.8.Astosalesofsoundandvideorecordings ,themaintrendsappeartohave
beenthefollowing .
3.5.9.SalesoflongplayingvinyldiscsintheCommunity havefallensteadily
fromtheirpeakof350millionunitsin1978toapproximately 211million
unitsin1985 Asimilartrendisapparent intheUSA.Moreover ,in
spiteofthegeneralincrease incostsandpricesinrecentyears,the
totalworldsalesofallkindsofrecording haveremained constant from
1981to1985atabout12billion USdollars or9.6billion ECU.However ,a
closerexamination oftheavailable datarevealsmorepositive features .

-112-
3.5.10 .Initially ,thedecline invinyldiscsaleswasnotfullycompensated by
increases insalesofotherformsofrecording suchaspre-recorded
cassettes .However,beginning in1983,andmoreobviously from1985,sales
ofcompactdiscsappeartoberedressing thesituation .Justasthecompact
cassette offeredmajoradvantages ofportability andacopyingfacility
overitspredecessor ,thevinyldisc,sotheCDoffersitsownadvantages
ofgreatlyenhanced soundqualityandresistance todamage,thankstothe
useofdigitalrecording techniques anditslaser"reading"technology .
Somemanufacturers werehesitant toembracethenewtechnology and
penetration ofthemarketbyCDwasinitally slow.Investment costsinCD
pressing plantswerehighbutindustry isnowbeginning torecoupsomeof
thatinvestment assalesofCDshaverisendramatically overthepasttwo
years.For1986,itisestimated thatCDsalesworld-wide amountto140
millionunits,morethandoublethepreceding yearand,largelyasaresult
ofthisincrease ,totalworldsalesofallsoundrecordings amountto12.75
billion dollars or10.2billion ECU
3.5.11 .Theturnover inpre-recorded videocassettes showsadifferent trend.On
theonehand,thepenetration ofthevideocassette recorder isstilllower
thanthatoftherecordplayerorthecassette playerandthedegreeof
penetration isverydifferent fromoneMemberStatetoanother .Onthe
otherhand,intheMemberStateswithahighdegreeofpenetration ,
primarily GermanyandtheUnitedKingdom,thesectorshowsahealthy
development inthesensethatinrecentyearstheannualincrease in
turnover ,comprising bothsaleandrentalofvideocassettes ,hasbeen
estimated tobeintheneighbourhood of20%

113-
3.5.12 .Theevolution ofnewrecording techniques hasthusnaturally produced
changes inthemarketforrecorded material .Thereisnosignofthis
tendency comingtoanendorevenslowingdownasnewrecording mediaare
underdevelopment thatarelikelytomodifythesituation further .These
includedigitaltaperecording ;compactdiscsusedfordatastorage
(CD-ROM,thatis,compactdisc-read onlymemory);compactdiscsforvideo
38
(CD-V);compactdiscsthatpermittheusertohaveanactiverolein
relation totherecorded material (CD-I,thatis,compactdisc-interactive )
andtheforthcoming re-usable ,opticaldisc.
3.5.13 .Thusastherelationships betweenthedifferent partsoftheaudio-visual
recording marketbecomecloserandinterfaces developwithother
communication andinformation management systems ,soitbecomes
increasingly important tofindtheappropriate meansforprotecting
relevant copyrights whileallowing thesedynamictechnologies toevolvein
awaythatismostbeneficial totheproducer andconsumer alike.
Theeffectofhomecopying onthemarketforaudio-visual recordings
3.5.14 .Theextenttowhichthedecline insalesofthevinyldiscandtheabsence
ofgrowthintheworldsoundrecording marketfrom1981to1985canbe
attributed tohomecopying isfarfromclear.Manyfactorsotherthanhome
copyingwerecertainly presentwhichcouldaccountfortheresults .Evenif
itisaccepted thathomesoundandvideorecording isanincreasingly
commonpractice ,asthefiguresonsalesofrecording equipment andblank
tapeconfirm ,questions remainastowhethertherecordings madeareof
protected worksand,ifso,whethertheyhaveanegative impactonthe
normalexploitation ofthoseworks.Sincehomecopying isbyitsnaturea
private act,aclearpicture isdifficult todraw.

-114-
3.5.15 .Asfarassoundrecordings areconcerned ,suchsurveyevidence asis
available suggests thatwhileaproportion ofhomerecording doesnot
concernprotected material ,muchofitdoes.European surveysindicate ,for
example ,thatinFrance95%ofallrecordings concerned artistic works,and
that70%weremadefromsoundrecordings ondiscortape,afurther28%
39beingmadefromradioandtelevision .Likewise asurveycarriedoutin
theUnitedKingdomshowedthat84%ofrecordings wereofmusic,mademainly
40fromdiscs (70%),radio(21%)andpre-recorded tapes(6%).Amorerecent
European studyconfirms thatmosthomesoundrecordings areofmusic,the
41mostcommonsourcebeingdiscsandtheradio .
3.5.16 .AsurveycarriedoutintheUSAin1982indicated asubstantially lower
levelofhomecopying ofrecorded music,whichhighlights howdifficult it
istoarriveatgeneralconclusions abouthomecopyingpractices .Evenso,
itindicated thatsuchcopyingconstituted almosthalf(48%)ofthetotal
42usemadeofaudiotapesintherelevant period
3.5.17 .Astovideo,available evidence indicates thatinearlieryearsnearlyall
homerecordings weremadefromtelevision ,withfilmsandentertainment
formingthemajorpartofthesubjectmatter .AFrenchstudyindicated that
92%ofprivatevideorecordings weremadefromtelevision ,withafurther
4%to5%beingmadefrompre-recorded material .Ofthetotalnumberof
recordings made,65%wereoffilmsfollowed by12%consisting ofvariety
programmes .Amorerecentsurveyhasconfirmed thatnearlyallvideo
recording isinfactmadefromtelevision .Further itshowedthatinFrance
83%ofrespondents hadrecorded afilmduringtheweekpreceding the
survey;inGermany ,67%ofrespondents andintheUnitedKingdom ,56%of
respondents .Entertainment programmes werealsopopular,recordings having
beenmadeinthepreceding weekby22%ofrespondents inFrance,34%in
44Germanyand52%intheUnitedKingdom

-115-
3.5.18 .Themostrecentsurvey,LimitedtoGermanyhowever ,indicates agrowing
trendtousevideocassette recorders forreproduction ofpre-recorded
material ,inparticular ,featurefilmswhichoftenareexchanged with
45friends .Thefilmindustry pointsoutthatthoughrecording of
television broadcasts fortime-shift purposes isstillpredominant ,the
reproduction ofpre-recorded material couldsoonbeamatterofconcern .
3.5.19 .Nevertheless ,presentduplication techniques available tothehomeuserdo
notallowtheeasymakingofperfect copiesofpre-recorded videos .
Double-headed machines arenotwidelyavailable sothattwomachines are
needed .Thereisaconsiderable degeneration inqualityfromcopytocopy,
excluding inrealitythemakingofgenerations ofcopies,andhighspeed
copyingfacilities suchasareavailable foraudioarenotyetonthe
consumer market .However ,duplication equipment enabling oneformatof
videotobetransferred toanother isalreadyreported tobereadyfor
launch .Digitaltelevision andvideoarebeingdeveloped .Whenfully
digitalized imagesystemsbecomeareality ,theproblemofnearperfect
homecopymakingcurrently facingtheaudiorecording industry willpresent
itselftovideoproducers .However ,atthepresenttime,available evidence
suggests thathomecopyingofpre-recorded videomaterial isnotextensive .
Unauthorized copying ofpre-recorded videomaterial forgaindoestake
placeinthecommercial spherebutthisaspectismoreappropriately dealt
withinChapter 2onPiracy (seeparagraphs 2.2.12 .-2.2.30).

-116-
Impactofcopyingontheexploitation ofprotected works
3.5.20 .Ifitisclearthatsubstantial amountsofprotected audio-visual material
arecopiedforuseinthehome,thequestion ofwhethersuchcopyinghasa
negative impactontheexploitation ofthoseworksremainstobeanswered .
Asfarasrecording off-air isconcerned ,theexposure ofauthorsviaradio
andtelevision broadcasts hasbeendoublybeneficial torightholders .
First,remuneration forthebroadcasting oftheirworkshasbeenreceived .
Second,thepopularity ofsuccessful creators andproducers ofaudio-visual
workshasbeenlargely afactorofthepromotion theyhavereceived from
radioandtelevision broadcasts .Therefore anyallegedeconomic harmdone
torightholders' economic interests byoff-airrecording shouldbeviewed
againstthisbackground ofgreatlyenhanced revenuefromthebroadcasting
oftheirworks.Asfarasrecording ofpurchased pre-recorded original
audio-visual material isconcerned ,available statistical information is
farlesshelpfulhereforarriving atclearconclusions thoughitappears
likelythatadistinction shouldbedrawnbetweensoundandvideo
recordings .
3.5.21 .Asregardssoundrecordings ,theFrenchstudyof1983indicated thatthe
greatmajority ofhomesoundrecordings weretoberetained fora
46considerable periodoftimeandlistened tofrequently .Ofthe
recordings madeoncassette ,81%weremadeonnewtape;ofthosemadeon
reels,78%.Anintention tokeeptherecording wasindicated in82%ofthe
cases.Astofrequency ofuseofcassettes ,49%hadbeenlistened toon
averagefivetimes,26%onaveragefifteentimes;and25%morethantwenty
times.Cassette recordings werekeptforanaverageoftentoeleven
months,thoseonreelsbeingkeptsubstantially longer,foraperiodofat
leasttwoyears.
3.5.22 .ABritishsurveypublished in1984showedthatrespondents usedthesame
47blanktapesforsoundrecording onaveragesomewhat lessthantwice .The
samesurveyalsoprovided information concerning thelikelihood that
copyingsubstituted forpurchase ofrecordings .Ofthosecopyingfromthe
radio,8%saidthattheywouldverylikelyhaveboughttherecord;and20%
thattheywerequitelikelytohavedoneso.Ofthosewhohadcopiedlong

-117-
playingdiscsortapes,16%saidthattheywoulddefinitely haveboughtthe
recording ,15%saidtheywouldverylikelyhavedonesoand20%thatthey
werequitelikelytohavedoneso.17%saidtheyhadalreadydonesoand
weremakingacopyoftheirownrecording .
483.5.23 .Alaterstudy provides lessclearresultssinceinformation isnot
available inthesamedetailontheperiods oftimeforwhichrecordings
werekept,thefrequency withwhichtheywereplayedorthepossibility of
respondents buyingrecordings ifcopyinghadnotbeenpossible .
Nevertheless ,permanent retention ofthecopieswasindicated asthe
intention inover15%ofcases,withtemporary retention ,unquantified ,
alsoforming asubstantial butunspecified proportion ofthetotal.Editing
orswitching thesupportwasgivenasthereasonforcopying inanother30%
ofthecases .
3.5.24 .Information available onhometapingofTVprogrammes andvideocassettes
takenasawhole,thoughlimited,pointstoasignificant difference :a
muchsmallerproportion ofsuchrecording seemsintended forlongterm
retention andsuccessive viewing onasignificant numberofoccasions .The
49Frenchstudyof1983showedthatonly36%ofthehomevideorecordings
inthehouseholds surveyed hadbeenmadeonnewtape.Anintention tokeep
recordings permanently wasindicated inover45%ofcasesbutinreality
recordings appeared tobekeptpermanently toalesserdegree .Theaverage
lengthoftimerecordings werekeptwasapproximately twoandahalf
months,whiletheywereplayedonaverageonlyfourtimes.
3.5.25 .Thelaterstudyconfirms thefindings oftheearlieroneinthesensethat
permanent retention wastheobjective inarelatively smallproportion of
thecases,between5%and10%

-118-
3.6.Newtechnical possibilities
3.6.1.Someofthenewtechnical developments suchasDATtowhichreference has
alreadybeenmadewillalmostcertainly furthermodifyhomecopying
practices .Whileforecasting thefutureisnecessarily hazardous ,an
attemptmustbemadetounderstand andevaluate themostimportant
implications ofthesedevelopments sincetheymayaffectnotonlythescale
andnatureoftheproblembutalsothepossible meansfordealingwithit.
Digitalrecording techniques
3.6.2.Digitalrecording techniques ,whetherappliedtosound,imageordata,
employthesamebasicprinciples .Inthecaseofsound,information about
thesoundstoberecorded issampledandthenconverted intobinarycodein
thesamewayasinformation isnormally processed byacomputer .Thecode
canthenbe"re-translated "backagaintoproduce theexactsoundwhichwas
originally recorded .Whensoundisrecorded byanalogue meansby
conventional recorders ,thereisalossofsoundqualityeverytimeacopy
ismade.Thisputsalimitinpractice onthenumberofgenerations ofcopy
whichcanbemade.Digitalrecording willhavenosuchlimits .Eachcopy
willbeperfect ,atleastasfarastheordinary listener isconcerned ,and
canserveasamasterfromwhichmanyothergenerations ofcopycanbe
made.Averysmallnumberofpurchased original recordings couldserveto
generate manythousands ofperfect "clone"copies .Thedigitalcassette
recorder willundoubtedly openupnewmarkets inthedatastorageandaudio
recording fields .Although compactdiscandCD-Romhaveadvantages ofspeed
ofaccessanddurability ,thehighcostandtechnical complexity ofthe
discpressing process isalimiting factorontherateofentryontothe
marketofsmallnewcompanies .Cheaperandsimplerrecording and

-119-
duplication facilities usingdigitaltapewilltherefore widenthe
opportunities available forgrowthinthemarketforspecialist products .
TheCommission welcomes theadventofDATforthisreasonandisconscious
ofthefactthatthepossibilities ofDATasarecording mediummaypresent
considerable advantages tothepopularmusicmarket .Atthesametime,
digitaltapewillcomplement theexistence ofdigitaldiscsinthesameway
thatanalogue tapehasco-existed withanalogue vinyldiscs,atleastfor
suchtimeasdiscsfortheconsumer marketremain"playonly".
3.6.3.TheDATrecorder referred toinparagraph 3.6.1.aboveisintended forthe
recording ofsound.Othertypesofdedicated digitalrecorders arebeing
developed ,forexample ,forthedatastoragemarket,withappropriate
modifications totheelectronic specifications .
Technical protection devices .
3.6.4.Atthesametimeasthesenewformsofrecording areappearing ,attention
isalsobeinggiventothedevelopment oftechnical devicesthatmightbe
usedtoprevent orcontrolcopying ofrecorded material .Asummaryofthese
technical protection systems iscontained inanAppendix tothischapter .
3.6.5.Alltechnical protection devicesraiseissuesastotheirreliability in
practice ,astotheirpossible effectsonuseoftheequipment forplaying
authorized material ,andastohowtheirusewouldaffectthebalanceof
interests amongrightholders ,equipment producers andconsumers .Before
examining theseissues,however ,itwouldseemusefultosituatethat
analysis byreference totheviewsalreadyexpressed onthehomecopying
debateasawholebythemainprotagonists .Theseremarksreflectthe
arguments whichhavebeenputtotheCommission andmaybeinpartatleast
conjectural owingtothedifficulty ofobtaining reliable evidence asto
activities intheprivate sphere .

-1Z0-
3.7.Theviewsofinterested parties
Demandsforgreaterprotection
3.7.1.Ontheoneside,,therecording industry ,frequently supported by
organizations representing otherrightholders ,arguesinfavourof
measures tocompensate themforhomecopyingand,morerecently ,tolimit
possibilities forhomerecording throughthemandatory application of
technical anti-copying devices toDATrecorders .
3.7.2.Theyclaimthatprivatecopyingofaudioandvideomaterial ,whetherlawful
ornot,isatpresentoccurring onsuchaconsiderable scaleandforsuch
purposes thatitconflicts withthenormalexploitation oftheworksbeing
copiedandunreasonably prejudices thelegitimate interests oftheright
holders .Therelatively lowlevelofsalesofdiscsfrom1979to1984and
surveyevidence towhichreference hasalreadybeenmadearecitedasa
measure ofthenegative effectofhomecopying .Thesoundrecording
industry inparticular claimsthatunlimited privaterecording facilities
jeopardize theprofitability oftheindustry byreducing therevenue
generated bymorepopularworks,whichitisclaimedmakesitmore
difficult tomaintain abroadrepertoire containing worksofless
popularity .Newtechnical developments aresaidtoexacerbate theproblem .
Thehighspeed,double-headed recorder greatlyfacilitates thepractice of
copying .Thedigitalaudiorecorder isalreadybeingmarketed ,which,
withoutprotection measures ,couldpermitcopiestobemadeofveryhigh
quality,comparable eventooriginals recorded oncompactdiscs.Further
developments canbeexpected which,itisclaimed ,willincrease evenmore
thefacility ,speedandtechnical qualityofhomecopying .These
developments inthe"hardware "available tothepublicentailtheriskof
furtherseriousdamagetothe"software "sideoftherecording industry .

-121-
3.7.3.Although intheory,rightholdersmaintain thattheywouldpreferincreased
salesandreducedprivatecopyingoftheirworks,whenrecommending
appropriate measures todealwiththeproblem ,theyhaveuntilrecently
underlined thedifficulty ofeffectively controlling whattakesplacein
theprivatesphereintheabsence ofanyeffective technical orlegalmeans
topreventcopying .Forthisreason,theyhavepromoted legalprovisions
whichrecognized thepractice aslegitimate butensured areasonable return
torightholders asthemostsolidbasisforasolution .
3.7.4.According tothisschoolofthought ,privatereproduction mustbepermitted
againstcompensation basedonalevyonrecording equipment orblanktapes
orboth.Thesizeofthelevyshouldbesuchthatitwouldgiveright
holdersandproducers compensation moreorlessequivalent totheusemade
ofprotected material andtothelossescausedbythepractice .Thelevy
couldbecollected throughexisting collecting societies anddistributed to
authorsandproducers onthebasisusedinanumberofMemberStatesfor
thecollection anddistribution ofremuneration duetoauthors and
producers forthesaleandbroadcast ofrecords .Suchmechanisms ,basedon
apointssystemrelatedtosalesorair-play andonreportsfromrelevant
organizations ,havebeenapplied inotherareas.Exceptions couldbemade
forcertaincategories ofuserwhohaveaparticular needtomake
recordings ,suchas,forexample,inthecaseoftheblind.
3.7.5.ThearrivalofDATandthenewpossibilities fortechnical protection have
ledtoamodification ofthisapproach ,atleastinsofarasDATis
concerned .Toprotectworksrecorded oncompactdisc,somesections ofthe
recording industry initially favoured themandatory inclusion oftheCBS
Copycode System (seeAppendix )inallDATrecorders tobemarketed for
privateuse,together withancillary measures tomakeitillegalto
circumvent ortomakeavailable devices forcircumventing thesystem .
Legislation toachievethisgoalwaspromoted intheUSAandinEuropeby
thosewhosupported therecording industry view.Thelevysystemis
considered inadequate todealwiththeallegedly greatereconomic harm
whichDATcouldimplyforrightowners .Therecording andhardware
industries nowappeartofavourothertechnical solutions basedondigital
recording technology itself.Forexample,alternatives basedondraft

-122-
specifications drawnupbytheInternational Electrotechnical Committee
havebeenproposed .Thesealternatives called,forthesakeofconvenience ,
SOLOCOPY ,addressthespecific characteristic ofdigitalaudiorecording ,
namelythepossibility ofmaking"pyramids "ofcopiesfromonedigital
original .Theseproposals aredescribed intheAppendix .
Opposition todemands forgreaterprotection
3.7.6.Theopposite schoolofthought ,ledbyrepresentatives oftheblanktape
industries ,somesections ofthehardware industry andsupported bycertain
consumer organizations ,hasinthepastrejected theclaimsofthe
recording industry andotherrightownersastotheharmdonebythe
practice ofhomecopying .
3.7.7.First,theprejudice allegedtobecausedhasbeendenied .Asregardsvideo
material ,sincemostcopying isforthepurposes oftimeshifting of
television broadcasts ,thenegative effectonotherformsofexploitation
issaidtobeinsubstantial and,ifitexists,shouldbetakenintoaccount
whenrightholderssettlethetermsonwhichmaterial willbebroadcast .As
tosoundrecordings ,itisarguedthattherelatively lowlevelsofdisc
salesfrom1979to1984shouldbesetagainstincreasing salesof
pre-recorded tapes,andmorerecently ,compactdiscs.Atpresent ,the
recordmarketisbelieved tobeshowingclearsignsofrecovery .Itis
furtherclaimedthatmuchcopyingtakesplacefromsourcesforwhichthe
consumer hasalreadypaid,eitherdirectly inthecaseofhisownrecords
ortapes,orindirectly ,asinthecaseofrecording off-air .Itis
therefore arguedbythesegroupsthattransferring musicalreadypurchased
ononeformofcarrierontoanotherformofcarrierforpersonal usedoes
notcauseprejudice torightowners'interests .

-123-
3.7.8.Forbothvideoandsound,thisschoolofthoughtfurtherarguesthatthe
"software "and"hardware "sidesoftherecording industry are
interdependent andthatanyanalysis shouldgobeyondidentifying adverse
economic effects ,ifany,ofhomerecording onthe"software "side.The
beneficial effectsshouldalsobetakenintoconsideration ,anditis
claimedthattheseeffectsareconsiderable .Hometapingissaidto
xstimulate consumers topurchase recordsandpre-recorded tapes,asportable
recorders aresaidtoincrease thedemandforportable music.Rightholders
arealsosaidtoreceiveadditional benefits fromvideorecorders creating
amarketforpurchased orrentedpre-recorded cassettes .Thefilmindustry
isprofiting fromthisoutletwhichhascreated animportant marketfor
olderfilmsandevenfilmsconsidered commercial failures inother
context s.
3.7.9.Asregardslevyschemes ,theclaimismadethatsuchschemeswould
inevitably beoverlybroadandcrudeintheirapplication .Theywould
subsidize copyright ownersattheexpense ofthepublic .Noschemecould
comeintooperation withoutallpurchasers ofrecorders andblanktapes
payingtheroyaltyregardless ofintended oractualuse.Exceptions for
particular groupsofusersaresaidtobeimpractical andinanycasewill
notsolvetheproblem oftheordinary userwhomaywellbuytapesfor
purposes otherthancopyingprotected material andwillbeunfairly
penalized whenhedoesso.Theproblem ofdifferentiating betweenleviable
andnon-leviable products willbecomeallthemoredifficult asnewtypes
ofrecording supportaredeveloped ,suchastheprogrammable opticaldisc
anddigitalaudiotape,whichmayhavemanyusesnotinvolving the
reproduction ofcopyright material orwhichmaybeusedtocopymaterial
suchascomputer programs wherealevywouldbeconsidered inadequate
compensation foractsofunauthorized reproduction .Finally ,levieswould

-124-
involveaseriousmisallocation ofrevenueandwouldbehighlyunjustsince
compensation wouldbeallocated primarily topopularauthorsandother
successful rightholdersor,inotherwords,tothoseleastinneedof
subsidies .Although anumberofMemberStateshaveintroduced legislation
infavourofleviesonblanktapeand/orequipment ,itisinteresting to
notethatinthemostrecentinstance ofdiscussion onthesubject,' the
UnitedKingdomhascomedownstrongly againstleviesint.heCopyright
DesignsandPatentsBillcurrently beforeParliament (seeparagraph
3.3.19).
3.7.10 .Devicestopreventunauthorized copyingwereinitially rejected bythe
majority ofthosewhoopposeleviesashavingnegative consequences that
outweigh theirbenefits torightholders .Theyweresaidtorisk
stultifying important technological developments andthepotential markets
forhardware andsoftware associated withthem.Doubtwasexpressed about
thesystems' efficacity and,insomecases,theirpossible negative effects
onsoundquality .Theriskthataudio-visual material wouldbe"lockedup"
inanundesirable waywasalsostressed .Inspiteoftheseconcerns ,there
isnoweveryindication thatthehardware andmusicrecording industries
mightfindacompromise technical solution acceptable totheirrespective
interests .Thesolutions currently underdiscussion appearcapableof
avoiding theshortcomings indicated above,unlikeearlierproposals for
systemssuchasCopycode (seeAppendix ).

125-
A"payatsource"approach tothehomecopyingproblem
3.7.11 .Ithasbeensuggested insomecirclesthatremuneration ofrightholders in
returnforactsofhomecopyingcouldalsobeachieved bymeansofacharge
applied atthemomentoffirstsale,nottothecarrier orsupportonwhich
thecopyismade,buttothematerial whichiscopied .Thisapproach has
alreadybeenadopted invaryingformsinthefieldsofpay-television ,data
baseoperation andthemarketing ofcomputer software wherearateis
charged forthegoodsorservices commensurate withtheusewhichthe
consumer canbeexpected tomakeofthem.Intime,telecommunications
networks willalsobewidelyusedforthetransmission ofentertainment
products suchassoundandvideorecordings .Whensuchintegration occurs,
the"payatsource"approach maywellprovetobefinancially beneficial to
rightholders .Thiswouldbe,ineffect,directenhancement oftheroyalty
whichrightholdersalreadyreceive fortheirworks.Objections havebeen
raisedtothisconcept bythemusicrecording industry whichfearsthatthe
chargewillbeseensimplyasapriceincrease tothefirstpurchaser which
wouldhaveadepressive effectonmarkets andcouldindeedexacerbate the
homecopyingproblem .
3.8.ThenainissuesfortheConnunity
3.8.1 .ThemainissuesfortheCommunity concerning audio-visual homecopying at
thepresent timeappeartobethefollowing .
3.8.2 .First,towhatextentshoulditbeconcluded thathomecopyingadversely
affectsthelegitimate exploitation ofcertainaudio-visual worksand,if
so,whichones?Howdothelatesttechnical developments appearlikelyto
affecttheposition ?
3.8.3 .Second,ifsuchadverseeffectscanbeestablished ,whatlegislative
response atCommunity level,ifany,seemspreferable ?Inthisconnection ,
istherearoletobeplayedbyCommunity ruleseitheronlevieson
recording media,onmandatory technical protection devicesora
pay-at-sourceapproach ?

-126-
3.8.4.Third,ifanyofthesesolutions areretained ,howfarcantheybeapplied
consistently withthespiritoftheBerneConvention (Article9(2))andin
fairness toallinterested parties?
3.9.TheCommission 'spresentorientations
3.9.1.Theevidence available atpresentsuggests that,asregardssound
recordings ,homecopyingdoeshavenegative butunquantif iableeffectson
thelegitimate exploitation ofrecorded works.Noneofthestudiesreferred
tohasbeenabletoquantify withprecision theextenttowhichhome
copyinghassubstituted forsalesofpre-recorded material duetothe
inherent difficulty inassessing consumer behaviour intwelveMember
States .Estimates astothevolumeoflostsalesvarywidelyandarein
manycasesexaggerated .Theonlyaccurate starting pointforassessing the
substitution effectisthesaleofblanktapesintheCommunity ,estimated
at350millionunitsayear.Butnotallhomecopiessubstitute for
legitimate sales,particularly wheretheyaremadebypersonswhohave
themselves purchased therecording inquestion ,orwherecopieshavebeen
madeoff-air ofworkswhicharenotforsale.According tothemusic
industry 'sowncalculations ,ifhomecopyingweretobeprevented ,around
25%ofthosewhonowtransfer musicfromonecarrier toanother would
definitely purchase thesamematerial inpre-recorded form.This
calculation wouldindicate thattheupperlimitofthesubstitution effect,
orthe"loss"toauthorsincasehomecopyingfromallsourcesweretotally
prevented ,wouldamounttoapproximately 1.5billionECUperyear.Sincea
significant proportion ofthosewhocopyathomedosofromsourcesthey
havealreadypurchased ,itseemsreasonable toexpectthatsalesof
pre-recorded musicwouldnotnecessarily increase dramatically ,evenif
homecopyingofrecorded sourcesweretotallyprevented .Ontheotherhand,
iftechnical measures canbeintroduced topreventthecopyingofcertain
sources,andinparticular ,theproduction ofsecondandthirdgenerations
ofcopies,salesofpre-recorded material couldbeexpected torise,with
increased revenuetorightholdersinconsequence .Thisisespecially the
casefordigitalrecordings ,whichallowtheconsumer toproduce acopy
whichisineffectidentical toastudiomastertape,implying thathome
copyingcouldinfuturesubstitute forpurchases oforiginals toamuch

-127-
greaterextentthanatpresentusinganalogue techniques .Giventhe
increasing densityandvalueofthematerial whichcanberecorded
I
digitally ondiscsandtapes,andthefactthatsound,imageanddata
collections canbetransferred cheaply ,rapidlyandperfectly fromone
supporttoanother ,theCommission believes thaturgentactioniscalled
fortoprotect rightholdersagainstunauthorized reproduction oftheir
worksbydigitalmeans.Inviewofthefactthatanalogue products ,
especially vinyldiscs,maybecomingtotheendoftheirlifespan,the
Commission doesnotviewtheproblem ofhomecopying ofanalogue products
withthesamedegreeofurgency .
3.9.2 .Astovideorecordings ,theavailable evidence isinconclusive .Most
recording isoftelevision programmes ,andforthepurpose of
time-shifting ,thatis,toenabletelevision viewers tore-schedule their
viewingtosuitthemselves .Itwouldseemthatthemajority ofprogrammes
recorded off-air athomearenotavailable forsaleinvideocassette form
andrecording doesnottherefore substitute forpurchase ofvideo.Even
wherethesubject ofarecording fromtelevision isafeaturefilm,the
prejudicial effectonotherexploitations oftheworkisunlikely tobe
substantially greaterthantheeffectofshowing itontelevision inthe
firstplace.Homecopyingofpre-recorded videomaterial isstilla
relatively limitedphenomenon andthenegative effectonthecommercial
exploitation ofthoseworkscorrespondingly small.
3.9.3.Newtechnical developments maywellexacerbate thehomecopyingproblemfor
videoaswellasforsound.Digitaltechniques ,inparticular ,seemlikely
tostimulate homecopyingsincetheyholdouttheprospect oftheeasy
makingofperfectcopies,inthenottoodistantfuture,ofvideo
recordings also.Therefore ,sinceintime,allinformation management ,
communications andentertainment systemswillbedigitalized and
inter-related ,anysolution whichisretained mustbeappropriate to
developments inthevideoandinformation management fieldsevenif,inso
doing,nototallyadequate remedycanbefoundforthecopyingofthe
presentgeneration ofanalogue products .

-128-
3.10.Possible legislative responses
Principles/
3.10.1 .Inestablishing whetherlegislative measures areneededatCommunity level
and,ifso,whattheircontentshouldbe,theCommission hassoughtto
/
applythefollowing principles .
3.10.2 .First,copyright lawsshouldseektoensurethatrightholders in
audio-visual workscanauthorize ,preventoratleastrequireremuneration ,
foranyreproduction oftheirprotected workswhichwilladversely affect
theirordinary saletoasubstantial degree .Inotherwords,itshouldnot
bepossible ,inprinciple ,tocopyaprotected workinsteadofbuyingit.
Thecreative andfinancial investment devotedtothemakingoftheworkis
entitled tobeprotected againstcopyingparticularly wherethatcopying
enablesconsumers toproduceunlimited quantities ofperfectreplicas of
theoriginal recording ,andthustoreducethemarketforlegitimate sales
oftheproduct .Whereapurchase hasbeenmadeofapre-recorded source,or
paymentmadedirectly orindirectly toreceive abroadcasting transmission ,
inbothofwhichcasesaroyaltyhasbeenreceived bytherightholder,it
shouldbepossible toreproduce thatsourceortransmission forpersonal
use.TheCommission feelsthatsuchreproduction forpersonal usedoesnot
undulyprejudice thenormalexploitation ofthework.
3.10.3 .Atthesametime,copyright protection foraudio-visual worksshouldnot
prejudice thefunctioning ofacompetitive marketinsuchworksnorthe
development ofnewaudio-visual technologies .Onthecontrary ,copyright
shouldprovideanimportant partofthelegalenvironment whichfavours
creativity ,innovation andcompetition .
3.10.4 .Inaddition ,remedies shouldnotbeadoptedforwantofanything betterif
todosowouldsimplysubstitute onesetofinjustices foranother .In
mattersoflegislation ,something isnotnecessarily betterthannothing .
Abstention issometimes thebestsolution .

-129-
SoLutions
Mandatory technical solutions
3.10.5 .Applying theseprinciples ,theCommission hasconcluded that,withregard
toDAT,Community measures torequire adegreeoftechnical protection
wouldbedesirable provided thattheyaretechnically feasible andproperly
balanced inrespect ofalltheinterests concerned .
3.10.6 .Atechnical solution ofatypesimilar tothoseoutlined intheAppendix
wouldhavethefollowing advantages :itwouldallowrightholderstofixa
limitonthenumberofcopieswhichcouldbemadeoftheirworks,andfor
thefirsttimeeffectively tocontrolwhichsourcescouldbecopied :it
wouldpermithardware andtapemanufacturers toenjoyapproximately the
samemarketfortheirproducts asatpresentwhilstencouraging the
development ofnewtechnologies tothefull :itwouldallowtheconsumer
thefreedom tomakecopiesofworksforpersonal usewithinfairlygenerous
limits .Ineffect,oncedigitalization iscomplete intheaudiofield,the
consumer willhaveathisdisposal approximately thesamesources asat
present ,namely,radio,pre-recorded material andmicrophone .Suchcopying
wouldbelimited sothatcopiesmadeonaDATrecorder couldnotserveas
mastersforsubsequent generations ofcopy.Atthesametime,the
specialist andhandicapped userwouldbefreetouseDATtechnology tomeet
particular needs.
3.10.7 .Nosolution iswithoutdisadvantages ,anditisclearthatatechnical
solution ,inaddition totherisksofcircumvention ormalfunction inherent
insuchsystems,willposedifficulties inrespectofadifferentiation
betweenprofessional anddomestic userproducts .Suchadistinction mustbe
madeifDATtechnology istodeveloptothemaximum ,andifsmaller
recording studiosandindividual professional usersaretohaveaccessto
thebenefits ofdigitalaudiorecording techniques .

-130-
3.10.8 .Similarly ,adistinction mustbemaintained fortheforeseeable future
betweenmachines foraudiouseandthosefordatastorage .Solutions
appropriate totheformercannotbeappliedtothelatter .Itisnot
proposed toplacetechnical limitations onDATmachines fordatastorage
useprovided thattheyremainincapable ofbeingusedtorecordaudio.
3.10.9 .Itisintended thatthetechnical measures described shouldbeappliedto
allDATaudiomachines irrespective oftheirtype.Ifmanufacturers wished
toput"professional "audiomachines onthemarket,withspecifications
whichdifferfromthoserequired underthetechnical protection proposals ,
theywouldapplyforalicencetoputsuchequipment onthemarketinthe
52samewayasmanufacturers ofDATcontactprinters ordesigntheminsuch
awaythatprofessional andhomeaudiorecorders arenotinterconnectable .
3.10.10 .Inthisway,bonafideusersofprofessional machines ,suchasrecording
studios ,broadcasters ,educational establishments andthelikewillnotbe
deprived oftheopportunity touseequipment designed fortheirspecific
needs.Suchmachines willnotbeallowedontothegeneralconsumer market,
andmanufacturers andimporters willhavetotakesomeresponsibility for
ensuring thatthetwomarketsarekeptseparate .Anyotherdifferentiation
basedonpriceortechnical specifications isboundinthelongtermtobe
subjecttocircumvention .Itisonlybymaintaining somemeasure ofcontrol
overthedistribution of"professional "equipment thatthefreedomforthe
consumer tocopytotheextentproposed canbeguaranteed .
3.10.11 .Thebasicconceptofalegalframework requiring digitaltaperecording
equipment produced ormarketed intheCommunity orimported fromnon-Member
Statestoincorporate particular technical features designed tolimitits
useforunauthorized homecopyingappearstherefore tobeworthyofserious
consideration .Suchanapproach couldtaketheformofalegalinstrument
whichwouldobligetheMemberStatestoprohibit theproduction ,
commercialization orimportation ofsuchmachines unlesstheyconformto
certainspecified technical requirements .Ancillary measures prohibiting
devicestofrustrate theoperation ofsuchtechnical protection systems
wouldalsohavetobeincluded .

-131-
3.10.12 .TheCommission hasconcluded thattheincorporation oftechnical protection
systemsintoexisting analogue machines ,whatever itsattractions in
theory,wouldinpractice proveunworkable inviewofthere-design costs
involved andthevolumeofexisting products alreadyonthemarket .
3.10.13 .Astothedifferent possible protection devicescurrently underdevelopment
forDATmachines ,theinformation atpresentavailable suggests thata
numberofsuchdevicesaretechnically feasible andwouldgivesomemeasure
ofprotection torightownersagainstunauthorized reproduction oftheir
works.Itwouldbepremature atthispointtoattempt adefinitive
evaluation ofthetechnical meritsofanyparticular system .Itsuffices to
saythat,inprinciple ,anidealsystemwouldpresentthefollowing
characteristics .First,itwouldencourage technological development and
conformtothegeneraltrendtowardsfullydigitalized systems inthe
audio-visual field.Second,itwouldaccommodate futuredevelopments in
telecommunications andinformation management systems .Third,itwould
permitthefullpotential forhighquality ,flexible ,digitalsound
reproduction ofbothdiscandtapetobedeveloped inparallel .Fourth,it
wouldofferrightownersameasureofcontrolovertheunauthorized
reproduction oftheirworks.Fifth,itwouldallowtheconsumer tohave
accessto,andtomakefairuseofthesoundrecordings andtransmissions
forwhichhehaspaid.
3.10.H.Itisself-evident thatnotechnical solution caneverbeguaranteed
againstdeliberate attempts atcircumvention .However ,ifareasonable
degreeofsecurity canbeachieved together withnodeterioration inthe
quality ofproductofferedtotheconsumer ,andareduction inthelevelof
saleslostthroughhomecopying ,thenatechnical protection systemoffers
asolution whichisworthyofconsideration .
3.10.15 .Itishopedthatinterested circleswillthemselves workconstructively to
provide asolution whichcanberapidlyimplemented andeffectively
maintained inforce.Preliminary evaluation ofsomesystemshasalready
takenplace.Furtherdetailed consultation withtheindustries concerned
willbepursued iftheprinciple ofatechnical protection systemis
accepted .

-132
3.10.16 .Accordingly ,theCommission invitescomments onthedesirability ofa
technical solution whichwouldpermitDATrecorders tocarryoutcertain
limitedcopyingfunctions ,butwhichwouldatthesametimeimpose
restraints onthescopeandnatureofthatcopying .Theremayalsobea
needforparticular provisions tobemadeforspecialcategories ofusers
ofdigitalaudioequipment .
Levies
3.10.17 .Asalreadyindicated ,inspiteofanylimitation ofDATrecording as
suggested above,copyingfromanalogue sourcesbyanalogue recorders would
continue tobepossible .Whiletheinevitable deterioration inqualitywill
inpractice limittheextenttowhichcopieswillthemselves bereproduced
byanalogue means,nevertheless ,aslongasahighqualityanalogue source
andanalogue recorder areused,goodqualitycopieswillstillbe
realizable .Intime,digitalsoundrecording equipment willreplacemost
analogue systems .Forthepresent ,thequestion ofwhetherrightholders in
analogue audio-visual recordings shouldbecompensated forthereproduction
forprivateuseoftheirworksbyanalogue meansand,ifso,whetherthis
shouldbebymeansofalevy,remainstobeanswered .
3.10.18 .Inthecaseofsoundrecordings ,theCommission hasweighedmostcarefully
theevidence presented infavourofandagainstlevyschemesperseandin
favourofandagainstmeasures togeneralize levyschemesbywayof
harmonization attheleveloftheEuropean Community .
3.10.19 .Asregardstheadvantages anddisadvantages oflevyschemes,itisnot
necessary orappropriate fortheCommission topronounce itselfinfavour
oforagainstsuchschemesinsofarastheyhavebeenintroduced alreadyin
anumberofMemberStates .TheCommission isoftheviewthatwheresuch
schemeshavebeenintroduced ,itistheresponsibility ofrightholdersto
ensurethatthecollection anddistribution ofrevenues issatisfactory .

-133-
3.10.20 .TheCommission doesnotintendtoproposethatexisting levyschemes
covering analogue products shouldberemovedwhererightholdersare
satisfied thattheyareworkingtotheiradvantage onanalogue products .
ThisisamatteronwhichMemberStatesarecompetent todecidefor
themselves .Levyschemesgenerate revenueforrightholdersandinthose
countries wheretheyhavebeenintroduced ,rightholdersappeartofind
themanacceptable solution .
3.10.21 .Nevertheless ,theCommission feelsitwouldbeinadvisable toviewlevy
schemes asthemostappropriate solution tothecopyingofworksbydigital
means.Theamountofrevenuewhichcanbegenerated inthiswaywillnever
adequately compensate rightholdersforthelossesincurred byunrestricted
digitalcopying .Similarly ,theincreasing interchangeability ofcarriers
andsupports andthetrendtowardsintegrated digitalnetworks and
integrated products combining data,imageandsoundmakethelevyan
inadequate toolwithwhichtoregulate thehomecopyingpractices ofthe
future .
3.10.22 .NordoestheCommission feelitappropriate totakestepsatthislate
stagetoharmonize existing levyschemesonanalogue products .Thereasons
forthisareasfollows :
First,analogue products arebecoming obsolete .Digitalradioreceivers are
expected tobeonthemarketwithintwoyears,digitalaudioisavailable
nowascompactdiscandDAT.Digitalvideowillfollowwithinafewyears.
Allleisure ,telecommunications andinformation management technology is
movingrapidlyintothetotallydigitaldomain .AnyCommission initiative
nowwouldrequire acommitment oftimeandresources whichwouldriskbeing
madeobsolete itselfbythemarchofprogress within adecade .
Second,theCommission isnotconvinced thatleviesareentirely inthe
interests ofrightholders ,moreespecially ofcreative artists ,inthat
theysanction unlimited actsofhomecopyingregardless ofthevalueofthe
workcopied .

-134-
Third,thepossible distortion ordeflection oftradebetweenMemberStates
whichcouldresultfromdifferences betweenleviable andnon-leviable
products anddiffering ratesofleviesdoesnotappearsufficiently
important tojustifyaCommunity initiative atthisstage.Existing levy
schemesdonotand,indeed,neednotentailsystematic controls atthe
borders asiscurrently thecasewithrespecttofiscalmeasures .In
addition ,theschemesoperateonthebasisofdirectreporting arrangements
betweentherelatively limitednumberofproducers andimporters ,onthe
onehand,andthedesignated collecting societies ontheotherhand.In
thisrespecttoo,thecollection ofleviescannotbeequatedwiththe
collection ofvalueaddedtaxes.Thecollection oflevieswillcontinue to
operate inmuchthesamewayevenaftertheabolition ofinternal frontiers
after1992.Equally,thevalueoftheproducts themselves intheeconomyas
awholeandthesmalldivergencies intheirpriceasaresultofafailure
toharmonize leviesdonotcallforactiononthepartoftheCommission of
thesameorderastheproposals inothermoreimportant areas.
3.10.23 .Astovideorecording ,atpresententirely analogue andlikelytoremainso
foranuncertain periodintothefuture,theevidence is,ashasbeenseen,
inconclusive .Inthesecircumstances ,aCommunity initiative togeneralize
thelevyschemesalreadyadopted insomeMemberStateswouldnotbe
justified .Anymeasures takenasregardstechnical protection ofdigital
recordings mightofcourseincidentally offerprotection inpractice tothe
newtypesofaudio-visual worklikelytobemarketed inthefuture .Evenif
imagesarerecorded analogically ,theywillbeoflimitedinterest ifthe
soundanddatatowhichtheyrefercannotbereproduced aswell.In
addition ,existing systemsofprotection asdescribed inparagraph 3.15.2 .
oftheAppendix tothischapteralreadyoffersomemeasure ofsecurity to
rightsownersagainstunauthorized reproduction ofpre-recorded video
cassettes .National legislation andtechnical developments willbekept
underreviewwithaviewtoensuring thatappropriate actionistakenifit
becomesnecessary .

135-
The"payatsource"approach
3.10.24 .Thissolution hascertainadvantages /namelythatitadaptsthepresent
royaltysystemtoremunerate rightholdersdirectly andproportionately in
relation tosalesorair-play oftheirworks.Collection anddistribution
ofthechargecouldbecarriedoutbyexisting collecting societies ,anda
relatively modestpriceincrease wouldgenerate substantial additional
revenuetorightholders .A"payatsource"approach couldbemost
effectively applied infuture,whenthenetworking ofsound,imageanddata
bydigitaltransmission systemsbecomescommonplace ,ifatechnical
solution isadoptednowatanearlystage.Ontheotherhandtheobjections
astotheroughjustice ofasystemwhichimposes achargeonallwho
purchase arecording regardless oftheirintention tocopyornotcannotbe
ignored ,norcantheargument thatpayment byconsumers inreturnforthe
righttocopymaystimulate furtheractsofhomecopying .TheCommission
wouldwelcometheviewsofinterested parties ontheseissues .
3.11.Associated policies
3.11.1 .Thehomecopyingissue,including theimplications ofnewtechnical
developments ,shouldnotbeconsidered inisolation .Otherpolicies
considered inthisdocument arerelevant todifferent degreesandshould
notbelostfromsight.TheCommission hassoughttoreconcile anumberof
divergent interests initsproposals oncopyright reform .Ontheonehand,
throughlimitations ontheactivities ofthehometaperespecially in
relation toOAT,ithassoughttoprotectthelegitimate interests ofthe
creative artistwhilstatthesametimerecognizing theeconomic and
cultural significance ofconsumer interest inaudio-visual products .By
measures tocurbtheuncontrolled development ofrentalofaudio-visual
recordings ,ithassoughttogiveagreaterdegreeofprotection tothe
investment ofthosewhoproduceandmarketsuchrecordings .Theneedto
stimulate andinvestinthedevelopment ofnewmanufacturing industries and
tofosterthegrowthofnewtechnologies hasnotbeenoverlooked .The

-136-
measures proposed tocombatpiracyinChapter 2andtoprotectcomputer
programs inChapter 5willhelptoensurethatthesoftware products ofthe
audio-visual andcomputer industries willbeabletoderivemaximum
advantage fromtheCommunity's internal market .Measures takentosecure
betterprotection fortheseworksinmarketsoutsidetheCommunity ,as
suggested inChapter7,willalsoservetosafeguard thelegitimate
interests oftheindustries concerned .Theproposals madebytheCommission
thusreflecttheneedtobalance abroadrangeofinterests intheproposed
policies considered asawhole.
3.12.Summary
3.12.1 .TheCommission recognizes thatthepractice ofhomecopyingmaycause
lossestorightholderstotheextentthathomecopyingmaysubstitute for
salesofpre-recorded material .Ittherefore proposes aseriesofrelated
measures ,which,incombination andasseeninthepreceding paragraph ,aim
toreducehomecopyingpractices (andthusindirectly tostimulate salesof
pre-recorded sources )ratherthantosanction thehomecopyingphenomenon
bymeansofharmonization atCommunity level.Thusthelimitation ofthe
copyingbytechnical meansofrightholders' works,theintroduction ofa
rentalrightforaudiovisual works,theintroduction ofaseriesof
anti-piracy measures andthefreedomforMemberStatestomaintain or
introduce leviesshouldallcontribute toanenhancement ofrightholders'
revenues .
3.12.2 .TheCommission acceptsthathomecopyingofdigitalsoundrecording by
digitalmeanscouldprejudice theinterests ofrightholders ifallowedto
continue andtodevelop inanuncontrolled way.TheCommission proposes to
counterthisriskbytheintroduction oftechnical measures tolimitthe
scopeofthecopyingfacility ofdigitalaudiomachines .
3.12.3 .TheCommission proposes thatthelevysolution shouldberetained where
MemberStatesfeelthatthisisthebestwaytoremunerate rightholders .

-137-
3.12.4 .TheCommission doesnotfeelthatactionisrequired atthepresenttimeto
makeMandatory theintroduction oftechnical devicestoprotectvideo
recordings ,butintendstokeepthesituation underclosereview .
3.13.Conclusion
3.13.1 .TheCommission wouldwelcome theviewsofinterested partiesonwhether ,as
regardsdigitalaudiorecordings :
(a)DATrecorders shouldberequired toconformtotechnical specifications
whichpreventtheiruseforunlimited actsofaudioreproduction ;
Cb)themanufacture ,importation orsaleofmachines whichdonotconform
tothespecification shouldbeprohibited ;
(c)themeasures outlined in(a)and(b)shouldapplytoallDATmachines
forrecording audio;
(d)themanufacture ,importation orsaleofdevicesintended tocircumvent
orrenderinoperable themeasures outlined in(a)and(b)shouldbe
prohibited .
(e)possession ofmachines intended forprofessional orspecialist useand
notconforming tothespecifications forhomeuseoutlined in(a)
shouldbemadedependent uponalicencetobedelivered byapublic
authority andthemaintenance ofaregister orregisters inrespectof
licensed equipment ;
3.13.2 .TheCommission wouldwelcome theviewsofinterested parties astowhether
itisaccepted thatleviesshouldremaininthoseMemberStateswhichhave
introduced them,andcouldbeintroduced ifMemberStatessowishinthose
countries whichhavenotyetintroduced them,noCommunity actionbeing
required fortheirintroduction orharmonization .

-138-
3.14.Timetable forsubmissions
3.14.1.Comments ,atleaststatements ofprinciple ,onChapter3,considering the
urgencyoftheDATissues,shouldbesubmitted totheCommission nolater
than31July1988.Onthebasisofcomments received ,theCommission will
decidewhetherfurtheradvice-eventually bywayofhearings -iscalled
for.

-139-
APPENDIX
3.15.Technical protection
3.15.1 .Onesystem,widelypublicized anddemonstrated ,isthe"Copycode "developed
bytheColumbia Broadcasting SystemRecordsTechnology CentreintheUSA.
Thissystemworksinthefollowing way.Soundrecordings areencodedbythe
inclusion ofanotch,thatis,bytheremoval ofanextremely narrowsliver
ofsoundenergytakenfromtheuppermiddleoftheaudiblesoundspectrum
atafrequency around3840Hz.Thisnotchcanbedetected byascanner
deviceintheformofanintegrated circuitincorporated inrecording
equipment insuchawaythatitsremoval ,failure orbridging wouldin
practice beimpossible oratleastextremely difficult .Thedetector inthe
recorder scansanincoming signalwhentherecorder isusedtomakea
recording .Ifanotchisdetected ,therecordfunction isinterrupted
makingacopyuseless .Iftherecording doesnotcontainthenotchcode,
thenthescanner intherecorder permitscopyingtogoaheaduninterrupted .
Itwasclaimed thattheCBSsystemwouldworkforbothanalogue anddigital
recordings .TheCBSsystemhasrecently beenevaluated bytheNational
BureauofStandards oftheUnitedStatesDepartment ofCommerce inorderto
determine itsapplicability andeffectiveness .Theearlyenthusiasm forthe
systemdisplayed byIFPI,representing themajorrecordcompanies ,seems
nowtohavewanedinthelightoftheNational Bureau'sfindings
(Evaluation ofaCopyPrevention MethodforDigitalAudioTapeSystems ,
National Engineering Laboratory ,February 1988)."

-140-
3.15.2 .Devicesarealsounderdevelopment topreventtheunauthorized recording of
videosortelevision programmes .Onesystem,Macrovision ,seekstorelyon
theexisting designofvideorecorders .Asignalisincorporated intothe
original videorecording orprogramme which,whileundetectable during
normalplayingorviewing ,causesthevideorecorder toproduce a
disturbance inthepicture ifacopyismade.Suchacopywilltherefore be
unusable forreplaypurposes .Thissystemhastheadvantage ofnot
requiring specialcircuitry intherecorders .Testsarebeingcarriedout
currently toestablish thereliability ofthesystemandwhetherthe
existence oftheprotection interferes withlegitimate viewingofavideo
ortelevision programme .Anothersystem,beingdeveloped byCBSFox,also
worksontheprinciple ofacodesignalinthevideoortransmission being
detected byadeviceincorporated inanintegrated circuit intherecorder .
3.15.3 .Thesametechnology whichdistinguishes digitalaudiorecording fromits
predecessor ,analogue recording ,alsooffersspecific possibilities of
protection againstunauthorized reproduction .Following aconference ofthe
worldelectronic industry heldinTokyoinJune1986,aspecification for
theRotaryHeadVersion ofDigitalAudioTapeRecorder ,R-DAT,using
technology similartothatofthevideorecorder ,wasagreedtoensurethat
therewouldbeonlyoneformatofdigitalaudiorecorder anddigitalaudio
tapecommercialized forthehomeusermarketatpresent .Thisconference
standard contains twoelements whichpermitCDstobeprotected against
copyingontoR-DATtape.Thefirstelementisthedifferent sampling
frequency ratesatwhichCDandDAToperate :44.1KHzforpre-recorded CDs
and48KHzor32KHzforrecording ontoDATmachines .ThismeansthataCD
cannotbecopiedontoaDATmachinebydigitalmeans,butonlyviathe
analogue outputoftheCD,witharesulting smalllossofsoundquality .
Thesecondelement istheexistence ofsubcodeareasinCDsandinDATtape
whichpermittheinsertion ofacopyprohibit codeindigitalsignals .
Wheresuchcodesarepresentinadigitalin-put,theR-DATspecification
isdesigned toensurethatdigitalrecording ofadigitalsourcewillnot
occur.SincetheDATmachines currently onsaledonothavethecapacity to
recordaCDdigitally ,thiscopyprohibit codemechanism hasnotyetcome
intoeffectinreality .

-141-
3.15.4 .TheR-DATspecification formedthebasisforguidelines issuedbythe
Japanese Ministry forInternational TradeandIndustry (MITI)earlyin1987
totheJapanese electronics industry .Itwasindicated totheCommission
thattheseguidelines alsoprovidethatwherethecopyprohibit code,
mentioned inparagraph 3.15.3 .above,hasbeenincluded inadigital
source,itmustbepassedonifthatsourceisrelayedandbecomes a
digitaloutput .
3.15.5 .Analternative formofprotection systemcalledSOLOCOPY usingdraft
specifications outlined bytheTechnical Committee 84oftheInternational
Electrotechnical Commission hasbeenproposed bysomesections ofthe
hardware andrecording industry .
3.15.6 .Usingthespecifications ,OATrecorders wouldbeabletoidentify the
sourceofanincoming digitalsignalbymeansofaflagaddedasaparallel
signalonthespacereserved forcontrolinformation whichwouldindicate
tothereceiving DATrecorder whetherthesignalcouldorcouldnotbe
recorded .Forexample ,ifthesourcewasacompactdisc,theDATmachine
wouldbeabletorecord .Inthecaseofarecording madeonaDATmachine ,
itwouldnot.Depending onhowthesystemisimplemented ,digitalradio
broadcasts wouldberecordable ,butcopiesofbroadcasts madeonaDAT
recorder couldnotbeusedasmasterstobecopiedagaindigitally ,neither
coulddigitalrecordings madeofcompactdiscsbeusedagaintocopyfrom
oneDATrecorder toanother .Directrecording bydigitalmicrophone would
bepossible butnotcopyingfromDATmachinetoDATmachineofsuch
recordings .
3.15.7 .Theconsumer wouldstillbeabletomakeadigitalcopyofacompactdisc
orbroadcast orrecordwithamicrophone justashecanmakeanalogue
recordings today.Therefore abalancewouldberetained betweenthe
consumer demandforthefreedomtomakerecordings off-airorfrom
purchased originals ,whilstatthesametimethepotentially harmful
pyramideffectofDATtoDATcopyingwouldbehalted .

-142-
3.15.8 .Asanalternative totheSOLOCOPY proposal ,aversionnamedtheSOLOCOPY
PLUShasalsobeenoutlined .Thiswouldremovetheanalogue inputand
analogue todigitalconvertor fromwithintheDATrecorder ,thuspreventing
thefirsttimecopyingofanalogue sources .Digitalcopieswouldnotserve
asamasterforfurthergenerations ofdigitalcopy,sinceDATtoDAT
copyingwouldbestillimpossible .Therecording industry hasclaimedthat
inviewoftheriskthatthecontinuing existence ofanalogue todigital
convertors withintheDATmachine wouldleadtocircumvention ofthe
protection system,theSolocopy Plusconcept ismoreattractive tosome
rightholders .Theviewhasalsobeenexpressed totheCommission bya
majorhardware manufacturer thatifaSolocopy Plustypesystemweretobe
mademandatory ,itwouldhavetheeffectofstimulating themarketfor
digitalproducts anddryingupthedemandforanalogue ones.Thefactthat
digitalequipment wouldbeputonthemarketwhichcouldnotbe
interconnected toexisting analogue equipment wouldaccelerate therateat
whichthechange-over tototallydigitalized entertainment and
communications networks wouldoccur.
3.15.9 .Otherformsofprotection systemsaimedatlimiting thenumberoftimesa
digitalcopycouldbemadeofthesamedigitalsourcearecurrently being
discussed amonginterested circles .
\

-143-
1TheBerneConvention fortheProtection ofLiterary andArtistic Works.
2UnderSection6oftheUnitedKingdom'sCopyright Act1956andSection12
oftheIrishCopyright Act1963nofairdealingwithaliterary ,
dramatic ormusicalworkforpurposes ofresearch orprivatestudyshall
constitute aninfringement ofthecopyright inthework.Thusdomestic
reproduction ofsuhworksisnotpersepermitted .Thepurpose ofthe
makingofthecopy,studyorresearch ,willdetermine itslegality .
^Article68oftheItaliancopyright law.
4Theseincludedramatic ,dramatico-musical ,musicalandcinematographic
works.Itshouldberecalled thatproducers ofsoundrecordings and
broadcasters intheNetherlands donotbenefitfromtheprotection of
copyright oraneighbouring right,seechapter 2,paragraphs 2.6.10 .-
2.6.18 .
Article 16(b).
SeeArticle 11oftheDanishcopyright law.Article 53oftheGerman
copyright law,Article 41oftheFrenchcopyright lawandArticle 81of
thePortuguese copyright lawof1985.
^Bundesgesetzblatt no.33of27June1985,page1137.
8SeeArticle87paragraph 3.
^Lawno.85-860of3July1985,OfficialJournalof4July1985page
7498.
10Decision of30June1986,Official Journal of23August1986,page
10279 .
11
12
20
14
15
16
17
18
19
20Reportno.944/1982.Båndafgifter ,Sanktioner ,Påtale .
CodeofCopyright andRelatedRights (No.45/85,17September 1985).
Leydepropiedad intelectual No.22/87of11November 1987,Boletin
Oficial delEstadono.275of17November 1987.
Section19(5)(a)and(b)oftheCopyright Act1956.
Section14(4)(a)and(b)oftheCopyright Act1963.
InIreland,thestatusofprogrammes transmitted bycableisatpresent
unclear .
Seeparagraph 3.4.3.andnote2above.
Lawoncopyright ,section48(3).
Article87(3)oftheCopyright Act1965.
Leydepropiedad intelectual No.22/87of11November 1987,Boletin

-144-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32Oficial deiEstadono.275of17November 1987.
Article29(2)oftheLawNo.85-860of3July1985.
Articles 81and189ofthecopyright law.
Artide 16b.
Artide 9(2).
Artide 15.
Artide 3.
Billintroduced byMr.DESMARETS andassociates ,Senate282(1985-1986 ),
No.1,R.A.13596.
Billno.615(1986-1987 )introduced byM.LALLEMANO andothers .
Seeparagraph 3.4.2.above.
Proposal No.3911of10July1986,CameradeiDeputati .
See,forexample ,AudioandVideoCassette Equipment StudyinWest
Germany ,FranceandtheUnitedKingdom ,MARPLANGmbH,October1985.
Source :European TapeIndustry Council .
SeeAudio-andVideoCassette Equipment StudyinWestGermany ,France
andtheUnitedKingdom ,op.cit.
SeeDavies,ThePrivateCopyingofSoundandAudiovisual Recordings ,
1983,Annex15andtheUnitedKingdomgovernment 'sgreenpaper"The
Recording andRentalofAudioandVideoCopyright Material ,19,Cmnd.
9445,para.2.1
Source :International Federation ofPhonogram andVideogram Producers
(IFPI).
36Source IFPI.
37
38
39
40
41
42See,forexample ,forGermany ,Mediumspiegel ,April1987,page3.
Initsnon-compact form,thevideodischashadonlylimitedsuccess .
Etudesurlesenregistrements sonoreseffectués parlepublicpourson
usagepersonnel ,Sofres,May1983.
SeetheUnitedKingdomgovernment 'sgreenpaper,op.cit.,para.2.2
SeeAudioandVideoCassette Equipment StudyinWestGermany ,Franceand
theUnitedKingdom ,op.cit.,pages18to20.
WhyAmericans Tape,Yankelovich ,SkellyWhiteInc.,September 1982.

-145-
Lesenregistrements vidéoeffectués parlepublicpoursonusage
personnel ,Sofres,December 1983,pages7and22.
SeeAudioandVideoCassette Equipment StudyinWestGermany ,Franceand
theUnitedKingdom ,op.cit.,page33.
V.Bottcher Marktforschung ,UsageandAttitude StudyVideo,1986.
Etudesurlesenregistrements sonoreseffectués parlepublicpourson
usagepersonnel ,op.cit.,pages11,25and26.
Copyright Infringement ,BritishMarketResearch Bureau,September 1984.
SeeAudioandVideoCassette Equipment StudyinWestGermany ,Franceand
theUnitedKingdom ,op.cit.,pages18to20.
Lesenregistrements vidéoeffectués parlepublicpoursonusage
personnel ,op.cit.,pages7,36to40.
SeeAudioandVideoCassette Equipment StudyinWestGermany ,Franceand
theUnitedKingdom ,op.cit.,page35.
SeeIFPI,DigitalMusicandCopycode -TheFuture,1987.
52Seeparagraphs 2.9.7.to2.9.11 above .

-146-
CHAPTER4:DISTRIBUTION RIGHT,EXHAUSTION ANDRENTALRIGHT
4.1.Distribution right :therighttocontrolcommercial exploitation .
4.1.1.Copyright consists ofanumberofspecific rights,someessentially economic
incharacter ,othersprotecting theauthor'sartistic integrity and
reputation .Theserightsaredefined indifferent waysindifferent Member
States .Onemajorareaofdifference concerns theeconomic rightof
distribution .Thisright,whereitexists,canbemostsimplydescribed as
theexclusive righttoauthorize thataworkorcopiesthereofbemade
available tothepublic .Whatthedistribution rightismeanttoaddin
addition totheotherexclusive rightsoftheauthoriscontroloverthe
commercial exploitation ofhisworkwithinagivenjurisdiction .Itcanbe
ofparticular importance ifthemanufacturing ofcopiesoftheworkisnot
itselfan"infringement "because ittakesplace,forexample ,inacountry
wheretheworkisnotprotected orwhereprotection hasexpired .
4.1.2.SomeMemberStatesprovideexpressly fortheauthortohavetheexclusive
righttooffertothepublicortoplaceincirculation theoriginal workor
anycopiesthereof .Thistechnique isapplied inDenmark,Germany,Italy,
1theNetherlands andPortugal ,andthenewcopyright lawrecently adopted
2inSpaincontains acorresponding provision .Othersmakenosuchexpress
provision ,thoughtqsomeextentadistribution rightmayformpartofthe
publication rightgrantedbyIrishandUnitedKingdom lawMoreover ,
underBelgian ,FrenchandLuxembourg law,itseemspossible toachieve
resultsclosetothoseofadistribution rightbymeansofconditional
exercise ofthereproduction right.Byclearlyindicating conditions on
published copiesofthework,rightholdersmayatleastinsomecases,be
4abletolimittheusethatthirdpartiesmaymakeofthem.

-147-
4.1.3.Thequestion tobeconsidered inthiscontext iswhether adistribution
rightshouldbeintroduced inallMemberStatesand,ifso,inrespectof
whichworksandwhichrightsinthoseworks.Examination ofthisquestion
shouldincludeanassessment oftheconsequences appearing toflowat
present fromtheabsence ofdistribution rightsorfromtheirearly
exhaustion .
4.2.Exhaustion ofdistribution rights ;national Law.
4.2.1."Exhaustion "shouldnotbeconfused with"expiry"ofthetermofcopyright
protection .Foranexplanation ofthemeaningandapplication ofexhaustion
seeparagraph 4.3.1.etseq.Thedoctrine ofexhaustion isafamiliar
principle ofintellectual property lawsofdifferent kinds.Therightsin
question areconsidered tobeexhausted orconsumed whentheprotected goods
arefirstlawfully marketed ,thatis,bytherightholderhimselforwith
hisconsent .Ithasbeenapplied inthepatentandtrademarkcontext as
wellasinthecopyright field.Theprinciple canbeapplied inmoreorless
sweeping forms.Inthecopyright field,forexample ,ittendstobeapplied
rigorously tothesaleofcopiesofliterary work,butinamorequalified
formtothesaleofcopiesofmusicalworks.Inthelattercase,subsequent
rentalofthemusicmaystillbesubjecttotheauthor'sconsent .
4.2.2.ThoseStatesthathaveexpressly provided foradistribution rightintheir
copyright lawshavebeenobligedtoconfront atthesametimethequestion
oftheappropriate limitsoftherightsincepermanent controlforthe
duration ofcopyright protection overallformsofdistribution ofcopiesof
aworkseemsclearlyexcessive .Oneobviousmomenttoputanendtothe
rightoftheholderisthetimewhentheworkoracopyofitisfirst
lawfully placedonthemarket .This"exhaustion "or"consumption "principle
isgivenexplicit expression inthiswayinthecopyright lawsofDenmark ,
GermanyandtheNetherlands ,whereasthesameresultisobtained inItalyby
wayofinterpretation ThenewSpanishlawalsocontains aprovision on
exhaustion ofrightsbyfirstsale

-148-
Portugal ,however ,hasnoprovision initscopyright lawonexhaustion
despitethefar-reaching distribution rightlaiddowninArticle68(2).
Finally,giventhattheirlawsdonotmakespecific provision fora
distribution right,Belgium,Greece,France,Ireland,Luxembourg andthe
UnitedKingdommakenoexpressprovision forexhaustion .
4.2.3.Intheabsenceofclearprovisions ontheexhaustion ofrightsuponthe
firstsaleofacopyofthework,itmaybeuncertain towhatextentthe
authorbycontractual orsemicontractual meanssuchasanoticeofrightson
thecoverpageofabookcanimposerestrictions inrespectoftheuseof
thecopyonthebuyerofacopyandonthirdparties .
4.3.Exhaustion ofrights :Community law.
4.3.1.Initsoriginal form,thedoctrine ofexhaustion relatedonlytothe
jurisdiction withinwhichtherightsinquestion hadarisen .Goodslawfully
marketed inotherjurisdictions couldstillbekeptoutonthebasisof
rightsarisinginthefirstjurisdiction .However ,thedevelopment of
regional andinternational marketshasledtotheexhaustion conceptbeing
appliedtofavourcross-frontier trade.Thedoctrine hasthusplayeda
majorroleinthecaselawoftheEuropean CourtofJustice ,inrelation to
patents andtrademarksaswellascopyright .TheCourthasheldthatin
allthesefieldsreliance onanexclusive righttoexcludegoodslawfully
marketed inotherMemberStateswouldbeincompatible withthefundamental
principles oftheCommunity Treatyproviding forthefreecirculation of
goodssinceitwouldlegitimize theisolation ofnational markets .While
Article36EECauthorizes theMemberStatestomaintain restrictions on
importsjustified onthegroundsoftheprotection ofindustrial and
commercial property ,itdoesnotpermitarightholdertopreventthefree
circulation ofgoodsonce,withtherightholder'sconsent,theyhavebeen
placedonthemarketwithintheCommunity .

-149-
4.3.2.Moreparticularly asregardscopyright andneighbouring rights,theCourt
10statedinDeutsche Grammophon v.Metro that :
"Ifarightrelatedtocopyright isreliedupontopreventthemarketing in
aMemberStateofproducts distributed bytheholderoftherightorwith
hisconsentontheterritory ofanotherMemberStateonthesoleground
thatsuchdistribution didnottakeplaceonthenational territory ,sucha
prohibition whichwouldlegitimize theisolation ofnational markets ,would
berepugnant totheessential purpose oftheTreaty,whichistounite
national markets intoasinglemarket".
114.3.3.InMusik-Vertrieb v.GEMA ,theCourtsimilarly concluded thatcopyright
didnotpermitrightholders toclaimthedifference between theroyalty
payable inanimporting MemberStateandthatpayable inanexporting State
whensoundrecordings hadbeenlawfully placedonthemarketinthelatter .
Suchaclaimwasanimproper restriction onthemovement ofgoodsinfree
circulation .
4.3.4.Insubsequent cases,theCourthasbeengiventheopportunity todefine
furthertheproperlimitsofthedoctrine ofCommunity exhaustion inthe
copyright field.

-150-
4.3.5.First,theCourthasmadeitclearthatitsdoctrine ofexhaustion is
limitedtothemarketing throughthesaleofcopiesoftheworksintheform
12ofphysical objects likeothermerchandise .Insuchcases,thelegitimate
interests ofthecopyright holderaresatisfied bythepayment ofthe
royaltyreceived onfirstsaleirrespective ofwherewithintheCommunity it
tookplaceandeveniftheroyaltypaidislowerthanitwouldhavebeenif
thefirstsalehadtakenplaceinanotherMemberState.Butwhereaworkis
marketed bybeingperformed ,asisthecasewithfilms,forexample,then
therightholder'slegitimate interest inreceipts fromsuccessive
performances oftheworkwillenablehimtopreventperformances inagiven
jurisidiction thatwouldotherwise havebeenpossible .ThusinCoditel v.
Cine-Vog theCourtheldthattheholderofperforming rightsforafilmin
Belgiumcouldpreventthere-transmission bycabletelevision inBelgiumof
aGermanbroadcast ofthesamefilm.Theproducer 'srightswerenot
exhausted bytheauthorization toperformthefilmbytelevising itin
Germanygivenhislegitimate interest incalculating theroyaltyforcinema
performance inBelgiumontheactualorprobable numberofperformances in
thatcountry .Re-transmission bycabletelevision oftheGermanbroadcast
wouldclearlyupsetthatcalculation .
4.3.6.Morerecently ,theCourthashadtoaddressthequestion ofthepublic
14performance ofsoundrecordings .InG.Bassetv.SACEM aFrench
discotheque hadchallenged therightoftheauthortoclaimasupplementary
mechanical rightroyaltyontopoftheperformance royaltywhensound
recordings imported fromtheUnitedKingdomwereperformed inpublicin
France .IntheUnitedKingdom ,themechanical rightroyaltyisunchanged
whetherthephonogram isusedforprivatepurposes orusedforpublic
performance purposes .Frenchcopyright law,ontheotherhand,givesthe
authorthediscretion toincrease hisclaimforremuneration forthe
reproduction whencopiesareusedforpublicperformances .

-151-
BeforetheFrenchcourts,thediscotheque ownerhadunsuccessfully argued
thattherightoftheauthor,according totheFrenchlaw,toclaima
supplementary mechanical rightroyaltyforphonograms usedforpublic
performances wascontrary toCommunity lawbecause thefirstsaleofthe
phonogram tookplaceintheUnitedKingdomwhereasimilar rightdidnot
exist.TheCourtdidnotendorsethisclaim,however ,holdingthatthe
Treatyprovisions posednoobstacle tothenon-discriminatory application of
anational lawwhichpermitted acollecting societytodemandaroyalty,
knownasasupplementary mechanical rightroyalty ,byreasonoftheusein
publicoftherecordings ,evenwhensuchasupplementary rightdidnotexist
underthelawoftheStatewheretherecordings werelegitimately placedon
themarket .Itshouldbenotedthatthesituation inthiscasewas
significantly different fromthatinMusik-Vertrieb v.GEMAinthatinthe
lattercasetheextraroyaltywasclaimedonthesimplegrounds of
importation fromoneMemberStatetoanother .InG.Bassetv.SACEM,
however ,theroyalty inquestion becamedueonlyonpublicperformance of
therecording withintheimporting State.
4.3.7.Thelimitsofthedoctrine ofCommunity exhaustion inthefieldofrentalof
15videocassettes willbeaddressed bytheCourtinthenearfuture .This
matterisconsidered further inthecontext ofthediscussion ofvideo
rentalrightsinparagraphs 4.10.1 .to4.10.9 .below.
4.3.8.Finally,inthiscontext ,itshouldbenotedthatthedoctrine ofexhaustion
foundeduponArticles 30to36EECconcerns thefreecirculation ofcopies
ofcopyright worksaftertheyhavebeenlawfully placedonthemarket .Its
effectsshouldnotbeconfused withtheeffects ofcompetition lawon
agreements bywhichpublishing rightsareallocated onaterritorial basis.
Suchagreements ,whichareofconsiderable interest toauthorsand
publishing companies ,aretoberespected provided theydonotruncounter
totheprinciples ofcompetition policyintheTreaty,particularly the
provisions ofArticle 85.

-152-
\,
Distribution rightsandexhaustion :outstanding issues \
Asregardsthefreecirculation ofcopyright goods,thedevelopment ofthe
exhaustion doctrine bytheEuropean CourtonthebasisoftheTreaty's
directly applicable provisions hasalreadytoalargedegreeensuredthat
national copyright lawswillnothaveadverseordivergent effectsonthe
functioning ofthecommonmarket.However,someissueshavenoty^tbeen
specifically decided bytheCourt.
Thisapplies ,forexampletotheeffectoftheexhaustion doctrine on
restrictive conditions indicated oncopyright goodsplacedonthemarketand
intended tolimitorpreventthefreecirculation ofthosegoodsfromone
MemberStatetoanother .Suchindications mightstate,forexample ,thatthe
goodsare"Notforsalein."or"Notforexport".Suchconditions
mightinprinciple bepermitted byagivennational law.However ,there
seemslittlereasontodoubtthattheCourtwouldrulealsointheareaof
copyright ,asithasdoneinotherareasofintellectual andindustrial
property law,thatsuchanexercise ofthereproduction rightdoesnotform
partoftheessential function ofcopyright ingoodsplacedlawfully onthe
marketandaccordingly cannotbeusedtoopposetheimportofgoodsfrom
otherMembertStates .Suchconditions runcounternotonlytothe
provisions oftheEECTreatyonthefreeflowofgoodsbutalsoto
competition rules.Tothisextentthen,the"Europeanization ofthe
16exhaustion principle "hasalreadybeenlargelyachieved .
/
4.4.3.Asregardsperforming rightsinprotected works,ashasbeenexplained ,the
exhaustion doctrine doesnotapply.Thesearelikelytoraiseissuesas
regardsthefreeprovision ofservices ratherthanthefreecirculation of
goods.Inthebroadcasting field,forexample ,thecross-frontier
transmission ofbroadcasts ,particularly television ,bysatellite andcable
encounters legalobstacles deriving fromcopyright thatrequiretobe
removedbyappropriate Community secondary legislation .Aproposal has
17alreadybeensubmitted bytheCommission totheCouncil4.4.
4.4.1.

-153-
A.4.4.TheCommission hassofarreceived norequestfortheintroduction inall
MemberStatesofadistribution rightofgeneralapplication inthe
18copyright field .Mostproblems thathavebeenmentioned seemtobe
capableofadequate solution atnational level.Ithasbeensuggested ,on
theotherhand,thatthequestion ofpubliclendingorrentalofbooksand
thepossible rightoftheauthortoreceiveremuneration forthisuseofhis
19workisanissuerequiring asolution attheCommunity level
4.4.5.Thedesirability ofallocating resources tothissubject atCommunity level
atthistimeseemsfarfromevident ,however .
4.4.6.First,inreality ,onlyrelatively smallsumsofmoneyareatpresent
involved .Commercial rentalofbookshaspractically disappeared .Public
lendingschemes ,wheretheyexist,generate onlymodesttotalrevenues .In
noMemberStatedotheyappeartoexceed10million ECUperannum.
4.4.7.Second,theschemesoperateonlyinaminority ofMemberStates :Denmark ,
Germany ,theNetherlands andtheUnitedKingdom .Moreover ,their
introduction hasonoccasion generated considerable controversy .
Establishing apolitical consensus inthosecircumstances ,evenatnational
level,hasproveddifficult andtime-consuming .Thechancesofarriving ata
Community consensus withinareasonable periodoftimearenotgreat.
4.4.8.Third,ofthefourschemesinoperation ,thoseinforceinDenmark ,the
Netherlands andtheUnitedKingdomarenotstrictly speaking partofthe
copyright systematall,butasupplementary regimewherebyauthorsreceive
sumsfromafundlargelyfinanced frompublicsources .Itmaybedoubted
whethersuchformsofpublicfinancing areanappropriate subjectmatterfor
Community harmonization atthistime.

-154-
4.4.9.Fourth,neithertheabsencenorpresence ofsuchschemesappearstocause
significant problems forfreecirculation ofbooksortothedevelopment of
bookpublishing intheCommunity .Inparticular ,thelendingorrentalof
booksisfarlesscloselylinkedtoproblems ofprivatecopyingandpiracy
suchasthosethataffecttheaudio-visual sectorinthemannerfurther
explainedbelow^.
4.4.10 .Forallthesereasons ,theCommission isoftheopinionthatCommunity
actioninrespectofapproximation oflawsinthisareaatthepresenttime
wouldnotbejustified .
4.4.11 .Ontheotherhand,intheaudio-visual sector,important issueshavearisen
havingbothacross-frontier dimension andimportant implications forthe
futuredevelopment oftheCommunity 'ssoundandvideorecording industries .
Authorsandproducers ofsuchrecordings haveforsometimebeenarguing
strongly infavouroftheintroduction ofadistribution rightoratleast
forprotection againstunauthorized commercial rentals .Thedemandhasbeen
21madeinpartinthecontextoftheCommunity debateonaudio-visual piracy
andsomeaspectsoftheproblemhavebeenconsidered inChapter 2.Butthe
demandalsoraisesissuesofsubstantive copyright lawthatmeritfurther
consideration here.
4.4.12 .Asregardstherentalofcomputer programs ,itisproposed inChapter 5
(paragraph 5.8.2.(d))thatspecific provisions bemadeforarentalright
withinthecontextoftheproposed directive onthelegalprotection of
computer programs .Rentalofcomputer programs istherefore notdealtwith
inthispresentchapter .

-155-
4.5.Thedistribution ofsoundandvideorecordings
4.5.1.Soundandvideorecordings appeartoLendthemselves increasingly to
commercial exploitation bywayofrental .
4.5.2.Asregardssoundrecordings ,non-commercial libraries havebeeninexistence
forsometime,especially inthosecountries wherethepubliclibrarysystem
iswelldeveloped .Butevenwherethesesystemshaveexisted ,thenegative
effects oflending orrentalonrightholdershaveappeared toberelatively
limited .Theprincipal reasonisthatthequality oftraditional recordings
ondiscsuffersproportionately tothenumberoftimestherecordis
borrowed ,wearbeinginevitable andtheriskofaccidental damagehigh.
Control ofwearandtearonreturned copiesisatbestburdensome and
frequently impractical .Wornordamagedcopiesareunattractive whether for
listening orprivatecopying .Theneedtoreplacedamagedcopiesofpopular
recordings operates asanautomatic limitontheextenttowhichthe
purchase ofonecopyofagivenworkforlendingorrentalwillsubstitute
forthepurchase ofothercopiesandindeedontheentirescaleoflending
andrentaloperations .Forallthesereasons ,profitable commercial
exploitation oftraditional soundrecordings throughrentalseemstohave
beenrendered insufficiently attractive forittodevelop onasubstantial
scale .

-156-
4.5.3.Thefirsttechnical development tochangethisstateofaffairswasthe
introduction ofthetapecassette whichismuchlesssusceptible todamage .
However ,therelatively recentarrival ofthelaserreadcompactdiscis
likelytohavemuchmoreprofound effectssinceitappearstobevirtually
indestructible innormaluseandrepeated playinghaslittleeffectonthe
qualityofthesound.Consequently thepossibility ofprofitable commercial
rentalactivity ismuchhigherthanbeforeandinanumberofcountries ,
particularly outsidetheCommunity wherethepenetration ofthecompactdisc
playerisparticularly high,rentaloutletshavemushroomed .Thisisthe
caseinCanada,JapanandtheUSA.Recently ,following theincreasing
penetration ofcompactdiscplayers intheUnitedKingdom ,compactdisc
rentaloutletshavestartedtoappearinlargenumbers .Similardevelopments
canbeexpected elsewhere .
4.5.4.Furthermore ,soundrecordings oncompactdisccoulduntilrecently onlybe
copiedontotapeusingordinary analogue recording equipment ,butthe
adventofthedigitalaudiotaperecorder meansthatthedigitalrecording
canbecopiedindigitalform,unlessprotected againstreproduction by
technical means.Whenarepertoire iseventually available onpre-recorded
digitaltapes,thesameproblems willariseforthissupportasforthe
compactdisc.Theproblemofhomecopyingistreated inChapter3,butitis
.mentioned heresincethenegative impactoflendingandrentalundertakings
ontheincomeofrightholdersisclearlyincreased whenhighqualitycopies
canbereadilymadebyhirersatlowcost.

-157-
4.5.5.Lendingandrentalofvideorecordings oncassette differfromtherentalof
soundrecordings becausethepredominant methodofdistributing video
recordings tothepublicisrentalandnotsale.Thereasonswhyvideo
recordings arerentedandnotsoldincludethesaturation effectofrepeated
playing ofmostpopularvideoproducts ,inparticular ,featurefilms,and
therelatively highprice,thoughnowdecreasing ,fortheirpurchase by
comparison withtheirrental .Somespecialtypesofrecordings undoubtedly
tendtobepurchased ,suchasinstructional andchildren 'svideos,forthese
arelikelytobeusedrepeatedly .Butmuchmaterial isproduced on
cassettes expressly forrentalwhichaccordingly thentakesplacewiththe
fullagreement ofrightholders .
4.5.6.Atthesametime,however ,thevideoindustry isconcerned aboutthescale
andnatureoftheunlicensed videorentalactivities thathavedeveloped in
recentyears.Suchrentaloutlets ,operating independently andwithout
agreements withrightholders inrespectofthematerial rented,have
increased substantially notonlyinEuropebutalsointheUnitedStates,
CanadaandJapan.Competition betweenoutlets isoftenfierceandtheir
financial situation precarious .Theiractivities haveanegative effecton
therevenue ofrightholdersbydiverting legitimate business fromlicensed
distributors and,inaddition ,theytendtoformthemainoutletforpirate
copieswhichproduce alargerprofitmarginthanrentaloflegitimate
products .
4.6.Thepresentposition concerning therentalofsoundrecordings
4.6.1.Themainfeatures ofthepresent legalposition asregardstherentalof
soundrecordings intheMemberStatescanbesummarized asfollowsaccording
tothethreecategories ofrightholderconcerned .
4.6.2.First,asregardsauthors' rightsinrespectofaudiorecordings ,thesewill
22__ 23beexhausted byfirstsaleinItaly andtheNetherlands .Accordingly ,
authors arenotentitled inthosecountries toauthorize ortoreceive
specific remuneration forsubsequent rentaloftheirrecorded works.

-158-
4.6.3.InanothergroupofStates,theopposite situation prevails .Thus,in
Denmark ,theCopyright Actwasamendedbylawno.274of6June1985to
excludeexhaustion inrespect oftherightoftheauthortoauthorize the
commercial rentalofmusicalworksincluding recordings thereof .InGermany ,
Article27ofthecopyright lawexplicity grantsauthors arightto
remuneration whensoundrecordings arelentorrentedbutnotarightto
prohibit suchuseoftheirworks.InSpainauthorshave,byvirtueof
Article19ofthenewSpanishcopyright law,therighttocontrolrental .
Thisrightisnotexhausted bythefirstsaleofacopy.AlsoinPortugal ,
Article68(1)ofthecopyright lawmakesexplicit provisions forthe
author'srighttoauthorize rentalcopiesofhiswork.
4.6.4.InyetathirdgroupoftheStates,adegreeofuncertainty prevails .In
IrelandandtheUnitedKingdom ,whererentalofpublished worksisnota
restricted act,itappearsthatauthorshavenorighttocontrolrentalof
copiesofrecordings marketed withtheirconsent ,exceptperhapsby
contract ;thoughseriousdoubtshavebeenexpressed abouttheefficacy of
24suchpractices .InBelgium ,Greece,FranceandLuxembourg ,whereno
distribution rightisrecognized ,conditional exercise ofthereproduction
rightmightintheorypermitrestrictions tobeplacedonsubsequent rental
bymeansofclearnotification onthecopiessold However ,there
appears tobenocaselawunequivocally sustaining thethesisthat
commercial rentalcanbecontrolled inthiswayandcommercial practice in
thosecountries frequently suggests theopposite .
4.6.5.Asfarasproducers areconcerned ,lawsatpresent inforcedonotgenerally
givethemtherighttocontrolthesubsequent rentalofrecordings putinto
circulation bysaletothepublic .InFranceandPortugal ,producers have
however in1985beengrantedsucharight .Inothercountries ,aneffort
hasbeenmadetoachievethisend.UnderthetermsoftheIFPI/BIEMStandard
Contract ,producers agreetoprintthefollowing onrecordlabels :

-159-
"AILrightsoftheproducer andoftheowneroftheworkreproduced
reserved .Unauthorised copying,hiring,lendingandpublicperformance of
thistapeprohibited ".
Thirdpartiesaretherebyputonnoticethatneithertheproducer northe
authoroftheworkhasgivenauthorization forthehiringorlendingof
records .Moreover ,theIFPI/BIEMStandard Contract alsospecifies thatthe
producer isgrantedtherighttoputrecordings intocirculation solelywith
28aviewtotheirsaleforprivateuse.InGermany ,recentcaselawrenders
suchrestrictions ineffective .IntheNetherlands ,theauthors' society is
engaged inlitigation inordertotestwhether theunauthorized commercial
29rentalofrecordscanbeprevented onthisbasis
4.6.6.Asforperformers ,noMemberStatehasenacted lawsgivingthemtherightto
authorize therentaloftheirperformances fixedonsoundrecordings .
4.7.Thepresentposition concerning therentalofvideorecordings .
4.7.1.Thelegalposition inrespectofrentalofvideograms ispartially similar
butnotidentical totheposition inrespect ofrentalofsoundrecordings .
4.7.2.Oneimportant difference isthatavideogram isassimilated toa
cinematographic workprotected according toArticle 2(1)oftheBerne
Convention .Thisimpliesthattheproducer ofavideogram ,irrespective of
whether agivenStateoperates withaspecific filmcopyright infavourof
theproducer isautomatically considered anauthor,ifnotthesole
authoroftheworkandinthatcapacity ,unlikeproducers ofphonograms ,
enjoysauthors' rights .
4.7.3.Astotherightsofauthorsandproducers toauthorize orreceivespecific
remuneration fortherentalofvideograms aftertheirfirstsale,thelegal
resultsappeartobeessentially thesameasforsoundrecording thoughthe
legaltechnique usedtorealizethoseresultsmaybedifferent .

-160-
4.8.RecentLegislative proposals concerning therentalofsoundandvideo
recordings
4.8.1.InBelgium ,proposals fornewlegislation haverecently beenmadewhich
31addresstheproblem oflendingandrentalofsoundandvideorecordings .
IntheUnitedKingdom ,anamendment totheBillpublished on28October1987
32proposes theintroduction ofarentalright
4.9.TheCommunity dimension oftheproblem .
4.9.1.Giventhedifferences inthelegalsituations intheMemberStates,
difficulties mayobviously ariseifavideocassette isbroughtfroma
countrywheretheauthorhasnorighttocontrolrentalintoacountrywhere
thisrightexists .Suchasituation hasrecently beenthesubjectof
litigation beforetheCourtofJustice incase158/66WarnerBrothers Inc.
andMetronome VideoApsv.ErikViuffChristiansen .Inthatcase,theDanish
defendant boughtintheUnitedKingdom avideocassette ofafeaturefilm
whichwasnotavailable onvideocassette inDenmark whether forrentalor
forsale.Theplaintiff ,WarnerBrothers ,latergrantedexclusive rightsto
theplaintiff Metronome VideoApstoexploittheworkbywayofrentalin
Denmark .Thequestion whichtheCourthadtodecidewaswhethertheright
holderinDenmark ,havingtherighttoauthorize rentalintheterritory of
Denmark ,couldstopapersonwhopurchased avideocassette inaMember
Statewhererentalisnotarestricted actfromexploiting theimported
cassette forcommercial rentalpurposes .Byitsrulingof17May1988,the
Court,inaccordance withtheCommission 'ssuggestion ,answered thequestion
intheaffirmative ,motivated bytheconsideration thattheexploitation of
thefilmalsobywayofpublicperformance orshowsincinemascouldbe
severely compromised .Thecaseisavividdemonstration oftheCommunity
dimension ofthistypeofproblemfromthepointofviewofthefunctioning
oftheinternal marketinsoundandvideorecordings .

-161-
4.10.Thefuturedevelopment oftheCommunity 'ssoundandvideorecording
industries andthegeneralintroduction ofarentalright.
4.10.1 .Presenttrendsinthedistribution andmarketing ofsoundandvideo
recordings suggestthatcommercial rentalwillconstitute anincreasingly
important meansbywhichsuchrecordings willbemadeavailable tothe
public .Furthermore ,giventhelinksbetween rentalandtheproblems of
piracyandprivatecopying ,thisdevelopment impliessignificant economic
consequences forthosewhoseworksandperformances arerecorded .Inthe
absence ofafirmlegalbasisforrightholderstoauthorize thecommercial
exploitation oftheirworksthroughrental,itseemslikelythatthose
responsible forcreating recorded workswillreceive amuchlowerreturnfor
theireffortsandinvestment thanwouldotherwise bethecase,while
middlemen couldprofitdisproportionately fromtheefforts ofothers .One
likelyconsequence maywellthenbethatrecorded workswilltendtobesold
atrelatively highpricessincerightholderswillseektoachieve areturn
onfirstsalethatwillreflect ,ifonlyinpart,therentalusethatmay
subsequently bemadeoftheirworks.However ,thispolicyisunlikely to
provide asatisfactory solution fromtherightholders' pointofviewsince
thereareotherlimitsonthepricesthatmaybechargedonfirstsale,
whilethesehigherpriceswillnevertheless prejudice thoseconsumers who
wouldprefertobuyratherthanrenttherecordings inquestion .

-162-
4.10.2 .Ontheotherhand,ifrightownerscansufficiently controlthecommercial
exploitation ofsoundandvideorecordings throughrental,theywillbeina
position toensurethattheyreceiveanadequate returnontheirinvestment
forrentalexploitation oftheirworks.Controloftheexploitation byway
ofrentalisalsothenecessary prerequisite forreceiving remuneration for
rentalofacopyintended forpublicperformance .Thepractice of
entertaining different audiences suchaspatients inhospitals ,military
personnel inbarracks ,seamenaboardshipsandinmates inpenitentiary
institutions canconstitute asupplementary sourceofincometoright
holders .Arentalrightshouldprovidethelegalfoundation forsuchincome
toberealized .Atthesametime,sufficient controloverrentalshould
favourtheadoption oflowpricingpolicies onsaleswhichwillencourage
thatformofdemandanddirectly benefittheconsumer .Finally,better
controlovertherentalmarketshouldcontribute totherepression ofpiracy
sinceitwilltendtoensurethatrentaloutletswillnotdealininfringing
products .
4.10.3 .Inthisconnection ,theneedtoprovideadequate resources forthefuture
activities oftheCommunity 'saudio-visual industries shouldbebornein
mind.AstheCommission hasalreadyexplained inothercontexts the
European audio-visual programme industries mustbeabletocallonnew
resources iftheyaretomeetthechallenge ofsupplying thenew
audio-visual mediawiththematerial thatthelatterwillneed.Arental
marketwhichensuresthatrightholdersreceiveanadequate returnontheir
investment hasanimportant roletoplayinthisregard .

-163-
4.10.4 .Variousremedies havebeensuggested toimprovethesituation including
licensing ofallrentaloutletsandtheintroduction ofabroaddistribution
rightforsoundandvideorecordings .Suchremedies areprobably morethan
isnecessary tosolvetheproblem .However ,arentalrightwouldprovidethe
solidlegalfoundation necessary forthefuturedevelopment ofthe
Community 'ssoundandvideorecording industries withoutunderestimating the
importance ofothercultural policies designed tosupportauthorsand
performers .Itwouldalsohavetheadvantage thatmanypractical matters
couldbesettledbycontractual arrangement ratherthanbythelawitself
including ,forexample,theusestobemadeofrentedcopies,royalties and
theirdistribution betweendifferent categories ofrightholder .Finally ,
thegeneralintroduction ofarentalrightinallMemberStateswouldensure
thatartificial distortions donotariseasregardsthemarketing ofsound
andvideorecordings asaresultofcommercial rentalsrequiring
authorization byrightholders insomeMemberStatesandnotinothers .
4.10.5 .Thedecisions oftheEuropean Courtconcerning exhaustion areinnosense
incompatible withtheintroduction ofarentalrightwhether atnational or
Community level.Thesituations sofarheldincompatible withtheTreaty's
freecirculation provisions haveallinvolved thesaleandre-saleofgoods
lawfully placedonthemarketforthatpurpose ,nottherentalofrecorded
34workssubjecttocopyright .Inaddition ,intheCoditel case,theCourt
heldthatwherecopyright worksareexploited throughsuccessive
performances ,thefirstperformance didnotexhausttheholder'srights .
Theexploitation ofsoundandvideorecordings throughrentalraisessimilar
issuestoexploitation throughperformance ,notleasttheholder's
legitimate interest incontrolling successive commercial usesofthework.

-164-
4.10.6 .Inconclusion then,currentdevelopments inthedistribution ofsoundand
videorecordings suggestthattheintroduction ofarentalrightinall
MemberStatesoftheCommunity shouldbeconsidered apriority matter .Such
arightshouldbegrantedtoauthors ofworksembodied insoundandvideo
recordings /totheproducers ofsuchrecordings andtoperformers whose
performances havebeenfixedthereon .Manydetailscouldprobably bestbe
settledatnational level,preferably bycontractual arrangements between
theinterests concerned .Thiswouldprobably apply,forexample,tothe
questions ofhowtheroyaltyincomefromrentalwhereauthorized shouldbe
sharedbetweenthevariousrightholdersandwhatmechanisms maybeneeded
tohandledemandsforlicences authorizing rental .Ontheotherhand,the
scopeoftherightshouldbedefined atCommunity levelinordertoavoid
unduedistortions .
4.10.7.Achoicehastobemadeinthiscontextbetween arighttoauthorize rental
andarighttoequitable remuneration asprovided atpresentbyGermanlaw.
Eachsolution hasdifferent advantages anddisadvantages ,butatpresentthe
righttoauthorize rentalappearstobethemostappropriate .Thetrendin
technical development istowardsrecording andcopyingfacilities that
readilyandcheaplyproduceincreasingly highqualitycopiesandwhich
permittheuseofpre-recorded material bynumerous userswithout
deterioriation .Thistrendislikelytoleadtorentedproducts havingan
increasing marketshare.Theabilityofrightholderstoprotectthemselves
bycharging morefortheirproducts ,particularly thoseintended tobemade
available forrental,islimitedand,inanycase,highersalesprices
prejudice theconsumer andtendtooperateinthemselves asanincentive to
rentalandtocopying .Arighttoauthorize rentalwouldenableright
holderstodecideontheextenttowhichtheirproducts wouldbemarketed by
rentalorsaleonthebasisofcommercial considerations including the
probable impactofoneformofmarketing ontheother.Arighttoequitable
remuneration wouldbefarlesssatisfactory fromthispointofviewand
wouldinevitably involvetheuncertainty andcomplexity ofprocedures
designed todetermine whatisequitable remuneration inanygivencase.

-165-
4.10.8 .Itseemsappropriate tosuggest aduration oftherentalrightof50years
tobecalculated fromtheendoftheyearinwhichtherecording wasmadein
accordance withthelegislative trendinMemberStatesinrespect ofthe
reproduction ofrecordings .
4.10.9 .Sincetheproblems currently arising areaconsequence ofcommercial
lending ,noneedappearstoarisetoextendthescopeoftherightto
including freelending ,forexample ,bypubliclibraries .Byrestricting
Community actiontocommercial lending ,MemberStatesarealsoleftthe
discretion tomakeappropriate arrangements inrespectofother
non-commercial lending ofsoundandvideorecordings ,asforexample
lendingtoeducational institutions .
4.11.Summary
4.11.1 .TheCommission considers thattheincreasing penetration ofcompactdiscs,
whichdonotdeteriorate byfrequent use,entailstheriskthattheauthor,
theperformer andthephonogram producer maysuffereconomic damagebythe
unauthorized commercial rentalofsoundrecordings .
Thisriskshouldbecountered bytheintroduction inallMemberStatesofa
rightfortheauthor,theperformer andthephonogram producer toauthorize
thecommercial rentalofsoundrecordings .
4.11.2 .Asfarasvideorecordings areconcerned ,theeconomic interest ofthe
producer ofthecinematographic worksorecorded makesitnecessary to
guarantee himtherighttochoosethetimeandplacetoexploithisworkby
performance inmovietheatres andbycommercial rental.Therightto
authorize thecommercial rentalofvideograms ,aslaiddowninthe
legislation ofsomeMemberStates,shouldbegeneralized .
4.11.3 .Thereappearsatthepresenttimetobenoneedfortheintroduction ofa
generalrightforauthorstocontrolotherelements inthecommercial
distribution ofcopiesoftheirworks.

-166-
4.12.
4.12.1 .
4.12.2 .
4.13.
4.13.1 .Conclusion
TheCommission intendstosubmittotheCouncil aproposal foradirective ,
tobebasedonArticle100AEEC,tointroduce arentalrightforsoundand
videorecordings inallMemberStatesoftheCommunity .Comments are
invitedonwhetherthisrightassuggested shouldconsistoftherightto
authorize rentalorshouldberestricted totherighttoreceiveequitable
remuneration .
Comment isalsoinvitedontheconclusion drawninthischapterthatthe
otherissuesofabroaddistribution rightandaharmonisation of
exhaustion provisions donotappeartocallforlegislative initiatives at
Community levelatthepresenttime.
Timetable forsubmissions
Comments onChapter 4shouldbesubmitted totheCommission nolaterthan
1December 1988.

-167-
SeeforDenmark ,section 2ofLawonCopyright no.158of31May1961with
lateramendments ,forGermany ,article16oftheCopyright Lawof9
September 1965withlateramendments ,forItaly,article12ofthe
Copyright Lawno.633of22April1941withlateramendments ,forthe
Netherlands ,article 12oftheCopyright Lawof23September 1912with
lateramendments andforPortugal ,section67(1)oftheCode45/85of
Copyright andRelatedRightsof17September 1985.
Seearticle 17ofLeydepropiedad intelectual no.22/87of11November
1987
Boletin Oficial delEstadono.275of17November 1987.
SeeA.Dietz,Copyright LawintheEuropean Community ,1978,para.233;
andCopinger andStoneJames,Copyright ,twelfthedition ,1980,paragraph
495.
SeeA.Dietz,op.cit.paragraphs 233-234 ;andGotzen,Het
bestemmingsrecht vandeauteur,1975,p.17etseq.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16A.Dietz,op.cit.,para.231.
Article 19loc.cit.
Centrafarm etal.v.Sterling Drug,(1974)ECR1147.
Centrafarm v.Winthrop ,(1974)ECR1183.
Deutsche Grammophon v.Metro-SB-Grossmärkte ,(1971)ECR487and
Musik-Vertrieb Membran v.GEMA,(1981)ECR147.
loc.cit.
loc.cit.
Coditel v.Ciné-Vog Films,(1980)ECR881.
loc.cit
Case407/85,G.Bassetv.SACEM,notyetreported .Asimilarproblemwill
beaddressed bytheCourtinitsjudgement onthepending Case270/86M.
Cholay,SocieteBizon'sClubv.SACEM.
Case158/86,WarnerBrothers Inc,andMetronome VideoApsv.ErikViuff
Christiansen .
A.Dietz,op.cit.,para236.
Proposal foraCouncilDirective onthecoordination ofcertain
provisions laiddownbylaw,regulation oradministrative actionin
MemberStatesconcerning thepursuitofbroadcasting activities of6June
1986,O.J.No.C179of17July1986,p.4.17

-168-
Forexample,seeA.Dietz,toc,cit.,paragraphs 227and250etseq.
A.Dietz,Loc.cit.paragraphs 250-258andCommunity actioninthe
cultural sector,Bulletin oftheEuropean Communities ,Supplement 6/77
paragraph 26.
Newtechnical development suchasthedevelopment ofthecompactdisc
readonlymemory (CD-ROM )couldalterthissituation butitcannotbe
assumed thatitwill.
SeeforexampleG.Davies,PiracyofPhonograms ,secondedition1984,
Commission Document SG/Culture /52/84,pages111to112.SeealsoReport
oftheGroupofExpertsontheRentalofPhonograms andVideograms ,
UNESCO-WIP0,November 1984,UNESCO/WIPO/GELPV.1/6.
A.Dietz,op.cit.,paragraph 231.
SeeArticle12oftheCopyright Lawof23September 1912andA.Dietz,
op.cit.paragraph 231.
SeetheRecording andRentalofAudioandVideoCopyright Material ,
February 1985,Cmnd.9445,page11.
SeeRentalofVideograms andPhonograms prepared bytheInternational
Federation ofProducers ofPhonograms andVideograms (IFPI)forWIP0and
UNESCO .Doc.UNESCO/WIPO/GE/LPV1/2,Paris30August1984,paragraph 44.
SeeforFranceLawno.85-660of3July1985,Article 21andforPortugal
Lawno.45/85of17September 1985,Article184(1)and176(8).The
provisions inarticle190ofthelawwhichrestricts application ofthe
protection willnotbediscussed inthiscontext .
Standard Contract drawnupbytheInternational Federation ofProducers
ofPhonograms andVideograms andtheBureauInternational deI'Edition
Mecanique .
Seedecision of6March1986oftheBundesgerichtshof incase1ZR
208/83,GRUR1986,page736.
STEMRAv.FreeRecordshop .Thedecision bytheHighCourtreported inNJ
1986Nr.206isatpresentbeforetheSupremeCourt(HogeRaad).
Fordetailsonfilmcopyright ,seeparagraphs 2.6.5.to2.6.9.of
Chapter 2onPiracy .
Billno.282of29May1986submitted totheSenatebyMr.Desmarets and
others .SeealsoBillno.615of18July1987submitted totheSenateby
Mr.Lallemand andothers .
TheCopyright ,DesignsandPatentsBill(H.L.12).
Seeinparticular theCommunity 'sbroadcasting policy,Proposal fora
(12)

-169-
CouncilDirective concerning broadcasting activities ,Bulletin ofthe
EuropeanCommunities ,Supplement 5/86point16andActionProgramme for
theEuropeanAudiovisual MediaProductsIndustry ,C0MC86)255finalof12
May1986.
34loc.cit.

-170-
CHAPTER 5:COMPUTER PROGRAMS
5.1.Subjectnatter
5.1.1.Acomputer program isasetofinstructions thepurposeofwhichisto
causeaninformation processing device,acomputer ,toperformits
1
functions .Whilemorecomplicated definitions havebeenattempted ,this
simpledescription willsufficeforthepurposes ofthepresentdiscussion .
5.1.2.Theprogramassuchwillfrequently beaccompanied bysupporting
documentation ina"package".Inaddition ,itsdevelopment willhave
involved thecreation ofthenecessary preparatory designmaterial .The
programtogether withthesupporting andpreparatory designmaterial
constitute the"software ".Thelegalprotection ofthesupporting and
preparatory designmaterial mayraisesimilarissuestothoseraisedbythe
protection oftheprogramitselfasregardsboththeavailability andscope
ofprotection .
5.1.3.Computer programs areofdifferent typesandcanbeclassified indifferent
ways.
5.1.4.Operating systemscontroltheinternal functioning ofthecomputer ,while
application programs directittoperformparticular functions forthe
user.Iftheapplication program isdesigned forasoftware developer ,a
professional userratherthanthetypicalenduser,itisoftendescribed
asa"tool".Untilrecently application programs havenormally required to
beloadedintoacomputer priortobeingused.However,itisbecoming
increasingly commonforcertainapplication programs tobeincorporated in
thecomputer hardware ,forexample,databasemanagement programs .The
distinction betweenoperating systemsandapplication programs isthus
erodingandthistrendseemslikelytocontinue .

-171"-
5.1.5 .Programs inobjectormachine codeareexpressed inbinarydigits,while
sourcecodeprograms areexpressed insomeotherformandareautomatically
translated intobinarydigitsbyacomputer 'scompiler .
5.1.6 .Finally ,programs canbeclassified according tothedifferent mediaon
whichtheyarefixed,including papertape,punched cards,magnetic tape
anddiscs,opticaldiscs,aswellasintegrated circuits ("firmware ").
5.1.7 .Unlessotherwise indicated ,inthischapter ,theword"program "signifies
allcomputer programs however theymaybeclassified .
5.2.Theeconomic ,industrial andtechnological context
5.2.1 .Theimportance ofcomputer software totheCommunity 'seconomy andits
industrial andtechnological futureisquiteapparent .
5.2.2 .First,fromaquantitative pointofview,theworldsoftware industry is
already largeandwillcontinue toexpand .Information concerning this
industry anditsdevelopment isnecessarily fragmentary .Thefollowing
indications willserve,however ,togiveanimpression ofitsmain
features .
5.2.3 .Commercial software salesamounted in1985tobetween 30and39billion
dollars ,thehigherfigureincluding anadjustment fordistribution costs .
Sincesuchsalesfiguresdonotincludedevelopments byusersfortheirown
purposes ,thetotalannualoutputoftheindustry canbeassumed tohavea
significantly highervalue .
5.2.4 .Thelargestsoftware marketisfoundintheUnitedStateswhichisabout
halfthesizeoftheworldmarketandabout50%largerthanthemarketin
WesternEurope .SincetheUnitedStatesimportsrelatively littlesoftware ,
whileitsindustry exports onaconsiderable scale,withexports ofpackage
application programs expanding significantly inrecentyears,theUSshare
oftheworldmarketamounts toatleast70%.

-172-
5.2.5.TheJapanese software marketisatpresentcomparatively smallatabout5
billiondollars .Japanese business attitudes andlanguage difficulties are
reflected inanalmostexclusive demandforcustomsoftware andan
industrial policythataimsforamassmarketinsoftware development
systems .Ifthispolicyissuccessful ,Japancouldbeaworldplayerin
software markets within adecade .
5.2.6.TheWesternEuropean software marketwasvaluedin1985at9.5billion
dollars ofwhich5.1billion ,or54%,werederivedfromsalesofpackage
software .Packagesoftware salesaregrowingfast.Theyareledbypackages
formicro-computers whichareatpresentgrowing at30%perannum,having
expanded byasmuchas40%to50%perannumintherecentpast.Overall ,
software demandiscurrently stronger inEuropethanintheUSAwhichhas
motivated USfirmstoincrease theirsalesanddevelopments through
subsidiaries andjointventures inWestern Europe .
5.2.7.Indeed,thedominant suppliers ofsoftware inWestern EuropeareofUS
origin .Takentogether ,USfirmsin1985supplied intheregionof65%to
85%oftheWesternEuropean marketforsystemsoftware depending onthe
classandabout55%ofthemarketforapplication software .
5.2.8.Itisalsostriking thatcomputer hardware manufacturers arethelargest
suppliers ,eveninthecaseofpackage software .Amongst thecomputer
hardware firms,IBMleadsthefieldwitha41.5%shareofthepackage
software marketinWesternEurope (1985).IBM'smaincontenders areHewlett
Packard ,DEC,ICLandBullwithsharesbetween4.3%and4%,followed by
Siemens ,Olivetti andNixdorfwithsomewhat smallersharesofbetween3.4%
and3.3%.Thelargestandmostdynamicfirmsnotinvolved inhardware
production occupypositions muchlowerdownthescale,rankingbetween
tenthandtwenty-fifth inrelative importance :Computer Associates ,
Software AG,Cullinet ,Microsoft ,AshtonTate,Cincom,LotusandScicon
Internati onal.

173-
5.2.9.Astodevelopments inthefuture,someinformedcommentators ^believethat
thegrowthofpackagesoftware willcontinue intothe1990‘s,atthe
expense ofcustomsoftware andprocessing services .Thisopinion isnot
sharedbyall.Infact,afewsoftware houses,notably inFrance,believe
thattheyandtheircustomers willbebetteroffiftheyservethegrowing
demandforintegrated solutions bysupplying application programs thatare
moreeasilyadaptable andportable thantheywereinthepast.Such
programs mustalsobeproduced morequicklyandcheaplythaninthepast,
bymeansofraisingthenumberofre-usable programelements ormodules .In
theirview,suppliers willhavetoassemble thenecessary skillsandoffer
ahostofprofessional services including marketresearch ,business
consultancy andusertraining inordertomaximize valueadded.
Developments inotherMemberStatessuggest thatthisviewmaywellbe
correct.
5.2.10 .Uncertainty alsoprevails astotheextenttowhichreliance onproprietary
asopposed tofreelyaccessible standards willaffectthemarketposition
ofsoftware suppliers .Atonelevel,freeworldwide standards reduce
investment risk.Thisisdemonstrated ,forinstance ,byPOSIX-astandard
setofinterfaces betweenUNIXandsimilaroperating systemsandthe
application programs thatrunonthesesystems .Existence ofPOSIXnow
allowsindependent software producers todevelopapplication software with
theknowledge thatthissoftware will"fit"arangeofinstallations
irrespective oftheversion oftheoperating systembeingused.Conversely
itissaidthatsomecomputer makersaimtorestrict theuseofoperating
systemstotheirownproducts andtosellasmuchapplication software as
possible .Bywithholding interface information fortheirproducts ,theymay
delayorpreventcompetitive software frombeingdeveloped .Itwas
precisely suchconsiderations which,in1984,ledtheCommission toinsist

-174-
thatIBMundertook (ref.Bulletin oftheEuropean Communities 10-1984,page
96etseq.)toidentify theinterface tobeusedbyanycompeting product
andgiveaccesstotherelevant interface information .Ithasalsobeen
claimedthat"proprietary standards "distortcompetition inthesoftware
markets ,butthedegreeofdistortion isdifficult tomeasurebecausedata
aboutsoftware activities arenotoriously poor.Thematterisclearlyof
sufficient causeforconcern thatitmustbekeptundercloseexamination .
Someimportant aspectsofthisproblemareconsidered inparagraphs 5.5.8.
to5.5.12 .below .
5.2.11 .Whatever theoutcome ,itisnevertheless clearthat,inthefuture,
software willincreasingly constitute themostimportant component of
computer systems ,withthehardware consisting increasingly ofsimilar ,
standardized interoperable components .Thesesystemswillbeofvital
importance inallsectors oftheeconomy .Toretainitsplaceinthe
forefront oftechnical advance ,andindeedtomaintain itscompetitiveness
generally ,theCommunity willaccordingly havetoensurethatithasa
competitive ,dynamicsoftware industry .
5.2.12 .Atthepresenttime,however ,thereislittleroomforcomplacency onthis
scoresince,thoughparticular European firmsmaywellbeverysuccessful
intheirparticular niches,overall ,theindustry ischaracterized bythe
predominant position ofUSsuppliers ,inboththeworldandtheCommunity
markets ,especially asregardsoperating systems .UScomputer manufacturers
haveatechnological leadasregardsmuchcomputer hardware .Operating
systemsareoftensupplied together withthehardware .This"bundling "of
thesoftware andhardware inevitably helpsthemtomaintain their
predominant position .Asregardsapplication programs ,usershaveamuch
greaterdegreeoffreedomtochoosetheirsuppliers and,unsurprisingly ,it
isinthisfieldthatEuropean firmshavefounditeasiertoinvestinthe
development ofcompetitive products andsoincrease theirmarketshare.

-'75-
5.2.13 .GiventhelatestartoftheCommunity 'ssoftware industry compared tothat
ofitsprincipal competitors ,itisparticularly important toensurethat
appropriate legalprotection isavailable tocomputer programs andsoftware
generally ,whichwillcontribute toanenvironment favourable toinvestment
andinnovation byCommunity firms,thuspermitting theCommunity industry
tocatchupwithitscompetitors .Further ,indebating thescopeandterm
ofprotection ,acorrectbalanceshouldbefoundbetweenthebenefits
protection givestosoftware producers andthe"opportunity costs"itmay
imposeonsoftware usersintheformoftherangeandpriceofsoftware
products available tothem.
5.3.Thelegalresponse
5.3.1.Untilrecently ,thedevelopment ofcomputers andtheirassociated programs ,
whichhasbeenunderwayformanyyears,hadnotproduced widespread
legislative changeinintellectual property laws.Partoftheexplanation
forthisinactivity liesinthefactthat,untilashorttimeago,access
toprograms wasonthewholelimitedtomoreprofessional usersinadirect
relationship withprogramdevelopers .Thispermitted manyproblems tobe
resolved satisfactorily onacontractual basis.Atthesametime,inthe
industrialized world,programs werenotonlyprotected contractually ,but
werewidelyconsidered tobeeligible forprotection undertheexisting
provisions ofcopyright and,toalesserdegree,patentlaws.Theexact
scopeofthisprotection mightwellnotbecompletely clear,buttothe
extentthatcaselawwasexpected toclarifyprogressively theapplication
ofthelaw,therewasanaturalreluctance toembarkonlegislative
initiatives whichmightprovetobeunnecessary .Inaddition ,ifthe
protection ofprograms developed onthebasisofexisting instruments ,
national andinternational ,itmightbepossible toavoidputting atissue
valuedprinciples whichwouldrunagreater riskofbeingquestioned inthe
context ofmorecomprehensive legislative reform .

-176-
5.3.2.Accordingly ,untilrecently intheMemberStates,attention focusedonthe
application andadaptation ofexisting lawstotheparticular characte¬
ristics ofsoftware ratherthanonthepromotion ofnewlegislative
solutions .
5.3.3.Asregardspatentlaw,thecommonstarting pointhasbeentheassimilation
ofcomputer programs "assuch"tothoseformsofinnovation ,suchas
mathematical methodsandpresentations ofinformation ,thatarenot
4regarded aspatentable inventions .Butthispointofdeparture hasnot
eliminated patentprotection forprograms totheextentthatmightappear
atfirstsight.Forwhereaprogramformspartofaninvention that,taken
asawhole,meetsthecriteria forpatentability ,patentshaveindeedbeen
grantedandupheldbythecourts .TheParisCourtofAppeal,forexample ,
heldin1981thataninvention permitting theanalysis andrecording ofthe
physical characteristics oftheearth'sstrata,including itsoil-bearing
potential ,shouldnotberefusedprotection simplybecausecertainstepsof
theprocedure weredirectedbyacomputerprogram3.Similarapproaches have
beenadopted inseveralMemberStates .Inaddition ,theEuropean Patent
Officehasre-examined itspractice inthismatterandadoptednew
examination guidelines in1985which,amongotherthings,aredesigned to
ensurethataninvention which,takenasawhole,hasatechnical character
andmeetsthenormalcriteria forpatentability ,maybepatented evenif
thesubjectmatterclaimedincludesacomputerprogram^.Nevertheless ,the
restrictive criteria thatmustbemettoobtainapatentmonopoly are
undoubtedly suchthatmanyprograms representing aconsiderable investment
arenotpatentable probably becausethetechnical character ofaninvention
isabsent,nochangebeingproduced onmatterorenergyinthephysical
world.Evenwhereacomputer programdoesformpartofaninvention having
thistechnical character ,therequired levelofinventiveness maynotbe
reached .Inanyevent,toobtainpatentprotection ,procedures havetobe
followed andchargespaid.Thesecanresultinpotential rightholders
failingtosecurethelegalprotection oftheirwork.

-177-
5.3.4 .Theselimitations ofpatentlawhaveemphasized thepotential roleof
copyright inthebroadsense,thatis,authors' rightsandneighbouring
rightsastheprimarymeansforprotecting computer programs bothatthe
levelofCommunity MemberStatesandattheinternational level.The
scepticism expressed bysomeinthesixtiesandseventies inrespect ofthe
extension of"copyright "protection tothisnewkindofwork,gradually and
inparallel withanincreasing understanding ofthesimilarity between a
computer program andaliterary andartistic work,hasbeenreplaced both
atnational andinternational levelbyageneralacknowledgment ofthe
advantages forcreators ,rightholders ,usersandsociety asawholeofa
"copyright "solution totheproblem ofensuring adequate protection of
programs againstunauthorized reproduction .
5.3.5.Indeed,sostronghadthepreference foracopyright solution become,that
the1983session oftheWorldIntellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
groupofexpertspursuing theworkstarted in1979toconsider the
protection ofcomputer programs attheinternational level,recommended
thattheconclusion ofaspecialtreatygivingsuigenerisprotection to
computer programs shouldnotbepursued forthetimebeing .Instead ,it
notedthesuggestion thatWIPOandUNESCO,thetwobodiesresponsible for
themaininternational copyright conventions ,shouldfurtherstudythe
protection available forcomputer software underexisting copyright laws
andtreaties andshouldconvene acommittee ofgovernmental experts for
thispurpose .
5.3.6 .Onthisbasis,workontheprotection ofcomputer programs hasbeen
continued atthelevelofthecompetent international organizations .The
sessionconvened byWIPOandUNESCOinFebruary 1985maywellbeconsidered
tohavefailedtoachieveuniversal recognition oftheexistence of
protection systemsfounded ontheapplication ofcopyright laws.Neither
diditobtainageneralconsensus onthedesirability oftheintroduction
ofcopyright protection wherenotalreadyapplicable .Itdid,however ,
demonstrate thatcopyright protection againstunauthorized reproduction of
computer programs alreadyexistsinmostindustrialized countries ,and
amongthose,nearlyallMemberStatesoftheEuropean Communities .

-178-
5.3.7 .Indeed,therecorddemonstrated thatinMemberStates,caseLawhas
increasingly recognized theapplication inprinciple ofcopyright to
computer programs andtheotherformsofexpression ,suchassupporting
Q
documentation ,thattogether constitute thesoftware family .
5.3.8 .Inrecentyears,legislation hasalsobeenproposed oradopted inmany
MemberStates,butessentially toconfirm thetrendsincaselawrather
thantomodifythemsubstantially .
95.3.9.InGermany ,thelawof24June1985amendsthecopyright lawsoasto
assimilate programs fordataprocessing toliterary works,including for
thepurposes ofdetermining thetermofprotection .InFrance,thelawof
103July1985provides thatcomputer programs shallfigureamongtheworks
protected undercopyright law,albeitsubject toparticular provisions
including alimitation ofthetermto25yearsfromcreation .Inthe
11UnitedKingdom ,theCopyright (Computer Software )Amendment Act1985was
enacted inordertomakeitclearthatcomputer programs attractcopyright
protection .Mostrecently Spainhasprovided forexplicit copyright
protection ofcomputer programs byitscomprehensive copyright lawof
12.. ........ . .131987 .Similarlegislative initiatives arebeingtakeninDenmark ,
14. 15 ,„..16_17Italy ,theNetherlands .Thegovernments ofBelgium andLuxembourg
havealsoannounced thattheywillfavourcopyright asanappropriate
18vehicleforprotecting computer programs .InPortugal ,learnedopinion
considers computer programs tobecoveredbythenotionof"Intellectual
19creation "inArticle 1ofthe1985CodeonCopyright andRelatedRights ,
thoughtheyarenotmentioned intheexamples specified inArticle 2.Only
inGreece^dothereappearstilltobedoubtsaboutthedesirability of
protecting software inthisway.

-179-
5.3.10 .Inbriefthen.,theMemberStateshavegenerally takentheviewthatthe
legalprotection ofcomputer software shouldresideprimarily inthe
application ofcopyright lawsinthebroadsensewiththepatentsystem
playing amorelimitedandancillary roleinthecaseofinventions
involving computer programs .Itisalsogenerally recognized thatthelaws
ofcontract ,tradesecrets andunfaircompetition haveimportant rolesto
play,thoughlegislative reformisnotgenerally considered tobenecessary
intheseareasintheimmediate future .Copyright laws,ontheotherhand,
arethesubject ofcritical comment intheirapplication tocomputer
programs andtheEuropean debateisnowfocusing onthemodifications that
maybedesirable totakeaccount oftheparticular characteristics of
computer programs andtheneedsofCommunity industry bothwithinand
outside thedataprocessing sector .Inordertobroaden theactivity base
ofthesoftware industry ,theCommunity andthegovernments oftheMember
Stateshavecommitted themselves toIS0/0SIstandards indataprocessing .
Theneedtoprovide formoreuniformprotection intheCommunity hasalso
becomeapparent ifindustry istotakefulladvantage ofitslargeinternal
market .
5.3.11 .Inordertotakeadvantage ofthismarket,industry needscomparable
operating conditions intheMemberStates .Commercial developments suchas
theadventofpersonal computers haveunderlined theneedforspecific
legalprovisions andinterpretations ofthelaws.Smallcomputers arebeing
massmarketed likeotherconsumer durables asisthesoftware withwhich
theyoperate .Programs intheformoftapesanddiscsaresoldlikebooks
orrecords overthecounter andtheability ofthedeveloper toprotect
himselfcontractually hasbeenmuchreduced .Theincomplete evolution of
legalsystemsthrough caselawandpractice insomejurisdictions is
increasingly seenasahandicap bycomparison withclearlegislative
provisions adopted ,forexample -asregardscopyright incomputer programs ,
21intheUnitedStates ofAmerica .Itshouldbenotedhowever thatrecent
American experience suggests thatevenifspecific legislative provisions
areenacted ,difficult questions ofinterpretation willremaintobe
solved .Oneimportant example isdiscussed inparagraph 5.5.11 .below .

-180-
5.3.12 .Giventhefactthatthesequestions ofinterpretation willtaketimefor
thecourtstoresolve .Outstanding issuesmaybedealtwithbyagreement or
bymeansofarbitration procedures .Suchapproaches maypermitrelatively
detailed settlements tobereachedquitequicklyandinawaywhichtakes
largelyintoaccounttheinterests ofthosedirectly concerned ,ashas
recently beendemonstrated bythearbitration involving IBMandFujitsuin
theUnitedStates^.
5.4.Coraunity involveaent todate
5.4.1.TheCommission hasmonitored developments concerning thelegalprotection
ofsoftware bothwithinandoutside theCommunity overanumberofyears.
Ithasalsoparticipated inthemeetings oftheWIP0committee ofexperts
andindiscussions inotherinternational fora.Ithasinaddition
consulted expertsandorganizations interested inthequestion including ,
representatives frommajorEuropean Information Technology companies ,
UNICE,theEuropean Computing Services Association (ECSA)andthe
Confederation oftheEuropean Computer UsersAssociations (CECUA).Onthe
basisofthisinvolvement ,theCommission concluded thatadirective onthe
legalprotection ofcomputer programs wasanecessary stepforthe
completion oftheinternal market .Consequently ,initsWhitePaper
23"Completing theInternal Market",itundertook thecommitment tosubmit
toCouncilbeforetheendof1987aproposal foradirective onthelegal
protection inCommunity MemberStatesofcomputer programs .Thoughdelayed
fortechnical reasons ,theproposal willbesubmitted toCouncilasrapidly
aspossible .

-181
5.5.Copyright :thefocusforaCommunity initiative
5.5.1.Itissuggested thatthedirective bebasedonthefollowing principles .
5.5.2 .Noactionappears tobecalledforatthistimeinrelation eitherto
patentlawortotradesecrets andcontract laws.Asregardspatentlaw,as
previously mentioned ,theEuropean PatentOfficein1985amended its
guidelines onexamination inthefieldofcomputer programs tomakeit
clearthatinventions havingatechnical character maybepatentable even
iftheyrelyoncomputer programs toachievetheireffects .Similar
developments areoccurring intheMemberStates .TheCommission considers
thiskindofevolution tobedesirable andhopesthatallnational patent
administrations willadoptasimilarly liberalapproach .Noformal
Community initiative seemstobenecessary atpresent .Likewise inrelation
totradesecrets andcontract law,thesituation intheMemberStatesseems
relatively satisfactory andlegislative actionatCommunity levelisnotat
present needed .
5.5.3.Similarly ,nolegislative initiative appearsnecessary asregardscontract
lawthoughitsimportance inthisfieldisoftenunderestimated .Guidelines
forsoftware suppliers andusersmightwellproveuseful,however ,and
commercial practices bedeveloped which,oncetheybecomewidespread ,will
acquire thecharacter ofruleswhichmightbeappliedfailingother
arrangements .TheConfederation ofEuropean Computer UsersAssociations and
somenational associations areexamining thepossibility ofdrawingup
guidelines inthisarea.
5.5.4 .Fromtimetotime,thepossibility israisedofprotecting computer
programs bymeansoftechnical devices .Devicesdeveloped recently may
provemoreeffective thantheyhaveinthepast.Atthisstage,however ,
furtherexperience isneededoftheiruseinpractice .NoCommunity
initiative isaccordingly suggested atthepresenttime.

-182-
5.5.5 .Astocopyright andneighbouring rights,thebasicquestion whethertheir
application toprotectcomputer programs isinprinciple desirable ,is
generally beinganswered intheaffirmative .Thosewhohavearguedthat
suchprotection iseitherinadequate orexcessive havenotbeenvindicated
byevents .
5.5.6 .Astothesuggestion thatcopyright isinsufficient ,someEuropean voices
haveindeedsuggested intherecentpastthatprotection againstcopying is
insufficient andthatatruemonopoly right,analogous toapatent,is
needed .Theyhavesuggested thatthelimitations ofcopyright ,in
particular theprinciple thatitprotects theforminwhichideasare
expressed ratherthantheideasthemselves ,renderitalessthan
completely adequate solution .Theapplication oftheprinciple tocomputer
software leadstotheconclusion thatwhileprograms areprotected ,their
underlying logicoralgorithms arenot.Totheextentthatthebasic
concepts canbeexpressed differently ,programs canthusbedeveloped to
achieve thesameresults .Thishasledsometoproposethatanewformof
protection beadopted ,alongside copyright ,tograntexclusive rightsin
newalgorithms involving aninventive step.Suchprotection wouldinmany
waysbeanalogous topatentprotection beingdependent onregistration and
givinganeffective monopoly forafixedperiodintheregionof20years
24astothealgorithms inquestion .

183-
5.5.7.However ,thisapproach hasnotmetwithgeneralapproval .Manyinthedata
processing industries indicated theirdoubtsaboutthedesirability ofsuch
protection ,inparticular ,theriskthatthedevelopment anduseof
programs mightbestultified bythecreation ofmonopolies inconcepts
havingamathematical orscientific character andassuchunprotectable
underanyintellectual andindustrial property protection system .This
dangerthatthedevelopment anduseofprograms mightbestultified issaid
tobegreatersincethenumberofusefulalgorithms appears inall
probability tobelimited .Abroadconsensus hasemergedthatcompetition
wouldbeseverely impaired ,if"independent invention "ofprograms having
essentially thesamefunctions ofexisting programs butdeveloped without
undue"inspiration "byexisting programs andexpressed inadifferent
mannerand"reverseengineering "weretobeprevented .Interestingly ,the
sameconclusion hasbeenreached inthecontext ofrecentdevelopments
concerning theprotection ofsemiconductor designs inthemainproducer
countries .
5.5.8.Astothequestion ofwhethercopyright protection canitselfgivean
excessive degreeofprotection thatisdamaging tocompetition inthedata
processing industry andtothespreadofcomputer technology ,adefinitive
answercannotbegivenatthepresent timebutshouldsoonemergeasmore
experience isgainedbothintheUSAandinEurope .

-184-
5.5.9.Forexample ,theproblem of"accessprotocols "andinterfaces hasbeen
raised .Thesemustbeusedintheexactforminwhichtheywerefirst
expressed ifnewlydeveloped software orhardware istooperatecompatibly
withsoftware orhardware alreadyonthemarket .Ithasbeenarguedthat
copyright couldcreateanundesirable monopoly notonlyoftheaccess
protocol itselfbutoftheentiresegment ofthesystemsmarketthat
dependsonitsuse.Thedevelopment ofcompatible programs ,whichis
desirable fromthepointofviewofbothcompetition andindustrial policy,
wouldbeimpeded ifcompetitors wereprevented fromintegrating intotheir
product rangeprotocols orinterfaces thataregainingwidesupportas
likelyinternational standards .Thesamewouldapplyifprotocols or
interfaces weretechnically available ,butonlyatalicencefeethatonly
thelargest ofcompetitors canafford .Because ofthesevereconsequences
effective monopolies insuchsoftware wouldhaveforcommunications and
industry atlarge,thespecific exclusion ofprotocols andinterfaces from
25copyright andsimilarprotection isbeingdebatedininterested circles .
5.5.10 .Similarly ,theallegation issometimes heardthatcopyright protection
makesitsodifficult tocreatecompatible systemswithout atleastthe
appearance ofcopyingthat,quiteapartfromtheparticular problemof
accessprotocols andinterfaces ,thelegitimate development ofcompatible
systemswillbeimpededanddesirable competition willbestifled .This
appliesparticularly tothesystemssoftware andbusiness applications
markets .
5.5.11.Atpresent,theextenttowhichthecopyright lawsoftheMemberStates
mightpermitprogramdevelopers topreventothersusingaccessprotocols
andinterfaces ordeveloping compatible programs isunclear .Inanycase,
itmightwellbethatinsituations asdescribed intheforegoing
paragraph ,wheretheexercise ofcopyright astoaccessprotocols or
interface specifications islikelytocreateandincreasemarketdominance ,
suchexercise wouldbeaccompanied byotherfactorssothatanabuseofa
dominantposition maybeestablished undertherelevantcompetition laws.

185-
5.5.12 .Muchwillprobably dependonhowsuccessfully thecourtsmanageinconcrete
casestoresolvethelevelofabstraction problemandsoachieve a
reasonable balancebetweentheinterests ofrightholders inexisting
programs andofpersonswhocanshowthattheyhaveindependently developed
programs toachievesimilarresults toexisting ones.Whilecopyright
protection reachesbeyondtheformoftheprogram ,inobjectorsource
code,toincludepreparatory material suchastheprogramdescription ,
therecomesapointatwhichaclaimforprotection isaclaimtoanidea
ratherthantheexpression ofthatidea.Forexample ,amathematical
formula tosolveaparticular problem canbeimplemented inaprogram in
manydifferent ways.Eachimplementation canprovide thesameresultor
outputgivenidentical valuesfortheinitialvariables orinput.Butthe
performance ofthedifferent implementations willvary,perhaps
considerably .Copyright shouldprotect themanneroftheimplementation ,
andhenceitsparticular advantages intermsofperformance ,andleavethe
formula tobeimplemented byanyone .Ascourtsbecomemorefamiliar with
thesubjectmatter,theyshouldbeabletodevelop caselawonwhat
constitutes copying inthisfieldjustastheyhaveinmoretraditional
fields .Copyright courtcaseshavemultiplied intheUSAandsohavethe
numberofinterpretations astothescopeofprotection .Atthisstage,in
theCommunity ,thereisnotyetenoughexperience thatwouldallowoneto
conclude thatcopyright lawsneedmodification .Ifproblems shouldarise,
thenmethodscouldbefoundfordealingwiththemeitherwithinthe
relevant intellectual property lawsthemselves ,throughsuitable
non-voluntary licensing provisions or,inwholeorinpart,throughthe
application ofcompetition andstandardization policy .
5.5.13 .TheCommission isoftheopinionthatfromthepointofviewoffundamental
economic policy,protection againstcopying ofsoftware bycopyright ora
neighbouring rightseemscorrectandshouldbeaccorded bytheMember
StatesoftheCommunity asawhole.AftertheCommission hastakena
position onthequestion ofprinciple ,attention needstobegiventoa
consideration ofwhatparameters maybeneededtoensuresufficient
convergence inthesystemsthatwillbeapplied inpractice bytheMember
States .

-186-
5.6.Clarification andadaptation ofexisting copyright regimes
5.6.1.Asregardsclarification andadaptation ofcopyright regulation ,the
following mattershavebeensaidtomeritconsideration :theavailability
ofcopyright protection tocomputer programs ,including requirements asto
fixation ;beneficiaries ofprotection ;thescopeofprotection ,thatis,
restricted andunrestricted acts,including possible provision forfair
dealing orotherexceptions fromtheexclusive rightofthecopyright
owner;thetermofprotection ;authorship ,including theemployee author
andtheself-employed authorproducing forremuneration ;theprotectabi lity
andauthorship ofcomputer generated programs ;moralrights;andproblems
ofproof.
Availability ofprotection
5.6.2.Whilejudicial decisions inseveralCommunity jurisdictions haverecognized
26thatcomputer programs areprotected bycopyright ,andlearnedopinion
generally supports thisconclusion ,nevertheless adegreeofuncertainty
remainsandwillcontinue todosountilresolved byaseriesof
authoritative decisions offinalcourtsofappeal .Thisuncertainty should
beremovedbymeansoflegislative clarification onthebasisofa
directive explicitly protecting computer programs undercopyright lawin
thebroadsense .

-187-
Originality andindependent intellectual effort
5.6.3 .Suchadirective wouldnotbyitselfnecessarily ensure,however ,thatall
computer programs areprotected against reproduction onauniformbasisin
allMemberStates .IneveryMemberState,tobeeligible forcopyright
protection strictusensuaworkmustbe"original "inthesensethatitis
theresultofthecreator 'sownintellectual efforts andnotitselfacopy.
Butinsomejurisdictions ,moremayberequired incertain cases,
particularly whereworkshaveautilitarian ratherthananaesthetic
function .Courtsmaythenfindthatworklackssufficient creative meritor
istoomodestinscopetoattract fullcopyright protection thoughinsome
casesthis"smallchange"(inGerman,"kleineMiinze")maystillbeeligible
foralesserformofprotection designed toprotect theinvestment oftime,
,_27manpower andmoney
5.6.4 .Thistendency ismoreapparent elsewhere inEuropethanintheUnited
KingdomandIrelandand,evenwhereitexists,itmanifests itselfto
different degrees astworecentdecisions offinalcourtsofappealhave
28showninGermany andinFrance .InGermany ,intheInkassoCase,the
SupremeCourtheldthatprograms mustrepresent anindividual ,original ,
creative achievement andthatthisrequired thattheformofthecomputer
programresulting fromtheselection ,collection ,arrangement anddivision
oftherelevant information andstatements exceeded theaverage skills
displayed inthedevelopment ofcomputer programs .Ontheotherhand,in
29France,theCourtofCassation heldinMarch1986intheAtariCasethat
theParisCourtofAppeals haderredinexcluding aprogram foracomputer
gameonthegroundinteraliathattheprogramdidnotmanifest thekindof
originality ofexpression thatwouldconferonittheaesthetic character
necessary toattracttheprotection ofthelawonliterary andartistic
property .Theprogramshouldbeprotected withoutanyattemptbeingmadeto
applyaesthetic criteria .

-188-
5.6.5.Ifthecourtsofdifferent MemberStatesapplystandards oforiginality
thataresubstantially divergent ,actionmaybeneededtoeliminate the
resulting distortions .However ,atthisstage,itwouldbepremature to
exaggerate theseriousness oftheproblemorthedifficulty offinding a
solution.
5.6.6.First,astotheseriousness oftheproblem ,thedivergence threatened by
theInkassoCasemayturnouttobelesssignificant thanmightatfirst
sightappear .Acomplete reading ofthejudgment suggests thattheCourt
wasinlargepartconcerned bytheneedtodistinguish between ,ontheone
hand,protectable programs and,ontheother,thosethatconsist of
elements socommonplace thattheyareinasenseinthepublicdomain .If
thejudgment ,whenapplied inconcrete cases,meansnomorethanthe
exclusion ofsuchcommonplace elements fromtheprotection ofthecopyright
law,thedivergence betweenthelegalsituation inGermanyandthatinmany
otherMemberStateswillnotbeverysignificant .
5.6.7.Ifnevertheless significant divergences persist asolution mayalreadybe
tohandintheprovision oftherecently adopteddirective onthelegal
protection oftopographies ofsemiconductor products^.Thetextreadsas
follows (article 2(2)):
"Thetopography ofasemiconductor product shallbeprotected
insofar asitsatisfies theconditions thatitistheresultofits
creator'sownintellectual effortandisnotcommonplace inthe
semiconductor industry .Wherethetopography ofasemiconductor
product consists ofelements thatarecommonplace inthe
semiconductor industry ,itshallbeprotected totheextentthat
thecombination ofsuchelements ,takenasawhole,fulfilsthe
abovementioned conditions ".
Asimilarprovision seemsadequatealsofortheforthcoming directive on
theprotection ofcomputer programs .

189-
Fixation
5.6.8 .Programs maywellbeexpressed inconventional written formonpaperbut,
asalreadyindicated ,theymayalsobestoredonmagnetic tapeandmagnetic
oropticaldiscsorevenasapattern ofelectrical charges onamicro-
circuit orchip.Indeedtheselessaccessible formsarebecoming thenormal
mediumforrecording software .Copyright lawsshouldtherefore makeclear
31thatprotection extends toprograms fixedinanyform
Scopeofprotection :restricted acts
5.6.9 .Theparticular natureofcomputer software anditstypical usemustbe
takenintoaccountwhenassessing whichformsofusesmustberegarded as
restricted actsforwhichthepermission oftheauthorismandatory .The
restricted actsapplying totraditional worksarenotalwaysperfectly
adapted tosoftware .Accordingly ,consideration mightwellbegiventothe
adoption ofspecific provisions clearlydefining thecontent oftherights
inquestion inthesoftware context .

-190-
Restricted acts:reproduction ,translation ,adaptation anduse
5.6.10 .Ofthetraditional rights,thosemostobviously relevant tosoftware appear
tobecopying theworkinanymaterial formfromwhichitcanbereproduced
andmaking,reproducing ,orpublishing anadaptation oftheworkincluding
translations ofprograms fromonecodetoanother .Oneparticularity ofthe
useofacomputer program liesinthefactthat,fortechnical reasons ,its
normalusenecessarily involves operations ofsuchkinds.Inatypical
case,auserreceives thecomputer program onamachine-readable medium
suchasafloppydiscormagnetic tape.Itisfrequently recommended bythe
software supplier thattheusermakesaback-up copyofthesoftware .The
copydelivered bythesoftware producer maywellnolongerbenecessary
thereafter .Itiskeptforsecurity reasons incaseofadefectinthe
computer .Fortheprogram tobeused,ithastobetransferred intothe
memoryofthecomputer ,whichmeansithastobecopied .Afterthisfirst
andcomplete reproduction ,theprogram iscopiedmanytimes,although only
inparts,whenever theprogram isrunonthecomputer :whenitis
transferred fromtheprogramlibraryintothemainmemory;whenindividual
programinstructions aretransferred totheCentralProcessing Unit(CPU);
orwhenunitsofinformation aremadevisible onthescreenorprinted on
paper .Theuseofacomputer program forthepurpose itisintended to
serveisnotconceivable withoutconstant reproduction ,adaptation and
possibly eventranslation ,andhencetheexecution ofrestricted acts.
5.6.11 .Itisclearthatauthorized useofaprogramunderalicenceagreement
impliesauthorization forreproduction ,adaptation andtranslation ofthis
kind,withoutwhichtheprogramcouldnotbeusedforitsintended purpose .

191
5.6.12 .Ontheotherhand,byvirtueofsuchcomprehensive rightstoauthorize
reproduction ,adaptation andtranslation ,therightholderisentitled
undercopyright lawtorestrict theusemadeofaprogram byreference to
thepurpose ,timeorplaceofsuchuses.Forexample ,sophisticated
software isoftenlicensed onlyforuseonaspecified individual computer .
Somemanufacturers doprovide "site"licences ,whichauthorize thelicensee
toruntheprogram onanyandallmachines whicharelocated inthesame
roomoronthesamepremises .Thoserestrictions appearjustified ,since
theyareintended toensurethatthelicensor obtains alicence feewhich
corresponds totheextentoftheusemadebythelicensee .Without it,
largeusersinparticular couldprofitunfairly fromonelicencefee,in
viewoftheeaseofreproduction andofmultiple use.
5.6.13 .Theserightsmightbethought tobelessappropriate ,andindeedunlikely
tobeinpractice enforceable ,asfarasmass-marketed packaged software is
concerned .Thiskindofsoftware issoldratherthanlicensed ,although
manysuppliers trytomaintain thecharacter ofalicenceagreement .
Typicalrestrictions ontheuserprovide thatheisonlyallowed tousethe
program ononecomputer atatimeandthatheisauthorized topassonthe
licensed material toathirdpartyunderthecondition thathedoesnot
retainacopyofitandnolongermakesuseofthesoftware .Thisreflects
theneedforthesupplier toimpedethesimultaneous usebymorethanone
userofaprogram forwhichonlyonefeehasbeenpaid.Ontheotherhand,
theauthorization totransfer thesoftware tootherparties paystribute to
thesales-like character ofthemarketing ofthistypeofsoftware andto
thepublicinterest initsfreecirculation .
5.6.14 .Inbrief,abroaduseright,eitherformulated assuchorresulting from
rightstoauthorize reproduction ,rental,adaptation andtranslation ,seems
appropriate giventhewaysoftware isusedinpractice .Itprovides the
legalfoundation forrelating theremuneration received bytherightholder
totheusebeingeffectively madeoftheprogram .Atthesametime,
authorization touseaprogrammustnecessarily implyauthorization forall
actsinherent inanysuchuse.

-192-
Restricted acts :adaptation toimproveperformance
5.6.15 .Attention mustbegivenalsotocertainadaptations otherthanthose
necessarily inherent inthenormalrunningofaprogram ,namelythoseby
authorized usersfortheirownpurposes .Muchsoftware iscontinually
adaptedbyitsuserstoimproveitsefficiency inthecontext oftheir
particular activities .Ontheotherhand,therighttoauthorize
adaptations canbeconsidered anormalfeature ofcopyright .Abalanced
solution isrequired whichtakesproperaccount oftheinterests ofboth
usersandsuppliers .Therightholder'sauthorization shouldbenecessary
foradaptations whichconflict withthenormalexploitation ofhisrights,
forexample ,whereadaptation involves thetranslation ofsubstantial parts
ofaprogram toenablethemtoberunonamachine otherthanthatfor
whichtheprogramwaslicensed .Likewise commercial exploitation ofan
adaptation shouldbesubject toconsent .Ontheotherhand,adaptation ofa
program toimprove itsefficiency whenusedwithinthescopeofthebasic
licenceprovisions agreedbetweenuserandsupplier shouldbeconsidered as
alegitimate andevennecessary aspectofauser'srighttousetheprogram
forthepurposes forwhichitwasacquired .Thesupplier 'sconsentshould
notbeneededorisrathertobeconclusively presumed .Itwould,however ,
beappropriate forsuppliers ofsoftware undercommercial contracts to
requirethattheybeinformed ofanyadaptations thataremadesothatthey
havetheopportunity tocheckthatthesefallwithinthebasicscopeofthe
licence .Furthersuppliers' serviceandmaintenance obligations and
warranties maywellbemodified byauser'smodification oftheprogram .
Reproduction forprivate purposes
5.6.16 .MemberStatesoftheCommunity have,indifferent waysandtovarying
degrees ,madeuseofthediscretion giventoStatesbyArticle9(2)ofthe
BerneConvention ,toallowreproduction ofworkswithouttherightholder's
authorization inspecialcases.Reliance hasfrequently beenplacedonthis
provision topermitreproduction forprivatepurposes .

193-
5.6.17 .TherecentGerman,FrenchandSpanishLegislation ,however ,doesnotapply
thenormallicenceforreproduction forprivatepurposes tocomputer
programs .Thereasoning behindtheprovisions isnotsomuchthewishto
bangenuineprivatecopyingwhich,inanycase,cannotbepoliced ,butto
accordproducers thenecessary substantive rightstobeabletoproceed
against "semi-private "reproduction ,whichcanbedescribed asthe
reproduction andexchange ofprograms withinorganizations andenterprises ,
between residents atuniversities ,bymembers ofcomputer clubs,andsoon.
Inaddition ,thearguments usedtojustifyprivate copying ofaudio-visual
material ,suchastheconsumer 'sneedtochangethesupport ortomake
extracts orcompilations ofmaterial ,havelittleapplication tocomputer
programs .Therealpurpose ofprivatecopying ofprograms isinmostcases
simplytoobtaina"free"copyofaprogram instead ofpurchasing a
legitimate one.
5.6.18 .Thisreasoning seemsconvincing .Accordingly ,thedirective shouldcontain
aprovision excluding private copying ofcomputer programs ingeneral .At
thesametime,theproduction ofaback-upcopyorcopiesbyalegitimate
userwouldexplicitly bemadepermissible .Suchacopyorcopieswouldneed
tobedestroyed whentherighttousetheprogramexpired .
Thetermofprotection
5.6.19 .Ifprograms aresimplyprotected asliterary works,thelengthofthe
periodofprotection ,according tothecopyright lawsofMemberStates,is
atleast50yearsafterthedeathoftheauthor .Thisappearstobethe
position inallMemberStateswiththeexception ofFrance .According to
Article48oftheFrenchlawof3July1985^,computerprogramsare
protected for25yearsonlyfromtheircreation .Thisdivergence will
soonerorlatercreateproblems inrelation tofreecirculation of
programs .Indeed,sincetheFrenchlawdoesnotcontainanyspecific

-194-
provisions onthematter,programs createdpriortothenewlawcominginto
forceon1January1986maybesubjecttotheshorterterm.Theissuemay
therefore begintohavepractical consequences ratherquickly ascomputer
programs created inthesixtiesandseventies inFrancefallintothe
publicdomain .
5.6.20.Thecaseforatermofprotection shorterthan50yearsfrequently takesas
itspointofdeparture thecharacter ofcomputer programs ,particularly
operating systems ,asfunctional devices ofpotentially strategic
importance tothedevelopment oftheindustrial economy asawhole.Inthis
connection ,reference ismadetothefactthatmanyapplication programs
haveinpractice averyshortlifeandrepresent alimitedinvestment for
whichaperiodofprotection of50yearsisinappropriate .Itstresses that
giventhisfunctional character ,thetermofprotection shouldnotbe
longerthantheminimumnecessary toprovideanappropriate investment
incentive toprogramdevelopers .Patentduration isintheregionof20
yearsand,giventhefunctional ,industrial character ofsoftware ,a
similartermofprotection wouldbepreferable .
5.6.21 .Thecasefora50yeartermstresses thatthefactthatmanyprograms have
andwillprobably continue tohaveanexploitable lifemuchshorterthan
thisperiodisnotinitselfacompelling argument forproposing ashorter
periodofprotection .Thesamecanbesaidofmanyotheritemsthatare
protected bycopyright .Insofarasprograms dohavealengthyuseful
life,theyshouldbeentitled toprotection andinsofarastheydonot,
theywillsimplynotbeused.Itcertainly cannotbeexcluded that
particular typesofsoftware ,forexample,operating systems,mayhave
usefullivesofconsiderable length.Itishopedthatthereactions tothis
partofthispaperwillincludeinformation concerning experiences asto
theusefullifeofprograms ,proprietary andotherwise ,particularly those
olderthan25years.

-195-
5.6.22 .Inaddition totheissueoftheLengthoftheterm,itscalculation fromthe
deathoftheauthormayonedayposepractical problems sinceprograms are
frequently collective worksthoughoftenallcommercial rightswillhavebeen
transferred totheenterprise forwhomtheauthorshaveworked .Itmaybe
extremely difficult forathirdpartytoknowwhenthetermcomestoanend,
sincehewillneedtoknowthedateofthedeathofthelastsurviving author .
Thepractical relevance ofthishasofcoursebeennegligible asyet.
Nevertheless ,inthelongerterm,theissuemaybecomeimportant and
consideration shouldbegiventoproviding forcalculating thetermfromthe
creation orfirstuseormarketing oftheprogramratherthanthedeathofthe
author .Suchamethodofcalculation mightalsobethoughttoreflectthe
technical ,industrial orcommercial character ofmuchsoftware .
5.6.23 .Itwouldclearly bedesirable fromthepointofviewofthefunctioning of
theinternal marketinsoftware ,forallMemberStatestoapplythesame
termofprotection toagivenprogram .Apersuasive casehasbeenmadefor
calculating theterm,whatever itis,fromtheprogram'screation .Asto
thelengthoftheterm,thechoicebetween 50yearsandashortertermin
theregionof20or25yearshastoberesolved inthefaceof
considerations pointing inopposite directions .Itwillbeeasierto
resolve infavourofthelongertermtheextentthatfuturedevelopments
establish thatcopyright protection willnotleadtoundesirable
limitations oncompetition inthesoftware market (seeparagraphs 5.5.8.to
5.5.12 .above).

-196-
Authorship
5.6.24 .Inthefieldofauthorship ,software produced byemployees oroncommission
posesproblems similar tothoseinotherfieldswherecollective worksare
common,suchasadvertising .Butthereislittledoubtthatthenatureof
thesoftware industry issuchthatthelegalsituation astoauthorship can
beparticularly complex .Standardization ofthelegalstarting point
throughout theCommunity wouldbetheidealsolution butitcannotbesaid
tobeessential since,asregardseconomic rights,matters canbe
;satisfactorily regulated byagreement andtheabsence ofauniformsolution
tothisissuewillnotjeopardize therealization ofaninternal marketfor
computer programs .Contractual solutions are,however ,facilitated ifthere
isatleastaclearlegalstarting pointinthejurisdiction inquestion .
Itwouldaccordingly bedesirable forallMemberStatestoensurethat
theirlawatleastestablishes clearlywhoistherightholderinthe
absence ofanyagreement tothecontrary .Aminimumprovision ofthiskind,
whichstillleavestheMemberStatesconsiderable freedom astothelegal
techniques thattheyusetoresolvetheproblem ,hasbeenlaiddowninthe
CouncilDirective onthelegalprotection ofsemiconductor topographies^.
Theprovision mayserveasamodelforacorresponding provision inthe
software context .
Computer-generated programs
5.6.25 .Increasingly inthefuture,computer programs willbeproduced withtheaid
ofacomputer thatisitselfprogrammed tocarryoutcertainprogramming
functions .Thequestion thenarisesastowho,ifanyone,ownsthe
copyright intheprogramthatfinallyresultsfromtheprocess :thosewho
usedthecomputer ,thosewhoprogrammed it,theownerofthecomputer or
conceivably allofthese.

-197-
5.6.26 .Thebasisofallcopyright protectipn istheexercise ofsufficient skill
andlabourforaworktobeconsidered original .TheCommission inclines to
theviewthatitisthosewhousetheprogrammed computer ,whichis
essentially atool,whoshouldberegarded asentitled toprotection .This
solution hastheimportant advantage ofconferring therightonthosewho
aremosteasilyidentified .
Moralrights
5.6.27 .Moralrights,thatis,therightoftheauthortoclaimpaternity andto
objecttoprejudicial modifications ofhiswork,donotappeartohave
givenrisesofartosignificant practical problems .Nevertheless ,given
theirinalienable character ,seriousdoubtexistsastothesuitability of
theirapplication toworksfrequently produced collectively ,havinga
technical ,industrial orcommercial character andsubject tosuccessive
modifications .Atleast,consideration shouldinthelongtermbegivento
permitting therightstobecededbyagreement thoughitshouldbenoted
thatthiswouldnecessitate modification oftheBerneConvention ,shouldit
beonedayagreedthatprograms constitute literary workswithinthe
meaning ofthatinstrument .Itseems,however ,unnecessary toinclude
provisions onmoralrightsinaCommunity framework directive atthe
present time.
Beneficiaries ofprotection
5.6.28 .TotheextentthattheMemberStatestaketheviewthatprograms are
protected bycopyright withinthemeaning oftheBerneorUniversal
Conventions ,thereisnostrictneedforaprovision inadirective on
protected persons .EachMemberStatewillprotectpersonsfromotherMember
Statesinthesamewayasitprotects itsowncitizens .Ontheotherhand,
itmaybearguedthatneither ofthoseinstruments atpresentrequires
computer programs tobeprotected bycopyright inthestrictsense.AState
takingsuchaviewwouldprobably consider thatrightsinprograms under
itslawshouldbeconsidered neighbouring rightsfallingoutsidethescope
ofanyexisting multilateral arrangement .

-198-
5.6.29 .Thedirective neednotseektoresolve theissueofwhether computer
programs aretobeprotected bycopyright strictusensuorbya
34neighbouring right .Butifitleavestheissueopen,itmustthenaddress
thequestion ofprotected persons sincethatissuewillnotberesolved by
existing multilaterial arrangements .Onemodelforsodoingexistsin
Article 3ofthesemiconductor directive :provisions fortheprotection of
personshavingspecified linkswiththeCommunity ,combined witha
mechanism forextensions ofprotection toothers .Amoreradical
alternative ,whichmightavoidtheneedforrelatively complexprovisions
andprocedures ,wouldbetoprovide ,withoutprejudice tothequestion of
whether theprotection istobeclassified ascopyright oraneighbouring
right,thatMemberStatesshallprotectnationals andresidents ofmembers
oftheBerneandUniversal Copyright Conventions .Provision mightalsobe
madeforprograms firstpublished inthosecountries .Suchanapproach
wouldhavetheadvantage ,besides thatofrelative simplicity ,ofavoiding
potential disputes withsuchcountries ,thoughatthecostofperhaps
granting protection infavourofsomecountries whichdonotextend
reciprocal protection .Theviewsofinterested partieswouldalsobe
welcome ontheevensimplerandmoreradicalpossibility ofaccording
national treatment toallnatural andlegalpersonsirrespective oforigin
ordomicile.

199-
Problems ofproof
5.6.30 .Problems ofproofalsoseemtorequireconsideration .Sincecopyright does
notprotectideasbuttheforminwhichtheyareexpressed ,proofof
copyingrequires acomparison oftheworksinquestion intheirfinalform.
Normally thisposesnoproblem :ifnecessary ,theworkscanbeproduced
forexamination bythecompetent tribunal whichcanjudgeforitselfthe
degreeofsimilarity .However ,computer programs mayexistindifferent
versions andbetween someofthesetheremaybelittlesuperficial
resemblance .Inaddition ,arightholdermaynothaveaccesstotheversion
oftheinfringing programwhichwouldenablehimtoshowsimilarity ;for
example ,hissourceprogrammayhavebeentranslated byanunknowncomputer
intoanobjectcodethatlookstothehumaneyecompletely different from
eithertherightholder'sobjectcodeortheoriginal program .Thismaybe
aparticularly difficult problempriortofulldiscovery ,forexample ,when
seekinginterlocutory relief .
5.6.31 .Apossible solution totheproblemwouldbefortheburdenofprooftobe
shiftedtothealleged infringer oncetherightholdermakesavailable to
thecourtthedifferent versions ofhisownprogram towhichhehasaccess
andestablishes aprimafaciecaseofcopying .Hemightshow,forexample ,
thattheallegedly infringing programachieves thesameresultswith
virtually thesamemethodandthattheallegedinfringer hashadaccessto
therightholder'sprogram .

200-
5.7.Summary
5.7.1.Asalreadymentioned inparagraph 5.4.1.,theCommission hasdecidedwithin
theframework ofthecompletion oftheinternal market,toexamineasa
matterofpriority theissuesrelating tothelegalprotection ofcomputer
programs andsubsequently tosubmitaproposal foraCouncildirective on
thelegalprotection ofcomputer programs .Forthispurpose,certain
preliminary consultations havealreadybeenconcluded ,whichhaveconfirmed
thedesirability ofanearlyinitiative inthisfield.Further,all
information received andexperience gainedfromparticipation inthe
discussion attheinternational levelontheappropriate protection system
indicates thattheCommunity approach shouldbewithintheframework of
copyright andrelatedrights.
5.8..Conclusion
5.8.1.TheCommission intendstosubmittotheCouncil asamatterofurgency a
proposal foradirective basedonArticle100AECfortheprotection of
computer programs .
5.8.2.Asregardsthecontents ofthedirective ,andespecially inthelightof
Community standardization policy,theCommission wouldliketoreceive
comments onwhether :
a)theprotection shouldapplytocomputer programs fixedinanyform;
b)programs shouldbeprotected wheretheyareoriginal inthesensethat
theyaretheresultoftheircreator'sownintellectual effortandare
notcommonplace inthesoftware industry ;
c)accessprotocols ,interfaces andmethodsessential fortheirrealization
shouldbespecifically excluded fromprotection ;
d)rightstoauthorize restricted actsshouldinclude abroaduseright
eitherformulated assuchorasaconsequence ofrightstoauthorize
reproduction ,rental,adaptation andtranslation ;fortheselatter
rights,specific provision shouldbemadeinanyevent;
(14)

201
e)theadaptation ofaprogram byalegitimate userexclusively forhisown
purposes andwithinthebasicscopeofalicenceshouldbepermitted ;
f)thereproduction ofacomputer programforprivatepurposes shouldnot
bepermitted withoutauthorization oftherightholderwhereas the
production ofback-upcopiesbyalegitimate usershouldbepermitted
withoutauthorization ;
g)thetermofprotection shouldstartwiththecreation oftheprogram and
lastforanappropriate numberofyearstobefixedbythedirective ;a
choicewillhavetobemadebetween aperiodof50yearsandoneinthe
regionof20or25years;
h)theissueofauthorship ofcomputer programs ,including authorship in
respect ofcomputer-generated programs ,shouldbeleftlargely toMember
Statesbutwithnational lawshavingtoestablish who,intheabsence of
contractual arrangements tothecontrary ,istobeconsidered the
author;
i)protection wouldbeavailable forcreators whoarenationals ofStates
adhering totheBerneConvention ortheUniversal Copyright Convention
orenterprises ofsuchcountries orpossibly toallnatural andlegal
personsirrespective oforiginordomicile ;
j)ininfringement casestheonusofproofinrespectofcopyingshouldbe
shiftedtotheallegedinfringer oncetheplaintiff makesavailable to
theCourtthedifferent versions ofhisprogram towhichhehasaccess
andshowssimilarity andthattheallegedinfringer hashadaccessto
therightholder'sprogram .
5.9.Timetable forsubmissions
5.9.1.Giventheneedtobeginthelegislative processassoonaspossible ,the
Commission willbeseeking theviewsofinterested partiesonthesematters
asamatterofurgency .Comments ontheabovementioned suggestions should
besubmitted totheCommission notlaterthan1September 1988.

-202-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12See,forexample,thedefinition adoptedforthepurposes oftheWIP0
ModelProvisions ontheProtection ofComputerSoftware ,Geneva,1978:
"(1)"computerprogram"meansasetofinstructions capable,when
incorporated inamachine-readable medium,ofcausingamachinehaving
information-processing capabilities toindicate ,performorachievea
particular function ,taskorresult;".SeealsotheReportofWIP0
WorkingGrouponTechnical Questions Relating totheLegalProtection of
Computer Software ,Geneva,30April1984(LPCS/WGTQ/I/3).
USDepartment ofCommerce ,ACompetitive Assessment oftheUSData
Processing Services Industry ,December 1984,pp.
23-24.USOfficeofTechnology Assessments ,Computer Software :Aspectsof
International Competition ,November 1985,Exhibits V/VIII.
0ECD-ICCP(87)6 ,TheInternationalisation ofSoftware andComputer
Services ,distributed inMarch1987,p.5&27ff.
International DataCorporation ,EUROCAST -Software andServices
Marketplace ,WesternEurope,1985-1991 .
SeeArticle52(2)oftheEuropean PatentConvention (1973)reflected in
thelawsofBelgium,Denmark,Germany ,Spain,France,Italy,Luxembourg ,
andtheUnitedKingdom .
Propriété Intellectuelle Bulletin Documentaire (PIBD),1981,II1–175.
Decision ofthePresident oftheEuropean PatentOfficeof6March1985.
ReportoftheCommittee ofExpertsontheLegalProtection ofComputer
Software ,Geneva,June1983,LPCS/11/6.
Leadingcasesinclude :forFrance,Babolat-Mai llot-With v,Pachot (Paris
CourtofAppeal,2November 1982);AppleComputer Inc,v.SegimexSARL
(Paris"Tribunal deGrandeInstance ",21September 1983);Atariv.Sidam
(CourtofCassation ,7March1986);forGermany ,Visicorp v.Basis
Software GmbHetal.(MunichDistrict Court,1983);Sudwestdeutsche
InkassoKGv.BappertandBurkerComputer GmbH(FederalSupremeCourt,
1985);forItaly,AtariInc,andBertolino v.~Sidam Sri.(Tribunal of
Turin,14July1983),UnicompSri,v.Italcomputers andGeneral
Informatics (Tribunal ofPisa,14April1984);fortheNetherlands ,The
"Logboekprogram "Case(District CourtofHertogenbosch ,14May1982);for
theUnitedKingdom ,SegaEnterprises Ltd,v.AlcaElectronics (Courtof
Appeal1982).
Lawof24June1985ontheAmendment ofLegalProvisions intheCopyright
Field(Official Journal (Bundesgesetzblatt )No.33of27June1985).
LawNo.85-660of3July1985ontherightsofauthors,performers ,
recordandvideogram producers andcommunication enterprises (Official
Journalof4July1985,page7495etseq.).
Copyright (ComputerSoftware )Amendment Act1985,c.14of16July1985.
SeeArticles 91-100ofLeydePropiedad Intelectual no.22/87of11

-203-
!
November 1987,BoletinOficialdelEstado,no.275of17November 1987.
BillNo.L153of14January1988ontheamendment oftheCopyright Act.
Forexample ,draftlawNo.1746communicated tothePresident ofthe
Senate,25March1986.
Declaration oftheDutchdelegate atthemeetingoftheWorld
Intellectual Property Organization 'sgroupofexpertsheldinFebruary
1985.
Declaration oftheBelgiandelegate atthemeeting oftheWorld
Intellectual Property Organization 'sgroupofexpertsheldinFebruary
1985.
Answerof26November 1986bytheMinister ofEconomy andTrade
(Ministre deI'Economie etdesClassesmoyennes )toParliamentary
questions no.39and40.Parliament Reportof26November 1986,pages
761-762 .
SeeRebello inRevueInternationale duDroitd'Auteur,no.129,July
1986,page16.
19._ -.. .Lawno.45/85,CodeofCopyright andRelatedRightsof17September 1985
^Declaration oftheGreekdelegateatthemeetingoftheWorld
Intellectual Property Organization 'sgroupofexpertsheldinFebruary
1985.
Pub.L.96-517 (12December 1980)94Stat.3015.
Arbitrator 'sReport .15September 1987.Announcement ofDispute
Resolution bytheAmerican Arbitration Association Commercial
Arbitration Tribunal inthematterofIBM-Fujitsu Ltd.
Document C0MC85 )310final,point149.
Seeforexample ,"Versuneprotection deslogiciels informatiques :
situation actuelle etpropositions ",21June1984.
Reportofaworkinggroupcreatedwithintheframework ofINPI(Institut
National delaPropriete Intellectuelle ).
Japanese Copyright Amendment ActNo.62ofJune1985specifies ,ina
paragraph addedtoArticle10thatalgorithms ,programming languages and
rulesareexcluded fromcopyright protection ;(also,Japanhasnotyet
determined whether ornottorequireregistration ).
26Seenote8above .
See,forexample ,Article49oftheDanishCopyright Law(Lawno.158of
31May1961withlateramendments ).According tothisprovision
"catalogues ,tablesandsimilarproductions ,inwhichagreatnumberof
itemsofinformation havebeencompiled ,areprotected against

-204-
28unauthorized reproduction foraperiodof10yearsfollowing
production ".
Seenote8above .
29
30
31
32
33
34Seenote8above.
Directive no.87/54EEC,O.J.nr.L24of27January1987,page36.
Itshouldbenotedinthisconnection thataccording toArticle 8of
thesemiconductor directive ,thelegalprotection ofthetopography ofa
semiconductor productdoesnotextendtotheinformation embodied inthe
topography otherthanthetopography itself .
Lawn°85-660of3July1985,JournalOfficiel delaRépublique
française ,4July1985,page7495etseq.
Loc.cit.,article 3(1),3(2)and3(3).
Neighbouring andrelatedrightsarethoserelatively moderncreations
whichhavebeenusedonoccasion toextendatypeofprotection similar
tocopyright toclassesofworknotcoveredbycopyright itself .The
policydecision whethertocreateanewneighbouring rightorextend
copyright toanewclassofworkdependsonmanyfactorsandasaresult
canvarybothwithtimeandspace."Agivenworkmayenjoyacopyright
inonecountry ,butonlyaneighbouring rightinanother .Thisisthe
casewithphotographs ,enjoying acopyright inFrancebutonlya
neighbouring rightorrelatedrightinanother .Otherrights,formerly
granted aneighbouring right,mayonedaybecomebeneficiary ofa
copyright "(Frangon ,International Protection ofNeighbouring Rights,
RIDA,1964,Anniversary Number,p.410).Oneobviousadvantage of
choosing theneighbouring rightapproach fromthelegislator 'spointof
viewisthathehasafreerhandtoadoptspecific solutions thatdiffer
fromthosealreadyadopted inthecopyright context .

-205
CHAPTER 6:DATABASES
6.1.Subjectmatter
6.1.1.Theterm"database"isusedinthischapter tomeanacollection of
information storedandaccessed byelectronic means .Itmaybeacollection
offull-text material ,thatistosay,existing copyright works,inwhich
caseananalogymightbemadebetweenthedatabaseandageneralized or
specialized library .Itmaybeacompilation ofextracts ofworks,similar
toananthology oradocumentation centre,fromwhichrelevant partsof
worksmaybeobtained .Itmaybeacollection ofmaterial whichisinthe
publicdomain,suchaslistsofnamesandaddresses ,prices,reference
numbers .Thereishereasimilarity withcatalogues ,timetables ,price
listsandothersuchreference material inprinted form.Lastly,itmay
consist oftheelectronic publishing ofasinglebutvoluminous work,such
asanencyclopaedia .
6.1.2.Thespecific problems relating toelectronic publishing andelectronic
libraries arenotdiscussed inthischapter ,although theyfrequently cause
copyright problems similartotheonesrelatedtotheactivities ofdata
bases.Electronic publishing posesproblems inrelation toreprographic
techniques ,information management andtransmission networks whichfall
outside thescopeofthepresentchapter .Similarly ,electronic libraries
involveissuesofpubliclendingrightswhich,whilsttheymayoccurinthe
context ofthegeneraldiscussion onrentalcontained inChapter 4orin
relation tothepiracyandhomecopyingofaudio-visual worksdiscussed in
Chapters 2and3respectively arenotconsidered indetailinthis
consultative document .

-206-
6.1.3.Themostcommonmodeofuseofadatabaseisatpresentbyon-lineaccess
usingelectronic communication media.Thedatabasemaythusbeaccessed
byuserssituated atgreatdistances fromthesourceofinformation .The
arrivalontheconsumer marketofCDRomdiscssimilartoaudiocompact
discsbuthavinganimmensedatastoragecapacity permitstheuserto
purchase hisowncopyofcertaintypesofdatabaseinsteadofaccessing a
centralstoreofinformation byelectronic means.Themaintargetmarkets
forsuchdiscsappearatpresent tobeforworkssuchasencyclopaedias or
directories containing largenumbersofnamesandaddresses ,butfuture
generations ofCDInteractive discsallowing theusertointeract withthe
databasewillcontainsoundandimageinaddition todata.Optical
laser-read cardsthesizeofacreditcardandcontaining information
equivalent to20volumes ofprintedtextarebeingdeveloped .Othertypes
ofre-usable discsknownasWORMS (WriteOnce-Read ManyTimes)arebeing
produced .Digitaltaperecorders arealsobeingdeveloped toserveas
external datastorageunits.
6.1.4.Theadvantages ofdatabasesoverprintedmaterial storedinconventional
waysarenumerous .First,databasesarecomprehensive inthesensethat
allavailable material ofagiventypecanbelocated inasingledata
base.Second,databasesallowselectivity inthatonlyrelevant
information onagivensubjectmaybeaccessed easilyfromonesource
withouthavingtosearchthroughnon-relevant material .Third,theygive
accessibility ofinformation whichwouldbeimpossible inaconventional
library,sinceconstantly up-dated information canbegiventotheuserat
highspeedandovergreatdistances .Itisthecombination ofthis
comprehensiveness ,selectivity andaccessibility whichensuresthe
commercial success ofthedatabase.

-207-
6.1.5.Sincethemostcommonapplications ofcommercial databaseswouldappearto
beinthescientific ,industrial andbusiness fields,itisfrequently the
rawdataitselfandthefactthatitcanbeeasilyretrieved andreadily
updated ,whichisofvalue,ratherthanthewayinwhichtheworkwas
originally written .Thisfactorcanhaveanimpactontheselection of
material toformadatabasesinceinsomescientific fields,verybrief
extracts fromlearnedpublications ,suchasformulae ,maybesufficient to
provide keyinformation .Thismeansthatinthecompilation ofsometypes
ofdatabase,theformofexpression oftheinformation isoflesser
importance thanthesubstance oftheinformation itself .Nevertheless ,the
arrangement ofthecompilation willhaveabearing onthespeedandease
withwhichthedatacanbeaccessed andhenceitscommercial success .
6.2.Thecreation ofthecommoninformation market
6.2.1.Thecreation ofaEuropean information services market,currently divided
byjuridical andlinguistic barriers ,isofprimeimportance .Figures
collected bytheInternational Publishers Association andquotedina
1recentMemorandum ofUNESC0 /WIP0wouldseemtoindicate thatthemarket
fordatabasesisevolving asfollows :thenumberofdatabasesin
existence forusebythepublichasgrownfrom400in1980to2,901in
1986.Theworldwide turnover ofelectronic publishing in1985amounted to
5billionUSdollars .Ofthis,theUnitedStateswereresponsible formore
than4/5ofthetotalturnover butthevalueofthetotalmarketproduced
byGermany ,FranceandtheUnitedKingdomrepresented 350milliondollars .
Obstacles tothefreeflowofinformation between MemberStatesmustbe
removed iftheCommunity istodevelop acompetitive roleinthe
information services market .TheCommission hasestablished aspecific
2policyandanactionplanforthedevelopment ofthismarket .Legalissues
affecting thismarketarebeingexamined incooperation withaSenior
Officials Advisory Board (S0AG)andaLegalAdvisory Board (LAB)forthe
Information Market,andinthecontextofCommission initiatives in
specific sectors .TheLegalAdvisory Boardismadeupoflegalexpertsof
MemberStateswho,actingintheirindividual capacity ,advisethe
Commission services interaliaonlegalproblems inrelation totransborder
dataflow.

-208-
6.2.2.Dataofapersonal naturemayalsobeincorporated intocomputerized data
bases,givingrisetoquestions ofprivacyoftheindividual andthe
protection ofconfidential information .Thesequestions ofdataprotection
falloutsidethescopeofthepresentchapterwhichdealswithcopyright
issuesonly.Thesameappliestoproblems associated withtheliability of
databaseoperators fortheaccuracy oftheinformation contained intheir
systems .
6.3.Legalproblems arisingfromthestorageandretrieval ofinformation using
databases
6.3.1.Abroaddiscussion onthelegalproblems arisingfromtheuseofdatabases
istakingplacewithintheframework ofS0A6andLAB.Itwouldthusbe
premature toindicate detailed findings atthepresentstageofthese
discussions butinordertogivethoseinterested circleswhichhavenotso
farbeenconsulted directly thepossibility ofexpressing theirviewonthe
maincopyright issuesunderconsideration ,sometentative general
conclusions willbedrawn.Atalaterstage,theCommission willsubmitits
findings inrespectofthepossible necessity foradaptations inexisting
laws,ifany.
6.3.2.Theuseofcomputerized information systemscreatesproblems inthree
respects fromacopyright pointofview.First,thequestion arisesasto
whetherincorporation intoadatabaseofaprotected workinitsentirety
orinpartconstitutes arestricted actfromacopyright pointofview.
Second,thequestion ariseswhethertheretrieval ofstoredinformation
constitutes arestricted actundercopyright law.Third,ithasbeen
suggested thatthequestion ofadequate protection ofthecompilation of^
dataassuchmeritsconsideration .
6.3.3.Anumberofcountries^haverecentlyconsidered theprotection ofdatabases
withinthecontext ofrevision oramendment oftheircopyright laws.The
international organizations engagedintheestablishment andadministration
oftheintellectual property conventions havealsoforsometimebeen
engagedinadiscussion ontheintellectual property issues .

209-
6.3.4.Themainissueinrelation totheoperation ofcomputerized information
systems ,namelytheuseofcomputers toaccessliterary works,wasdiscussed
jointly byWIPOandUNESCO,thatis,withintheframework oftheBerneand
Universal Copyright Conventions .Asaresult,theSecondCommittee of
Government Experts onCopyright Problems ArisingfromtheUseofComputers
forAccesstoortheCreation ofWorks,whichmetin1982,wasabletoadopt
anumberofrecommendations forsolving atthelevelofrelevant national
4legislations thecopyright problems arising .Theexpertsalsoconcluded
thatrevision ofthecopyright conventions wasnotnecessary sincethe
solutions couldbeaccommodated withintheexisting framework ofprinciples
asestablished bythoseconventions .ACommittee ofGovernmental Experts on
thePrintedWordmetinGenevaonDecember 7to11,1987anddiscussed a
numberofprinciples inrelation todatabases.TheCommission willtake
noteofthediscussion oftheseprinciples which,asregardstheiraims,
appearbroadlycompatible withthetentative conclusions ofthischapter .
Storage ofinformation
6.3.5.Asaresultofthisprevious workundertaken byWIPOandUNESCO,itis
recognized inallMemberStatesoftheCommunity thattheuseofawork
protected bycopyright inthebroadsenseinacomputerized information
systemisrelevant fromacopyright pointofview.Theincorporation ofthe
workinextenso willconstitute areproduction andpresupposes theconsent
oftheauthororhissuccessor intitleunlessthereproduction fallswithin
arecognized exception totherestricted actsunderthecopyright lawsof
MemberStates .Giventhefactthatacomputerized information system
normally aimsatgivingextensive accesstotheinformation stored,the
normalexemptions fromrestricted actsinthelawsofMemberStatesfor
certainuses,suchasprivateuse,orfairuse,areoflittlepractical
relevance tothestorage ofcopyright worksininformation systems .
6.3.6.Itisequallyclearthatbibliographical information relating topublished
worksandauthorsthereof ,indexes ,references andsimilarinformation can
becompiled freelysincetheuseofsuchinformation innowayimpliesthat
worksarereproduced infullorinpart.

-210-
6.3.7.Theextenttowhichbibliographical information onexisting copyright works
canbesupplemented byquotations ,extracts ,value-added abstracts ,or
summaries hasinsomejurisdictions causedlitigation .Thoughthisissueis
oneofgeneralrelevance ,itisofcourseofspecific interest to
publishers ,creators ofdatabases,information compilers andtheoperators
ofdatabases.Someexpertshaveexpressed aninterest inseeingthelegal
situation clarified tothemaximumextentpossible buthavealsoexpressed
theviewthatthepractical importance oftheproblemfromaneconomic point
ofviewshouldnotbeexaggerated .Nevertheless ,databaseswhichare
composed mainlyorwhollyofabstracts oflearnedandscientific
publications doexist.Uncertainty astowhether suchabstracts canbe
inserted inadatabasewithout theconsent oftheauthororhissuccessor
intitlemayhaveanegative impactonthedevelopment ofthisparticular
kindofdatabase.However ,thepractical difficulties ofresolving issues
liketheappropriate scopeoftherighttoquoteorborrowfromexisting
worksshouldnotbeunderestimated .Itmaybethattheseissuescanonlybe
settledbylegislation inaverygeneralway,leaving ittocaselawto
determine thepreciseparameters inspecific circumstances .
Theretrieval ofworksstoredincomputerized databases
6.3.8.Somejurisdictions treatallformsofretrieval ofinformation fromadata
baseinvolving directrecording (downloading )asarestricted act.However ,
retrieval maytakeplaceindifferent waysandinsomejurisdictions a
distinction isapparently madebylearnedopinionbetweenthevariousways
inwhichausermayhaveaccesstothematerial stored,themaindistinction
beingmadebetweenvisualdisplayandprint-outs .Whereasprint-outs are
considered acopyeverywhere ,visualdisplay issometimes compared tothe
merereadingofapageofabookinalibraryorbookshop andconsequently
notconsidered arestricted act.Thosedifferences inthelegalposition of
MemberStatesappear,however ,tohaverelatively limitedpractical impact .

-211
6.3.9.Insofarasthestorage inadatabaseisarestricted actpresupposing the
authorization oftheauthor,thelatterwillnaturally ,whensolicited for
authorization ,fixtheconditions forthevariouswaysinwhichhisworkmay
beretrieved .Thefactthatthoseconditions moreoftenthannotarefixed
byacollective agreement comprising alloramajority ofauthors inrespect
ofaparticular kindofworkdoesnotchangethebasicprinciple according
towhichstorageandaccesstotheworkisinpractice regulated byoneact
ofagreement .Ithasconsequently beensuggested bysomeinterested circles
thatinitiatives aimedattheclarification andapproximation oflawsto
arriveatamoreuniformsolution inrespect ofretrieval ofinformation are
notneededatthepresenttime.Othersourceshave,however ,indicated that
ithasproveddifficult tonegotiate agreements whichtakeintoaccount
possible laterextensive useoftheinformation stored .Whereasauthorsand
theirsuccessors intitleinotherareascanexercise areasonable control ,
sothatroyalties arepaidaccording to,forexample ,saleorrentalof
copies,publicperformances andthelike,itisdifficult toascertain to
whatextentagivenworkstoredinadatabaseisactually used.Theviews
ofusersandoperators ofdatabaseswouldbewelcome astothenecessity of
Community actioninthisfield.
6.4.Protection ofthedatabaseassuchagainstcopying
6.4.1.Theprotection accorded todatabasesrelatesunderexisting national
legislation andinternational conventions tothecharacteristics ofthe
worksstoredtherein ,ratherthantothedatabaseitselfasacollection
ofinformation .Thus,inthecaseoffull-text databases,whereasingle
worksuchasanencyclopaedia isstored,theposition isclearinrelation
totheauthoroftheencyclopaedia ,whoenjoysthesamecopyright
protection forhisworkregardless ofwhetherpublication isby
conventional orelectronic means.Inthecaseofadatabasewherenumerous
worksorextracts ofworksarestored,theprovisions ofArticle2(5)of
theBerneConvention areofrelevance :
"Collections ofliterary orartistic works,suchas
encyclopaedias andanthologies which,byreasonof
theselection andarrangement oftheircontents ,
constitute intellectual creations shallbeprotected
assuch,withoutprejudice tothecopyright ineach
oftheworksformingpartofsuchcollections ".

-212-
Thusaworkwhichisprotected bycopyright inaMemberStatewillcontinue
toenjoythatprotection when,initsentirety orinpart,itis
incorporated inadatabase.Difficulties arisewheretheextracts from
protected worksarethemselves notcoveredbycopyright ,bynatureoftheir
brevity ,forexample ,orwherethesubjectmatterisnotprotected atallby
copyright butisinthepublicdomain .
6.4.2.Thetypesofworkwhicharenormally considered tobeinthepublicdomain
includeofficial texts,legislative andadministrative documents ,recordsof
publicandlegalproceedings .Worksforwhichtheperiodofcopyright
protection hasexpiredarealsoconsidered tobeinthepublicdomain .All
ofthesetypesofworkmayformthesubjectmatterofdatabasesrequiring a
considerable degreeofskillandinvestment intheircompilation .In
particular thecompilation willhavebeendesigned toensurereadyaccessto
theinformation andtocreatefeatures attractive toparticular groupsof
users .
6.4.3.Insomecasesthenatureofthedatabasemaybesuchthat"selection "of
material hasnottakenplaceinthesensethatallavailable published
material hasbeenincluded inanexhaustive database.Equally "arrangement "
maybeconstrained bythetechnical necessity toordertheinformation in
themostreadilyaccessed way,forexample inalphabetical orchronological
order .
6.4.4.Nevertheless ,thecompilation ofsuchinformation maybesubjectto
copyright insomejurisdictions dependent ontheleveloforiginality and
creativity whichthecompilation represents andontherequirements in
respectoforiginality andcreativity laiddowninthespecific national
legislation .Theprobleminthisrespectissimilartothatdiscussed inthe
contextofcomputer programs (Chapter 5,paragraphs 5.6.3.to5.6.7.).

-213-
6.4.5.Insomecountries whereaspecific compilation maynotattractgenuine
copyright protection becausetheworkisconsidered insufficiently original ,
comprehensive orcreative ,anothersortofshort-lived protection against
reproduction maynevertheless exist.Thisisforexample thecaseinDenmark
where,according toarticle49oftheCopyright Act,catalogues ,tablesand
similarworkswhichcompileinformation maynotbereproduced without
consent oftheproducer (compiler )foraperiodof10yearsfromthedateof
publication .Inothercountries ,workswhichareconsidered insufficiently
creative toattractprotection areinthepublicdomain .
6.4.6.Similarly ,arightinthepublished editionexistsinsomejurisdictions ,
overandabovetheauthor'srightinthecontent ofthepublished work.In
bothIreland (Copyright Act1963,section20)andtheUnitedKingdom
(Copyright Act1956,section 15),suchaprotection ofthetypographical
arrangement ofthepublished editionagainstunauthorized facsimile
reproduction existsfora25yearperiodfromtheyearinwhichtheedition
wasfirstpublished .
6.4.7.Ithastherefore beensuggested totheCommission thattheinvestment which
acompilation ofdatamayrepresent ,andwhichmaynotattractcopyright
protection ,necessitates someprotection againstunauthorized reproduction .
"Information broking",thatis,thebuyingandsellingofdatabases
containing factualinformation isindeedagrowthindustry ,whichrequires a
clearlegalframework withinwhichtodevelop .TheCommission isaccordingly
considering whethertoproposetheintroduction ofmeasures togivesome
limitedprotection tothedatabaseitself,asacompilation .
6.4.8.Itwouldhavetobeconsidered first,whoshouldbethebeneficiary forsuch
aprotection .Second,thescopeofprotection andtherestricted actswould
havetobecarefully considered lestaccesstocomputerized information be
unjustifiably restricted .Finally ,theissueofdown-loading forprivate
purposes wouldhavetobeconsidered carefully beforebeingmadea
restricted actingeneral .

-214-
6.4.9.Suchaprotection wouldnotlimittheaccesstoinformation sincethescope
ofapplication ofcopyright willnotbeenlarged beyondtheprotection
alreadygiventocompilations underArticle 2(5)oftheBerneConvention in
caseswherethematerial contained inthedatabasewasalreadyprotected by
copyright .Incaseswhereprotection doesnotfollowfromtheapplication of
ordinary copyright law,byreasonofthework'sbrevity orlackof
creativity ,oritsnature,orbecausethetermofprotection hasexpired ,it
wouldstillseemdesirable thatprotection againstcopyingofthemodeof
compilation shouldbeavailable tothedatabaseoperator .Itwouldgivethe
producer arightsimilartotherightofthephonogram producer .Thelatter
normally hasaspecific statutory righttoprotect hisinterest inthe
recording itselfregardless ofwhether ornotheisrecording aprotected
work.Theproducer ofadatabasemaywellnothavesucharightat
present ,evenwherethecontent ofthedatabaseisitselfprotected by
copyright .
6.4.10 .Tocombatdatapiracy,sucharightmayprovetobeanimportant tool.The
unauthorized reproduction ofdatawillmoreoftenthannotinvolveworksof
severalauthors .Theindividual authormaynotbeinaposition toestablish
thataninfringement hastakenplaceandeven,incaseofsuchknowledge ,
mayconsider theinfringement ofmarginal importance onlyinrespectofhis
economic exploitation ofhiswork.Tothedatabaseoperator ,the
infringement maynevertheless beofconsiderable importance .Heisoften
betterplacedthantheauthortodetectinfringements andhas,asmentioned
above,morepressing incentives toreact.Finally,aclosecontractual link
betweentheoperator ofadatabaseandthenumerous authorswhoseworks
formpartofthedatacompiled doesnotnecessarily exist.Acontractual
arrangement withacollective body,forexamplepublishers orauthors in
respectofspecific typesofscientific literature ,isacommonsolution .
6.4.11 .Similararguments have,inrespectofphonogram producers ,ledtothe
conclusion that,inordertocombatpiracy,thegeneralintroduction of
producers' rightsinsoundrecordings wouldappeartobeadesirable
development .Itisalogicalsteptointroduce acorresponding rightfor
databaseoperators topursueunauthorized reproduction intheirownright.

-215-
6.5.Datastoredondiscsandtapes
6.5.1.Astheopticaldiscorcardmarketandthemarketfordatastoredondigital
tapeexpandsotheprotection ofdatastoredonandaccessible fromsuch
sourceswillbecomeofincreasing importance .Databasesmaywellbe
marketed alongwithothertypesofrecorded audioandvisualmaterial .The
legalprinciples outlined inparagraphs 6.3.1.-6.4.9.ofthischapterwill
ofcourseapplyintheorytodatabasesmarketed inanyform.However ,
enforcement ofrightsindatabasessoldondiscs,tapesorcardswillbe
moredifficult inpractice thanwheretheuserisindirectcontractual
relationship withthedatabaseoperator andaccesses thedatabasewithin
thecontext ofalegallybindingagreement astoconditions ofuse.Atthe
presenttime,theimpactofnewtechnologies raisesmoreimmediate
difficulties inrelation totheprivate reproduction ofsoundrecordings and
theissuesrelating heretohavebeendiscussed inchapter 3onhomecopying .
Sincetherecording ofdataondiscortapeindigitalformreliesonmuch
thesametechnology whether thatdatarepresents asoundrecording ora
literary work,thesolution whichiseventually retained fortheprotection
ofdigitalsoundrecordings mightequallywellbeapplicable inprinciple to
databasescommercialized intheformofdiscsortapes.
6.6.Summary
6.6.1.Thestorageofcopyright worksinfutlorinpartwithincomputerized
information systemscreates anumberoflegalproblems forwhich,at
presentthemostappropriate solution wouldseemtobelegalactionto
protectthecompilation ofworkswithinadatabasewherethoseworksare
themselves theobjectofcopyright protection .Specific legalactionaiming
atresolving existing difficulties seemstobeatbestpremature .
6.6.2.TheCommission isalsoconsidering whethertheprotection ofthemodeof
compilation ofthedatabaseitselfshouldextendtodatabasescomposed of
material whichisnotinitselfprotected bycopyright .Suchactionwould
onlybetakenifitwerefeltthattheconsiderable investment whichthe
compilation ofadatabaserepresents couldbestbeservedbycopyright
protection ratherthanbyothermeans.

-216-
6.7.Conclusion
6.7.1 .TheCommission wouldwelcome comments frominformed circles onthe
following matters .
a)whether themodeofcompilation within adatabaseofworksshouldbe
protected bycopyright and,
b)whether thatrighttoprotect themodeofcompilation ,inaddition to
possible contractual arrangements tothateffect,shouldbeextended to
databasescontaining material notprotected bycopyright andwhether
thisprotection shouldbecopyright orarightsuigeneris .
6.8.Timetable forsubmissions
6.8.1.Comments onabovementioned suggestions shouldbesubmitted tothe
Commission notlaterthan1January1989.

217
UNESC0 /WIP0/CGE/PW/3-IIofKSeptember 1987.
Theestablishment atCommunity levelofapolicyandaplanofpriority
actions forthedevelopment ofaninformation services market (document
C0MC87 )360final).
SeeSection 101ofCopyright Act1976ofUnitedStatesofAmericaand
Article 12bisofLawforPartialAmendments totheCopyright Law,
May23,1986,Japan.SeealsoArticle2(1)(xter )oftheabove.
UNESC0 /WIP0/CEG0/II/7,13August1982.
SeeChapter 2,paragraphs 2.6.10 .-2.6.18 .

-218-
CHAPTER 7:THEROLEOFTHECOMMUNITY INMULTILATERAL
ANDBILATERAL EXTERNAL RELATIONS
7.1.External relations :multilateral andbilateral
7.1.1.NotallCommunity actioninthecopyright fieldisconcerned with
legislative measures orwithlitigation intheCourtofJustice .An
important areainwhichtheCommunity cantakeactionisinthefieldof
external relations .Bothinbilateral andmultilateral relations ,the
Community hasaparttoplayinadvancing theinterests ofcopyright owners
operating fromwithinthecommonmarket,andthisintworespects :the
effective enforcement ofexisting intellectual property rightsandthe
establishment ofrecognized minimumstandards ofprotection .Inthis
context ,multilateral relations meansrelations withininternational or
regional organizations andbilateral relations allothers,whetherbetween
theCommunity andasinglenon-Member Stateorbetween theCommunity anda
regional orothergrouping ofnon-Member States .Insomecases,ofcourse,
bilateral andmultilateral relations arecloselyinterlinked aswill
appear,forexample ,inrelation totheprotection oftextiledesigns .
Sinceintellectual property regimeshavedirectandintended effects on
trade,theactivities oftheCommunity aimingatanelimination of
impediments toanddistortions ofinternational trademustbeseeninthe
lightofArticle113EECestablishing acommoncommercial policy .

219-
7.2.Multilateral relations
7.2.1.Multilateral discussions andnegotiations oncopyright andalliedmatters
takeplaceinvariousinternational organizations .Ofthese,themost
important aretheUnitedNationsanditsspecialized agencies ,in
particular ,theWorldIntellectual Property Organization andtheUnited
NationsEducational ,Scientific andCultural Organization ;theGeneral
Agreement onTariffsandTrade;theCouncil ofEurope;andtheOrganization
forEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD).ThenatureofCommunity
andCommission actions ineachofthesecontexts variesaccording tothe
activities oftheorganization inquestion .References tosomeofthemore
important oftheseactions andactivities havealreadybeenmadeat
different placesinthepreceding chapters .Thefollowing paragraphs
attempttosummarize themainfeatures foreachoftheorganizations
concerned .
TheWorldIntellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
7.2.2.Incopyright matters ,theprincipal forumforinternational negotiations
anddiscussion istheWorldIntellectual Property Organization ,a
specialized agencyoftheUnitedNationsestablished undertheWIPO
convention of1967.WIPOperforms theadministrative tasksoftheBerne
Unionandassumes orparticipates intheadministration ofother
international agreements topromotetheprotection ofcopyright and
neighbouring rights .TheCommission hasaworkingagreement withWIPO,
underwhichthereareexchanges ofpublications andreciprocal attendance
atmeetings organized byWIPOandtheCommission respectively .The
Commission isrepresented withthestatusofanobserver atWIPOmeetings
onsubjects relatedtoactivities beingcarriedoutatCommunity level.

-220-
7.2.3.WIP0isaninternational organization ,ofaneconomic character ,withinthe
meaningofArticle116EEC;andtherefore ,inrespectofallmatters of
particular interest tothecommonmarket,MemberStatesareunderadutyto
proceedwithintheframework ofWIP0onlybycommonaction .Untilrecently ,
theCommunity haslimiteditsactiononthisbasistotheindustrial
property field,particularly inrelation tothecurrentrevision ofthe
ParisConvention .Itisonlyamatteroftime,however ,beforeissuesarise
concerning copyright andalliedmatterscallingforasimilarresponse .
Moreover ,withtheadoption ofthedirective onthelegalprotection of
semiconductor topographies towhichreference hasalreadybeenmade,anew
phaseintheCommunity 'srelationship withWIPOhasbegun.Forthefirst
time,anactivity ofWIP0,namely,thepreparation ofamultilateral
Treaty,willbeundertaken inrelation toissuesalreadycoveredby
Community legislation bindingonallitsMemberStates .Forthisreason,on
24April1987,theCouncildecidedthattheCommunity shouldparticipate as
suchinthepreparatory workontheTreatyandthat,inthatcontext ,the
Commission wouldpresenttheCommunity position onquestions fallingwithin
thescopeofthedirective andtheCommission hasactedcorrespondingly .
Thequestion ofCommunity participation inafuturediplomatic conference
fortheadoption ofamultilateral treatyonprotection ofintegrated
circuits andthepossibility fortheEuropean Economic Community assuchto
becomepartytothefuturetreatyhavebeenraisedintheGoverning Bodies
ofWIP0,butnodecision hasyetbeenmadebythecompetent bodiesofWIPO.
Thefurtherevolution oftheCommunity 'srolewithinWIPOingeneral isa
matterofconsiderable importance giventhelikelihood offurtherCommunity
legislation oncopyright andrelatedrightsand,indeed,onotherformsof
intellectual property .

-221
UnitedNationsEducational ,Scientific andCultural Organization (UNESCO )
7.2.4.Incertainrespects ,theactivities ofUNESCOalsoconcerncopyright
matters ,eitherdirectly as,forexample ,byreasonoftheOrganization 's
administrative responsibilities inrelation totheUniversal Copyright
Convention ,orbyvirtueofitsmoregeneralinterests ineducational ,
scientific andcultural affairs .Thus,inrecentyears,meetings havebeen
heldjointlywithWIPOconcerning theuseofcomputers foraccesstoor
1creation ofworks ,oncopyright aspects ofdirectbroadcasting bysatel-
2Liteandontherightsofperformers ,phonogram producers andbroad¬
castingorganizations inrespect ofaudiovisual worksandphonograms
During1987,inco-operation withWIPO,attention hasbeengiventothe
protection ofdramatic andmusicalworks,worksofapplied artandprinted
works,thelatterinparticular withaviewtodealingwithproblems
relating tothecreation andoperation ofdatabases.TheCommission will
continue tofollowdevelopments havingCommunity implications andwill
participate indiscussions totheextentthatitsresources permit .In
addition ,shouldmattersarisethatfallwithinCommunity competence orare
ofparticular interest tothecommonmarket,itwillmakeappropriate
proposals totheMemberStates .
GeneralAgreement onTariffsandTrade (GATT)
7.2.5.Traderelatedaspects ofintellectual property rightshavebeenmentioned
intheGATTonseveraloccasions duringtheTokyoRoundofMultilateral
TradeNegotiations .Inthiscontext ,theEuropean Community 'sandUnited
States'proposal foranagreement oncommercial conterfeiting of1979was
ofparticular importance .Discussions onthissubjectmatteramong
interested delegations ,including theEuropean Community ,remained
informal ,however ,andanagreement onatextforincorporation inthe
finalresults oftheTokyoRoundwasnotreached .Itwasnotbeforethe
Ministerial Declaration oftheGATTContracting Partiesof1982thatthe
GATTdecided toexamine thequestion ofcounterfeit goodswithaviewto
determining theappropriateness ofjointactionintheGATTframework on
thetradeaspectsofcommercial counterfeiting .Workonthisissuedidnot
leadtoconclusive results .

-222-
7.2.6.InSeptember 1986Ministers oftheGATTContracting Parties,meeting in
PuntadelEste,Uruguay ,decidedtolaunchanewroundofMultilateral
TradeNegotiations andtoinclude inthemnegotiations on"trade-related
aspects ofintellectual property rights,including tradeincounterfeit
goods".Therelevant partoftheMinisterial Declaration readsasfollows :
"Inordertoreducethedistortions andimpediments to
international trade,andtakingintoaccounttheneedtopromote
effective andadequate protection ofintellectual property
rights,andtoensurethatmeasures andprocedures toenforce
intellectual property rightsdonotthemselves becomebarriers
tolegitimate trade,thenegotiations shallaimtoclarifyGATT
provisions andelaborate asappropriate newrulesand
disciplines .
Negotiations shallaimtodevelop amultilateral framework of
principles ,rulesanddisciplines dealingwithinternational
tradeincounterfeit goods,takingintoaccountworkalready
undertaken intheGATT.
Thesenegotiations shallbewithoutprejudice toother
complementary initiatives thatmaybetakenintheWorld
Intellectual Property Organization andelsewhere todealwith
thesematters ".

-223-
7.2.7.TheCommunity andtheCommission supported theinclusion ofthischapterin
thenewroundinpursuitofthefollowing ,complementary objectives :
(i)Inordertoavoidtrade-related problems ,stepsshouldbetakento
ensurethatintellectual property rightsareeffectively implemented ,
irrespective ofwhetherinfringements arecarriedoutthrough
internationally tradedgoodsorlocalproduction .Consequently ,
appropriate procedures shouldbeprovided fortoensurerapidand
efficient enforcement attheborder (regarding importsandexports )
aswellasinternally .
(ii)Theprotection ofintellectual property rightsasrecognized by
existing national legislation shouldbeimproved throughthe
application ofcertaingeneralprinciples oftheGATT.The
application of"national treatment "and"mostfavoured nation
treatment "wouldensurethatdiscrimination between national and
foreignandamongforeign rightholders isavoided ,bothwithregard
tothesubstantive standards applied aswellastheenforcement
procedures andremedies available .Moreover ,effective dispute
settlement provisions allowing forappropriate sanctions wouldmake
surethatallpartiestoanagreement wouldrespecttheir
international obligations .
(iii)Awider .adherence toandrespectofinternational conventions on
intellectual property shouldbeachieved .Thisapplies inparticular ,
butnotexclusively ,totheParisConvention fortheProtection of
Industrial Property andtheBerneConvention fortheProtection of
Literary andArtistic Works,whichenjoyalreadyratherwidespread
t
récognition .
(iv)Theproblems createdbyinadequate orsometimes excessive substantive
standards shouldalsobeaddressed throughthetransposition intothe
GATTlegalsystemofthosebasicsubstantive rulesthatenjoywide
(although notnecessarily universal )recognition ,including butnot
limitedtothosewhichareprovided forinexisting international
conventions .

-224-
(v)Whereappropriate ,internationally agreedrulesfortheprotection of
intellectual property ,including thosederivedfromnewformsof
creative activity (e.g.software ,semiconductors ),shouldbe
elaborated .Allcountries shouldbeencouraged toparticipate
actively intherevision ofexisting andtheelaboration ofnew
conventions withinthecompetentinternational organi-zations.^
Organization forEconomie Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD)
47.2.8.InthelightoftheUruguayRoundnegotiations ,theOECDTradeCommittee
hasalsoengaged inanexamination anddiscussion oftheimpactof
intellectual property lawoninternational trade,interalia,withaview
toproviding OECDmembercountries withanalyses ofpractices and
legislation inOECDanddeveloping countries .TheOECDhasalsoconcerned
itselfwithcopyright issues,particularly inthecontextofitsworkon
transborder dataflows.Inthiscontext,theOrganization hascarriedout
anexamination ofcopyright provisions ofitsMemberStateswhichmayact
asabarriertothefreeflowofdata.Copyright issuesofCommunity
interest mayalsoariseinfutureinthecontext ofworkoninternational
tradeinaudio-visual services .Further,theCommittee forInformation ,
Computer andCommunications Policyhasmadepreparations anddrafted
reportsforaHigh-level Meeting inthefallof1987ontransborder data
flowsunderthetheme"Improving International RulesoftheGame",
preparing anadaptation ofthelegalenvironment governing transborder data
flows.TheCommission isparticipating intheOrganization 'sworkand,in
particular ,theworkrelatedtointernational trade.Itwill,as
appropriate ,makeproposals onissuesarising inthiscontext .
International LabourOffice (ILO)
7.2.9.Although theCommission hasnotsofarbeendirectly involved in
discussions heldundertheaegisofILOinthecopyright field,theILO's
contribution tosuchdebates asthoseonsatellite television and
employee 'srightsisgratefully acknowledged .
(16)

-225-
CounciLofEurope
7.2.10 .TheCommission haswelcomed theopportunity toparticipate inmeetings with
adirectbearingoncertainaspects ofcopyright ,particularly thoseofthe
Steering Committee onMassMediaanditsexpertsub-committees .The
information gathered atthesemeetings hascontributed greatly toitsown
work,forexample inthefieldoftelevision bycableandsatellite .Other
copyright issuesofcommonconcernhavearisen,forexample ,asregards
privatecopying ofsoundandaudiovisual recordings andpiracyof
audiovisual works .
7.2.11 .TheCommission isoftheopinion thatworkundertaken oncopyright inthe
Council ofEuropeandinitiatives atCommunity levelarecomplementary .On
theonehand,theCouncil ofEuropeseeksinthecontext ofitslarger
membership todealwithcommonproblems normally bywayofrecommendation
andoccasionally bymeansofinternational conventions .Ontheotherhand,
withinthenarrower context ofStateswhicharemembers oftheCommunity ,
theCommunity seekstocreateagenuine internal marketforgoodsand
services ,including thoseprotected bycopyright ,usingtheTreaty's
directly applicable provisions andthelegislative andotherpowersthat
theTreatyconfers onitsinstitutions .Thismayrequireanapproximation
ofnational lawspriortoandgoingfurtherthantheworkwhichcanbe
achieved afterwards withinthelargegrouping constituted bytheCouncil of
Europe .Atthesametime,wherecommonapproaches canbeagreedonthe
Council'swiderbasis,itisdesirable thatappropriate instruments be
adoptedandthattheseinstruments formacoherent wholetogether withany
Community measures adopted inrelation tothesamesubjectmatter .
7.2.12 .Accordingly ,theCommission intendstocontinue toworktogether withthe
Council ofEuropeonmatters ofcommonconcern inthecopyright field.It
willparticipate inrelevant meetings totheextentthatitsresources
permitandwillinvitetheCouncil'ssecretariat toberepresented at
similarmeetings organized byitsowndepartments ,asitalreadyhasinthe
fieldofcross-frontier television andlatelyinthepreparatory workon
twoCouncilrecommendations onthesubject ofpiracyandtheprivate
reproduction ofsoundandvideorecordings ,whichwereadoptedbythe
Committee ofMinisters on18January1988^.

-226-
7.3.Bilateral relations :general
7.3.1.Whilemultilateral organizations andconventions represent inprinciple the
mostadequate framework foraddressing problems ofintellectual property
rightsandtheirenforcement ,itmustberecognized thattheexisting
international conventions relating tocopyright havenotyetachieved the
objective ofproviding effective copyright protection onalargeenough
international scale,norhavehavetheysucceeded yetindealingadequately
withnewformsofinprinciple copyrightable matterssuchassemiconductor
designsandsoftware .
Itisforthesereasons thatinaddition totheworkinthemultilateral
contextproblems existing withregardtoindividual countries orgroupsof
countries needtobetackledbilaterally .Theseproblems essentially relate
tothreeareas :
-theabsence ofadequate substantive standards protecting intellectual
property ,
-thelackofeffective enforcement wheresuchstandards exist,and
-theapplication ofnational treatment toCommunity rightholders .
7.3.2.Sofarasbilateral relations ingeneralareconcerned theCommunity can
act(andhasacted)whenever specific problems concerning copyright and
alliedmattershavearisen .Inrecentyears,suchproblems havearisenwith
increasing frequency .
7.3.3.Thus,in1984,whentheUnitedStatesCongress considered andthenadopted
legislation ontheprotection ofsemiconductor designs ,representations
weremadeonthebasisofconcerns expressed byCommunity interests likely
tobeaffected .Inaddition ,actionwassubsequently takenbytheCommunity
tosecureprotection onaninterimbasisforEuropean semiconductor
producers intheUSmarketpendingadoption oflegislation atCommunity
levelintheformofadirective onthelegalprotection oftopographies of
semiconductor products

-227-
7.3.4.Theprovisions ofArticle3(7)ofthatdirective concerning extensions of
protection topersons fromnon-Member Statesshouldalsobenotedinthis
connection ,whichenabletheCommunity toactasawhole.Theprocedure for
Q
whichtheyprovide hasrecently beensetinmotionforthefirsttime.In
thefieldofsemiconductor designs ,relations withnon-Member Stateswill
thusdevelop infutureinlargepartonthebasisofthespecific
provisions contained inthedirective .
7.3.5.AsregardsJapan,reference maybemadetotheinitiatives thatweretaken
whenitwaslearned inearly1984thatnewlegislation wasbeingconsidered
thatcouldsignificantly limittheprotection available tocomputer
software inanumberofways.Again,representations weremadetothe
Japanese authorities onbehalfoftheEuropean interests thathadexpressed
concern .Thewidelyreported decision oftheJapanese government notto
pursuethecreation ofaspecific formoflegalprotection forsoftware but
9tomodifyitscopyright law,whichitrealized in1985,hasbeena
welcomedevelopment .
7.3.6.Tocomplete thepicture ,reference canalsobemadetotwoothermore
recentexamples involving contacts withnon-Member countries .
7.3.7.Inthesummerof1986,representations weremadeonbehalfofthe
Commmunity anditsMemberStatestothegovernment ofNigeriaconcerning a
rangeofintellectual property issues,including theneedtostrengthen
legalprovisions fortherepression ofpiracyofcopyright materials .
7.3.8.Earlyin1987,theCommission wasconsulted bytheauthorities ofMalaysia
onanewbillforcopyright protection inthatcountry .Theproposed
limitation ofcopyright protection underthebill'sprovisions toMalaysian
nationals andresidents andtoworksfirstpublished inMalaysia isclearly
amatterofgreatconcerntoCommunity rightholders .TheMalaysian
authorities' attention hasbeendrawntotheproblem .FurtherCommunity
actionwillbeproposed ,shoulditprovenecessary .

-228-
7.3.9.Finally,asrecently asthebeginning ofNovember 1987,following a
commitment previously undertaken bytheRepublic ofKoreatograntto
Community nationals andenterprises rightsintheareaofintellectual and
industrial property equivalent totherightsgrantedtoUSnationals bya
US-Korea bilateral agreement ,aCommission delegation carriedout
negotiations onasimilarbilateral agreement including copyright
protection withthegovernment oftheRepublic ofKoreaonintellectual
property protection .Noresultshaveasyetemergedfromthese
negotiations .Asaresultoftherefusalofthegovernment ofKoreato
complywithitspreviously undertaken commitment ,Community nationals are
thesubject ofdiscriminatory treatment withinthejurisdiction ofthe
Republic ofKorea.Consequently ,on18December 1987,theCouncilagreedto
aproposal bytheCommission tosuspendthegeneralized tariffpreferences
10forproducts originating intheRepublic ofKorea .Thenegotiations with
Koreawillberesumedassoonasfurthernegotiations appearrealistic .
7.3.10 .Inaddition tospecific problems ofthiskind,meetings onanadhocbasis
arealsoheldbetweentheCommission andparticular countries orgroupsof
countries withwhichtheCommunity hassignificant tradeandother
relationships .Oncertainoccasions inrecentyears,thesemeetings have
beenusedtodiscussproblems arising intheintellectual property field,
thoughtodateattention hasfocussed primarily onfieldsotherthan
copyright andnoattempthassofarbeenmadetodevelopthisformof
intervention inasystematic way.
7.3.11 .Inrecentyearsproblems ofpiracyandcounterfeiting havebecomemore
seriousandwidespread .ClearlyactionwithintheCommunity oratthe
bordercannotsolvetheseproblems effectively .Theyshouldberaisedin
theframework oftheCommunity 'sbilateral relations inamoresystematic
way.Suchaction,whichwillrequireconsistent co-operation fromCommunity
interests affected ,shouldnotonlyaimatensuring respectfortherights
ofCommunity rightholders,butcouldalsoaddressothermattersofcurrent
concern,forexample,theneedforadequate legalprotection ofcomputer
11software andsemiconductor products .

-229-
7.4.Bilateral relations inthecontext ofexisting arrangements
7.4.1.TheCommunity haswovenafabricofbilateral agreements withcountries in
Asia,LatinAmerica ,theMediterranean ,Africa,theCaribbean andthe
Pacific ,thuscreating aframework fordiversified formsofco-operation .
Thisframework issufficiently broadtoencompass ,formally orotherwise ,
anytopicofeconomic co-operation ,including notably theprotection of
intellectual property .
7.4.2.Periodic meetings calledundertheseagreements offertheoccasion for
discussing problems encountered byoneCommunity industry oranother .
Attimesithasbeenusefultoenterintonegotiations andtoconclude
formalbilateral agreements .Although thisapproach hasnotbeen
systematic ,itshouldnotbediscarded ,inparticular forthosecountries
whichmaintain formalcontractual relations withtheCommunity .Their
interest inconcluding oneagreement withtheCommunity ,ratherthana
seriesofseparate agreements withsomeorallMemberStates,is
self-evident .
7.4.3.Attimesithasbeennecessary todealinmoreinformal mannerswith
intellectual property issues,giventheirdelicate character andthe
sensitivities ofcertaintradingpartners .Recently ,forexample ,the
Commission hasagreedtoreviewthenational legislation ofoneofits
tradingpartners toidentify possible problems orlacunae .Training of
officials andotherformsofassistance havealsobeenenvisaged .Another
forumforthediscussion oftheseissuesisconstituted bythejoint
investment committees setupbetweenEuropean operators andtheirAsian
counterparts ineverycapital oftheASEANcountries .Thesecommittees
regularly attempttoidentify andsolvethedifficulties whicheitherside
mayencounter .

-230-
Designproblems ofthetextileandclothing industry
7.4.4.Inthetextileandclothing sector,astarthasalreadybeenmadewhichmay
wellindicate thedirection whichfuturedevelopments shouldtake.
7.4.5.Bywayofbackground ,itshouldbenotedthattheCommunity 'stextileand
clothing industries haveaparticularly pressing interest insecuring
betterprotection fortheirdesigns aswellastheirtrademarksespecially
indeveloping countries .Sincetheseventies ,theindustry hasbeenunder
severepressure fromlowcostproduction inmanynewlyindustrializing and
State-trading countries .Thiscompetition hasgenerated growingquantities
oflowpriceimportswhich,combined withdecreasing consumption ,hasled
tosubstantial shrinkage andrestructuring oftheindustries .Asan
important partoftheirresponse .Community industries havesoughtto
stress,besidestechnological innovation ,themarketing ofhigherquality
products ,protected bytrademarks,offering innovative designs andmodels
subjecttochangewithincreasing frequency .However ,Community industries
nowfindthatthisassertive strategy isbeingputatrisk,andiseven
beingturnedagainstthem,byunauthorized copying oftheirdesignsand
trademarks,especially byfirmsexporting fromdeveloping countries .These
illicitpractices weakenCommunity performance notonlyontheworldmarket
butalsowithintheCommunity itselfsincethefirmswhicharecopyingare
savingthemselves thecostsofdeveloping theirownbrands,designsand
modelswhichfrequently represent asmuchas10%oftotalproduction costs.
7.4.6.Giventheimportance oftheproblem ,asafirststep,theCommunity sought
andobtained theinclusion inthefourthextension protocol ofthe
Multifibre Agreement ofaprovision recognizing theimportance ofthe
12problemandunderlining theneedforitsresolution .Subsequently ,in
thecontext ofthebilateral textileagreements concluded between the
Community andindividual tradingpartners ,thisrecognition wasexplicitly
confirmed.

-231
7.4.7.Asanextstep,thegeneralconsultation clausesofthebilateral
agreements willbeutilized toraisetheproblem ,inparticular ,onthe
basisoffactualcasessufficiently proved .Apragmatic approach ofthis
kindshouldprovehelpful infindingmutually acceptable solutions tothe
problemwhich,itcannotbedenied,presents anumberofparticular
difficulties including ,forexample ,theshortlifeofmanydesignsandthe
practical difficulties ofdetecting andprovinginfringements .Thesuccess
ofsuchanapproach will,toaconsiderable extent,dependonthe
co-operation ofCommunity industries andonthecarefulpreparation of
appropriate cases.
7.4.8.Finally,inthiscontext ,futureconcessions intheframework ofbilateral
textileagreements mightwellhavetobeconditioned byconcrete evidence
ofimproved co-operation bypartnercountries inthefieldofintellectual
property rightsincluding ,inparticular ,bothdesigns ,modelsandtrade
marks .
7.5.TheLoméConventions
7.5.1.Givenitsimportance ,actualandpotential ,therelationship betweenthe
Community andtheAfrican ,Caribbean andPacific (ACP)Statesmerits
mention inthiscontext .
7.5.2.Although theConvention doesnotspecifically providefortheprotection of
copyright ,itdoespermittheCommunity toprohibit importsinorderto
protectindustrial orcommercial property (Article132).Whereasthis
provides acertainprotection againstillegalimportsintotheCommunity ,
itdoesnotdealwiththeproblems associated withillegalreproduction .
7.5.3.TheConvention doeshoweverprovide aframework forinformation and
consultation onsuchquestions whichcanbeinvokedbyanycontracting
party.Thisframework willpermittheCommunity todealwithspecific cases
involving ACPcountries iftheyarise.

-232-
7.5.4.Therearespecific problems whichconfront developing countries ,
particularly theleastdeveloped ,inreconciling thelegitimate concerns of
ownersofintellectual property rightswiththeirownpressing development
needs.Inthiscontext itistobeconsidered whether ahigherprofile
shouldnotbegiventosuchproblems inanysuccessor Convention to
LomeIII.
7.6.Thenewtradepolicyinstrument
7.6.1.Inordertocombatillegalcommercial practices ,theCommunity nowhasan
13additional resource atitsdisposal :thenewtradepolicyinstrument .One
ofthemainconsiderations whichledtoitsadoption wasthatofproviding
theCommunity withaprocedure permitting ittorespondmorerapidly ,more
effectively andwithawiderrangeofmeasures thaninthepasttoillicit
commercial practices ofthirdcountries withtheaimofeliminating the
resulting injury .
7.6.2.Illicitcommercial practices aredefined asbeinginternational trade
practices whichareattributable tothirdcoutries andwhichareeither
incompatible withinternational laworwiththe"generally accepted rules".
Thus,theinstrument 'suseisnotconfined tocasesinwhichcountries do
notrespecttheirobligations undercustomary international lawor
international agreements towhichtheyareparties .Thenewtradepolicy
instrument ,therefore ,couldbeusedagainst aStatewhichdisregards a
multilateral treatytowhichitisnotaparty,buttowhichalargenumber
ofotherStatesareparties ,whenthetreatyinquestion isnotpurely
declaratory ofcustomary international law.AStatedoesnotactinbreach
ofinternational lawifitactsinawaywhichisforbidden byatreaty
whichisnotbindingonit.Yetitcouldbesaidtohaveactedinbreachof
"generally accepted rules".Underthenewinstrument ,itmightnotbe
necessary fortheStatecomplained oftohaveviolated anobligation ,legal
orotherwise ,applicable toit:therelevant provision inthenew
instrument isthatactionmaybetakenbytheCommunity whentherehasbeen
action"incompatible withinternational laworwithgenerally accepted
rules".

233-
7.6.3 .Theconcept of"generally accepted rules"isnotdefined inthenew
instrument butitscontext isclearlythatofStatesengaging in
international trade.Therethusseemslittledoubtthat,inthefirst
place,itisintended torefertotheGeneralAgreement onTariffsand
Trade,enabling theprovisions ofthatagreement tobeapplied tothetrade
14practices ofcountries whicharenotGATTmembers .Onthisbasis,other
multilateral agreements canbeevaluated toseewhether theshareofworld
tradeforwhichtheirmembersareresponsible isofthesameorderasthat
forwhichGATTmembersaccount .Ifthisprovestobethecase,therules
contained insuchanagreement shouldprobably beconsidered as"generally
accepted "bytheinternational tradingcommunity .
7.6.4.Anexamination oftheStatesparties totheBerneConvention (77States),
theUniversal Copyright Convention (81States),theParisConvention (96
States )andtotheGATT(92States )reveals thefollowing picture .
TableI:Theshareofexports ,importsandworldtradeforwhichthe
members ofcertaininternational agreements areresponsible .
IInternational
IAgreementI
I
I
I
IExports as%of
worldtotalI I
IImportsas% |
Iofworldtotal |
I I
I IInternational
tradeas%
ofworldtrade
IGATTI
I
I80I I
I81 I 81
IBerneI
I
I66I I
I64 I
I I65
IUCCI
I
I82I I
I81 i
I I81
IParisI
I
I88I I
I88 I
I I88
Source :IMFandUNO,1985figures .
7.6.5.Amongtheseinternational instruments ,theBerneConvention hasthemost
modestparticipation whichhowever ,measured inrelation tointernational
trade,stillaccounts forapproximately two-thirds ofthetotal.The
membersoftheUniversal Copyright andParisConventions eachaccountfora
greatershareofworldtradethanthemembers oftheGATTitself .

-234-
7.6.6.Accordingly ,therulesoftheBerne,Universal Copyright andParis
Conventions appeartobe"generally accepted "amongcountries engagedin
international trade.Therefore ,ifthenewinstrument couldbeusedagainst
aStateforfailuretorespectatreatytowhichitwasnotaparty,it
couldbeusedinthecaseofthesethreeconventions .
7.6.7.Anillicitcommercial practice mustalsobeattributable tothirdcountries
ifitistofallwithinthescopeofthenewinstrument .Thus
infringements ,evenrepeated infringements ,ofintellectual orindustrial
property rightsasrecognized bythemultilateral conventions willnotby
themselves besufficient .Theresponsibility ofathirdcountryasopposed
toaprivateindividual mustbeengaged inonewayoranother .Thismight
welloccur,forexample ,whensystematic infringements arecarriedoutby
entities forwhichtheStateisdirectly responsible sincetheyformpart
ofthatState'sadministrative structure ,forexample ,Statetrading
organizations .Evenintheabsence ofsuchadirectlink,however ,failure
torespectgenerally accepted intellectual orindustrial property rights
mightwellbeattributable toaparticular countryundercertain
conditions ,forexample ,wheretheillicitpractices arewidespread and,
despiterepeated requests toact,nothinghasbeendonetoenact
appropriate lawsor,wheretheyexist,toenforcethem.
7.6.8.Where,intheopinion ofaninterested party,illicitcommercial practices
existwhichcauseinjurytoaCommunity industry ,acomplaint canbelodged
withtheCommission byanyperson ,orassociation actingonbehalfofthis
Community industry orbyaMemberState.Theinjurymustbesustained
eitherwithintheCommunity oronexportmarkets .Thelatterpossibility is
ofconsiderable importance inthepresentcontextforinsomesectors ,such
asbookpublishing ,itisindeedonexternal marketsthatmostofthe
damageoccurs .Acomplaint triggers aninternal Community consultation
procedure which,wherethereissufficient evidence ,canleadtoan
examination procedure onthebasisofaformalnoticeofinitiation
published intheCommunity 'sOfficial Journal .Thisformalnoticeindicates
theproductandcountries concerned andasummaryoftheinformation
received .Italsoindicates thetimelimitswithinwhichinterested parties
maymaketheirviewsknownandmayrequesttobeheardorally .
\

-235-
7.6.9.Whereitappears attheendoftheexamination procedure thatactionis
necessary intheinterests oftheCommunity inordertorespondtoany
illicitcommercial practice withtheaimofremoving theinjurycausedby
it,commercial policymeasures maybetaken.Thesemeasures mayconsistof
thesuspension orwithdrawal ofanyconcession resulting fromcommercial
policynegotiations ,theraisingofexisting customsdutiesorthe
introduction ofanyotherchargeonimports ,ortheintroduction of
quantitative restrictions oranyothermeasures modifying importorexport
conditions orotherwise affecting tradewiththethirdcountryconcerned .
Suchmeasures canbetaken,however ,onlyafterthepriordischarge ofany
international procedure forconsultation orforthesettlement ofdisputes
whichtheCommunity hasaninternational obligation torespect .Indeed,
moregenerally ,theprocedures established bythenewinstrument are
expressly subjected tocompliance withallexisting international
obligations andprocedures .
7.6.10 .Inthefieldofintellectual property ,andcopyright inparticular ,thenew
instrument couldconceivably playasignificant roleinthefuture,
particularly asregardscountries whichpractise apolicyofmoreorless
activeconnivance inthepirating ofgoodsandservices developed
elsewhere .Suchasituation wasatthebasisofafirstcomplaint ,filed
inMarch1987,bytheInternational Federation ofPhonogram andVideogram
Producers concerning Indonesia .Itallegedthatthiscountrypermitted the
unauthorized reproduction ofsoundcarriers onitsterritory ,byreasonof
thelackofprotection grantedtoCommunity worksinIndonesia ,thus
16causingseriousinjurytotheCommunity industry .Following consultations
withtheIndonesian authorities andthecommitment undertaken byIndonesia
tograntCommunity nationals national treatment onthebasisofreciprocity
asregardstheprotection ofsoundrecordings ,theprocedure hasbeen
closed .Thenegotiation ofabilateral agreement betweentheCommunity and
Indonesia wouldpermittheconsolidation ofthisresultanditsextension
totheareaofcopyright ingeneral .Ifinthefuturethisinstrument isto
havepractical effect,theindustries concerned willnotonlyhavetobe
prepared touseit,butalsotopreparepossible complaints carefully and
communicate relevant information totheCommission .Thevalueofthe
instrument thusdependsinlargepartdirectly ontheresponse andfull
co-operation ofthosewhoseinterests arebeingadversely affected .

-236-
7.7.Summary
7.7.1.Asisthecaseforothertopicsaswell,copyright cannotbeseenonlyina
unilateral ,bilateral orMultilateral context .Copyright tooisplacedina
multi-faceted ,plurilateral world.Thesuccessorfailureofmultilateral
efforts,andtheongoingnegotiations inthenewGATTroundinparticular ,
cannotfailtohaveaneffectontheCommunity 'sbilateral efforts .These,
inturn,willaffectandareaffected bytheusewhichinterested parties
maymakeoftheautonomous newcommercial policyinstrument .Itisthis
complementarity betweentheCommunity 'smultilateral ,bilateral and
autonomous effortswhichliesatthebasisofthischapter .
7.8.Conclusions
7.8.1.TheCommission wouldaccordingly welcometheviewsofinterested partieson
thefollowing matters :
a)thepriorities tobegiventothedifferent aspects ofreinforcement of
intellectual property protection intheinternational context ;
b)thedevelopment bytheGATTofnewdisciplines asregardstheeffective
enforcement ofintellectual property laws,inparticular ,copyright ,as
wellastheadoption ,asappropriate ,ofimproved substantive standards ;
c)themoresystematic useofbilateral relations ,toensurebetter
protection innon-Member Statesoftheintellectual andindustrial
property ofCommunity rightholders ,particularly inthecopyright
field .
7.9.Timetable forsubmissions
7.9.1.Comments onChapter7shouldbesubmitted totheCommission nolaterthan
1December 1988.

-237-
ReportoftheCommittee ofGovernmental ExpertsofCopyright Problems
ArisingfromtheUseofComputers forAccesstotheCreation ofWorks.
UNESCO/WIPO/CEGO/II/7,13August1982.
ReportofGroupofExpertsontheCopyright AspectsofDirectBroadcasting
bySatellite ,UNESC0/WIP0/GE/DBS/I/4,29April1985.
ReportofGroupofExpertsonaudiovisual worksandphonograms ,
UNESCO/WIPO/CGE/AWP/4.30June1986.
Seeparagraphs 7.2.5.-7.2.8.above
^Recommendation no.R(88)1oftheCommittee ofMinisters toMemberStateson
SoundandAudiovisual PrivateCopyingandRecommendation no.R(88)2ofthe
Committee ofMinisters toMemberStatesonmeasures tocombatPiracyinthe
FieldofCopyright andNeighbouring Rights .
^TheSemiconductor ChipProtection Act1984.
^CouncilDirective87/54/EECof16December1986,O.J.No.L24of27January
1987,page36.Seealsothenoticeastointerimprotection intheUnited
States,O.J.No.C284of7November 1985.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16TheCouncil hastakenaDecision effective from7November 1987onthe
extension ofrightsonthebasisofreciprocity tonaturalandlegalpersons
intheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdomdependencies forwhoseexternal
relations theUnitedKingdom isresponsible ,O.J.No.L313of4November
1987,page22.
LawPartially Amending theCopyright Law,LawNo.62of14June1985.
CouncilRegulation (EEC)no.3912/87of18December 1987,O.J.no.L369of
29December 1987,page1.
SeeChapter 2paragraph 2.2.31 .andChapter 5paragraphs 5.3.5.,5.3.6.
Protocol extending thearrangement regarding international tradein
textiles ,paragraph 27,July1986.
CouncilRegulation (EEC)no.2641/84of17September 1984onthe
strengthening ofthecommoncommercial policywithregardinparticular to
protection againstillicitcommercial practices ,O.J.no.L252/1of
20September 1984.
SeeBourgeois andLaurent :Le"Nouvelinstrument delapolitique
commerciale ":unpasenavantversl'élimination desobstacles aux
échanges internationaux ,Revuetrimestrielle dedroiteuropéen ,no.1,
January-March 1985,p.52.
SeeChapter 2,paragraphs 2.2.2.,2.2.3.
O.J.no.C136of21May1987,page3.