EUROPEAN Copyright SYSTEM ACT
-
I thank the right honourable representitive from Istkalen for her contribution some of which I agree with some of which I don't . I agree with ammendment I and ammendment II. I think ammendment III is unnecessary since you wouldn't apply for a European Copyright in that situation anyway however it also not actively harmful.
I am confused how you say theres no accompanying court system when it establishes a European appeal process just like the tother two acts within the ECO. You also seem to hand the ability of copyright holders to abuse their former copyright after it expires by not requiring them to pay the fees of the victims of copyright trolling if they pursue legal action against which they know is fair use or well within the rights of the person or company to use.
Ammendment V also essentially strips any teeth from the act since it would technically be illegal to distribute copyrighted work without permission or copy it but there would be no such requirement to take it down for content hosts like Vogo and video hosting sites for example or stores selling pirated or copyright infringing material.
I also believe amendment VI would risk making copyright meaningless by making it quite vague and broad what is fair use. This would devalue the point of going for a copyright and by removing examples of cases for courts to reference when making their decisions . Though not a critical blow it would damage the act significantly.
Amendment VIII would also allow abuse of a copyright system to undermine fair use allowing big corporations to abuse the court system to intimidate and financially ruin critics , review channels or smaller content creators.
I believe ammendment IX is a good addition
I am concernced ammendment X would make it too expensive to hold a copyright effectively deafeating the point of a copyright to protect small creators and authors from bigger corporations just copying their ideas.
I would also ask how ammendment XI would work since you can either have an opt in or opt out not both at the same time. This would create legal confusion as to whether a nation is in the system if they did not explicitly say they were joining the system. I think the langauge would need changing on those ammendments for it to work.
I would like to explain the reasoning behind the act , this act is designed to simply put protect artists who come up with ideas from big corporations just copying their ideas and using their big marketing budgets to market their copy of the idea. Surely this is in line with communist ideas of protecting the small creator who otherwise would have no recourse or who could not necessarily afford or have the time to file over 20 different copyrights in each country of the EU. Some of the ammendments undermine this by stripping protections out of the act that would stop copyright holders who are abusive using copyright trolling to shut down criticism , parody or review by simply threatening the victim with expensive lawsuits with no penalty for doing so and no financial assistance for the victim of copyright trolling.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , IAC Commissioner
-
I cannot find any text in the proposal establishing a European appeal process, except as regards the "legality or validity of a granted European copyright." Given that, as it stands, the act creates an entirely new opening for cases of original jurisdiction in its establishment of a pan-European framework for fair use and the public domain, this is - again - enormously concerning.
With regards to the proposed sanctions for vexatious and frivolous cases, they are simply inappropriate for inclusion in this act and would hamper the ability of European courts to act effectively. It is my opinion that European-level proposals should be as focused as possible in order to ensure that our institutions are well defined as possible, and these suspect provisions, I feel, illustrate why. They give undefined entities excessively narrow powers, all of which must nevertheless be exercised in the most extreme possible way, with only very vague guidance or restrictions as to proper use. It is as though we were planning to instruct all doctors in the Union to treat all fevers, whether low or high, regardless of cause, with a heavy course of penicillin G and only ever penicillin G. If we are to proscribe sanctions in this manner, then, we ought to do it in a separate act and in a way that gives courts more discretion as to what exactly they impose, in order to give this particular part of the proposal the attention and legal form it needs. That, in effect, is what I put forwards with Amendment IX, which empowers the Board of Appeal of the ECO to create not merely a system of courts, but also regulations to govern them.
Moving away from this subject, we cannot provide strict definitions for fair use, especially with the emergence of new and contentious technologies like AI. In a world as dynamic as ours, the courts, again, must have flexibility. It is also, as an aside, quite strange that you defend said fair use so strongly when you are also in favor of requiring private organizations to act as miniature courts and law enforcement forces to restrict public creation in defense of rent-seeking - a provision that would impose severe practical restrictions on its exercise.
I, moreover, do not understand your reasons for opposing - if it is truly a fair market we are trying to create - a cost on the externalities created by copyright. Externality pricing is economic orthodoxy, and a good way to defend the public interest to boot - why, then, do you say that it is so negative a thing?
I also do not see why we cannot have an opt-in and opt-out at the same time - do you believe that states should not have the right to join the System if they previously withdrew from it, or to withdraw from it if they previously joined?
Incidentally, Commissioner, where did you hear that communism was in favor of the protection of the small creator? It is, I would have thought, quite famously the "real movement which abolishes the present state of things" - abolishes, not protects.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
This is the the establishment of a system to hear copyright cases:SECTION II. EUROPEAN Copyright OFFICE
1.This document establishes the European Copyright Office (ECO), for the purposes of
a. examining, processing, and approving or denying European Copyright applications; and
b. keeping records of granted European Copyrights; and
c. investigating formal complaints and disputes regarding European Copyright rights.Any cases as written would go to the European Copyright Office.
The reason I am concerned in taking out requirements of content hosts to take down copyright infringing material and taking out any prescribed punishment for abuse of copyright enforcement is that no penalty written in law means there is essentially no penalty potentially making the act toothless.
The reason am concerned by the wording "a) The accession or withdrawal of a member-state from the European Copyright System becomes effective upon such declaration." is it makes for ambiguity. since it requires an act of a state saying they are joining the system before they are considered members and without a statement either way it will not be clear if the member state is a member of ECO or not.The act as written presumed membership by default with nations being able to opt out.
I also seek to ask how this works "b. are obliged to pay a fee, determined by the Department of Finance, to the ECO to cover the expenses of the application process, as well as another, equivalent to the value lost to the public by the granting of the copyright, as estimated by the Department of Finance, and to be distributed equally to all citizens of the member-states of the European Union" that would seemingly make copyright expensive and also far from easy to evaluate the value of. Potentially the fact that quite easily anti-copyright actors if they captured the agency could set the fee so high to encourage members to leave. This is introducing some complexities that could potentially add loopholes to the act or remove punishment making it easy to use the copyright as a weapon against content creators.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies
-
The word "investigate" does not give this institution judicial authority.
Furthermore, Amendment XI is quite clear: the ECS comes into existence without members. Thus, member-states must explicitly declare their intention to join. However, I understand your criticism, and will work to reword it.
As for Amendment X, I cannot imagine that valuation could be any more difficult than for a house, or for other forms of property in general. Anti-copyright activists seizing control of the ECO, furthermore, is of no concern to me personally.
Finally, there is little reason to prescribe specific punishments under this act if Amendment IX passes, anyways - and I have already discussed the need for flexibiltiy regardless.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I fear by making it an explicit opt in and opt out system it will undermine the ideal of being one system for the most of the EU as it would require effort to join it.That is why I made it an opt out institution with presumption of membership which I believe is the best way for most universal systems as has been employed in many acts. By making it opt in you essentially undermine the usefulness of the institution and the EU.
By making the funding come from fees from copyright holders you are essentially garunteeing only the richest can afford it and only corporations will be able to access copyrights and therefore use it as a weapon while being able to copy ideas of those who couldn't afford to get their story copyrighted. You also open up situations where a poorer creative could pitch their book or script to a company and they could then turn around say they are not interested then steal it and make a copy of their own and use it to shut down the true author. This would be entirely possible ammendment x passed.There should be no fee to the copyright holder minus maybe an administration fee that is nominal and this should be paid for as a public utility through government funds. There should also be no requirement to pay a fee for percieved public value lost as this will only make a copyright too expensive. The only principle should be is who came up with the work and when , and they have a simple protection for 15 years . To have to require the copyright holder to some subjective fee of public value lost is to undermine the very idea of copyright as a way to protect the author and ensure they can profit off their hard work to create the work. I would like to remind you most of the EU runs on the principle of peoples ideas and work gaining them money, most of the EU is not communist and you can't force the communist ideal on all.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , IAC Commissioner
-
I am opposed to this act, yes. And opposition to copyright is hardly communist; it is a rather common opinion among, for example, libertarians, as it is hardly in line with a free market.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I do ask if you weaken the act to the extent some of your amendments do essentially making it harder to enforce copyright claims, or making it less universal in Europe by making it opt in or harder to fight copyright trolling by removing provisions how you expect small businesses or authors in the arts to protect their intellectual property. It is important this is as universal as possible through making it opt out with a presumption of membership that cost is not burdened on individual copyright holders so that authors and writers who don't have massive resources can afford to use the copyright system to protect against bigger corporations or richer people stealing their ideas wholesale and it is important to protect the idea of IP to make sure innovation is worthwhile.
Some of your ammendments would undermine this strongly. Furthermore its important to not many libertarians actually agree with a limited copyright law which this is to protect ideas for a period of time and prevent abuse by bigger companies and organisations. Many libertarians do believe in some form of state regulation to protect property rights , intellectual property included. The idea libertarians believe in an economic free for all with no rules is a falsehood in many cases. I honestly believe some of your amendments would undermine the act so much as to make it functionally useless unless your are lucky enough to be as rich as me and be able to afford high fees for the "value lost to the public ". If this is judged to be in the millions or billions would they then be required to pay millions or billions a year to keep the copyright? If so that would make it impossible to effectively use the copyright system at all. I would also ask how would you come up with a fair objective way of judging the value without requiring many bureaucrats to determine the " value lost to the public"? This is after all meant to reduce paperwork by allowing a filing of a copyright for a cheap cost if you are the legitimate first author of the idea in one place rather than having to file in 20+ different systems just to protect the copyright over your work. If the author could be on the hook for millions just to hold a copyright then the average person on the street could not access the system leaving it to be a system only for big corporations to protect their stories while being able to steal from smaller creators.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillour for United Duchies
-
For the benefit of the whole of the Council, I would like to clarify, in a general sense, my own feelings and intentions as regards the necessity and sincerity of my amendments.
Amendments II, III, IV, VI, VIII, IX, and XII are those I see as necessary in order for this act to be workable and legally sound.
Amendments I and XI are those I see as necessary if this act is to create a system of copyright in which participation is not mandatory.
Amendments V and VII are those I proposed in a more ideological vein, but which I nevertheless see as being conducive towards a more flexible, more legally rigorous European system of copyright.
Amendment X I proposed essentially as a completely ideological exercise - copyright is, in my view, theft from the public, and so rightfully should be paid for at the very minimum.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I cannot in good concious support ammendment X, V , and VII which would make it so copyright would be unprofitable and would also exclude the working class from protecting their ideas. I believe the fees need to be low enough for anyone with a valid claim to protect their original ideas. Therefore I propose the following ammendment:
SECTION III. FUNDING
1.Any one European Union member nation may willingly agree to pay a yearly membership fee to the European Copyright Office. This fee
a. grants any persons, organisations and/or legal persons registered or holding citizenship in the said member nation to apply for a European Copyright without any additional fees; and
b. is determined yearly by the Department of Finance of the ECO.
3.Persons, organisations and/or legal persons registered or holding citizenship in EU member nations that have not paid the ECO membership fee or nations outside of the EU
a. can still normally apply for a European Copyright; however
b. are obliged to pay a small one off application fee, determined by the Department of Finance, to the ECO to cover the expenses of the application process and no more.James Mizrachi-Rosccoe , IAC Commissioner
-
Debate is now over. It is time to vote on the proposed amendments. There are THIRTEEN amendments up to vote:
Amendment I - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION I. EUROPEAN Copyright
- This document defines 'European Copyright' as Copyright rights granted to a specific Copyright holder and legally recognized in all EU
member nations.member-states that are members of the European Copyright System
Amendment II - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION I. EUROPEAN Copyright
...
3.European Copyrights may not be granted for
a. Overarching cultural concepts
b. Common cultural symbols or landmarks of a culture or member state
c. generic concepts and tropes widely used inliteratureany form of media and/or art including common cultural names
d.where it isworkstooclose to an existing Copyrightthat it could legitimately cause confusion between it and another worksuch that legitimate confusion with existing work(s) is possible.
Amendment III - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION I. EUROPEAN Copyright
...
3. European Copyrights may not be granted for
a. Overarching cultural concepts
b. Common cultural symbols or landmarks of a culture or member state
c. generic concepts and tropes widely used in literature including common cultural names
d. where it is too close to an existing Copyright that it could legitimately cause confusion between it and another work
e. works any not intended for international distribution or consumption
Amendment IV - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
AMENDMENT IV
SECTION I. EUROPEAN Copyright
...
9. Copyrighted works after expiry may be used in any manner and without threat of any legal action.Any pursuance of legal action by the former copyright holder shall be treated as malicious and predatory and should be thrown out of the legal system. Should costs be incurred by the other party they must be paid by the former copyright holder with a possibility of repossession of property of the copyright holder should they refuse to pay such costs.
Amendment V - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION 1. EUROPEAN Copyright
...
10. It shall be the responsibility of content hosts to take down copyright infringing materials with a dispute process to prevent abuse of any takedown system and the right to a manual review by a human to ensure any decision is correct and does not fall under definition of fair use.
11. A content host shall be defined as any server, media distributor including physical media retailer or website that distributes a piece of copyrighted work
12. If a content host refuses to meet the requirement to take down copyright infringing materials they may legally be blocked, physically closed or taken down by the nation state who shall have a responsibility to do so if the internet hosting service or content host of the copyright infringing material doesn’t take down the content in a timely manner
Amendment VI - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION 1. EUROPEAN Copyright
....
13. Copyrighted works may be usedas fair use but only if the portion of use is:by members of the general public if use is one or more of the following:
a.significantlytransformative
b. Uses only the amount of material needed to make the point or parody the original copyrightedof a character and/or purpose different from that or those of the original work
c. does not detract from the sales or revenue of the original worksuch as just reacting silently to a whole clip on social media or using a whole work where less use of the work would suffice
d. Is not solely for profit or a direct copy of the copyrighted work
e.It isin public interestto air the clip such as in the case of political speech or political videos or exposing a company or organisation that is acting against a perceived public interest.
Amendment VII - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION 1. EUROPEAN Copyright
...
13. Copyrighted works may be usedas fair use but only if the portion of use is:by members the general public if use is one or more of the following:
a:Significantly transformative
b. Uses only the amount of material needed to make the point or parody the original copyrighted work
c. does not detract from the sales or revenue of the original work such as just reacting silently to a whole clip on social media or using a whole work where less use of the work would suffice
d. Is not solely for profit or a direct copy of the copyrighted work
e.It isin public interestto air the clip such as in the case of political speech or political videos or exposing a company or organisation that is acting against a perceived public interest.
Amendment VIII - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION 1. EUROPEAN Copyright
.....14. Any action taken against a work which is clearly protected by fair use provisions especially if used as a strategy within a pattern of behaviour shall be considered malicious prosecution with the responsible party liable for any damages including legal defense and income loss to the victim. If they do not pay these damages including the legal defense and income loss they may have their assets seized and sold off in order to pay off the victim.
Amendment IX - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION II. EUROPEAN Copyright OFFICE
....
4. The Board of Appeal and Enforcement of the ECO shall
a. consist of a set number of qualified legal experts nominated by the European Council or its subcommittee; and
b. create and maintain a regulated system of courts to hear European Copyright disputes; said courts will hold judicial authority to give verdict in such cases
Amendment X - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION III. FUNDING
1. Any one European Union member nation may willingly agree to pay a yearly membership fee to the European Copyright Office. This fee
a. grants any persons and/or legal persons registered or holding citizenship in the said member nation to apply for a European Copyright without any additional fees; and
b. is determined yearly by the Department of Finance of the ECO.
3. Persons and/or legal persons registered or holding citizenship in EU membernationsstates thathave not paid the ECO membership feeor nations outside of the EU
a. canstill normallyapply for a European Copyright; however
b. are obliged to pay a fee, determined by the Department of Finance, to the ECO to cover the expenses of the application process, as well as another, equivalent to the value lost to the public by the granting of the copyright, as estimated by the Department of Finance, and to be distributed equally to all citizens of the member-states of the European Union
Amendment XI - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
SECTION IV. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EUROPEAN Copyright SYSTEM
- When this document is approved by the European Council, the European Copyright System
becomes valid in all European Union member nations.comes into existence. - Any European Union member
nationstate may declare its intention to join or withdraw from the European Copyright System.
a) The accession or withdrawal of a member-state from the European Copyright System becomes effective upon such declaration. - The European Copyright Office cannot guarantee that Copyrights approved in nations not part of the European Copyright System are recognised in all European Union member nations.
- European Union member nations are encouraged to become part of the European Copyright System.
- Any nation within the system must apply the new 15 years from publication limit to all national copyrights and move over the national copyrights to the European Copyright System.
Amendment XII - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
Replace all mentions of "member nations" and "member nation" with "member-states" and "member-state," respectively.
Amendment XIII - Proposed by Commissioner James-Mizrachi Roscoe
SECTION III. FUNDING
- Any one European Union member nation may willingly agree to pay a yearly membership fee to the European Copyright Office. This fee
a. grants any persons, organisations and/or legal persons registered or holding citizenship in the said member nation to apply for a European Copyright without any additional fees; and
b. is determined yearly by the Department of Finance of the ECO. - Persons, organisations and/or legal persons registered or holding citizenship in EU member nations that have not paid the ECO membership fee or nations outside of the EU
a. can still normally apply for a European Copyright; however
b. are obliged to pay a small one off application fee, determined by the Department of Finance, to the ECO to cover the expenses of the application process and no more.
Voting on amendments will commence NOW and will last until 17:40 GMT on July 11th, 2024.
I vote FOR Amendments I, II, III, IV, VI, VIII, IX, XI, XII and XIII and AGAINST Amendments V, VII and X.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for Spain - This document defines 'European Copyright' as Copyright rights granted to a specific Copyright holder and legally recognized in all EU
-
I vote FOR amendments I through XII, and vote AGAINST Amendment XIII.
Rebel Kofi
Councillor for The State of Elthize -
On behalf of the Mishar Republic, I vote FOR all amendments.
Suzie Dakota, Councillor for the Mishar Republic
-
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR ammendments I, II, IX and XIII and AGAINST all other amendments
Skye Hook , Deputy Councillour for United Duchies -
I vote FOR Amendments I through XII, and AGAINST Amendment XIII.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Voting on the amendments has concluded. The voting results are the following:
- With 5 votes FOR and none AGAINST, Amendment I has PASSED.
- With 5 votes FOR and none AGAINST, Amendment II has PASSED.
- With 4 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, Amendment III has PASSED.
- With 4 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, Amendment IV has PASSED.
- With 3 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST, Amendment V has PASSED.
- With 4 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, Amendment VI has PASSED.
- With 3 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST, Amendment VII has PASSED.
- With 4 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, Amendment VIII has PASSED.
- With 5 votes FOR and none AGAINST, Amendment IX has PASSED.
- With 3 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST, Amendment X has PASSED.
- With 4 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, Amendment XI has PASSED.
- With 4 votes FOR and 1 vote AGAINST, Amendment XII has PASSED.
- With 3 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST, Amendment XIII has PASSED.
The proposal has been updated accordingly.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 10:24 GMT on July 17th, 2024.
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this act.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this act
Skye Hook, Deputy Councilliour for United Duchies -
I vote AGAINST this act.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I vote AGAINST this act.
Devon Albert
Interim Councillor for The State of Elthize -
On behalf of the Federal Republic of Yosai I vote FOR this act.
Izumi Miwako, Councilor for the Federal Republic of Yosai
-
On behalf of the United Kingdom, I vote FOR this act.
Caroline Lucas
