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)
Date: 2006-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EC Directive, codification of EU law, copyright, intellectual property, literature, software, visual arts

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.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/9

The term of protection of copyright, originally ten years
2.3
in the nineteenth century, is now seventy years after the death
of the author; there is nothing to say that terms of protection
will not increase still further in the future as a result of pressures
from copyright holders and holders of related rights.

2.4
As it stands today the situation is heavily weighted in
favour of the heirs of deceased authors (about three generations)
and the holders of related rights. These terms have become
disproportionate in relation to the needs of the public and the
creators themselves and they should be revised. If, as seems
likely, a WTO member, such as the United States, should decide
to extend the original term of protection to 90 years, or even
100 years (‘Disney amendment’), what will happen in Europe?
Should we then revise trade agreements on intellectual prop-
erty?

A very large number of works — literary, philosophical
2.5
and others — are only published once,
in their original
language, and will not be published again during the lifetime of
the author, or even of that of his/her heirs. Although these
works may not have been best sellers in their time, a good
number of them do nevertheless have some value, but they
quickly become inaccessible to potential readers. The indefinite
extension of rights would, in practice, benefit only a relatively
small number of creators, whilst the protection system, because
of the length of the term of protection, means that a far larger
number of works become inaccessible to readers and students
once the first edition is out of print.

Thus it may be asked whether having the legislation on
2.6
copyright and related rights in a fixed form is appropriate; the
usefulness of codification is only obvious when the law in this
area is no longer expected to change radically.

Brussels, 26 October 2006.

Careful consideration needs to be given,

in the digital
2.7
era, to the diffusion of works and the public's right to be able to
access creative works and universal culture. Thus the EESC feels
that codification is premature, and it would have preferred a
simple consolidation and a re-examination of the conditions
and term of protection for copyright and related rights consis-
tent with the Lisbon Strategy.

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 LGPL (Lesser General Public License
for technical documentation) or the Creative Commons License
with regard to books and artistic creation; these licenses offer
greater freedom to users and the GPL, for example, governs a
very large number of the software packages used in computer
servers (Internet routers, administration, 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.

3.3
The EESC would therefore ask the Commission to re-
open the 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.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS