3. Press freedom in Kenya
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on press freedom in Kenya.
author. - Mr President, freedom of the press is synonymous with freedom of expression and democracy. This does not, of course, apply in an ideal fashion in our society, in which media barons as well as government and political party media interference are not unheard of, but is rather prominent in some western countries, not excluding the USA and some EU Member States. However, at least as far as legislation is concerned, the media in our societies are given the theoretical protection of the law they need to function as near properly as possible.
This is where we beg to differ with the Kenyan Government, which is introducing legislative measures that can be used for possible repression and persecution of the press by the state. We therefore call on the Kenyan authorities to reconsider their stance on the matter and give their mass media the legislative freedom they need in order to try, at least, to function as democratically as possible. The Kenyan Government must understand and accept that the protection of the press is essential for their country's road to betterment of living standards for its citizens. We hope and trust that the plea we have made through this resolution will not be seen as interference but as friendly advice to the Government of Kenya, that it will be taken seriously into consideration and that there will be wiser reconsideration of what they have been doing so far.
Mr President, Kenya has been in the throes of a serious political crisis for a long time. The current President, Mr Kibaki, is implementing measures which are clearly intended to restrict the freedom of speech and of the press. On 2 January 2009, he violated the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter of Human Rights by sanctioning amendments to what is known as the Kenya Communications Bill of 1998, giving the national authorities new rights, including the right to dismantle broadcasting and communications equipment, as well as to control and alter the content of mass media publications. The international community unanimously declared this to be a further step towards media censorship in Kenya.
Moreover, in spite of earlier commitments arising from agreements signed to establish Kenya's grand coalition government, the President failed to consult the Prime Minister in office regarding either this decision or any further decisions. This exacerbated the crisis in Kenya, which had already lasted for over a year and which had claimed around 1 000 victims and left 350 000 people homeless. The European Union cannot stand by while fundamental freedoms are being blatantly violated.
We should welcome the Kenyan President's assurances that the amendments will be revised and that all political powers will be consulted on this matter, in order to give these amendments a new, democratic quality and ensure the broad support of Kenyan society. The European Union must support these measures and monitor them in detail, fostering pluralism during the process of building a civil society. At the same time, the Kenyan authorities should take stronger action to introduce a state of normality in the country, including the creation of a special committee, consisting of local and international experts, to punish those guilty of violence and of causing the crisis last year. There is a chance that these measures will stabilise the internal situation and prevent a humanitarian disaster, which inevitably threatens this Eastern African country with a population of ten million.
author. - Mr President, I regret the signing of the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill by President Kibaki. This act disregards the rights to freedom of expression and press freedom as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and echoed by other international conventions, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
This act would give considerable powers to the Kenyan Information Minister to raid media houses deemed to be a threat to national security and to dismantle broadcasting equipment. The act will also give the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by electronic and print media respectively. I welcome, however, President Kibaki's recent move to revise this media law and his gesture to consider amendments to legislation proposed by members of the media.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I call on the Kenyan Government to initiate a stakeholder consultation in order to build consensus on how to better regulate the communications industry without interfering with press freedom and without infringing rights contained within the Universal Declaration.
Finally, I would like to underline the need to adjust the culture of impunity in Kenya in order to bring those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago to justice. I call for the setting-up of an independent commission consisting of local and international legal experts who would carry out investigations and prosecutions into the violent events following the flawed elections in December 2007.
Mr President, Kenya has a violent past. After the Second World War, when Europe slowly came to accept that the independence of African countries was eventually inevitable, Kenya was emphatically excluded, as was the country we now know as Zimbabwe. According to colonial rulers, there were too many foreign colonists and too many foreign economic interests in those countries to be able to leave them in the hands of the predominantly black populations.
Unlike other West African countries, independence in Kenya did not come about peacefully, but only following a protracted and violent struggle by the independence movement Mau Mau. This need for a violent struggle has laid the foundations for continued violence and intimidation. The victors mainly belong to one major tribe, the Kikuyu. Other population groups have always been kept in opposition, where necessary on the strength of rigged election results. The latest presidential elections proved once again that a non-Kikuyu cannot become President, not even if the majority of voters vote for him.
Thanks to a compromise, the opposition candidate is now Prime Minister and domestic peace seems to be restored. While, out of the two African countries with rigged presidential elections, Zimbabwe is considered the country with the bad compromise, Kenya has been praised as the country with the good compromise. For years, Western Europe and America considered Kenya to be a major success story. It was a country with relative prosperity, freedom for international businesses, friendship with the West and attention for tourists. Kenya has now lost that success-story image. A food shortage and a new press law have made for renewed tension. This food shortage is partly attributable to the fact that the President, in exchange for the construction of the port, has leased out 40 000 hectares of farm land to the oil state Qatar for food supplies.
The press law appears to be a lever which the President uses to restrict the power of the coalition government and to eliminate critical opponents. This is all the more shocking, given that this law came about without the Prime Minister even being consulted. The coalition compromise between the President and the Prime Minister is in jeopardy if the President is given the capability of bypassing the Prime Minister, restricting the role of the government and protecting his own role against the critical press.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, until last year's violence, Kenya had a reputation as one of Africa's politically more stable countries and had a tradition of a relatively free and robust press.
President Kibaki needs to realise that political stability and a free press are mutually reinforcing. This restriction of freedom of speech, as proposed, is unbecoming for a country led by a man who came to power promising a new era of openness and transparency. Unfortunately, it seems that many senior politicians in Kenya have still not developed a sufficiently thick skin to handle the inevitable barbs of a free press and a democracy. I hope that President Kibaki will take our advice and change his mind. That would reassure us of Kenya's purported commitment to a free society under a power-sharing coalition government. It would also strengthen Kenya's case for moral authority and leadership in an unstable region.
I welcome the President's pledge now to consider amendments to this bill and to consult more widely with the media. Given that Prime Minister Raila Odinga and the ODM, his party, are vigorously opposed to this legislation, it is also vital for the stability of the Government that it does not become even more of an inflammatory and divisive political issue.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this joint motion for a resolution on press freedom in Kenya. A year ago, like many others, I was dismayed and disappointed that, after flawed presidential elections in Kenya, street demonstrations led to riots and ethnic clashes that spread across the country, killing more than a thousand people and leaving another 350 000 people homeless. Those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago must be brought to justice and a period of reconciliation and tolerance is now essential for Kenya.
In this context, it is very bad news that, on Friday 2 January 2009, President Kibaki signed the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill 2008, which amends the Kenya Communications Act of 1998. This bill flies in the face of press freedom and disregards international conventions signed up to by the Kenyan Government. Two sections effectively introduce direct media censorship by the Government. Section 88 gives the Information Minister considerable powers to raid and dismantle broadcasting equipment from a media house that is deemed to be a threat to national security. Section 46 gives the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by both electronic and print media. Within Kenya, the bill has been opposed by journalists, by Prime Minister Odinga and by the ODM, and its passing highlights a serious lack of consultation within the current grand coalition. I regret the passing of this bill and urge that any revision of the media law takes account of the many, many reservations expressed.
Mr President, as a member of Solidarność, and someone who has experienced martial law in Poland, I know that freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The Kenyan Government signed and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. These conventions include the right to freedom of speech.
Today, the Eastern Africa Journalists Association informs us that the government intends to introduce censorship in Kenya. I hope that President Kibaki will refrain from any amendments to legislation concerning the media, which could infringe the freedom of speech. I call on the Kenyan authorities to relinquish their plans to introduce censorship, to build consensus in order to foster the freedom of the press and the public communications sector. I hope that the rights of religious and ethnic minorities will be respected in Kenya. A year ago, over a thousand people died during protests linked to the elections and 350 000 people fled their homes. I hope that those responsible for these incidents will be justly punished.
(PL) Mr President, even if it is true that some of the private media in Kenya helped to instigate riots following the emotional election campaign, this is no justification for restricting the freedom of speech.
The attack on the freedom of the press in Kenya also involved the violation of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. It is worth stressing that the new legislation was adopted by 25 out of the 220 members of parliament. This is an utterly inconceivable situation. What is worse is that, until that point, Kenya had boasted one of the most developed and pluralistic press networks in the whole of Africa. This will change after the new legislation is implemented, which will allow special services to interfere in the activities of the media, close down editorial sections and control the printed or spoken word. Restricting the freedom of the media sector in the name of national security can only have the opposite effect to the one intended.
(LT) Why are we concerned with freedom of the press in Kenya? Why is the European Parliament debating this issue as a case of human rights violation as a matter of urgency?
Firstly because freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, as laid down in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Kenya is a signatory. Therefore, it, like other signatory countries, must not only observe its spirit, but follow it to the letter.
The demonstrations which took place almost a year ago after the Presidential elections in Kenya and grew into riots and ethnic conflict, in which more than 1 000 people were killed and tens of thousands were left homeless, is the strongest argument for not allowing similar events to be repeated. Therefore, the Kenyan Government and President should act together and honour their own obligations to respect freedom of the press, speech and assembly. In addition - and this is particularly important - they should fight impunity and call to account those who are responsible for the riots which took place a year ago.
Mr President, while we are debating humanitarian issues and freedom of the press in third countries, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, according to media reports from Gaza, the offices of the UN which were bombarded earlier on today by the Israeli forces are completely ablaze and all the UN humanitarian aid which was stored there, much of it sent by the EU, has been completely destroyed. The same fate has befallen the offices of Reuters and of other international journalists in Gaza. I wish to record that I share the view of the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, currently in Israel, who is reportedly completely outraged at the Israeli authorities.
Mr Matsakis, thank you for this declaration, but I am not supposed, in theory, to accept it because the rules require that when you ask to speak by catching my eye, it must be on the subject under discussion, which is, I would remind you, the freedom of the press in Kenya, even though the events to which you have referred are indeed dramatic, as everybody agrees.
(PL) Mr President, the European Parliament's Resolution on press freedom in Kenya highlights an important issue. Dictatorships begin with restrictions on the freedom of the press and information, as well as civil rights. I hope that this process will be halted by international and internal action. I think that President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga will take appropriate action. The Resolution, which I support, will certainly help the process of democratisation in Kenya.
(PL) Mr President, during the Communist period, both in Poland and in other countries, one of the provisions of the criminal code stipulated that any person disseminating information that could lead to civil disorder would be punished. This kind of provision was exceptionally useful as a stick for beating not only individuals but also, and above all, the press. Today, we see similar intentions behind the legislative endeavours in Kenya. One cannot state, as an argument or a threat, that the press must be muzzled as it might cause trouble in the country. That is no justification or explanation for this kind of censorship. The press is there to provide people with information, which is a real cornerstone of democracy.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by emphasising that freedom of expression, including television and radio, is one of the pillars on which the EU rests. This freedom is among the key European values and it cannot be called into question.
The 'Communication Act' of 2008 which became law in Kenya on 2 January 2009, includes some points which, in our opinion, might encroach upon media freedom. We therefore noticed with satisfaction the recent decision of President Kibaki on 7 January to revise some disputed sections of this Act. We are delighted that Mr Kibaki authorised the Minister for Information and Communications and the Attorney General to meet with media representatives in order to propose changes to this law that would eliminate these fears.
Freedom of expression and freedom of the press form part of public affairs administration in the broadest sense of the term and this, in itself, is at the centre of EU development strategy. I frankly take the view that a free and responsible press is an essential precondition for democracy and the legal state, which are integral components for sustainable development. Only on the basis of dialogue will the media and the Kenyan Government be able to develop a common understanding and build mutual respect. Thus, the European Commission looks forward with interest to the results of the various meetings which will take place in Kenya between the parties involved and it hopes that relevant parties will reach agreement on appropriate recommendations for proposals to amend the media law.
As far as the post-election violence is concerned, the Commission welcomes the report of the investigative commission on the violence (the Waki Report). It appreciates the undertaking of the Kenyan Government to implement the report recommendations, including the establishment of a special tribunal to ensure that the people responsible for the violence will have to answer for their acts.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place immediately.
Written statements (Rule 142)
At the start of 2009, democracy in Kenya suffered in the form of a blow against the freedom of the press. President Mwai Kibaki has signed a law, although he has subsequently had a change of heart, which grants the Kenyan authorities the right to carry out raids on editorial offices, tap journalists' telephone calls and check the content of broadcasts on the grounds of 'national security'. As if these abuses were not enough, the law also stipulates huge fines and terms of imprisonment for reporters found guilty of 'anti-government' practices. Although President Kibaki has ordered these provisions to be amended a week later, we are not aware as to what these 'amendments' envisage.
This law, in its initial form, is a reminder of the dark days of dictatorship, when the Kenyan press was brought to its knees. Kenya is currently a democracy and I firmly believe that no one, President Kibaki included, wants to return to those times. An attack against press freedom is an attack against democracy. The international community must continue to put pressure on the Kenyan authorities to treat civil liberties responsibly, especially press freedom.
Ladies and gentlemen, Kenya is acting in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Such fundamental pillars of democracy as freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not respected. The free press is in serious danger.
State control and censorship were sections of a draft amendment to a communications bill. Through the ill-considered action of President Kibaki, these have now become law.
It is unheard of that the government should possess the right to organise raids on the editorial offices of newspapers and broadcasters and check what is broadcast and in what form. That is far from a democratic society.
It is essential that the existing legal provisions should be amended. It is possible to regulate the press without endangering freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. This must be done as soon as possible.


16. Specific Programme 'Ideas' (Seventh RTDD Framework Programme, 2007-2013) (vote)


Cross-border collective copyright management (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the follow-up of the EP resolution on cross-border collective copyright management (Lévai report, by Giuseppe Gargani, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs - B6-0381/2007).
author. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on 13 March 2007, in plenary session, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission's Recommendation of 18 October 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services.
In that resolution, Parliament invited the Commission to make it clear that the 2005 Recommendation applied exclusively to online sales of music recordings, and to present as soon as possible - after consulting closely with interested parties - a proposal for a flexible framework directive to be adopted by Parliament and the Council in codecision, with a view to regulating the collective management of copyright and related rights as regards cross-border online music services, while taking account of the specificity of the digital era and safeguarding European cultural diversity.
Parliament also stressed that the proposed directive should not in any way undermine the competitiveness of creative businesses, the effectiveness of the services provided by collective rights managers (CRMs) or the competitiveness of user businesses - in particular small right-holders and users - and that it should, on the other hand, guarantee right-holders a high degree of protection and equal treatment; ensure that the relevant legal provisions had a real, significant and adequate impact; emphasise the use of alternative dispute resolution; provide for democratic, transparent and accountable governance in CRMs; promote creativity and cultural diversity; allow only fair and controlled competition without territorial restrictions, but with the necessary and suitable qualitative criteria; take into account the interests of users and of the market; satisfy the future needs of an online market; and foster the development of legitimate online music services.
Today the European Parliament is asking the Commission what steps it has taken towards meeting the expectations enshrined in that resolution.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the European Parliament for the interest expressed in the cross-border management of music rights and the 2005 recommendation on online music. The Commission's 2005 online music recommendation aims to allow the music market in Europe to develop in the digital environment. It aims to create a framework in which the best new online licensing model will emerge by agreement between the market players. This should allow authors, composers and music publishers to get a fair share of the distribution of their online works.
The recommendation does not prescribe a particular EU licensing model, and leaves implementation of its principles to the market. Exactly two years after adoption of the recommendation, the Commission is assessing the development of online licensing practices in the music sector in Europe. Stakeholders were invited to comment on emerging online licensing trends by 1 July 2007. The Commission received 88 replies from interested parties, such as collecting societies, authors, creators and music users in Member States. The process of reviewing the submissions is still ongoing. Only after a thorough examination will the Commission assess further policy steps regarding the online operations of collecting societies. The submissions analysed so far show that most stakeholders do not see the need for a framework directive, and prefer market-based solutions to regulatory intervention.
On the question of whether the 2005 recommendation is limited to online sales of some recordings, the Commission would like to point out that the principles on transparency and governance set out in the recommendation should not be limited to online music sales and should apply to all the activities of collecting societies.
To conclude, while the online market for music is still in flux, legislating in favour of a particular licensing model would appear premature. The Commission will monitor developments and report back to Parliament and the Council as foreseen in the recommendation. Any follow-up, if necessary, will be closely coordinated with the European Parliament and the Council.
Mr President, on 13 March 2007 the European Parliament passed a resolution on collective cross-border management of copyright.
In its resolution, Parliament called on the Commission to waste no time in presenting a proposal for a framework directive regulating collective cross-border management of copyright and related intellectual property rights for legitimate online music services. It also called on the Commission to make it clear that the 2005 recommendation in this area applies exclusively to online sales of music recordings.
Can the Commission update Parliament on the measures it has taken to date, in response to Parliament's requests?
Can the Commission inform Parliament whether it is following the same guidelines and instructions issued by President Barroso on the unified, democratic, rapid development of a united Europe? When will the Commission respect Parliament's procedural rules and the position adopted by the majority of its 785 Members?
The 13 March resolution reflects the European Parliament's clear position on cross-border collective management of copyright. The Commission's recommendation was the first step towards future convergence of the various practices in the 27 Member States. On behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, I myself argued, in my opinion for to the competent Committee, in favour of the importance of ensuring equal treatment for all right-holders, whether writers, composers, editors, record producers or performers.
In other words, this is an issue concerning millions of right-holders throughout Europe. The situation today, as regards online services is not considered to be effective enough, either for rights users, or for right-holders. We have thus all worked to present the Commission and the Council with the proposals that we believe would bring about a change for the better in the collective management of copyright.
The close cooperation between rights managers must be retained for the benefit of all parties. Piracy remains the greatest problem facing the music industry today. Three of the reasons for the spread of piracy internationally are the technological facilities for low-cost illegal copying, unfavourable economic conditions and the expansion of the Internet.
We shall all have to bear in mind that the spread of music piracy has the greatest impact on small countries where the music industry is mainly of a local and regional nature. In specific terms, piracy entails a shrinkage of the legal music market and results in a decline in legal sales; it therefore affects the viability of the national music recording industry.
Piracy certainly entails copyright losses for composers and songwriters, but it also deprives the state of income tax and VAT. The fight against piracy must therefore be included among the Commission's initial aims in the possible legislative proposal on collective management of copyright.
I would therefore like to call upon the Commission to take steps, as soon as possible, to fulfil Parliament's requests and to present a proposal for a framework directive with a view to regulating the collective cross-border management of copyright.
Lastly, as I have always said, music is not a commodity, and it is the duty of us all to protect and strengthen creativity in Europe. A directive that will in all likelihood not come into force until 2010 is a disaster for millions of artists in the EU.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (HU) Thank you very much. I would like to emphasise that this is about an extraordinarily important area, since income from goods and services protected by copyright and related rights accounts for 5-7% of the European Union's GDP. This highlights the importance of such rights being managed appropriately.
As you know, in 2005 the European Commission adopted a Recommendation on the cross-border management of legitimate online music services. At the time, Commissioner McCreevy described the Recommendation as 'a "soft-law instrument” designed to give the market a chance to move in the right direction'.
The Recommendation has far-reaching consequences for the copyrights market and major players in the market are already acting on the basis of it. It clearly goes further than merely interpreting and supplementing existing rules and its impact has all the characteristics of a full regulatory initiative.
At the time, a lot of fear took hold in connection with this Recommendation, including the fact that it would result in uncontrollable competition and that market forces would be concentrated in the hands of a few big management societies, and monopolies would be created. This is precisely why I thought that I should make a recommendation in an own-initiative report for the online music market to be regulated in a different way.
All the same, the Recommendation - which the Commission adopted - deprived the European Parliament and the Member States of the opportunity to have any significant influence on the changes affecting competition and cultural diversity in Europe.
It is precisely for this reason that I have been able to win the support of the whole Parliament and all the political parties for my report, in the interests of bringing to fruition a decision-making triangle, so that Parliament cannot be left out of the legislation of such an important area, and I have recommended that the Commission draw up a framework directive.
In my opinion, this recommended directive must meet the following requirements: it must guarantee right-holders a high degree of protection and equal treatment. It must be based on solidarity between right-holders and on an appropriate, fair balance among management societies. It must provide for democratic, transparent and accountable governance in management societies, including organisational structuring, transparency, representation, rules relating to copyright and production, and accounting, through minimum standards.
Comprehensive transparency must be ensured in collective management societies. Creativity and cultural diversity must be promoted. Fair and controlled competition can be allowed, without territorial restrictions, but with the necessary and suitable qualitative criteria for the collective management of copyright and the preservation of the value of the rights.
A high degree of legal certainty must be provided for users, and the availability of the global repertoire must be preserved. We, or I, therefore ask you to think about whether a directive would be necessary for regulating this important area.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner Borg's reply to the question put by Mr Dumitrescu fills me with concern: the Commissioner spoke of leaving the matter in the market's hands. But what is it we are talking about?
We are talking about rights which have taken two centuries to evolve: rights of creators, authors, composers, artistes. And now we are being told that those rights are to be regulated by the market: by what market? The market of thieves, the market of people who have divested producers and creators of their intellectual property by using new means of communication? What sort of rights are we talking about?
Rights are regulated by public bodies; specifically in the European arena we have institutions, namely the Commission, the Council and Parliament: the Commission with its power of initiative, the Council and Parliament through the codecision procedure.
It seems to me that now is not the time to follow a path which will lead to the disappearance of intellectual property. And if intellectual property disappears, intellectual creation disappears as well.
Some of the wise men and women who talk to us today about the advantages of the information society say well, yes, composers and authors can wander the streets giving concerts like in the Middle Ages. Are we going to reduce our authors to medieval minstrels who can play in the middle of the street, with a cap on the floor hoping someone will give them alms?
I think now is the time for the institutions of the European Union to react vigorously to defend this European tradition; its political essence is very important and it is vital for the maintenance of intellectual creativity. Only through societies of authors, the collective management of those societies, can intellectual property rights and the creation of intellectual property be defended today, right now, against the real thieves in the form of broadcasting companies which use intellectual creativity for their own benefit.
(PL) Mr President, the response to the Commission's Recommendation on collective cross-border management of copyright for legitimate online music services was provided by Parliament's Resolution that a framework directive be introduced to regulate this issue. However, the Commission did not carry out the necessary and wide-ranging stakeholder consultation that was required, including with Parliament, which was a breach of democratic procedures. It is completely unacceptable to ignore the institutional triangle and instead apply the so-called soft law approach without prior consultation and without the formal involvement of Parliament and the Council in the matter.
This recommendation, which aims in practice to create more freedom for copyright owners to select the institution that provides collective management, depending on requirements, would have far-reaching consequences for the copyright and related markets and would create a potential threat not just to competition rules, but also to cultural diversity. As a result, market power would be concentrated in the hands of a few of the largest entities that will then be able to bypass the network of bilateral agreements and grant licences to the whole European market.
It is worth remembering that about 5-7% of the EU's GDP comes from the sale of goods or services that are protected by copyright and similar laws. This fact illustrates even more how important is proper management of the relevant rights, as well as the need to strengthen their position in the current digital era. While respecting the principles of competition, we should avoid reducing the income of composers, at the same time providing users of musical works with an EU-wide licence that corresponds to the business model of the future. With this in mind the Commission should, as soon as possible, submit a proposal for an appropriate instrument that would be legally binding on entities working in this area.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank all the Members who spoke for their comments, which I will certainly convey to my colleague, Commissioner McCreevy.
If I can pick up on a number of points that have been raised: regarding the need for legislative intervention, let me say that the 2005 Commission recommendation on online music licensing has already brought about significant progress in the marketplace. The recommendation has given collecting societies in Europe an incentive to set up EU-wide licensing platforms that make their repertoire available for online music shops across Europe.
Let me cite three relevant examples. The UK and German societies have set up a platform for EU-wide licensing of the EMI repertoire, CELAS. The UK and the Spanish societies are cooperating on a platform that will manage the Anglo-Hispanic repertoire at EU level, and the French and Spanish societies have announced a joint licensing platform that grants EU-wide access to the French-Hispanic repertoire. In these circumstances, the Commission does not see the need for any premature legislative intervention.
I would also like to say that the 2005 Commission recommendation on online licensing has already brought about significant progress in the marketplace. The recommendation has encouraged collecting societies in Europe to set up EU-wide licensing platforms that make their repertoire available for online music shops across Europe. I refer to the three examples I have just mentioned. The CELAS joint venture alone is in fact in a position to license approximately 25 % of all musical works to any European online music retailer, such as iTunes, Sony's CONNECT or eMusic, in a single transaction.
On the question of cultural diversity, let me state that our recommendation is not detrimental to cultural diversity. There are clear indications that the new platforms for Anglo-American, French or Spanish music are open platforms. These platforms can include other music publishers' repertoires or the entire repertoire of existing societies.
National collecting societies would not disappear; authors would still be members of local collecting societies and revenues would still be distributed through collecting societies affiliated to the new licensing platforms.
Regarding the issue of rights, I would like to underline that there is no reason to think that this multiterritorial licensing model is bad either for cultural diversity or for the rights of artists, while it is good for the rightholders, who get more money than under the old territorial model. Cultural diversity and the rights of artists are also about giving authors more money so that they can continue to create.
Let me make one last point. The Commission actively encourages the development of an own online licensing market for music. In this vein, the Commission will closely monitor developments in this emerging market and, in doing so, the Commission will carefully consider the issues raised in the Lévai report of 5 March 2007.
If, between now and 2010, we observe, for example, that monopolistic licensing structures are emerging on the Internet, that the repertoire available on the Internet does not adequately reflect Europe's cultural diversity and that the marketplace alone is not delivering EU licensing structures that are adapted to the Internet era, then the Commission will consider adequate alternative means for reaching those objectives.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 29 November in Brussels.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (FR) The purpose of Mr Dumitrescu's question is to remind the Commission of its responsibilities. Through its recommendation of September 2005 and its decision to call into question the territorial competence of CRMs, the Commission has upset the relationship between rights-holders and national collecting societies - and this has happened outside the context of any legislation or harmonisation measures.
Under the guise of adaptation to the digital environment, the Commission has introduced confusion into the European system of author's rights and related rights. That in turn has encouraged concentration and a format-based approach, to the detriment of artists and to the advantage of industrialists and other economic operators.
The Commission urgently needs to stop taking random initiatives without serious assessment of their impact; it needs to examine the situation in all the arts and cultural sectors, in conjunction with all the stakeholders, and to adopt a comprehensive policy that will reflect the requirements of cultural diversity, as well as Europe's values and the Lisbon Strategy objectives based on the knowledge and innovation economy; and it needs to present Parliament and the Council with coherent draft directives respecting the principles that I have mentioned.