Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/9

Opinion on the Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology—Copyright

issues requiring immediate action

(89/C 71/04)

On 11 July 1988, the Commission decided, in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty
establishing the European Economic Community, to consult the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) on the Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology—Copyright
issues requiring immediate action.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services was instructed to prepare the work
on this topic and adopted its Opinion on 4 January 1989. The rapporteur was Mr Moreland.

The Economic and Social Committee, at its 262nd plenary session, meeting on 25 January
1989, adopted the following Opinion by 122 votes to 22 with 18 abstentions (vote recorded).

1. Background

1.1. There has been concern about copyright and its
protection in recent years—particularly with the growth
of piracy and of audio and video taping and of the
impact of technology generally. This is not just an
internal matter for the Community; it is also related to
third countries and is perhaps best exemplified by the
fact that in 1983 publishers in the Community claimed
that their lost sales abroad due to piracy corresponded
to approximately 1 billion US Dollars a year (Green
Paper 2.2.3). As a result the Commission has drawn up
a 'Green Paper' on the subject.

1.2. The Green Paper is divided into seven chapters
as follows:

— Chapter I — Copyright and the European Community,

— Chapter II — Piracy,

— Chapter III — Audiovisual home copying,

— Chapter IV — Distribution right, exhaustion and
rental right,

— Chapter V — Computer programs,

— Chapter VI — Databases,

Chapter VII — The role of the Community in
multilateral and bilateral external relations.

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee welcomes the Green Paper and
the desire of the Commission for wide discussion of
the subject. However the Committee regrets the long
delay in publishing the Green Paper in all the official
languages of the Community which has restricted a
widespread discussion of the subject.

2.2. The Committee believes that the issue of copyright has rightly become a matter of great concern and
that the need for Community action in this field is clear.
The issues involved can be complex and the Committee
congratulates the Commission on its presentation and
grasp of many issues. The fact that this Opinion tends
to concentrate on what the Committee considers to be

deficiencies of the Green Paper in no way diminishes
its appreciation of the Paper as a whole.

2.3. The Committee stresses that, while it respects
the need for copyright protection for interested parties,
there should be no interference in or restriction on

individuals' ability to use the fruits of new technology
in the home. It stresses that the objectives of a Citizen's
Europe should include the right for private citizens to
audio- and video-copy in the home.

2.4. The main criticism of the Paper is not of its
content but rather the absence of certain issues. The

Committee can recognise that there are a wide range
of issues involved in this subject. It also notes that the
Community institutions are overstretched by the bulk
of legislation at present, and a substantial volume of
copyright legislation will be difficult to absorb for some
time.

2.5. One can understand that certain issues e.g. relating to counterfeiting in textiles and fashion can be
considered distinct from the copyright issues. Nevertheless they are important for the interest groups concerned. These specific issues are, of course, part of the
larger problem of adequate protection for industrial
designs on which the law and practice within the Community is in a greater state of disharmony than the
subject of copyright _per se._ The Committee, therefore,
hopes the Commission will not delay consideration of
this related field of intellectual property too long.

No C 71/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89

2.6. However, the Commission has gone beyond
excluding issues that can be considered as distinct. It
has excluded, or paid only passing attention to, issues
which are essentially complementary to those discussed
in the Paper. In particular they are photocopying, the
lack of uniformity in the content of copyright and the
term of copyright. The Committee's comments on these
issues will be elaborated upon in its comments on
Chapter I. Suffice to state the Commission should give
more attention to these issues and consider including
them in a follow-up paper on the subject.

2.7. The Committee stresses the importance of basing legislation on up-to-date information and data. In
this context it stresses the need for the Commission to

keep its own database on trends in the copyright field
up to date both with a view to the legislation flowing
from this Green Paper and for reviews of the legislation.

3. Specific comments

3.1. _Chapter I: Copyright_ _and the European_ _Com-_
_munity_

3.1.1. Chapter I essentially sets the scene for the rest
of the Green Paper. The Committee entirely supports
the fundamental concerns outlined in Section 1.3 and

in particular underlines that 'to the maximum extent
possible, creators and providers of copyright goods and
services should be able to treat the Community as a
single internal market' (paragraph 1.3.2).

3.1.2. As stated in Section 2 its main concern is the

absence of consideration of certain issues which are of

direct relevance to the Community and no less demanding in urgency than those considered. They are as
follows:

3.1.2.1. P h o t o c o p y i n g

The Green Paper omits consideration of the enormous
volume of photocopying by institutional users, such as
educational bodies at all levels, public libraries and
research institutions, as well as photocopying in the
private sector for commercial purposes, with the consequential impact on national publishing industries (both
for books and periodicals). The Committee believes
that this must give rise to concern and requires action
and believes the Commission should give serious and
urgent consideration to this subject. The Committee
understands that it is the intention of the Commission to

examine this subject with a view to making proposals.

However, the Committee stresses that such proposals
should neither be bureaucratic nor interfere in any way

in the normal day-to-day photocopying of business and
of individuals.

3.1.2.2. L a c k of u n i f o r m i t y in c o n t e n t of
c o p y r i g h t

The Commission reiterates that the Treaty effectively
prohibits recourse to copyright law as a means of
artificially partitioning the market. Yet differences in
the nature of Member State legislation on copyright
can create, in effect, significant differences in the nature
of the intellectual property in what is essentially the
same product in the different Member States and have
a serious distorting effect upon the trade in those prod
ucts.

For example, in certain Member States the copyright
in works does not include a rental right whereas in
other Member States it does. When there is a rental

right, it may subsist in all categories of protected works
in some States, whereas in others it subsists only in
certain categories. Thus in the United Kingdom a rental
right is being introduced as part of a comprehensive
law expected to come into force early in 1989; but the
right will only subsist in sound recording, films and
computer programs. The copyright owners of the literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works embodied in
sound recordings, films and computer programs will
have no statutory right in the United Kingdom over the
rental of copies of their works.

Another example of serious lack of harmony is the
absence of any protection in certain Member States for
sound recordings as such and, where States have such
protection, the considerable differences in national
laws. This lack of harmony in legislation reflects a
corresponding situation in the membership of the international conventions relating to sound recordings—the
Rome Convention and the Geneva Convention—to

which all Member States do not yet adhere although
this would be desirable.

The Committee is of the opinion, therefore, that the
Commission should formulate proposals:

a) to ensure that sound recordings are effectively and
uniformly protected throughout all Member States
including protection for rights in respect of public
performance, broadcasting and cable distribution
which are at present protected only in certain States,
and

b) to establish, on a harmonized level, a rental right
in all Member States.

This should be done, where appropriate, by legislation
and/or by membership of the relevant conventions.

The Committee welcomes the information that the
Commission proposes to formulate a draft Directive
requiring protection for sound recordings in all Member
States.

20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/11

3.1.2.3. P e r i o d of p r o t e c t i o n for c o p y r i g h t

Another significant issue not covered at length in the
Green Paper is the considerable variation in the periods
of protection subsisting under the various national intellectual property laws of Member States. In the case
of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works the
majority of States apply a protection period of the life
of the author plus 50 years; but in Spain the _post_
_mortem_ period is 80 years, in Germany it is 70; and in
Belgium, France and Italy the 50 year _post_ _mortem_
period is augmented by special wartime extensions; and
in France the _post mortem_ period in the case of musical
works only is 70 years. There is therefore considerable
variation which means that the same work, at any given
moment, may be protected in some States but is in the
public domain in others. A similar disparity exists in
the legislation regarding performing artists.

One example of this variation of protection within
the Community is the case of sound recordings. In
Denmark, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom,
sound recordings are protected for 50 years; in Spain
the period is 40 years; in Italy 30 years; in Portugal and
the Federal Republic of Germany 25 years; in Luxembourg 20 years; and in Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands, there is no specific statutory protection based on
copyright.

It appears to the Committee, therefore, that there is an
urgent need for this question to be studied by the
Commission and formulae found for bringing about
harmonization of the protection periods for the various
categories of works and other products; which is
increasingly necessary if the internal market of the
Community is to operate at optimum efficiency.

3.1.2.4. O t h e r i s s u e s

There are other issues which are either not covered, or
are not covered fully and which could be given more
attention directly by the Commission:

a) moral rights—particularly as regards 'integrity';

b) the collective administration of rights by copyright

owners;

c) the protection of new forms of creativity, particularly those with transnational ramifications, such as
cable programmes;

d) the inadequate, and non uniform, protection for the
rights of performers;

e) lack of uniformity regarding a statutory licence to
record musical works, which is said to be causing
distortion of trade in the music industry;

f) a number of specific problems relating to the protection of the interests and rights of authors of works
of art.

3.1.2.5. C h a p t e r II: P i r a c y

The Green Paper adopts the general definition of piracy
as 'the unauthorised reproduction of works protected
by copyright or allied rights for commercial purposes
as well as all subsequent commercial dealing in such
reproductions'. However, the Committee would point
out that this phrase reflects more the historical origins
of copyright and perhaps needs revising to take into
account the fact that—particularly under the impact of
twentieth century technology—reproduction _is_ only one
of the many ways in which intellectual property is used
by the public—for example pirate broadcasting and the
piracy of broadcast programmes. Further the notion of
piracy should be interpreted broadly and should
include, for example, 'passing off or other forms of
unfair competition which do not necessarily involve the
reproduction of protected works.

Nevertheless the conclusions set out in paragraph 2.11
of the Green Paper appear, in principle, to be sensible
and acceptable. The Committee would make points on
four issues:

a) The Commission suggests that Member States
should introduce systems for licensing commercial
equipment for duplicating digital audio tape. The
Commission must give further consideration to the
practicality of this proposal and must spell out the
distinction between duplicating equipment which
is 'commercial' and equipment which is not. The
Commission should also address itself to the question of the extent to which licensees should be

required to maintain records of what the equipment
is used to reproduce, and the extent to which the
records should be open for inspection either by
the authorities or even copyright owners (without
setting up a bureaucratic jungle).

b) The Commission recommends that right owners
should be entitled 'to request public prosecution in
respect of acts of piracy'. Given the tendency in
some Member States for Government to regard
the enforcement of rights of copyright as a purely
private matter, the Commission should emphasize
its view that it is the responsibility of governments
to ensure that copyright laws are respected. The
effective protection of the interests of all right
owners in the face of piracy requires that the legal
enforcement procedures be strengthened and
extended, and applied by, or with full support from,
the public authorities.

c) As outlined in paragraph 2.3.3 of the Green Paper
'another exacerbating factor contributing to the

No C 71/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89

attractiveness of video piracy has been the normal
distribution of film producers'. The Committee
recognizes the necessity for film producers to be
able to plan the marketing of their products but
emphasizes that they could examine their own practices which could in themselves encourage piracy,
in particular delays before videos of major films
are distributed or shown on television. Also the

Commission could examine in the context of Com
munity competition legislation restrictive practices
in film and television distribution policy (as proposed by the ESC in its Opinion on 'A fresh boost
to culture in the European Community' (CES 460/
88M [1] ).

d) The Committee accepts the need for appropriate
customs procedures enabling apparently pirated
goods to be stopped on entry to the Community
from third countries pending an adjudication on
their legitimacy (see Green Paper paragraphs 2.5.3
and 2.6.5.3). However the force of this procedure
will be lost if it is used as an excuse to delay and
examine many legitimate goods, i.e. this procedure
should be used for its legitimate purpose and not
as protectionism in disguise.

3.1.2.6. C h a p t e r I I I : A u d i o v i s u a l h o m e
c o p y i n g

The Committee commends the Commission for its care
ful analysis of this subject, and recognizes that its
conclusions reflect the wide divergence of views, not
only between the various interest groups affected by
audio-visual home copying, but also among the governments of Member States; moreover, these differing
views also exist within the Committee.

In these circumstances the Committee supports the view
that Community legislation should cover only those
areas where the diversity of national legislation creates
problems in meeting the objectives of the Community—
particularly in the context of completing the internal
market.

It is the opinion of the Committee, therefore, that the
most helpful thing it can do is to enumerate certain
important considerations which, in its opinion, the
Commission must take into account when it finally
formulates its views and proposals. These essential
considerations are the following:

a) In principle, technology is a benefit to society and
the public should not be denied the use of the
facilities it makes available to them.

(*) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 40-46.

b) The copyright system also serves the public interest
in providing incentives for creative people and for
their business partners to produce and disseminate
their varied products.

c) If the copyright system within the Community is to
be in compliance with the Berne Convention and
the Universal Convention on Copyright (UCC) (to
which all Member States belong) national copyright
laws cannot ignore the reproduction of audio and
audio-visual recordings by members of the public
at home. The benefits of the new technologies which
enable this to be done must be balanced by the need
to protect the livelihood of the copyright owners
whose works are copied.

d) No action should be taken that is detrimental to
specially disadvantaged people, such as the blind,
who rely heavily on home taping.

Whilst the Committee respects the needs of right holders, it stresses that it is opposed to any interference in
the individual's right to take full advantage of modern
technology in the home. Consequently it is opposed to
technical devices that restrict home taping including
measures to limit the reproduction of digital audio
recordings in the home.

3.1.2.7. C h a p t e r IV: D i s t r i b u t i o n r i g h t
e x h a u s t i o n a n d r e n t a l r i g h t s

The conclusion (4.12.1) that a rental right is required
in the case of sound and video recordings and that a
Directive to the effect should be issued, is to be welcomed. The question whether such a right should be a
right of control or merely a right to equitable remuneration should undoubtedly be answered in favour of a
right of control for the following reasons:

a) This is the trend of Member State legislation: it is
the law in France, Spain and Portugal already and
will come into law in the United Kingdom.

b) It is essential to the effective dissemination to the
public of such works through maximum commercial
exploitation for the right owners to have a full right
of control.

c) The Commission's conclusion that the distribution
right requires no Community action at present
seems reasonable; but the issue is both important,
and complex, and should be kept under constant
review.

The conclusion that a specific rental right, as a component of copyright (4.12.2) is not required in the case
of other products which are protected by copyright, or

20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/13

embody protected works, notably books, may require
re-consideration. If, as several Member States already
recognise, it is right that authors receive remuneration
for the lending of their books, even if lending is noncommercial, _a fortiori_ it must be the case that lending
a book for profit justifies a right of control for the
author and his business partner, the publisher.

3.1.2.8. C h a p t e r V: C o m p u t e r p r o g r a m s

The overall conclusion expressed (paragraph 5.7.1) that
computer programs should be protected 'within the
framework of copyright and related rights' reflects the
almost universal consensus recorded at the successive

international meetings on this subject covered by the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). There is, however, considerable variation in the manner in which this general
approach has been implemented. For example, in the
United Kingdom, computer programs are brought
under the copyright law by a simple provision declaring
them to be a form of literary work so that the copyright
law applies to them in the same way as it applies to
literary works (subject to any express reservations);
whereas in France, the copyright law was amended in
1985 to incorporate within the copyright statute a special set of provisions carefully designed to suit the
special nature of computer programs; and it might be
helpful to the Commission, in its task of divising a
model for the Community, to see how the French
approach works in practice.

As regards the conclusions in paragraph 5.8.2, the Committee would make comments on the following clauses:

Clause (b): It is acceptable to apply the concept of
'originality' to computer programs, but the exclusion
of programs which are 'commonplace' might introduce
a new nuance, not in accord with the existing understanding of what originality means. There appears to
be considerable anxiety within the computer industry
that new concepts of originality may, in their application to computer programs, seriously put at risk the
industry's considerable investment in the production
and use of this new form of intellectual property.

Clause (c): Access protocols and interfaces are, in the
field of computerized systems, one of the latest manifestations of human creativity; they make possible the
interaction of computer systems and computer programs. In general terms they are concerned with the
compatibility of programs with each other; and are,
certainly in most cases, no different, in copyright terms,
from any other programs and therefore should be eligible for copyright protection. In so far as access protocols and interfaces give rise to possible anti-competitive
action, this should be dealt with under the laws and
practices relating to unfair competition and not by
modifying the normal application of copyright principles.

Clause (d): In view of the special characteristics, and
purposes, of computer programs it may be that the
ambit of the forms of use be wider than, or at least
different from, those applicable to traditional categories
of protected works.

Clause (e): In general the Committee agrees with this
clause but points out that where a user is not a licensee
and has acquired a copy of a program for the purpose
of a use which does not require adaptation, it does
seem questionable that he should be entitled to adapt
it for some personal purpose.

Clause (g): The Commission may face difficulties with
different national laws on the term of protection where
Member States include computer programs under general copyright legislation. The Committee believes it is
desirable to have the same term of protection in all
Member States. This would foster the functioning of
the internal market for computer software.

Clause (h): The Committee questions if it is desirable
to leave authorship to different Member State laws.
This issue affects the qualifications for protection and
also, where duration is related to the death of the
author, affects the term of protection.

Clause (i): The Commission should proceed with caution as some third countries do not fulfil their obli
gations under international agreements in this field.

Clause (j): Consideration should be given to a much
broader approach to the onus of proof including authorising affidavit evidence on both the subsistence and
ownership of rights and establishing a presumption of
accuracy as to the contents of such affidavits with the
onus on the defendant to present evidence refuting
the presumption. In any case the need for measures
facilitating proof in copyright litigation is not limited
to the protection of computer programs but is a general
one, of particular importance in relation to piracy.

3.1.2.9. C h a p t e r VI: D a t a b a s e s

The Committee notes from the documentation of meet
ings of UNESCO/WIPO that, although there may be
general agreement on the justification and need for
protecting compilations held in databases, there are
significant differences of opinion regarding the question
whether protection should be provided under copyright
and in accordance with normal copyright principles, or
by a new _sui generis_ system. As thinking on these
questions is still evolving it may be desirable for the
Commission to proceed with caution in this field. However the Committee would make the following com
ments:

No C 71/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89

a) In answer to the Commission's subquestion (a)
(6.7.1) there seems no argument against stating that
the compilation within a database of works which
are protected by copyright should enjoy copyright
protection just as existing compilations (e.g. of literary or musical works) enjoy copyright, provided
they involve an appropriate measure of originality
as normally understood for copyright purposes.

b) Subquestion (b) (6.7.1) appears based on a misunderstanding of the basis on which compilations are
entitled to protection. The nature of the material is
not relevant to the question whether or not the
compilation is entitled to copyright protection.

3.1.2.10. C h a p t e r V I I : R o l e of t h e C o m m u n i t y in m u l t i l a t e r a l a n d
b i l a t e r a l e x t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s

The Committee underlines the fundamental importance
of using the full weight of the Community to obtain
arrangements with third countries. However the
examples of negotiations with Korea (which was not a
success) and with Indonesia (which was successful)
underlines the need for such negotiations to be carefully
planned and evaluated. Given that the Community
includes the 'homelands' of most major languages of
the world, no Member State would be happy to see the
lead on aspects of copyright which involve language
considerations slip to third countries because of ineffective negotiation by the Community. (For example for
the United States to be seen to take the lead on matters

that affect the English language).

As regards the questions posed by the Commission
(paragraph 7.8.1):

Clause (a): The measures needed for the effective protection of intellectual property internationally has been
the subject of considerable examination, nationally and
internationally and there is general agreement—which
the Committee supports—that these measures must

cover:

Done at Brussels, 25 January 1989.

— a comprehensive set of substantive provisions relating to all categories of intellectual property (including computer software, data bases, broadcasts,
sound recordings and the protection of performers'
interests), matching the standards of the Berne Convention and including new rights, for example
rental, made necessary to provide protection in
relation to new forms of use made possible by
contemporary technology,

— a comprehensive set of enforcement provisions
covering updated penalties which are truly deterrent, powers of search and seizure not only for
infringing copies but for the purpose of obtaining
information, provisions facilitating proof including
presumptions as to subsistence and ownership of
rights as well as the admissibility of evidence by
affidavit or certificate.

Clause (b): The Community should support the initiative in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) to incorporate a code for the better protection
of intellectual property, containing the measures mentioned in the previous two paragraphs.

Clause (c): The Committee points out that multilateral
conventions such as Berne, UCC, Rome and Geneva
have satisfactorily provided the framework within
which copyright relations internationally have been
developed and maintained throughout this century. The
appearance in this field during the last few years of
bilateral treaties is, in principle, undesirable. The Committee realised that in particular cases, there may be no
alternative if relations are to be established with a

particular country. Nevertheless, in such a situation,
whether negotiations are conducted by an individual
State or by the Community, it should be stressed that
the bilateral relationship is regarded as a transitional
measure and that as soon as possible it should be
replaced by membership of one of the multilateral conventions.

_The_ _Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social_ _Committee_

Alberto MASPRONE

20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/15

_APPENDIX 1_

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

_Voting_

A roll-call vote was taken on the Opinion as a whole. The following members, present or represented, voted
in favour of the Opinion :

Mr/Mrs/Miss: Arena, Ataide Ferreira, Bagliano, Black, Bleser, Boddy, Bos, Bredima Savopoulou, Breyiannis,
Briganti, Broicher, Calvet Chambon, Campbell, Carroll, Ceballo Herrero, Christie, Alves Conde, Cortois,
Coyle, van Dam, Dassis, von der Decken, Delhomenie, Delia Croce, De Tavernier, Dodd, Dos Santos, Drago,
van Eeckert, Elstner, Etty, Eulen, Flather, Flum, Forgas, Frandi, Fresi, Freeman, Geuenich, Giacomelli,
Glesener, Gomez Martinez, Gredal, Green, Haas, Hilkens, Horsken, Houthuys, Hovgaard Jakobsen, Jenkins,
Kaaris, Kazazis, Kelly, Kenna, Kirchfeld, Kitsios, Kroger, Laca Martin, Landaburu, Liverani, Lojewski, Low,
Machado Von Tschusi, Maddocks, Mainetti, Mantovani, Margalef Masia, Margot, Morales, Moreland,
Morselli, Muhr, Murphy, Neto Da Silva, Nierhaus, Nieuwenhuize, Noordwal, de Normann, Panizo-Arcos,
Pearson, Petersen, Petropoulos, Poeton, Proenca, Pronk, Raftopoulos, Riera Marsa, Roseingrave, Santillan
Cabeza, Schmitz, Schnieders, Schoepges, Speirs, Spijkers, Staedelin, Storie-Pugh, Telles, Tukker, Vidal, Wick,
Whitworth, Williams.

The following members, present or represented, voted against the Opinion:

Mr/Mrs/Miss: Arets, Aspinall, Beretta, Cal, Gavel, Collas, Donck, Droulin, Dunet, Hancock, Laur, Pardon,
Proumens, Ribiere, Robinson, Rolao Goncalves, Saiu, Salmon, Tiemann, Tixier, Yverneau.

The following members, present or represented, abstained:

Mr/Mrs/Miss: Amato, Aparacio Bravo, Berns, Cavazzuti, Corell Ayora, Drilleaud, Hagen, Lustenhouwer,
Mourgues, Nielsen B., Nielsen P., Nugeyre, Orsi, Rouzier, Termes Carrero, Vallejo Calderon, Velasco
Mancebo, Vercellino.

_APPENDIX 2_

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Rejected amendment

The following amendments, based on the Section Opinion and tabled in accordance with the rules of
procedure, were rejected during the debate:

Point 2.3

Reword this point as follows:

'In the Committee's view, full attainment of the Single Market is impossible without effective copyright
protection in the Community. Europeans must be entitled to use new technologies in the intimacy of their
home, provided that they do not infringe the rights of those who create and produce music and other works,
thereby taking unfair advantage of this possibility.'

_Reasons_

Account must be taken (a) of the _de facto_ situation and the public's desire to be able to copy works and (b)
the need to remunerate authors, artists/performers and producers for the use of works which they have
helped to create.

_Voting_

For: 48, against: 58, abstentions: 7.

No C 71/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89

Point 2.3

Redraft as follows:

'The Committee recognises that the economic benefits of a dynamic Single Market will only be fully realised
if intellectual property rights are effectively protected within the Community. On the other hand private
citizens must be able to avail themselves of the benefits of new technology by using all available nonprofessional equipment, without check once purchased, in the privacy of their homes. The challenge is to
devise measures which maintain a fair balance between these sometimes opposing interests.'

_Explanatory_ _statement_

The amendment seeks to achieve a fair balance between the interests of all parties.

_Voting_

For: 46, against: 52, abstentions: 29.

Point 2.4

Substitute the following text:

The main criticism of this paper, apart from its omission of certain issues, is that it fails to draw attention
to the acknowledged rights of authors, artists/performers and producers to authorize and control the
dissemination and all forms of exploitation of their works.'

_Reasons_

This statement of a fundamental principle upheld by all rights-holders in a work's creation or production is
self-explanatory.

_Voting_

For: 30, against: 49, abstentions: 35.