WRITTEN QUESTION E-2414/02 by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission. Congressional bill to combat Internet file-sharing services (e.g. Kazaa).
Date: 2002-08-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Internet, United States, audiovisual industry, audiovisual piracy, consumer protection, copyright, intellectual property, malware, non-government bill, software

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/233

(2003/C 28 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2414/02

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(7 August 2002)

Subject: Congressional bill to combat Internet file-sharing services (e.g. Kazaa)

According to a report in the 29 July 2002 edition of ‘De Volkskrant’ the US Congress is preparing a law
which would give the US recording and film industry the right to hack into the computers of consumers
who exchange files ‘illegally’ via the Internet. The industries would be given the right to disable the file-
sharing software (e.g. Kazaa) and to block or otherwise disrupt users’ Internet connections. The provisions
of the law would apply to any breach of the rules which resulted in a loss of more than $ 50.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this bill?

Is the Commission aware of the judgment handed down by the Netherlands courts stipulating that

2.
use of the file-sharing service Kazaa is lawful?

Does the Commission share the view that, even after the adoption of the new law, American firms
traffic or even damage their

3.
will not have the right
computers and that any such act would represent a criminal offence?

to disrupt European computer users’

Internet

4. What steps does the Commission plan to take in order to protect European computer users against
the new law?

5.
Does the Commission share the view that the enormous success of file-sharing services such as Kazaa
(which already has some 100 million users according to its own website) can be explained by the
exorbitant prices charged for audiovisual products, such as DVDs and CDs? What steps does it plan to take
with a view to reducing prices for such products on the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2002)

the unauthorised exploitation of protected material

Regarding the preparation of legislation in the United States on the possibility for rightholders of
1.
intellectual property to prevent
in the digital
environment, the Commission is aware of a draft bill that has been introduced in the United States’
House of Representatives on 25 July 2002 (HR5211). The purpose of this proposal is ‘to limit the liability
of copyright owners for protecting their works on peer-to-peer computer networks’. According to this bill,
a rightholder could not be liable in any criminal or civil action for disabling, interfering with, blocking,
diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorised distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of
his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network (if such impairment
does not alter the integrity of a computer file or data). To the knowledge of the Commission, this bill is
liable to changes in the House of Representatives and has not yet been introduced in the United States’
Senate.

The Commission does not possess detailed information on the Court decision issued in the
2.
Netherlands and mentioned by the Honourable Member (‘KAZAA’ decision). It is not in a position to
comment on its content.

The Commission has no indication that the draft United States’ bill, if adopted in its present form,
3.
would not only apply to American criminal or civil proceedings, or that it would give rightholders the
possibility to interfere with the functioning of computers or to damage files or date stored in personal
in many Member States. Recently, the Commission
computers. In any case, all these acts are illegal
information systems (1). This proposal seeks to
proposed a Framework Decision on attacks against
approximate definitions and criminal law provisions concerning, inter alia, ‘denial of service’ attacks.

C 28 E/234

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

that

the protection of

technological measures used by
The Commission would also like to recall
rightholders for the protection of their intellectual property is provided at the international level by the
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Treaties of 1996 (the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 20 December 1996), as implemented at the European
Community level by Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of
copyright and related rights in the information society (2). This Directive obliges Member States to provide
adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures designed to
control the use of protected subject-matter, especially in the on-line environment. It also highlights the
crucial importance to safeguard a fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of
rightholders and users of protected subject matter in the form of specific provisions to this end.

The Commission will continue to follow the American legislative process, and assess its potential
It will not fail to discuss any perceived problems with the American authorities, as

4.
consequences.
appropriate.

The prices of audio and video products such as CDs or DVDs are determined by the market. The
5.
Commission’s policies can only have an indirect
in particular through the
application of competition or internal market rules. As a matter of general principle, an act considered to
be an illegal acquisition of intellectual or tangible property cannot be justified by claiming that the price
for the lawful acquisition is perceived as being to high.

impact on such prices,

(1) COM(2002) 173 final.
(2) OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.

(2003/C 28 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/02

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 August 2002)

Subject: Application of EU labelling legislation by the Dutch authorities

Is the Commission satisfied that the Dutch authorities are taking adequate steps to ensure that chicken
breasts with added water, or chicken breasts with added water and added animal or vegetable proteins,
which are being exported to the United Kingdom, are correctly described to comply with EU labelling law?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2002)

The Commission was informed by the Irish Food Safety Authority in May 2002 that products labelled as
chicken fillets, which were manufactured in the Netherlands and put on the market in Ireland, did not
conform to Community requirements in various respects.

On 7 June 2002, the Commission wrote to the competent Dutch Ministers, to request the adoption
without delay of all the necessary measures to ensure that the products concerned comply with all
Community requirements. At a subsequent meeting of the Standing Committee of the food chain and
animal health, the Dutch authorities informed the Commission and the Member States of the measures,
which were consequently adopted.

The Commission considers that the labelling of these products was clearly an infringement of the

1.
Community legislation on the labelling of foodstuffs (1).

The chicken fillet products had been processed by the addition of proteins, water and other ingredients
and could not, therefore, be designated as ‘chicken fillets’, as this designation is restricted to fresh poultry
meat (2). In addition, added proteins, added water and the meat content had not always been indicated or
had been wrongly labelled.