Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified version) COM(2006) 226 final — 2006/0073 (COD)
Date: 2006-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EC Directive, codification of EU law, copyright, heritage protection, intellectual property, literary and artistic property

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/7

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (codified version)

COM(2006) 226 final — 2006/0073 (COD)

(2006/C 324/02)

On 6 June 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 September 2006. The rapporteur was
Mr Retureau.

In view of the renewal of the Committee's term of office, the plenary assembly decided to vote on this
opinion at its October plenary session and appointed Mr Retureau as rapporteur-general under Rule 20 of
the Rules of Procedure.

At its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 95 votes to none, with four abstentions.

1. The Commission's proposal

1.1
The proposal provides for a codification; despite some
minor formal adjustments, the acts being codified do not make
any change to the law as it stands.

1.2
In a ‘people's Europe’, it is important that Community
law should be both understandable and transparent. The Euro-
pean Parliament, Council and Commission have therefore high-
lighted the need to codify legislative acts that have been
frequently amended, and have agreed by inter-institutional
agreement that an accelerated procedure may be used. Codifica-
tion may not involve any substantive changes to the acts in
question.

2. General comments

2.1
The EESC notes that the Commission proposal strictly
adheres to the purpose of the accelerated procedure with regard
to codification.

2.2
Nevertheless it may be asked whether having the legisla-
tion on copyright and related rights in a fixed form is appro-
priate; the usefulness of codification is only obvious when the
law in the relevant area is no longer expected to change radi-
cally.

related rights and, on the other hand, the rights of users of
the scientific and
the public,
protected works (members of
university community, etc.; i.e.
‘consumers of cultural services’)
are not being respected, since in several Member States the
rights of users are being increasingly curtailed. For instance, in
many cases,
to private copying is challenged by
physical or software protection using DRM (digital rights manage-
ment) technologies; reverse engineering as a means to achieve
interoperability of software is being contested for the same
reasons.

the right

2.4
Exacerbating these adverse developments for ‘consumers’
is the introduction of stiffer penalties for circumvention of DRM
in order to make private copies or backup copies.

2.5
The EESC feels that the codification measures in the field
of copyright and related rights are premature, since Community
law needs to be rebalanced, in particular to take into account
the Lisbon Strategy. Moreover, a large number of key issues are
left to subsidiarity, and differences in transposition into national
legislation could constitute an obstacle to the free movement of
works and ‘cultural services’.

2.3
Given that Community law is still evolving (for example,
the pending proposals on ‘criminal measures’) and differences
between Member States in terms of transposition into national
law, it is clear that the balance between, on the one hand, the
in particular, holders of
rights of holders of copyright and,

Thus, at the present stage, a simple technical consolida-
2.6
tion by the Office for Publications would have made it possible
to clarify the existing legal situation at the time of consolidation;
in future, this technique could be applied whenever there is an
important amendment to the applicable law, without appearing
to constrain future changes to the law, as the choice of codifica-
tion could presage.

C 324/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

3. Specific comments

3.1
In addition, the Committee would like to see the intro-
duction in Community law of adequate recognition and protec-
tion of licenses such as the General Public License (GPL) or the
Creative Commons License with regard to books and artistic
creation; these licenses offer greater freedom to users and GPL,
for example, governs a very large number of
the software
packages used in computer servers (Internet routers, administra-
tion, businesses).

3.2
These more permissive licenses help to promote the
dissemination and appropriation of works by users and recipi-

ents, and are fully in line with the objectives of the rapid disse-
mination of knowledge and technology, which should be an
essential element of the Lisbon Strategy.

The EESC therefore asks the Commission to re-open the
3.3
debate on this matter, which seems likely to become sterile with
codification, and consider initiatives for bringing works within
the reach of a larger number of people, through recognition of
free licenses and a rebalancing of rights between holders and
users in the information society so as to strengthen competitive-
ness and innovation in the European Community.

Brussels, 26 October 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the term of protection of copyright and certain related
rights (codified version)

COM(2006) 219 final — 2006/0071 (COD)

(2006/C 324/03)

On 6 June 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 September 2006. The rapporteur was Mr
Retureau.

Due to the renewal of the Committee, the plenary assembly decided to discuss this opinion at the October
plenary session and to appoint Mr Retureau as rapporteur-general in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules
of Procedure.

At its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 104 votes, with 1 abstention.

1. The Commission's proposal

2. General comments

1.1
The proposal provides for a codification; despite some
minor formal adjustments, the acts being codified do not make
any change to the law as it stands.

2.1
The EESC notes that the Commission proposal strictly
adheres to the purpose of the accelerated procedure with regard
to codification.

1.2
In a ‘people's Europe’, it is important that Community
law should be both understandable and transparent. The Euro-
pean Parliament, Council and Commission have therefore high-
lighted the need to codify legislative acts that have been
frequently amended, and have agreed by inter-institutional
agreement that an accelerated procedure may be used. Codifica-
tion may not involve any substantive changes to the acts in
question.

2.2
Nevertheless it may be asked whether having the legisla-
tion on copyright and related rights in a fixed form is appro-
priate; the usefulness of codification is only obvious when the
law in the relevant area is no longer expected to change radi-
cally.