Proposition 51K1137

Projet de loi transposant en droit belge la directive européenne 2001/29/CE du 22 mai 2001 sur l'harmonisation de certains aspects du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins dans la société de l'information.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

May 17, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive copyright record information society Internet optical medium

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Josy Arens (LE) abstained from voting.
• Alain Courtois (MR) abstained from voting.
• Magda De Meyer (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Corinne De Permentier (MR) abstained from voting.
• Carl Devlies (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Nathalie Muylle (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Bart Tommelein (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Tony Van Parys (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 3, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the introductory presentation on this bill took place on 8 June 2004 and was made by the former Minister of Economy Fientje Moerman. In her presentation, she pointed out the rapid evolution of the information society since the adoption of the Act of 30 June 1994 on copyright and related rights. These many changes have ultimately led to the issue of a directive by the European Commission.

( ... ...

Mr. Tant, I know that the solidarity between Mr. Hove and myself exposes that double and thick.

This Directive aims to transpose into Community law the content of two conventions of the World Organization for Intellectual Property, namely one on copyright and one on performances and phonograms. These two conventions aim to protect copyright and certain related rights in the digital world. This Directive had, in principle, to be transposed into Belgian law no later than 22 December 2002. During the previous legislature, the discussions took place in the Senate, but the directive was not transposed in a timely manner, with the result that the entire legislative process had to be transferred.

On 5 March 2004, the Council of Ministers approved the preliminary draft law and it was also decided to submit the draft law to the Chamber. This draft mainly builds on the content of the compromise that was already welcomed in the discussions of the draft during the previous legislature in the Senate. In terms of content, the draft law is a mere transposition of the directive. Although the Minister is aware of the fact that a number of points of the Act of 30 June 1994 may be challenged, an immediate transposition is still being sought. After all, the Belgian State had recently been sued by the European Commission before the European Court of Justice.

The amendments to Belgian law resulting from this Directive relate to the right of reproduction, the right of communication to the public and the right of distribution. It also provides for a number of exceptions to the right of reproduction and to the right of communication to the public. In addition to the mandatory exception for temporary reproduction acts, the Directive also includes a whole range of optional exceptions. Their

Given the complexity of the draft and the different implications of the transposition, the committee decided to organise hearings. These seizures took place on June 22, 2004. Around twenty associations and individuals were heard. Giving them a list would lead me too far here. However, these associations and individuals can be divided into a number of categories, namely, copyright associations and management companies, as well as consumer organisations and employers, the telecommunications, cable and internet sectors, as well as specialized lawyers and professors and also the cultural sector. Following the hearings, the authors of the added proposals will speak. Mr. Monfils gives an overview of the history of the bill, as well as of his bill, which was the basis of the discussions in the Senate during the previous legislature. According to him, the delay in the conversion is largely due to the transfer of competence on the subject of copyright from the Minister of Justice to the Minister of Economy. Subsequently, the applicant shall provide an explanation of the strengths of his proposal.

Also colleague Van der Auwera explains its proposal. Like the previously added bill, this is a re-acceptance of a proposal from the previous legislature. She describes the proposal of colleague Monfils as minimalist and wants to continue with her bill. In this way, certain exceptions are listed and the Directive is understood more broadly.

At the general discussion, the current Minister of Economy emphasized the need for a rapid transformation. He also acknowledges that the copyright law contains a number of gaps, but given the time pressure, it is not the right time to revise the law. However, the Minister agrees to review the law at a later date and to revise it if necessary.

As regards Mr Monfils’ bill, the Minister notes that that proposal does not cover a number of matters, although those matters must be mandatory in accordance with the directive.

Regarding Mrs Van der Auwera’s bill, the Minister notes that although it is more comprehensive, it is still insufficient.

According to colleague Déom, the bill provides for more than a mere transposition, and it provides for this with a number of examples. Collega Van der Auwera regrets that the Minister does not wish to continue the so-called three-step test drawn up in her proposal. Collega Lano notes that this is a very difficult balance exercise and he disagrees with Mr Monfils’s comment as the delay would be due to the transfer of competence of the matter. According to him, this is a shared responsibility. Collega Nagy argues that the economic aspects of copyright are taken too much into account and the cultural interests are taken too little into account. Collega Monfils emphasizes that his bill is the result of a compromise with the various sectors, and for this purpose he overlooks the amendments he submitted. Collega Wathelet points out the political choices made in the bill. These political choices must be subject to a thorough political debate, which is better to take place at a later time.

In his replica, the Minister responds to the various comments and again points out the need for a rapid transposition.

Then follows the article discussion. Not less than 145 amendments were submitted. Finally, the Business Committee spent 10 meetings to discuss the draft law. The text as a whole was voted at the last meeting of 17 February 2005. The amended bill was adopted with 9 votes for, 4 against and 3 abstentions.

Mr Hove, I thank you for your report.

Mr Van der Auwera, you have the word in the general discussion. Then I will choose another Dutch speaker and then Mr. Wathelet.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, no pasaràn, no pasaràn! I am not here to blame my lack of knowledge of the Spanish language, nor do I wish to pay tribute to the communist fighters during the Spanish Civil War. What do I want to say? I now look explicitly at the banks of sp.a-spirit. I would like to recall the words of some Flemish socialist fighters, but immediately add that they have unfortunately lost their struggle. Yes, it is passing! As a result of what is on the table today, the adjustment of the copyright law, a tax on computers can be introduced, an idea that was initially dismissed in the press by sp.a and by spirit and that could also count on little support from the VLD angle but that it ultimately did. Mr. T'Sijen, I just wanted to mention you. The idea could count on the support of sp.a’s own cartel partner, especially you, who was present in that committee for the first time.

The discussions in the business committee were a violet round dance of jewelste. We all remember how we started more than half a year ago. The first rounds were then rolled. Unfortunately, however, there was not much talk about walks because the majority usually did not appear. The opposition was present every time. Eventually the participants, more specifically the participants of the majority, were so lovingly twisted that they swept out fur and blue, landed on the ground and decided to strike their whales to dare a slow.

Carefully, a compromise text finally came out of the bus, with numerous unclear descriptions. We recall the discussions held in the committee on the concept of "significant", on the concept of "significant". There is a lot of room for interpretation. You know that we fought for the three-step test to be introduced in that design. You did not want to know this, on the one hand, although, on the other hand, in a number of articles you referred strongly to that three-step test, while a number of other exceptions were not referred to.

In addition, principles are introduced which, however, are immediately weakened. But I will talk about that later.

What has struck me the most in the whole situation is the division within the majority that was very clear, not only according to us, Christian Democrats, but according to everyone in the field involved. Rap, rap, a draft law was initially prepared in the chambers of the minister in which no one in the field of work is known. Eventually, there was a text on the table. It was scheduled. At that time, we fought for hearing. What have we noticed when listening to the people who were heard? They just felt ridiculed. Their comments were not taken into account at all. Everything had to be dealt with on a shit. But ultimately this has led to a judgment by the European Court of Justice for late transposition of the European Directive. That condemnation hanged like a Damocles sword over your head.

During that period of more than half a year, we were very constructive from the opposition. I see Minister Verwilghen, as I have seen him dealing with him several times in the committee, a little upset no knocking. That is, of course, always the problem: if there are problems within the majority, one will quickly shoot the opposition. Now, it is our opposition, the Christian-Democratic opposition, which has always been working constructively and who was present at every committee meeting and who have even been consulted by your cabinet — I see those people sitting on the tribune. Finally, Mr. Minister, Mr. President, colleagues, we note that a number of important amendments of our Christian Democratic Party were incorporated into the draft. We can only be happy about it. I will name some of them because otherwise they would be lost in the debate. It is too easy to ignore the fact that the majority was helped by the CD&V.

At this moment, complete works can no longer be copied, but only articles or short fragments. In the context of teaching or scientific research, sheet music can also be copied which was not specified in the design. It provides that short quotes are possible and are extended to the right of citation. I think of the network administrators. It was also embarrassing that the draft initially did not include civil society institutions that do not have a commercial purpose, such as hospitals, prisons or youth or disabled care institutions. They can now also reproduce broadcasts and that is very important for the CD&V. Educational institutions and scientific researchers can not only copy protected works, but also communicate them through internal transmission networks. Their

We were not so happy — I know you are struggling with this because you agreed to about 80% of our amendments, 1% more might have been a little too much — with the fact that the text of the draft still does not clearly show whether a university can reproduce copyright-protected material for students, for example through PowerPoint presentations and other techniques currently applicable.

I will further focus my presentation on the tax on PCs, which is made possible with this design, as well as on copying CDs for personal use. The tax on computers is a very good example of the solution à la belge that has enchanted the majority parties out of their hat. Initially, computers were completely exempted and the King would determine what is or is not a computer. We all know that we live in a technologically rapidly evolving world and that iPods, certain GSMs and TVs can qualify as computers. Currently, the design of computers or similar devices does not explicitly exempt from taxation, nor is it explicitly subject to it. In fact, the draft states that a tax can be levied on PCs when the Minister decides to do so, after consultation in the Council of Ministers.

We laughed loudly in the committee. I had heard this morning Chairman Stevaert van de sp.a declared himself through the radio manifesto against a tax on computers. When I turned around to look at the banks of the Sp.A. I saw that they were indeed voting against the PC tax. Fortunately, Mr. T'Sijen saved the majority, as usual. This is precisely the purpose of a cartel partner; in relation to the press, you can act as if you are for the little man or for the free use of the internet; but when it comes point by point, you pull the tail in.

The most striking thing about the whole situation is that in recent days we have seen articles appear in the press in which the sp.a explicitly announces that the tax on the PCs should be able.

I ask a quote from the press to which Mrs. Van der Auwera refers and from which it shows that we would suddenly be in front of the PC task?

I refer to an article that appeared today in The Standard. I refer to what appeared in the newspapers yesterday. So from now on, you explicitly support the design as it was drawn up. I wonder what the underlying reason is why you are now for this design. Mr De Meyer, you can comment on this later in the voting. Then you can clearly show the outside world if you are indeed against the tax on PCs. I challenge you, Mrs. De Meyer. It is very easy. I have not heard you intervene in any committee meeting. I have not heard you say anything meaningful about this at any meeting. I have only seen you vote against. Mr. T'Sijen saved the majority. I hear you shooting a loose river. You can later show your true appearance. I am very interested, because we have also submitted an amendment in that regard.

People do not use computers in the first place to copy. We strongly support the fact that an author deserves the necessary appreciation and reward for his creation, whether in the form of copyright or any other remuneration. We also condemn the illegal distribution of copyright-protected works. However, by introducing a tax on computers, the bonafide consumer is punished, even if he has not committed any illegal act. Thus, those who use their computers to write, edit, delete documents must run for a PC task, for those who illegally download. This is a bridge too far for us as Christian Democrats.

This scheme will also have a perverse effect in the sense that even more people will illegally download because they have paid copyright on the PC they bought. By introducing the PC tax, the Belgian government also considers every citizen, business, school, government institution that owns a computer as a principle law breaker. A breach of confidence between the public and the government! Ownership of a computer is also essential in order to have access to today’s information society, where digitalization is central both economically, socially and educatively. This access to information technology is not cheap. By subjecting computers to a tax, even more people are excluded. Thus, it is especially the less goods who will again fall out of the boat first. Is it not hilarious to know that in the previous legislature a number of VLDs have submitted a bill to ensure that everyone, even the least wealthy, has access to the internet. That we have to come to this bill today, I find it regrettable. This will result in a price increase of 40 euros per computer.

This is not only detrimental to users, but also puts us in a competitive disadvantage compared to our neighboring countries where no tax applies. We can expect a purchase flight to those countries.

The tax would not only apply to computers, but also to similar categories, so we can also expect a tax for TVs, GSMs, and derivatives.

Mr. Minister, it is all pretty unclear. First, you assume that computers will be tax-free. Then you declare that a tax may be levied. It will be decided in the Council of Ministers. This is an important debate, also for our companies. The introduction of a computer tax is contrary to the course the government is taking today in terms of reducing the burden on companies. The computing tax is incompatible with the pursuit of administrative simplification through e-government. It is incomprehensible that on such an important issue no decisions can be made at this time, but everything is again shifted to the government. This again makes the core of the story clear: the role of the Parliament is being famously exhausted, as I have experienced in the last one and a half years.

The draft law gives the King the possibility to grant certain groups, for example disadvantaged, a recovery or exemption from the tax, although after the advice of the committee of the parties concerned. Those groups must first pay the tax and then recover it and ⁇ only partially recover it. That is Kafka! Take the underground parking, Mr. Lano. In the near future, a blue sign can be hanged. An idea from Mr. Van Quickenborme! It attracts nothing!

Mr. Minister, colleagues, taxing the sale of PCs and related due to the abuse of a few individuals is not fair. It is not wise to discourage people who want to take the step towards the information society.

CD&V will submit an amendment to exclude the tax. Mrs. De Meyer, I am very interested in your voting behavior on this subject.

Mr. Hove declared with indignation in the committee for business that the VLD was unable to speak about the voting behavior of the sp.a. members who voted against. Colleagues of the sp.a, Mr. Hove, since it is a compromise text that has the support of the sp.a ministers and the VLD is in principle against such a tax, today you have a last chance. If you really oppose a PC tax, you can only approve our amendment. We will see if what you scream over the roofs in the press, you too are men. The Christian Democrats give you a chance. Take them!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I come to copying CDs for personal use. The bill allows manufacturers to install all possible technical barriers to make copying impossible. This means that consumers can no longer make copies for personal use. Also on this point, the draft is clearly a pairing compromise. SP-A wanted to see the right to copy for own use anchored in the legislation, rightly, I would say. The VLD opposed this proposal. The result is: there is no right to private copy but by royal decree, again through the government, there can still be stipulated that manufacturers may not incorporate restrictions that make copying for own use impossible.

Let me be clear, colleagues of the sp.a, you have made yourself apparently, manifestly and significantly — terms that we have discussed several times in that committee — roll. The right to copy for private use is a right that has always been recognised, both by jurisprudence, by the majority of legal doctrine, by international treaties and by the European directive currently being transposed. Any person who is the owner of an original work which he has naturally obtained legally has the right to make one or more copies of it for his personal use. Their

Since the advent of the Internet and the new digital technology, this situation would have changed. However, it is not the reproduction technique that matters but the destination of reproduction. Where a copy, regardless of the reproduction technique used, serves strictly private purposes, it must escape the author's authority. The CD&V is of the opinion that the copying of music, images and data for personal use should be legalized and that the price of blanco sound, image and data carriers should be increased in order to provide the authors, performers and performers with an adequate compensation. We do not understand why someone who buys a CD and thus pays copyright on it should not copy it in order to have a copy that can be played in the car. Furthermore, we believe that copying that is not intended for private use should remain illegal and that adequate controls and sanctions should be incorporated. We have also submitted an amendment.

I now look at Mr. Tant, Chairman of the Committee on Business. All members and in particular the chairman of our committee received an express call from the chairman of the Flemish Parliament where our work is naturally followed. They asked us to provide an exception. Not just an exception taken from the air, but an exception which is also provided for in the Directive. It is the reproduction and communication to the public of a parliamentary procedure. The smooth running of a parliamentary procedure or the reporting thereof should be ensured. This, of course, should not prejudice the normal exploitation of the works and should not harm the legitimate interests of the rightholder. That letter has reached us and we have sought advice from all the legal services of all the different assemblies that supported the question of Chairman De Batselier. It was the first draft that I had the pleasure of discussing with Minister Verwilghen. If the various legal services of all the assemblies, in the context of parliamentary work, ask for an exception here and if that request is supported by the provisions of the directive — which, by the way, expressly provides for that exception — then I, as a lawyer, as a person, still have the pretense to assume that we must be above all this and must say that we will still see whether it cannot be resolved by other means. All we ask, Mr. Minister, is clear legislation. Since that exception is provided for in the Directive, it would have been a little difficult to include it. The majority in the committee voted against. It was even Chairman De Croo who expressly supported Mr De Batselier’s question.

I will later return to the request of Chairman De Batselier following the answer I will give, but I ask Mrs. Van der Auwera if she can give me one case, or one dispute between a parliament in this country and a copyright association concerning that object. I will help you, the answer is no. I will also tell you why: because the legislation is clear enough. I will repeat it later. What was requested by Mr. De Batselier, is exclusion and certainty to protect all preparatory work and the study work done to prepare a dossier for members of the Chamber, in any assembly. They fall under protection. Read Article 8.

So you, as a minister, are so shrunk that you simply say that the problem does not occur today, but that it can occur. It is explicitly recorded...

Call me a controversy from 1994 until now. We are now 13 years ahead.

That it is included in the directive, that it is supported in all assemblies and that it is re-exploded by all legal services, says enough for me. You say there has been no problem at the moment. I thought it was our job to create clear legislation. You say now: we will see, it has not yet occurred, we will break point A to point B and then maybe look at paragraph X, we will look again at the directive and maybe the courts will also do their job.

Mr. Lano, you know that I am a very driven person, so I also occasionally make some gestures.

I had hoped that this would result in clear legislation. This is clearly not the case. You are counting on interpretations. We cannot reconcile ourselves with certain provisions. Some buttons have not been cut through. We play with vague words. We cannot support the draft. I think it is really a big, missed opportunity. Now we are talking about copyright. I read today the press release of Mr. T'Sijen.

Mrs. Van der Auwera, can Mr. Tante interrupt you before you decide?

That is such a sympathetic man. He can always interrupt me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the Minister after his intervention. I asked for the word then and I get it now. This is not my responsibility, but that of the President.

I am surprised that the President is sitting there, watching and silencing. You, Mr. Speaker, were involved in the discussion at which the seven Parliament Presidents of our rich country took part and in which they jointly concluded — speak against me if it wasn’t right — that in the text, as he predicts, an amendment was in place. I am surprised that you now ignore all that and that you leave it to the opposition to ensure that at least that point is brought to the attention for a moment.

Mr. Minister, I do not understand why you refuse to obstinate. There is not only the fact that the authority of the services of the various parliaments and the presidents themselves have spoken about it. The Minister argues that there have been no problems in the past.

You know very well that the practice of preparing informational dossiers that should enable parliamentary work to be done thoroughly and thoroughly is of a very recent nature. By the way, the reason why the Chairman of the Flemish Parliament — not one of my party, Mr. Speaker — has urged to reconsider it is the fact that the Flemish Parliament, following the model of the Federal Parliament, is engaged in the establishment of services whose task is to prepare, prepare, and deliver to the Members the files which — I repeat — should enable a thorough, parliamentary discussion, in order to enable the latter to make their presentations with knowledge of matters.

What opposes it, except ⁇ the fact that once again the initiative for the amendment came from the opposition? I see no other argument.

Mr. De Batselier is not a member of the opposition. He is not part of our parliament.

Mr. De Batselier does not sit in our Parliament. You might not have noticed this yet. So I can only — I conclude with that — regret that several presidents are sitting together, that those involved are silent as if it does not concern him and that it is left to the opposition, without giving a serious answer.

The past is the past. We make the law for the future. Therefore, we must ensure that Parliament can work properly. For my part, if it can’t or is not desirable, go on. You will see that in the future, eventually, with the tail between the legs, the initiatives must be taken. It would not be the first time.

Mrs. Van der Auwera, I apologize for interrupting you, but Mr. Tant was so insistent and I can understand him.

Mr. Speaker, that is no problem. As chairman of our committee, he had felt the need to have the question of Mr. De Batselier examined by the various legal services of all assemblies. It lies after him at the heart. Knowing him, it comes to him, unlike some, other members, to make solid, transparent legislation, not only for today but also for the future.

In summary, I challenge the colleagues of sp.a-spirit and VLD to approve today together with us the amendment we have submitted.

Even the most punishable of all — Minister Verwilghen, you would like to have it, but you have not yet finished with me —: I read today — I am normally a member of other committees — that Mr. T'Sijen expects that everything will be arranged through the management companies. Ms. Pieters, we know that in the management companies — we just have to think of Uradex — a lot goes wrong. We also asked a lot of parliamentary questions on this subject. At the moment, we have not seen any initiatives in this area. We are closely monitoring management companies. If Mr. T'Sijen is of the opinion that through these companies everything will be resolved, then I fear the worst.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our group attaches very great importance to these two points, both copying for personal use and the amendment relating to parliamentary work. We also attach great importance to the third point, namely the PC-tax. We cannot support the bill. I am very interested in the voting behavior of the other colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I didn’t know that copyright raised almost as much passion as Brussels-Hal-Vilvoorde but, thankfully, it changes us.

I’ve found that everyone takes paternity or copyright from this legal provision. I heard Mrs. Van der Auwera saying that all the amendments came from the opposition. It’s a government project, but it’s only been three years since my proposal was submitted and was discussed for two years in the Senate. But all this does not interest me. What interests me is to know what we voted for, whether this legislation is good and whether it is acceptable. First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. The speaker for his speech. It was not easy because this subject is of an unparalleled complexity. We saw it in the debates, it was really necessary to know the matter well in order to deal with its arcanes.

We also need to know where we come from. This law does not come from the outside, suddenly, because a European directive decided that copyright should be taken care of. There was a law of 30 June 1994 which, undoubtedly, was a quality legislation, matured for many years and which organized financial withdrawals for the benefit of the entitled beneficiaries. I now hear everyone screaming about a few percent on a few computers. I will remind you that for ten years, all reprographic devices, mainly photocopies, are taxed and that this has not resulted in a transhumance of Flemish, Brussels or Wallonians to Luxembourg, France or the Netherlands to buy photocopies.

At the time, everything was coded: reproduction, communication, distribution. If the world had been fixed, this law would not have been touched, only details would have been changed. But it is known that the world has changed, information technologies have disrupted both industrial and personal practices and, I would dare to say, many spend more time with their computer than with their wife or mistress, single or plural.

You are talking about a lot of fees. The last date, I think, of Minister De Clerck and Reprobel.

We will return there.

It was not the Clerk!

You will be able to look at the studies and figures right now, my dear colleague!

I said that you could copy books or music on a computer. This is a problem that has occupied us for a while. The piracy of the films is organized.

I will also say this because it corresponds in part to what I have heard in the commission and still just recently: it is growing, among individual users of communication technologies, the idea that everything that is found on or through the internet must be free and can be copied, multiplied without authorization and without financial compensation. This claim of gratuity is evidently supported by discourses on openness to education, culture, without distinction of social level or financial means.

Dear colleagues, this is not new. Ever since – I know, having been Minister of Culture for a few years – one criticizes the price of seats in theater, opera or cinema, but one joyfully spends two to five times more, without discussing, to attend a football match, a tennis tournament or a Formula 1 Grand Prix.

Like the SMS language that is specific to GSM, the evolution of new technologies also knows a new vocabulary. We will no longer talk about cultural backwardness or social discrimination, but we will talk about digital fracture. It does well in the salons, in the reflective groups on the consequences of globalization, but that it is called as one wants, that one surrounds it with cultural or social considerations, the use of another's work without authorization and without compensation is not acceptable.

It was not in 1994, at the time of the law, it is not today, because the basic principle is always the same: the right of the creator to his work. What has changed is the technique that challenged the beacons and firewalls organized in 1994. With all intangible communications, the 1994 law becomes a masterpiece in danger, as it cannot be considered to respond effectively to the evolution of multimedia. It is partly this evolution that led the European Commission to decide to adopt a directive on copyright and related rights.

I would also like to recall the justification of the Commission’s intervention in this sector, justification both cultural and economic. This is based on the existence of an internal market for new products and services, and therefore on the harmonisation of the legislation of the Member States. However – and it is essential to emphasize – the Directive recognises that cultural creation cannot be without a system of copyright.

I am referring to recitals 9, 10 and 11 of the Directive. Here are, in summary, a few lines:

Any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must be based on a high level of protection, as these rights are essential to cultural creation. Their protection contributes to the maintenance and development of creativity, in the interest of authors, performers, performers, producers, consumers, culture, ⁇ , and the general public.”

It’s not me who says it, it’s in the EU directive.

Consideration 10: Authors and performers, in order to continue their creative and artistic work, must receive an appropriate remuneration for the use of their works, as well as producers to be able to finance their work.

An effective and rigorous system of protection of copyright and related rights is one of the main instruments for ensuring the creation and production of European cultural works, the provision of the necessary resources and the preservation of the autonomy and dignity of creators and performers.

This seems to me to be a clear answer to those who, on the occasion of the debate on the application of the directive that has occupied us for long months, tended to consider copyright as a kind of somewhat unnecessary financial contribution, a legacy from the anti-Diluvia era, that is, prior to the arrival of computers.

The task therefore consisted in examining to what extent the 1994 law needed to be amended to take into account the development of the sector.

I will not take into account all the elements of the directive. Two problems have essentially occupied our work: 1 The copyright exceptions and among these, of course, the private copy exception; 2. The taxation of devices and media, called the taxation of computers.

Let me start with the exceptions. The directive allows for 20 exceptions. Therefore, this is not an exception imposed in all countries, but a list of exceptions found in all countries. According to the directive, the exceptions that are desired can be recognised in this panel of twenty exceptions. In other words, one can retain none of them, one can retain them all or only part of them.

Belgium has nine. I will not remind you here of quotations for a critical, polemical purpose, reproduction, communication for an information purpose, fragmentary reproduction, etc. There are nine exceptions out of twenty possible. Extending this list would have marked, it seems to me, the end of the system of remuneration of creators, except obviously to resume the system of public subsidies found in particular in the Scandinavian states. If one considers that the state can give 25 million euros extra for creators, one can obviously remove copyright. But I don’t think that was the purpose of the 1994 system. Nor is it the system that was taken as the basis in the bill that is submitted to us. That is why we have simply added some logical exceptions, including the communication of works for the purpose of illustrating teaching, the reproduction for the preservation of the cultural and scientific heritage carried out in libraries, the reproduction and communication of works for the benefit of persons affected by disabilities, the reproduction of emissions by hospital, prison, youth support or assistance to persons with disabilities and, of course, the communication necessary to announce public exhibitions and the sale of artistic works.

This list is not exhaustive. This is simply a very quick summary of the provisions of the law on the subject. However, it will be found that these are, of course, exceptions to the copyright of his work, exceptions justified, either for social and humanitarian reasons, or for reasons of teaching or research, or by the necessity of archiving. These are limited exceptions that, depending on the case, have been proposed and accepted.

It is obviously quite different from the initial text of the government which we cannot accept and which allowed the full copy of the works; there was no such thing. After a fairly lengthy debate, we ended up recapturing the text of the 1994 law that simply allowed the communication and reproduction of short fragments, with the exception, of course, of plastic works.

The debate was more vivid about private copying in the head of the family. The 1994 law permitted this and also provided for various categories of exceptions for which a judge could lift control over copies. Among these exceptions was not private copying, but new technological means allow infinite copying, and this is the fundamental difference between the 1994 law and the draft law that occupies us. At the time, it was analogue; one copied three or four times, eventually it became unreadable and therefore there was very little abuse, or, in any case, much less than today where, with the digital, the 250th copy is still as beautiful, perfect and impeccable as the first.

The original government text did not prohibit private copying but gave the industry the opportunity to use technical and technological measures aimed at preventing or limiting acts not authorized by copyright holders at the level of works and services and capable of preventing any copying of works; thus, it prevented everyone from exercising their right to private copying.

I said right "right" because I cannot accept the thesis of those who wrote that the private copy exception is not a right. Yes, it is a right! It is clear that while the law allows, for himself or his family, to make, without authorization, a few copies of a work, the development of technical measures cannot prevent the exercise of this right, otherwise, necessarily, the law is not respected.

For us, the government’s position could not be admitted because it automatically led to not being able to enjoy the private copy exception. But, on the contrary, as some have claimed, doing nothing and allowing to copy the works to the infinite, was completely overcoming the letter and spirit of the exception and, beyond, seriously infringing the copyright.

Finally, and it lasted too long, a compromise solution was adopted that, like any compromise solution, does not 100% either one or the other. However, this is an acceptable solution. Technical measures for private copying are not removed. However, the Minister is given the possibility to include private copying in the categories of exceptions for which technical measures may be lifted by the procedure laid down in the law.

Studies will be conducted on the technological evolution of control systems and limitation of the number of copies. I myself insisted that, in the joint, parity committee, one can, each year, make a report on the evolution of these techniques, precisely to always keep the government in the breath on the subject. This should, I think, lead to a negotiation between manufacturers and the various parties involved in order to find a solution that makes it possible to reasonably copy 3, 4, 5 copies for yourself, for the family circle, for his friends, for his car, etc. But not to come to a situation that, from the private copy, would completely ruin the system.

The second problem is the taxation of devices. What is the challenge? It is interesting to communicate a few figures: remuneration, net billing in relation to the taxation of copyright on devices, media and multimedia amounted to approximately €7,700,000 in 2003, of which 27% came from the taxation on multimedia devices. For the year 2004, the remuneration amounts to 11,000,000 euros, of which 55% come from multimedia. This obviously rises very quickly. These statistics demonstrate the importance taken in recent years by multimedia and the computer and this is obviously only growing and embellishing. Most current copies are made via multimedia systems and much less using media or devices such as videos or analogue media, for example.

There are still some alarming figures from the music industry. Legal music sites quadrupled to 230 in 2004. Online music on catalog has doubled in 12 months. One million songs are currently available and consumers are adopting an increasingly download-friendly behavior. In Belgium, for example, 3 out of 5 young people bought fewer CDs in 2003 than in 2000. Why Why ? Do you listen to music anymore? Obviously no! They copy, they download. More than half of young people exchange or receive music. 40% said they listen to downloaded music. And still, among them, many do it but obviously do not say it. As a result, CD sales continue to decline. Less than 7.6% worldwide, less 20% in Germany, less 14.4% in France, less 14.7% in Sweden and illegal streaming of music over the internet is the main source of decline. In Belgium, the audio revenue of the record houses is still declining by 14.5%, their revenue is 28% less than in 2000.

Here are a number of elements that demonstrate how easy the situation is not. Otherwise, if there was no copy, no download, we would not necessarily be much concerned about the problem. But the problem exists, not only in Belgium, but also in all European countries. If nothing is changed and only devices for reprographics are taxed, as in the past, the copyright remuneration will be reduced because copying is now essentially done from a computer.

On the other hand, if computers are taxed, the company itself revolts, arguing that its devices are not intended to make copies but are used for the operation and industrial and commercial activity of the company. They also invoke statistics established by the INS on computers used for business purposes, which are estimated to represent half of the computer fleet. I will be here in my demonstration.

Finally, once again, a compromise solution was reached which I find acceptable. The text now provides that the Council of Ministers, upon the opinion of the committee of the interested circles, may approve two types of devices: the devices and media manifestly used for private reproduction, therefore the computers manifestly used for this purpose, and the devices and media that are manifestly not used for private reproduction, therefore the computers not used to do so.

Mr. Monfils, I listen to your reasoning, but in that regard, I think you are making a mistake. You say that photocopying machines are the machines of the past and PCs are the machines of the future.

Just a moment, my dear colleague. There is a problem with translation. If you wait a moment, I will be able to answer you accurately.

You will give him an attentive ear.

I follow your reasoning, Mr. Monfils, but you are trying two different types of machine, being...

Bilingualism has its advantages.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my colleague precisely because, in this area, the questions are always very complex.

Mr. Monfils, I am following your reasoning. You are trying to make a comparison between the copying machines and the PCs. It is, of course, true that one can copy or download with the PC, but a copy machine serves to copy: that is the big difference. What you are saying now is that because there are a few people or a group doing it, we just have to tax the device itself and thus tax all people. Personally, I have never downloaded anything. Do I have to pay the tax for people who download? That is the question. With copying machines, that’s another story. You are trying to confuse two things. I think this is a wrong reasoning.

Dear colleague, I own a computer but I have never done downloads. The question is not there, it is statistical: more and more copies are made by computer. Per ⁇ you don’t, but the figures I have quoted, which are undisputed, which are found in all serious publications, show the considerable decrease in photocopy in favor of a considerable increase in copies via the computer. In addition, there is no question of photocopies when downloading music. No more CDs or DVDs. We copy them and re-delete them to friends, when you don’t sell them! Better than that, and despite the ban, some stick a miniature digital camera into the cinemas to try to record a movie which they then sell back copies at a low price. This is the reality of things.

I speak a lot of computers that are obviously used for private copying and production and computers that are obviously not used for these purposes. This only shows that it will be necessary to make a difference in the list that the minister must develop between the computers that can be used for this and those that are not necessarily intended for this. I add that if computers were excluded, manufacturers who are not quite stupid would obviously have completely modified their production, manufacturing and distribution systems to consider that there are only computers with peripheral systems that would therefore not have been taxed, which would result in a considerable decrease in the revenue of authors. The Council of Ministers may exempt the taxation of computers used for professional purposes by self-employed persons, private persons or companies, provided that the social purpose pursued is not reproduction.

I don't understand the gemstones, even though in Belgium, we gemstones all the time. By definition, the Belgian gimmicks! But why do some take off their hair and say along documents, as in the FEB bulletin received this morning, that all this is incompatible with the information society? It explains the system that we have developed by adding that “the establishment of a system of exemption for legal persons and companies is only a false-fugitive that does not take into account the administrative complications that this entails.” Where are the administrative complications when you buy 80 computers in your industrial box? There is a purchase order, there is a purchase order somewhere. One does not say, "Hey, here are a few million to buy computers!"If one is not faulty to fill out a document stating that computers are used for business reasons and stating the name of the firm and its social object, for example the sale of weapons or small peas — which obviously does not serve for reproduction — and that one considers that they are administrative difficulties, it will make me smile.

Then, there is only a small step to take to submit to it also multifunctional devices, such as GSM, TVs, etc. We have said it a hundred times in the commission, there has never been a question of taxing TVs or GSMs. The text does not say this, but the reports in the committee clearly indicate this. We know very well what we are aiming for and, moreover, the government knows what it will have to do when it develops a list of devices that are essentially used to copy or not.

This is just a bad trial. I know it. It is done everywhere, of course, but I would still like to respond directly to the FEB bulletin. Thus, it will prevent me from placing a stamp on my letter when I send a response, which will never be but a pamphlet in this document.

Moreover, there are not only companies. People with social disabilities will be able to escape this tax. The Government may draw up a list of categories that may be exempted.

Do not invoke, again, the fact that these categories of unhappy people will have to fill out and send back a bunch of documents. I would like to point out that, when a person recognized as having a disability of members less than 55% wants to obtain the VAT exemption for his car, he must enter several forms. When some people do not have the means, are elderly or disabled and want a total or partial exemption from their phone bill, they also enter a document and in order to obtain benefits to arrange a housing for physical disability, it is also necessary to enter documents. So don’t come up with the idea that all this is new and creates overwhelming problems!

I simply say that the government adopts — I gladly acknowledge it — an enormous latitude, since not only will it establish the two lists, but in addition, it will be able to decide what will not be taxed at all, neither at the level of companies nor at the level of individuals. I believe that this solution responds to the authors’ rightful claim not to be deprived of financial means that are the counterpart of exemptions giving rise to remuneration, but they meet with the concerns of companies and the desire to see social categories not subject to this percentage. Many things could still be said about these 3%, but I do not want to extend the list of my examples in this regard.

In conclusion, I would say that this issue is delicate. In fact, all interests are divergent: there are manufacturers, authors, interpreters, right holders, private and professional users. Manufacturers don’t want to see the price rise for competitive reasons, business users either, not as much as private users, because they want to download without control. I heard it just recently. However, the inheritors claim financial compensation as it is the system that was imposed. If you don’t want this system, let’s use a public subsidy! But, I repeat, this is not the subject of this bill.

I feel that the vote of this text will not celebrate either a winner or a defeat. This is the most acceptable compromise for all parties. I urge this commitment to be implemented in good faith. If we have admitted to give the government the power to set the lists of apparatus obviously used for reproduction and the lists of exemption systems and others, it will be appropriate to set all the criteria and establish those lists.

In this regard, Mr. Minister, I confess to you my dissatisfaction following your statement of 17 February 2005, which was read in the press, according to which you strongly doubt that, under the present circumstances, the government is making a consensus on the introduction of a "copyright" tax on computers. By saying this, while the paper of the commission’s report was still hot, you are ruining the compromise we approved not to get rid of the problem but for you to implement it. This statement is all the more damaging and deplorable as you have all latitude to exclude from any taxation the computers of companies and self-employed, as well as those of people in social difficulties. It is sufficient to set criteria and modalities for the application for exemption. In short, I call for the good faith implementation of the agreement reached on this subject.

We have the same requirement regarding private copy. We want it to still work and that the younger or younger can still copy works via the computer, for himself, to listen to it in his car, for his friends. Thanks to the agreement, you have the opportunity to require commercial firms to develop a copy restriction system instead of a ban system. The threat that you can brand up of forbidding any technical obstacle to copying should not be taken lightly. You will have to remember this during the inevitable negotiations that you will have to conduct with the relevant firms.

Finally, on the part of the right holders, it will soon be necessary to analyze the functioning and control of rights management companies in a precise manner. This is the subject of a bill that the government, through you, will submit to parliament. This work is important to explain to those who are questioning the usefulness or the usefulness of taxation – or who are wondering where the money goes – the modalities of payment of rights to publishers, authors, interpreters, that is to say to all creators who can legitimately benefit from these financial means.

In the coming months and years, the law of 1994 will be fundamentally revised. We did not have the time and it is not the role of a parliamentary committee, especially not in the framework of the implementation of a directive, to review the whole legislation. This law was modified in 1995 — if I am not mistaken — in 1998; it will be today, in 2005; it is time to review it, to do a long-term work. Experts on every edge should sit around a table and fully review the law to adapt it to current and foreseeable future needs. At this time, the government and parliament will take their responsibilities to decide the political options. In any case, as it is and as it has been modified by the discussions in the parliamentary committee — I thank the government for being open to suggestions from a number of members — this draft is acceptable and the MR will vote on it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, it should have been easy. After all, who or what would bother a mere transposition into Belgian law of a European directive on copyright? Their

However, the discussion in the committee lasted more than eight months. To be precise, it lasted from 8 June 2004 to 17 February 2005. The delaying manoeuvres were not carried out by the opposition. On the contrary, it was the disagreement between the majority parties that was at the basis of so much lost time and energy. I myself lost the number but maybe colleague Tant, chairman of the committee for business, knows how many times the bill was on the agenda, but the discussion could not take place because the majority was not in number. It happened often, we know that. However, I need to correct myself immediately because the members of the VLD were always present. I am not shooting, at least not in terms of their presence, on the Flemish Liberal Commissioners. I am speaking specifically about the French-speaking majority parties, in particular about the sister party of the VLD, MR. Their

It was written in the stars, colleagues. I will quote a little from the report, more specifically the passage on the exceptions to copyright, where Mr Monfils, the spokesman of the MR in the report, stated that two approaches are possible in the listing of the exceptions to copyright. On the one hand, the northern countries — and I suspect colleague Monfils thus also meant Flanders — who believe that authors of protected works should be subsidised by the government and would rather see too many than too few exceptions. On the other hand, the southern countries — I think to understand that Mr. Monfils means the Wallish region — who have previously assumed that authors are compensated by a form of tax — as stated by Mr. Monfils — which is paid, colleague Lano, by the users.

At the same time, less attention is paid to exceptions.

It is clear language. That can be said. At the same time it also opened the eyes for everyone. Indeed, in this regard, the MR would not satisfy itself with a balanced design, in which neither the authors nor the users would suffer disadvantage.

In the end, it came to the conclusion that the Latin vision achieved it. The MR, Mr. Monfils at the head, can satisfiedly look back on the hostage of the committee, because an anti-Flemish draft is on the vote today. The euphoria of the MR is right proportionate to the shame that the Flemish liberals, Minister Verwilghen at the head, should experience.

I will explain myself more closely.

The [...]

Thank you Mr Lano.

The Time titled today on the main page: "Taxes under Verhofstadt did not drop."

( ... ...

Mr. Lano, please take the word, because in this way I do not hear you.

The VLD has, I may assume, always been a "anti-tax party", Mr. Lano, but with this design has thrown all the principles overboard. The most illustrative example, colleague Lano, is Article 15 of the draft, which wants and can make the tax on the computers possible.

Let me say the following about this. The Flemish Interest is against the subject of computers to a fee for copying for own use. Mr. Lano, you know as well as I...

The [...]

We will see this later in the vote, Mr. Lano. You know as well as I do that this will increase the price of an average computer and, moreover — and you as a business leader should be quite aware of that — it means a loss of competitiveness for our companies over foreign companies.

The digital divide that the VLD and the purple government want to reduce if necessary is in fact only enlarged by this provision. All PC users are threatening to pay the price. As an anti-tax party, colleague Lano, colleagues of the VLD, you will no longer have to profile yourself with the voters.

Finally, I would like to talk about the amendment that was signed by the Chairman of the Committee on Business, colleague Tant, but that also — which forgot to mention Mrs. Van der Auwera — was initially by members of the Flemish majority. This amendment was submitted at the suggestion of the Chairman of the Flemish Parliament, Mr. De Batselier. Mr. De Batselier has now, after consultation with his own legal services and, by the way, also in consultation with the other subparliaments, again addressed this matter and made his position clear in his letter that he sent on March 1st to all the group chairs of the Flemish Parliament.

In short, the amendment means that authors or other rightholders are not required to give permission for the reproduction and public communication of their works for the sake of the smooth running of parliamentary procedures. According to Mr De Batselier and CD&V, that amendment is necessary in order to make information files available to the parliamentary community via the intranet. The amendment was indeed rejected — it has already been said here — at the proposal of Minister Verwilghen because it would be superfluous. I hear the minister now stating that there has been no controversy since 1994 but, Mr. Minister, I have always learned from my grandmother that prevention is better than healing. Nothing prevents you from approving that amendment and incorporating it into your draft, even if it is only to prevent future disputes – unless you have a glass ball.

I have seen that CD&V has submitted that amendment again and is submitting it to the plenary session for voting. We of the Flemish Interest will support this amendment. I expect, of course, the same from the fellow party members of Mr. De Batselier, the Flemish socialists. And in fact, I also expect the approval of the VLD as they have signed the amendment in the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, I conclude with the crucial question. It is not a question of a technical nature but rather a question of the essence, the essence, of the whole discussion and of the text that is being voted here today. It is a simple but necessary question. It is a why question. Why did he boycott the committee’s meetings? Why has the MR been able to hold both majority and opposition committee members hostage for so long?

Why did the MR, by Mr. Monfils’s mouth, play it for as long as he did? Why, Mr. Minister, colleagues of the VLD, have you not prevented this and have you not been able to ensure that a more balanced draft is presented here today? Could it be because of the secret arrangements and negotiations that took place in the back rooms and outside the committee room? Or is it probably because the MR sees an opportunity to carry out a number of political top appointments in one of the advisory committees still to be established that should advise the minister in the area of copyright?

The Flemish Interest finds it unheard of that the VLD here goes completely over, denies its principles and that only because one French-speaking party, the MR, demands it. Mr. Minister, you have shown Flanders a bad service and at the same time you have shown that you weigh for blackmail. The whole spectacle we have experienced does not promise much good for the future.

The Flemish Interest will therefore continue to monitor and continue to point out that the VLD is unreliable. Whether it is about principles of a community nature, or it is about the principle of anti-taxation, the VLD is repeatedly denying its promises. We will explain this to the voters.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the President for his patience. Indeed, Mr.Tant, did we not have to wait a long time before we could finally begin the discussion on the transposition of this directive? How many times Mrs. Van der Auwera, myself, some members of the majority — but never all together — were we not present to be able to discuss this text? Congratulations on your patience.

I would also like to congratulate you, because Mr. De Croo obviously cannot do so at the moment, having defended the presidents of the various parliaments of our country. I do it on behalf of the President of the House.

Indeed, an amendment had been submitted and aimed at establishing real legal certainty, because that is what we are talking about. We are told that this has never happened, that we have never talked about it. It did not change anything to include this exception for the different national parliaments in the text of the law, the directive allowed us to do so. There was concern from the presidents of the various national parliaments and it would have been more cautious to include this amendment in our text. Ms. Van der Auwera spoke of clarity of the text, legal certainty. On the basis of these principles, we should have included this amendment in the text. This is what I wanted to say to the President of the Commission.

What should we talk about in this committee? We had to transpose a European directive that wanted to harmonise national provisions on copyright and related rights. You all know that we are no longer in a system based on the technology of Gutenberg, we are in a system based on the technology of Bill Gates. So, with these new technologies that we discover every day, it was time to transpose this European directive. We had no choice and we did it with a certain delay.

This document contains four essential elements.

1 of 1. The scope of the essential components of copyright. 2 of 2. and the exceptions. 3 of 3. The fair remuneration for private copies and the issue of computers. 4 of 4. The legal aspect of “copy control” and marking as well as criminal sanctions.

I will not extend on the scope of copyright because there is some consensus on this issue. We decided to extend this scope, to clearly include and mention the right of distribution. On the other side, a greater certainty is inserted, the European directive has the advantage of clarifying the situation.

Regarding the exceptions — the subject has not yet been addressed in this tribune — the directive was there too very clear. Article 5.5 of the Directive, as part of the analysis of these exceptions to copyright, included this famous "triple test", this three-stage test. The text of the directive is clear: as recently reminded Mr. Monfils, 19 exceptions were proposed. In the enumeration of these exceptions, a latitude was left to the different States for transposition into their legislation.

However, as regards how those exceptions should be taken into account, the directive was clear: if an exception was inserted, this triple test had to be accompanied, that is, that the exceptions could only be applied in certain special cases, they could not impair the normal exploitation of the works and they could not cause unjustified harm to the legitimate interests of the rightholders.

Mr. Minister, your answer regarding this insertion of the triple test was: "Attention, this will create greater legal uncertainty!"Maybe well, Mr. Minister, but for my part, even if this triple test introduces legal uncertainty, it is more just because it allows a greater latitude. No matter what, the text of the directive is clear and clear on this issue: we had to transpose this triple test within the framework of the exceptions.

I come to the exceptions themselves. I will not go back on all the exceptions listed, but on the one recalled recently by Ms. Van der Auwera, concerning universities – we might have been able to go further – or on the exception for parliaments that has been defended by all the parliaments of Belgium. The directive allowed us to do so, we could provide greater legal certainty. I still do not understand why this was not introduced, especially since the services had given a rather positive rating.

Exceptions are not the heart of the problem. Progress has been made. I would like to emphasize again the work done by Ms. Van der Auwera. by Mr. Monfils seems to blame him for appropriating many proposals as part of the discussions. But who could say that Ms. Van der Auwera did not participate in the work and did not propose exceptions herself? I think progress has also been made through his work. We would have preferred to go a little further in certain areas: the non-market, universities, parliaments, for example.

I come to the remuneration mechanism for private copies and reprographics. First, it was necessary to know the type of supports that would be affected by this tax and which should result in this remuneration to return to the authors.

What are the types of support? All materials used for the reproduction of works. Everything could be included. We talked about GSM before. These can be used for the reproduction of works. Therefore, leaving the current text in the state was dangerous.

The first proposal of the minister was “significant use”. I thought it was going too far in the other direction. This leaves too little room for manoeuvre. The burden of proof must be borne by the person who wishes to benefit from the reward on the support. A text was therefore proposed, that of "manifestly used for private reproduction of works". Is it good? Is it bad? Per ⁇ it is too early to say it. You know like me that terms like “manifestly” and “used” are wide enough to be interpreted in one sense or another. That is why — and we want to emphasize this positive point — a number of mechanisms enable the discussion to be framed. Thus, the opinion committee was inserted into the law and time limits were imposed on it to make its decisions. This is a significant advance. Indeed, it is this commission that will have to decide on the character "manifestly used" of the support or not, this within a specified period.

When this period is exceeded, it will be up to you, Mr. Minister, to decide whether or not a medium is "manifestly used" for the copy. I would be tempted to wish you good luck because it will not be easy. You noticed it because you were there, Mr. Minister, the majority was not often present at committee meetings. You may have found that your majority had a lot of trouble defining what is obviously used for copying.

I hope that the Commission will be able to provide an answer because it is in the interests of all. But when she fails to give her opinion within six months and you have to find a solution, your responsibility will be heavy. As we have already seen, it will not always be easy for you to find consistency within your majority.

I come to the second part of the private copy: the computer. We have already talked about it and we are still talking about it a lot. I look forward to the vote, which will take place soon, on the amendment submitted by Mrs Van der Auwera. I am looking forward to the sp.a-spirit vote on this text.

I am also looking forward to the vote. Tommelin on this text. Having heard his speech, I say to myself that he will throw himself on Mrs Van der Auwera’s amendment and that he will approve it with conviction.

What does the CDH think? Of course, we are against a tax that would aim to penalize those who do not copy. We are against a tax that would be imposed on companies when they do not use the computer to copy. But we also believe that one cannot start from the principle petition that the computer, whatever one does, must be out of the scope of application. In our view, the computer, just like a machine, cannot be excluded from the scope of application. Why him and not another? On the other hand, if the use of the computer is not aimed at copying, then it must be excluded.

Amendments were submitted quite late, when a consensus emerged. We had to vote them very quickly, ⁇ because of fear that this consensus no longer exists a week later! These amendments had the advantage of proposing a compromise, of finding that middle line which consisted in saying that one could not start from the principle petition that the computer cannot be part of the media that serves to copy. However, the computer is a specific device. It should be treated in a differentiated but proportionate manner. The fact of excluding it purely and simply would have been a differentiated but disproportionate treatment.

The computer, in some way, has a special regime. Indeed, a deliberate royal decree in the Council of Ministers – and not a ministerial decree – and this opinion of the Advisory Commission is required so that the computer can be considered as a medium clearly used for copying. There is therefore an additional backup for the computer so that it can be considered as a device obviously used for copying. In addition, there is this refund and fee-free mechanism for those who use the computer not for copying purposes but for other purposes.

Mr Deseyn, you have a computer in front of you. I guess you are not copying. You prove by a + b that the computer is not only used for copying! The computer cannot be excluded by principle. Furthermore, one must understand that the computer is from time to time and even mainly used for purposes other than that of copying. They must therefore benefit from this differentiated treatment. This treatment seems to me more just given that we are talking about its use, the way it is used, and not the support itself. That is why we can sign our agreement on the principle. In this regard, Mr. Minister, I wish you good luck, as it will not be easy to register the computer in the media used. How to determine individuals, ⁇ , self-employed, etc. Who can benefit from this exemption, this refund? This is the point that will not allow us to approve this project.

I come to the relationship between the exclusion for private copies and technical measures. It is worth recalling that it should have been established in this text the possibility for any person to exercise this right to a private copy, to be able to make this private copy effective. In this regard, we believe that the text does not go far enough. On the other hand, in terms of criminal sanctions, the developments in the text have been more proportionate. The sanction currently envisaged responds to this need to punish a true pirate, a person who makes the illicit copy, but at the same time to leave a certain breadth to those who copy for private purposes or who are just at the limit without being real pirates of information.

I will conclude, Mr. Minister, on this notion of good luck. What has been done in the analysis of this bill? There were compromising solutions. There are medium-sized solutions. But the real files that were “irritating” were left to you. It is up to you to determine whether or not the computer is illegally used, to remunerate the authors, to exempt certain computers. When you are going to have to put all these systems in place, as part of royal or ministerial decisions under your responsibility, the discussions we have had over the past few months will reappear, but this time within the government.

Therefore, I fear that this project will create greater legal uncertainty than it does today. Indeed, by lack of coherence, political will, of the same aspiration, of the same vision in this case, we risk, tomorrow, to be more blocked than today, but again I say to you "happy luck!"

Mr. Speaker, it will ⁇ not lie to me. I’m just to be short and powerful; I’m not a lawyer.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I think that the new copyright law, which lies here before us, is an important law to actually adapt our old law to the new technologies. I also think, unlike some others here in the hemisphere, that we have had a good discussion, occasionally a passionate discussion. Fortunately but, fortunately that there can still be passions and emotions in Parliament, where else would we go?

Indeed, I believe that the original design, such as the preamble in the committee, has been substantially improved. Everyone has contributed, both the majority and the opposition.

We have indeed found a solution for education, for the music partitions, for the powerpoints and even for the private copy. So I would like to disprove what some colleagues have said here, that that law is nothing and that a solution has been found for nothing. Nothing is less true. I think we have found very good solutions for many things. If on this tribune it is stated that powerpoints are no longer possible in education, then these are just flat lies. I’m very sorry. Of course, every group has the right to have its opinion. But the truth also has its rights.

Artists in general and authors in particular are very close to our hearts as socialists. It is therefore not for nothing that we have created the statute of the artist.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to interrupt Mr. De Meyer.

Mrs. De Meyer, you are talking about flat lies.

Mrs. Van der Auwera, that is not a parliamentary word. You have to find something else.

The practice is the same. Mrs. De Meyer uses that word.

Mrs. De Meyer, I want to say the following. Have you read the amendments correctly? The amendments we have submitted explicitly provide for the exception for education, on all fronts. If you see what these amendments eventually ended up with, then we are again facing a very large interpretation problem.

We will see what you will do later in the voting on the amendments. To what you recently said, I attach the value that I also attach to other statements you make publicly. We will later, at the vote, see what you will ultimately do.

Mrs Van der Auwera, thank you for that specification. I disagree with what you say. There is indeed a good solution for education, for powerpoints and everything related to it. In this regard, we differ in opinion. We follow the eminent lawyer who sits in front of me, Mr. Verwilghen, who has also been Minister of Justice. Let us assume that he knows something about it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I spoke about the authors, who are very close to our heart. We therefore fully agree to a tax on empty CDs and empty DVDs to compensate for the creative work, especially of our authors.

We fully agree with this. On the other hand, we also find it very important that as many people as possible can enjoy art and culture. For us, it is important that art is not elite, that art is spread to as many people as possible and is an effective part of a human life. As socialists, we are therefore not only for bread, but also for roses. We believe that new technologies can greatly contribute to the further spread and democratization of this culture. Their

We are therefore very pleased that the present design, contrary to what is told in this hemisphere, does indeed still dust the private copy. There is no single persecution of the younger or older younger among us who manages to break the security code of a CD, if it is to make a copy for themselves to play on shit, in the car or who knows where. There is indeed a counterweight to the fact that the industry can take everything out of the closet to protect its CDs as much as possible. That seems to us a healthy attitude and a healthy mix.

What most disturbs me, and what is happening here again in this hemisphere, is that one is constantly making an amalgam between legal and illegal copying. There is a fundamental difference between the two and I do not accept that this is constantly thrown on a bunch. That is completely incorrect. What we advocate is that everything must be done to avoid illegal copying. This means that artists do not get what they are entitled to. We believe that there should be a massive campaign, including among young people, against illegal copying. Let us, however, give all room to legal downloads, because that promotes precisely the spread of culture.

Mrs. De Meyer, I would have liked if you had held this argument also in the committee, because there you persisted in silence. We have constantly made the difference between a private copy for personal use, which is still an exception, in contrast indeed to illegal downloads. The solution we now have is a kind of dough policy and I wonder what it leads to, because ultimately we have not come to a clear solution to this problem at all. We will soon see how you will vote on it. I attach as little importance to the words you speak here as to the words you speak on the streets and in relation to the press. We will see how you can explain your voting behavior later.

Mrs. Van der Auwera, it is simple: a dog policy means you are allowed to do it. I don’t know if there is another explanation for that, but that means you can do it. Their

In connection with the entire download history, it is very important for us that indeed the compensation goes to the artist himself. In this, I fully agree with all who here have pledged for more transparency with the management companies and the representatives of the authors. This needs to be clarified now. It must be very clear that the money goes to those who worked for it, but not to all the intermediaries who God knows what to use for. Their

What we really disagree with, where I come to the pain point, is the famous PC-tax. I just challenged Mrs. Van der Auwera to show in which article it is stated that we are for the PC task. She says we are now pulling off our tail. I don’t have a tail, so I can’t pull it. We were, we are and we will remain against the PC tax. So simple is it. We find this indeed a stupid tax because we indeed think it is a tax that affects everyone, even those who do not copy. We agree on this. In our view, this is not possible because it is a too general tool to ⁇ the intended goal, namely a fair remuneration for the author. Indeed, a PC charge increases the cost of the PCs. This is the problem of the digital gap. We are supported in this by a recent European report which indeed states that the cost of PCs is an important element for the further internet penetration in lower income classes. This is something we as socialists are concerned about. I think that is normal. The figures on internet penetration in our home country continue to show a lag behind for the elderly and low-skilled and we absolutely want to do something about this. Therefore, we have different opinions about the PC tax. We are not alone in this. UNIZO and Agoria also support us in this, as well as the computer dealers, the electrical industry and TestAbuy. If a site like notpctaks.be manages to collect 9,000 signatures in just under a week, that is nothing. This shows that there is support for it and that people are concerned about it.

Mr. Speaker, I share the opinion of Mrs. De Meyer a little. She and Mrs. Van der Auwera are both passionate about the subject. It is almost pleasant to hear. What are they talking about? About a tax that one will not introduce and about which I myself read in the press that it would amount to a maximum of a few dozen euros. Ten years ago, a computer with 512K cost 3,000 euros. Now a computer that is 220 times more powerful with 2.2 Giga costs 1,500 euros. In 10 years the price has been halved, the capacity has been increased 200 times, and now we are talking about a lot of nothing.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. De Meyer has already referred several times to groups that support CD&V. Among them is UNIZO.

Mrs. De Meyer, you do not say “support me” but “support us”. I suspect you mean our group. It means that you will support "us" and approve the CD&V amendment. If not, the proverb is "listen to my words, but do not look to apply my actions".

Mr. Speaker, in order for the debate to be conducted correctly, I would like to nuance the calculation of Mr. Lano, in order to upgrade 512 kilobytes to 220 gigabytes, one must not multiply by 500, but by at least 5,000. His calculation is far behind.

I think this is a discussion for a technical committee.

It is about memory capacity. You must know the distinction.

Colleagues, do not throw with the capabilities.

Mrs De Meyer has the word.

I hear of “words” and “deeds”. Indeed, there are words, there are actions and there are results. We go for the results. This will be shown in my speech.

Mrs. De Meyer, my question was very concrete.

My answer too. My answer is that we go for results. For us, the result counts for people who want to buy a PC. You will be able to see the result in a few weeks.

Do you approve our amendment, Mrs. De Meyer? Yes or No?

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I come back to the site and the signatures on nopctaks.be. There are always creative people who visit such a site. I would like to share some reflections from ordinary users that are interesting to think about.

A man from Wommelgem says, “Ah Kafka, you are a Belgian. A PC is not a copy machine. Why not tax on paint, because you can copy paintings with it. Begin to hamster.”

Someone from the Knesselare: “Will I have to pay tax on illegal use if in the future I whisper a copyright-protected piece in a public space?”

One of them said, “I’ve written something from a book. Should my balls be taxed?”

Until then, the creative Belgians. It is fun to think about it. In any case, the present draft legislation shows that the legislator did not have it so easily with the introduction of the possible PC-tax at the time when an amendment was adopted to exclude a particular category. That seems to me a strange way of doing that ⁇ does not fit in the simplification of the State.

I conclude by saying once again that we were, are and will remain against the PC tax. For us, the PC tax is no pasarán. In any case, as long as we are part of the government, there will be no PC tax. Mrs. Van der Auwera, that I give you on a note: with the SP.A in the government there is no PC tax and I want to let it burn on a CD for you if necessary.

I wonder what ridiculous legislation we have come here. Is it really such a ridiculous compromise that taxes can be levied? Ms. De Meyer may agree with this, but those taxes will not come. I look forward to how you will react to our amendment. When I hear you quoting from what is on that website, I get the idea that we will soon have to pay taxes on a flute.

Those who said there was no animo in this Room were mistaken.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, many things have already been said, sometimes well, sometimes less well, so I will simply limit myself to recall what, for us, constitutes important points or what needs to be clarified.

It seems to me fundamental to recall the objective of the draft text submitted to us today: - it is about transposing a directive into Belgian law; - this directive aims to harmonise certain copyright and related rights in the information society; - this directive was to be transposed in late 2002. There was an urgency!

However, even through a simple transposition of a directive, the preparation of a text that affects copyright and related rights is not a simple technical exercise. The very nature of copyright relates to two fundamental rights. On the one hand, freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of creation and consequently respect for it. On the other hand, the accessibility of citizens to culture.

Any text developed in this field must try to ⁇ this balance between the dissemination of culture, knowledge, and the remuneration of the creators as well as of all those who participate in the chain of creation and dissemination. This concern of balance was therefore the conductive thread of very long parliamentary work that led to the adoption of the law of 30 June 1994 and it is always precisely this concern of balance that presided over our work in commission.

This has necessarily led us to take into account the interests of those called “interested circles,” namely the authors of course, but also consumers – although I do not like this term too much on the cultural level – publishers, producers, equipment manufacturers and many others.

In this context, the text we are going to vote today is inevitably the result of a compromise. For us, the cornerstone of this project is precisely the establishment of an effective framework that allows to take into account the interests of all stakeholders, in particular by encouraging them to dialogue and to propose themselves the solutions that they consider appropriate to solve the problems they are facing.

It was therefore fundamental – and this is what the text does – to institutionalize, to clarify the missions and the working method of the commission and the stakeholders. This aims to prioritize consultation as a method of solving the challenges faced by field actors in the information society.

Some possibly predict a fateful fate or great difficulties to this method. As an inevitable optimist, I prefer to bet on the intelligence of the actors present who, I hope, will be able to show themselves imaginative and constructive to make this system work.

As said, this commission will have the delicate task of determining which devices and media are obviously used for private copying and will therefore be taken into account in part for remuneration. This consideration of devices and supports has been the subject of an objective debate, as today’s discussions still testify. In this unobjective debate, the PS was accused of wanting to tax at any cost all devices placed on the market. Since the debate has crystallized and continues to crystallize on the issue of the computer, let us further explain our position largely recovered in the law.

The computer is a device among others about which reflection should be possible. We refuse to specify in law which device or medium should be taken into account or otherwise excluded from the remuneration for private copying. Indeed, who are we? We are not technicians. We therefore wanted to establish a legislative framework that enables technicians and representatives of stakeholders to confront their points of view in order to reach consensus. In this system, we refuse that a device is a priori excluded from remuneration — or included, anyway. The decision will be taken in concertation, taking into account all the elements that may vary from case to case.

It is much less funny and less controversial than to say yes or no to taxation. But I repeat it: the text that is proposed to us today does not say “yes to taxation” but it does not say “no to taxation.” We are not technicians. I hope that we will trust the professionals and field actors and that we will respect their opinion on this issue, on this device as well as on many others elsewhere. That said, beyond this dialogue that we favor, it is good that certain essential principles are recognized and established in a clear and indisputable way in the law. Thus, compensation for private copying is, in my view, a principle that contributes in an essential way to the overall balance of our copyright system. While some see it only as an additional tax or others as a ridiculous obole paid to the authors, we think, on the contrary, that this is a primary message aimed at affirming the need to reward the work done and to compensate at least in part for the damage found.

Furthermore, we can only congratulate ourselves to see that the exceptions provided for in current legislation have been preserved, sometimes consolidated, in particular for private copying extended to certain sensitive sectors such as education and people with disabilities. But back to private copying, we have heard in recent weeks and even today that private copying would disappear, that it would become an absolute right, and that it would result in the loss of the whole sector.

Let’s be extremely clear, private copying in the family framework is and remains a well-defined exception and framed by this bill. Private copying is not an offence, private copying is not an illegal act. The debate has often been stigmatized at the level of this private copy. While we were discussing in the committee, some of us received petitions claiming that private copying was not an absolute right. At the same time, a petition was launched by other artists, notably via the New Observer, which was entirely in favor of free or illegal downloads. This shows that balance is not always easy to find.

In the same order of ideas, and always to speak of balance, we greet the one that could be found to allow the recognition of the mechanisms of protection of works, while avoiding an absurd law that would have criminalized the implementation of the exceptions by the citizen, in particular those cited above.

We have emphasized it several times, and others have done it before me, this law establishes a framework that must be implemented in the coming months through enforcement orders. Of course, we will be especially attentive to the preparation and promulgation of these decisions. We will ensure that they faithfully reflect the spirit of compromise on which all stakeholders have agreed and we will ensure that they also concretely reflect compliance with the opinions that will be issued by the field actors and representatives of the stakeholders.

I would like to clarify that for us, copyright cannot be reduced to a matter of big money, taxes or royalties. All copyright legislation aims at respecting authors, respect which is granted to them through moral rights but also through monetary rights based on the fundamental principle that every work, even creative, deserves salary.

If, therefore, we can be satisfied with the work done, which for us constitutes only a first step and which had to be carried out within the framework that I recalled at the beginning of my speech, we are convinced of the need to continue the debate on copyright and, in particular, on its place in the information society. It is quite essential that there is continued reflection on certain issues, including consumer rights, the fight against real piracy, downloading, use and place of the Internet. The questions remain many and others occur regularly, we must be able to take them into account. We will do it here, but also wherever possible. by

This debate is vital for the defense of our cultural identity but also for the defense of this cultural diversity that is dear to us. We refuse and will continue to refuse the hegemony of a Mc Donald’s culture and we will continue to work in this direction in this copyright issue.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to take the debate to a different level, to a less economic and material story. Such a story must be heard throughout the afternoon.

For spirit it is incredibly important that we can create a maximum access to culture and cultural goods. Every artist has the absolute right to a full-fledged income for his artistic performance, but the current copyrights are the fruit of a totally outdated thinking about art, about art formats and about art disciplines. That thought actually dates back to a time when it was still clear what theater, film and music were. The formats were clear. There was no doubt about what was original, a copy or a counterfeit.

Today, there are many mixed formats. There are installations with audio and video. There are theatre performances. We sampling, we quickly integrate new carriers such as internet, CD-ROM, mp3, and so on. Also the physical recording of a performance, such as a book, a plate, a canvas or pellicule, disappears and is replaced by a digital or virtual recording, which also gives permanent cause for change. So something is evolving. Interference through European directives does not focus on principles of a cultural-political nature, not on principles such as cultural dissemination or space for artistic creation, but on economic interests driven by commercial groups and groups.

In fact, copyright does not serve the artist, but does not serve the artist. How often should young authors, young composers and rock groups give up their rights to publishers and record companies when signing a contract? This is done under soft coercion. Artists always pay their own financial risk. How low are the "fees" on the sale of their book, their CDs, or the displays of their films? Many artists are already happy to be able to publish them. Whether the current management companies that manage copyright for artists are a blessing for artists, I question.

Basically, the current system serves the trade and the importance of the companies, not the art and culture. The grieving complaints about the falling CD sales sound outdated when one considers that those same corporations often do everything they can to hunt up the sales of their produced CD-writers, mp3-players and empty CDs. The increase in mp3 serves software and computer manufacturers and telecommunications companies. Today, people buy the software to copy and reproduce a CD.

Therefore, unfortunately, copyright is not an object of cultural policy, but of an economic policy. The artist is by definition not central. The copyright law presented today is the result of a difficult compromise. In fact, it is not a law that we cherish with much warmth. Nor is it a law that looks forward to a future in which downloading must be free and legalized, for the benefit of the consumer, a future in which the artist, artist and producer would be valued and fairly remunerated.

It is the law that adapts the copyright law to the digital information society, neither more nor less. Nevertheless, and I think this is correct, we also find in this the balance of the 1994 law. Authors may not refuse the reproduction of sound and audiovisual works in family circles. In exchange for all those copies and reproductions of their work, the authors of course receive a remuneration. That fee shall be paid in the form of a tax on devices enabling reproduction or a tax on the carriers. It is that balance that Spirit considers important, that balance that should not be touched. This is, in our view, the basic principle and that will continue to be ⁇ ined in the current design. Their

On the one hand, we have the right to this personal copy. Moreover, if one bypasses the technical obstacle to copying for private use, there is no legal prosecution. That is essential. You all know that there is currently a lawsuit going on against large record companies who, through technical interventions, wish to undermine the right to the private copy. On the other hand, those rights of authors must also be taken into account. Therefore, there is the fair compensation that should compensate for the loss that artists and producers suffer if one copies something of them. Therefore, the law provides for the possibility of imposing a small fee. We honestly believe that this is not wrong.

We have decided that other things about the carriers and the devices on which a tax must be levied should be clarified in a KB. This is new, but it is also logical. You know that society is evolving rapidly and that new devices and carriers will be developed every year. Then, of course, the question arises whether a PC is included. There is currently an agreement between the government parties that there will be no tax on the PCs, although strictly speaking it is possible. Even if the minister would ever decide that, the law still provides for a number of exceptions. So bad is the compromise not at all. Their

In the new law, we have actually reached a fair compromise. We will therefore also pass the law, rationally, because it is the least bad compromise, but not with our hearts because we must dare to look further. That’s the cultural argument I wanted to keep. Spirit wants in the future that we legalize downloading entirely within the framework of a modern copyright law.

We are not alone in this. Many artists support us in this, many artists want to freely disseminate their work as long as it is not used in a commercial way. In fact, this is also linked to an evolution in the information sector, especially with the movement of open source software. Creative Commons encourages and promotes the distribution and creative reuse of copyright-protected works according to an open copylist model. Many artists want – because that is the essence – that the work is distributed digitally. Under the motto “libérez la musique” many top musicians such as Manu Chao, Khaled and also our Pieter-Jan Desmet spoke in favour of this piracy. They defend the peer-to-peer system in which Internet users make the files on their computers accessible to other Internet users. There are already 40,000 signatures of French internet users under this petition. They demand the cessation of repression and the absurd persecution of downloads. Without a doubt, many musicians share this vision, but often, under pressure from the record companies, they dare not say anything.

So we resolutely choose the side of music, the side of the musician, the side of the music lover. We seek the right balance between the greatest possible access to cultural goods and a fair remuneration for authors, artists and producers.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Hove for his report.

In my opinion, the text that is proposed to us today is not the same as that which was deposited by the government and provided for a series of unacceptable things: technical measures applied in a non-discriminatory manner, the fact of not being able to tax reproductive devices such as computers. The submitted text was drawn up completely forgetting the balances of the 1994 law, and essentially focused on the economic interests of communication majors in the world today.

As an opposition member, I believe that parliamentarians have played an important role and the text proposed today has undergone substantial improvements. We will have the opportunity to return to this in my speech.

From the outset it appeared that the text — which, in fact, was not born solely from the pen of Minister Verwilghen; it had already been filed before —, under the pretext of transposing the European Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright in the information society, went much further and demonstrated a market concept of culture which, in my opinion, does not correspond to the European tradition, nor to what was envisaged in the directive itself.

The assessment of the law that we are going to vote today must be made taking into account the evolution of technology — which justifies the European directive and which will justify subsequent rather rapid changes to the text filed today — and taking into account the balance of the law currently governing copyright. Some of my colleagues have recalled this before me: there must be a balance between, on the one hand, cultural creation, the possibility for the creators of cultural works to be remunerated — this point is essential — and, on the other hand, the industrial and technical supports of this culture, without which it would not have the capacity of dissemination that it has today, and the receptacle of culture, that is, every citizen — or consumer if one refers to the purely commercial aspect of the thing.

This balance is extremely fragile. Interests are contradictory; they can be put into competition. Not everyone is on an equal footing: the large cultural industries have very broad means of dissemination, which allows them to get out of it. Who sells the CDs on which copies are executed? Who sells MP3 players on which copies are copied? It is the same ones that produce the artists and who will otherwise have difficulties to pay for copyright.

I think that the world is very complex, but that these balances are essential to guarantee two elements that I think are fundamental: first, cultural creation and the dissemination of culture; second, the need to keep in the life of each of us spheres where the merchant does not make the law. It is not the big companies to decide whether, at home, in our dining room or in our living room, with our children, we will make one, two or three copies. It is quite unbelievable to have to recall the existence of this fundamental right to be preserved: that of a private space that is not that of “marketing”. These two fundamental elements are, in my opinion, not fully met by the bill we are proposing.

As has been said and repeated, the discussion obviously covered many elements since the text is very technical, but it can nevertheless be reduced to two fundamental issues: the exception for private copying which must be authorised — the original text provided for a generalized authorisation of technical measures that did not allow access to private copying, which has been modified and which I consider as part of the improvements achieved in the parliamentary path — and the remuneration of authors and how to contribute, through all technical means, to this remuneration. What has significantly evolved compared to 1994 is that it has spread more and more. Stevaert is not there for nothing — the idea that one could “raser gratis”, that one could promise everything and its opposite, that is, an incredible capacity for cultural creation, with remuneration of entitled recipients, but no contribution.

We don’t know where the contribution comes from, we don’t talk about it! It is so much easier, more demagogic. It is more difficult to present a true, responsible discourse, consisting of saying that, if you want creators, people who produce works that you need like bread, you should reward them. This is normal, it has been registered in our society for a long time. And if we want to pay them, it is about finding contributors to this remuneration. My colleague Monfils explained this well in his speech: this is not new, it is what is found in the 1994 law. It is not necessary to imagine that we are working suddenly in a different system, completely different.

Amendments submitted by the opposition, in particular by me, and initially rejected have been partially incorporated in the amendments finally adopted. Thus, an amendment adopted concerns the inclusion of committees of interested circles in the law. Through another amendment, deadlines are granted and must be respected. I think these are important innovations.

However, the points on which the majority could not agree are returned to the government. This is the case, in particular, for "the use of technical means". It is hoped that the agreement that has not been reached between the majority parties in parliament can be reached at the government level.

After hearing some components of the majority, I am extremely cautious with regard to “the use of technical means.” I’ve seen members fighting so that anyone who wants it can make two copies of their CD (one for home, one for the office and even possibly a third for their child to avoid breaking the parent’s) and that the reproduction does not depend on Sony.

Initially, the law did not allow this kind of reproduction. Today, we start from the principle that the issue will be settled by the government. I think there is a problem here.

I come to the second point referred to the Council of Ministers: the question of the devices that may contribute to the remuneration of authors and rightful recipients.

We talked a lot about computers. They are somehow outlined in the text of the law. Following this text, it will be up to the Council of Ministers to make a decree and decide which device will be "evidently used" for the copy.

I see a first difference from the 1994 law. The latter was simpler. In that law, the words "when a usable device contributes to it" were mentioned. This seems to me quite wise. In any case, this had the merit of avoiding Byzantine discussions like those we had in the committee. What do the words “significantly used” mean? I was told that the term “manifestly” was clearer.

For my part, I am concerned about the idea that it will again be the Council of Ministers who will have to deliberate. I heard my colleague sp.a-spirit say just before that even if it was possible, they would not give their consent. I have also heard colleagues from the majority worry about the real will to get to equally distribute the remuneration and contribution to the remuneration of authors.

A problem that has been little addressed and which I will not detail here because the discussion is very technical, is the question of free software and the possible difficulties of interpretation between the possibility of having access to free software, ⁇ through download, and the existence of technical measures that would make the use of free software incompatible.

I would have wanted a more accurate response from the Minister on this subject. If this bill is adopted as it is, the question will have to be asked, possibly during an evocation in the Senate, or even later in the House because I admit that I have not had all of my consolations. As for the government’s response to the amendment I had submitted to be quite sure that free software was not concerned, it did not satisfy me.

Dear colleagues, you will understand that, although I can positively consider that the legislative path and the work of some parliamentarians have really changed the original text by improving it, I, unlike them, cannot trust the transfer of arbitration decisions to the government, nor imagine that this arbitration will be done in the desired direction. For this reason, with my group, I will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in fact, this bill simply translates into a European directive calling for the adaptation of copyright legislation to the new technologies. What at first seemed simple, eventually became a long path of suffering I have established. The PS and the MR found themselves line-right against the VLD and the sp.a. If I just heard the two ladies discuss, I think this would have caused fireworks in the committees.

Indeed, a compromise had to be found. This compromise should open up the possibility of a tax on computers. I am aware, colleagues, that the draft law concerning copyright covers much more than the so-called PC-tax. However, I will limit myself to this.

Of course, I would like to appreciate the great work of my colleagues in the committee. In the present draft law, I believe, the gateway is opened for a new tax, a tax on the PCs. It doesn’t really have to, but it can. This is really Belgian. In times when the government almost morally obliges us to do e-government and e-banking and walk around with an electronic card, this government will offer the opportunity to introduce a tax on PCs. This is Kafka.

In the Netherlands, there is a special discount on the purchase of a PC. No, according to the government-Verhofstadt, in the Netherlands one is apparently doing wrong. Per ⁇ it is because Balkenende, a Christian Democrat, is the prime minister there. In the model state of Belgium there is a tax, although some here argue that this will not be the case. It is unlikely but this is a real liberal measure to promote the competitive position of our Belgian computer distributors. Or maybe this new tax wants to close the digital gap. No, this may not be the intention. At school, they are trying to have enough computers so that the students can keep up with the technological evolution. Indeed, the gap between rich and poor creates a new field of tension between those who can and those who cannot meet the internet age. It has already been proven that the socially weaker are at an additional risk of backwardness.

A possible new tax is indeed a socialist measure to close this new gap, a real protection for the socially weaker. Mrs De Meyer and Mrs Douifi, I read the report. You were absolutely right when you stated in the commission that a price increase would discourage the use of PCs and the Internet, while the government just considered or should consider the opposite. However, I just heard from Mrs. De Meyer that there is no such tax in the house. If so, just eliminate the possibility that the tax would come out.

This measure not only widespread the digital divide, but is, in my opinion, unaccountable. He lowers the competitive position of the computer distributors and actually means the introduction of a new tax; A new tax, liberal colleagues, but for what? You now have new boxes of left-liberal brothers who want to make the illegal download free. This is a new tax to compensate for the loss of copyright due to illegal downloads. Per ⁇ the government will soon receive another proposal from Spirit to impose a tax on fireworks and lighters to finance the train trips to the Netherlands to supply themselves there with illegal soft drugs. This would be an equally absurd measure.

There is a tax on free downloads. This is indeed a very popular measure. We saw an action this morning in Gent. This popular measure is attached to a certain group of young people. Those who only have a computer and no internet connection should be solidary and bear the burden. This is really liberal left. Solidarity of the computer users who do not have the internet with the young people who want to download for free. This is really a proposition of what is called the M Generation: me, myself and I.

Colleagues, we are ⁇ not in favour of what is happening in Italy and the United States, in particular the imposition of penalties for this form of internet abuse. On the contrary, we are not against downloading but want to have a different discussion about it. The Internet sector should make it possible, although at the expense of copyright, to download very specific products, in which case those products must be able to become much cheaper after some time.

It is a bit like with generic products, in a way of speaking. The cultural heritage must be free of charge.

I think that this aspect of copyright will need to be further discussed. If this continues, colleagues — and I will conclude with this — we will soon have to pay copyrights on the brains of our newborn son or daughter. After all, they are able to store music and song texts on which copyright rests, and to play it illegally in the form of song. That is how we are working. You leave a gate open and that gate is too much for us.

I give the word to Mr. Hove and Mr. Tant. Then the Minister comes and then I will discuss the articles and amendments. Then we will see where we stand.

Mr. Hove, you were a reporter. Now you speak on behalf of your group in the general discussion. You have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will try to be as brief as possible, because much of what I wanted to say has already been addressed by my colleagues in the committee.

The draft law aims to adapt copyright to the reality of today’s information society. The important protection of copyright must also be extended in today’s digital society. Since the Copyright Act of 1994, a lot has evolved. It is therefore no coincidence that the focus of the discussion that has developed in the committee was situated around the highest symbol of the information society, namely the computer. We should also not be blind to the fact that the carrier market continues to evolve and refine every day. Just think about gsm and all related applications, electronic calendars, soon digital television with decoders and so we can continue for a while, but that is not the subject of our dossier.

The rapid development has led to the adoption by the European Parliament and the European Council of a directive aiming at harmonising certain aspects of copyright and the information society. That Directive should be transposed into Belgian legislation. The time is pressing, because the adjustment had to have been done in fact for a long time.

I have just pointed out that the focus of the discussion was on the main symbol of the information society, in particular the computer, and whether or not the computer should be subject to a certain tax.

Our principle answer to this is clearly no. I said this in the committee too. As liberals, of course, we are in principle opposed to a tax on computers, but after hard and lengthy discussions we have reached a compromise in the committee. Such a tax may only be imposed after a royal decree consulted in the Council of Ministers. Their

We accepted this difficultly achieved compromise due to the high urgency of the transposition of the Directive. Since neither we, nor the sp.a, nor the Flemish opposition is in favor of a tax, we assume that there will also be no one. Mr. Minister, I would like to hear from you what your attitude is about this. Their

However, this hurry should not lead to a loss of attention to the balance between, on the one hand, the protection of copyright rights and, on the other hand, the digital distribution of art and culture, a distribution that serves the general interest. Their

The present bill is therefore much wider than this delicate point of the computers. The draft aims to establish a balance between the various stakeholders, who otherwise have opposite interests, which we have very well noticed during the hearing, taking into account the new reality of the digital society and the desire not to hinder the development of new technologies, but rather to promote them. Their

An essential element in this regard is the possibility of copying for own use of works and performances. The initial bill assumed that authors, artists, publishers and producers were entitled to compensation for the reproduction of their creativity. This, by the way, is not a new starting point, it is only adapted to the new reality. Thro ⁇ the whole discussion, which, however, has taken some time, which has already been said here a few times, this principle itself was therefore never at any time and by no group in question. Their

As a liberal I would have preferred that this could be arranged in a market-compliant way so that those who do not use it do not bear the burdens and vice versa. However, this does not seem so obvious for now. Therefore, it is opted to further refine the system that exists today and adapt it to the reality of today. Their

Even more than in the past, a number of thresholds are now being built which previously clearly did not exist. I will give a few. The introduction of the criterion "clearly used for", until now, any carrier or device that could be used for reproduction was subject to a fee.

From now on, the statute of devices and days, according to that criterion and after the advice of a committee composed of the interested parties, must be established by the King.

Second element, the King can create a negative list of devices and carriers that are not subject to the aforementioned regulation. I have already talked about the computer.

Is this a good or perfect solution? No, it is ⁇ not. The criterion “clearly used” is vague. I refer to the discussion on this subject in the committee, to which several speakers before me have already alluded.

That being said, I wonder, given the interests that were often diametrically opposed — we have ⁇ felt this clearly in the majority — whether a better solution could be conceived. In any case, the design keeps the church in the middle. The authors receive compensation. Those who do not copy can get an exemption. Computers are not currently subject to a tax, thus liberating the fight against the digital divide. Again, it may not be the most ideal solution, but it is a balanced solution.

Nevertheless, I would also like to take this opportunity to warn management companies. Per ⁇ they would like too much to see computers and as many other devices and carriers as possible subject to a tax, and preferably as high as possible. Maybe I’m making a cartoon of it — I hope it — but I’m afraid that people see the internet too much as a threat and too little as an opportunity. Think of the successful sale of concert DVDs, for example. I’m told that thanks to the sale of DVDs, the music industry is once again at the top. The internet and the downloading of music, which has made older people again true concert guests and young people save a lot of money that they can spend on other things, such as DVDs, is not strange to this. Indeed, there are studies that show that the internet net may have positive effects on the music world, as long as one looks at it more broadly than just record sales.

In addition, the draft sanctions the circumvention of technical protection measures.

I therefore believe that the rightholders have, in law and in practice, the necessary means to counter illegal downloads and piracy. Thus, they also have the necessary instruments to flourish legal alternatives and a new balance in the market can be established.

It would therefore be irresponsible to expect, on top of that, from the government that devices and carriers that are important for the development of the information society and for filling the digital divide, be extra heavily charged. After all, in addition to the principle that one is entitled to compensation, the development of the internet is also an important starting point of this design, as well as of the VLD. One must avoid slaughtering the chicken with the golden egg, which is the Internet. All stakeholders should therefore observe the necessary reasonability. It is the responsibility of the government to protect the public interest. We will therefore support this design, with the necessary nuances that I have indicated.

Colleagues, I think the chicken with the golden egg is the best illustration to give Paul Tant the word.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the image of our colleague Hove. You know better than me, Mr. President, that he comes from the same region as ours. Per ⁇ he does not tolerate too well that they have a Brakelse in Brakel and that they must be in Kruishoutem for the eggs. Finally, ketens are found everywhere, but still also in Brakel, I wanted to say. I understand that colleague Hove didn’t want to let it go over his side and so used the image language he just used. You come slowly into the circle, Mr. Hove: excellent.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I would like to thank Mr. Wathelet for the compliment he gave me. This subject has indeed required a particular amount of time and patience from the chairman and the members, in particular since the members who have in principle the good habit of coming to a meeting on time and that time and again have had to come to the conclusion that the committee was not in sufficient number to meet. I deeply regret that, Mr. President. I am afraid that the cause of this is becoming a bit structural. We, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, are faced with a text of a draft that is a transposition of a directive, but that turned out to be an insufficient translation of the compromise needed, to express it technically and simply, between the various government parties. Their

This has led to endless breaking-up in the commission and beyond. There have been compromise texts, of which CD&V as an opposition was informed only very late.

Mr. Speaker, I say this without much emotion, but it is objective and correct: the debate was thus a little falsified. We have not been able to substantially exchange thoughts about the final text, because part of it has come into being at the last moment. I regret that. If that becomes a fixed characteristic of the functioning of the committees and of our hemisphere, one must realize — I do not want to moralize — that in this way at least the debate is eliminated.

If you had listened, Mr. Daems, you would have understood me. It is not difficult. It should even be possible for you to follow.

In our hemisphere as well as beyond, there has already been a lot to be done about the cost of computers, PCs in the first place, and about the need to spread their use more generally, also in all social layers of the population. It is, in my opinion, clear to everyone that imposing a tax that raises the cost of the product is not of a nature to facilitate the spread. Everyone has their mouths filled with it and in the context of a genuine democratization and socialization of society it is necessary that such devices are within the reach of everyone. Nevertheless, it is considered to be the most normal thing in the world to add some rights to it. They can be called parafiscality and à la limite even taxation.

Mr. Minister, I know that your ambition is to be involved at the local level. I have been working on this for a while. I know how a portion of the copyright owed as a result of demonstrations at the local level is taken in full or in part by many municipal governments. You will not contradict me. It is the truth.

If the public authority justifiedly chooses to protect its authors and artists, it can do so without re-adding tax or parafiscal duties to the net cost price of the products in that market segment, thereby counteracting generalized distribution rather than encouraging it.

I would like to add a further margin note, which Mr. Depoortere also talked about for a moment.

Mr. Minister, it will almost irrevocably lead to unfair competition being given additional opportunities again. Let me clarify for a moment.

Of course, I had the opportunity to talk to people from the industry, like everyone else. We have organized hearings. However, do you know that for some products the net cost price is still just, though hardly, higher than the duties that will be paid? You will understand that for those types of products the incentive to unfair competition, not least in some border regions, the greater it will be. This is logical and it is good to be aware of it. So I can’t help but urge us to think again about whether it would be better to make a new attempt to update the text.

An amendment was submitted by Mrs Van der Auwera. I have the impression that the majority has another trick in the wrist. Mr. Hove delivered the trick. I do not know if that was the intention. I think I understand that, after we have approved the principle that the rights are due to computer materials, a royal decree would determine that this will not be the case for certain products.

Mr. President, what are we doing? I thought that if we pass a law that is clear, this law deserves to be applied as such and not, because of the trick or the monkey that must come out of the sleeve, in another way. Mr. Minister, I do not want to use disrespectful expressions, but I fear that the monkey will soon come out of the sleeve, and then out of your sleeve, which I did not expect so immediately. However, it may sometimes be possible that we first approve a text, which we assume — ⁇ the members of the opposition — that it contains what was said, and then come to the conclusion that it is attempted to dissolve the text in the name of the compromise and to make the majority connect even with heels and eyes. It would, of course, also be possible, Mr. Minister—which becomes a specialty, at least in our committee—the majority would also be content here with a statement of the Minister who would say seven times that the statement should be included in the report.

I thought that those who think about proper legislation should first and foremost make sure that the text itself is ready, as ready as possible, so that people know where they stand. Here the technique is used in which one must read the parliamentary reporting on it in order to understand the approved text. Parliamentary reporting is not so accessible to ordinary citizens, nor is it always readable.

Ladies and gentlemen, be aware of what you are doing. You do nothing else, especially in these, than for the sake of the political compromise kaduke legislation. You know in advance that the interpretation that will be given to it is often up to or beyond the boundary of the text itself. Congratulations on this way of working. You all know that it is a frequent criticism in recent years that the quality of our legislation has fallen to a questionable level. I am afraid that this will be proved again.

Mr. Lano said that, as far as the debt rights are concerned, it is, after all, only a few euros. Mr. Lano, I have listened to you well. Allow me to answer this. You should be aware that in certain concrete cases, taking into account the cost of the products to which they are owed, the duties will be disproportionate. I have already told you that this creates unfair competition, in which individuals, whether or not abroad, who are going to buy products and try to get rid of them here on a sort of black market, formerly called that blue.

There is a way, colleagues, to prevent this. We have submitted an amendment aiming to require sellers of those products, when they announce a price, to make a difference between the cost price of the product and the rights due to it. This will be useful not only because it allows the consumer to really know what he is buying, but especially because it is a first indication of whether the rights on the product he purchases have been paid or not.

This is a simple suggestion. I know that it is superfluous because it comes from the opposition and therefore it is not worth the trouble to stay there for a long time. Mr. Goris, I respect in this not your intellectual honesty but rather your flat ground for the way you react. You do all of this as if it doesn’t pay the effort to listen because it comes from someone else.

I have another point, Mr. Speaker, which is quite high for me. I was confronted in the committee as chairman with a letter from a chairman of another assembly, Mr. De Batselier. Through the intervention of the services, possibly initiated by the President himself, I felt that it was my duty — since the quality of parliamentary activities must be safeguarded — to submit an amendment. I explained this amendment first. Some colleagues, including the majority, have co-signed this amendment to simply reject it later. I really do not understand this. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that it was the role of a committee chairman to monitor this aspect of the work, especially since I thought that this amendment could not harm. This amendment only assures you that you cannot get into trouble with copyright law when making photocopies of referral works of any kind either. The amendment is limited to parliamentary activities, neither more nor less. In fact, one objectivizes a situation that now exists de facto and which, according to the minister, has not yet given rise to controversy. Is it the role of the legislature and the government to wait for this? Since a law is valid for the future, should this text not be approved, especially if one knows that that text further threatens nothing or anyone?

You know, colleagues, how this amendment in the committee was rejected by the majority. Since the truth has its rights, Mr. Speaker, I must say that your colleague, Mr. De Batselier, once again insisted. He was of the opinion that the argument on which the Minister relies is next to the question.

It is not about multiplying the reports of the discussions. However, it is about providing external material that should allow the debates to be conducted with some thoroughness.

Mr. Speaker, it must be my heart, but we re-submitted the amendment in consultation with Mrs. Van der Auwera. Allow me to say this without much emotion, I expected you would ask the attention of the assembly for this. I expected that you would have said on behalf of your six colleagues that this is a common concern and that this is best arranged in the text of the law. You have to be silent, Mr. Speaker. That is your good right. However, I would like to make it clear that you take responsibility for the consequences that may arise for the assembly. We have warned you. As an opposition party, we obviously cannot do much more than that, but we did it with conviction.

These are some other concerns that I would like to share.

I don’t know if the copyright persecutes me or I persecute the copyright. In any case, when I came to the House in 1992, the first draft I was faced with and on which then Minister of Justice Wathelet was working, he has worked on it for more than a year, copyright. The copyright was then terminated in the famous 1994 law. Their

To be honest, in 1994 one did not know that both the economy and society and technology would take the flight they took now in 2005. We didn’t talk about wireless at the time. There was no mention of a GSM. There was no mention of the iPod. These are all concepts that we actually already deal with daily. I say this to show you that, on the one hand, the digital environment is constantly increasing in importance, but that, on the other hand, it also raises many complex, often legal, questions. Their

However, the government is convinced that copyright and the Internet can pursue the same goal. This goal was also cited by some members of the Parliament, namely the desire to promote and disseminate culture. It is aimed not only to promote culture, but also to promote and disseminate knowledge. The digital environment has undoubtedly not only opened up a range of new markets, but also of new threats.

I regret that Mr. Depoortere is no longer present here. After all, Mr. Depoortere said that we were facing an easy one. This is ⁇ easily said, of course. From someone of the Flemish Interest, I assume that he has no specific experience in it. If he had experienced the work in 1994, he would know that copyright is per definition difficult because one must find a balance between the interests of those who have created, the authors, and the users. There are many intermediate stages of suppliers that play a role in this. Each of them has an individual interest, which very often conflicts with that of the other. An easy is therefore absolutely not. That is a little easily said. I suppose that this simplism is easier to bring out than to go into it in terms of content. Their

It is quite easy to silence about the following. It is not a mere transposition of a European directive. The framework is created above. It is the World Intellectual Property Organization that has said that two important treaties needed to be implemented, on the one hand the copyright and on the other hand the performances and the phonograms.

Europe immediately joined the action to the word and took the initiative. The European Directive of 22 May 2001 was adopted with a very short transposition period. The conversion would have to take place before 22 December 2002.

Belgium has not succeeded. Er volgde en eerste veroordeling op 18 November 2004. If there is a second verdict that would come, everyone knows that there is a second verdict that will come, with all the consequences of the day. Therefore, it is a matter of urgency. I greet from this tribune the intellectual honesty of the speakers who have tried to deal with the whole content of this law — which represents much more than the points on which we have focused and discussed in order to pinpoint the subject — and of those who have tried, like you, Mr. Wathelet, to understand the mechanism of this law.

Interests between right holders, users and industry are often contradictory and it is not always easy to find a middle line. The government has chosen the path of literal transposition, the quickest possible means given the urgency.

I know, of course, as he pointed out. Monfils, that other changes are necessary, in particular on the status and control of management companies, and the right of follow-up to the benefit of the author of an original artwork. As you know, the government is currently working on bills.

First, the directive requires some modifications of Belgian law and what concerns the right of reproduction, the communication to the public and the distribution. The Directive provides for a few exceptions to the right of reproduction and to the right of communication to the public. In addition to the exception obligatory for the acts of provisional reproduction, the directive contains all a list of facultative exceptions among which the two major legal licences attract particular attention, celle pour la copie privée et celle pour la reprographie. Enfin, le projet vise également la reprographie selon le mode de reproduction utilisé et la protection de l'emploi des mesures techniques. I know that I am narrowing the discussion for a bit as some have wanted to narrow it, but I will give three clarifications. First, the three-stage test. There are still members in this assembly who consider that the three-step test should be explicitly included again in the legislative text. This means, of course, reciting two international treaties, the TRIPS Convention and the Bern Convention. This is like making a law on the protection of minors, which at the same time refers to the International Convention on Human Rights. We do not do that either. To be honest, we asked the European Commission whether it was necessary to reintroduce that three-step test into legislation. The answer was no, pacta sunt servanda, international treaties must be implemented. We should not take this as such.

Second, the tax on computers. There are two possibilities, namely whether or not to keep a tax in the law. There were great tensions and that is also normal because, as I said, there are clearly conflicting interests in the case. I must honestly say that I am somewhat surprised at the way in which the moods have been raised on this point. What does Article 14 specify? However, some speakers paid some importance to this. First, there should be an opinion of the paritary-composed advisory committee. That is the preliminary, necessary intervention before anything can happen. I repeat that the parity is composed. That means that all the players I recently mentioned are represented. They will tell us whether or not there is an effective reason to impose a tax. At the moment they make a decision, the King will draw up a list of devices that are apparently used for copying and of devices that are apparently not used for copying. Those that are not used for this purpose will not be charged, but those that are apparently used for copying could be charged. I would say that there could be a tax, because then the government has to make a decision. However, this does not happen on the initiative of a single minister. It is a royal decision that must be adopted after consultation in the Council of Ministers. This means that the Council of Ministers must reach an agreement in order to proceed effectively. Furthermore, Mr. Tant, it is provided that the competent minister may grant an exemption for certain professional purposes and certain target groups.

However, I want to be clear. A number of questions were asked on this subject. Their

The government does not intend to impose such a tax, let alone that there would be an agreement. Belgium is also a pioneer in broadband applications and is at the same time a country where PCs are used very much. I will not participate in any initiative that would be of the nature of increasing the digital divide. In this regard, I give you my position clearly.

Finally, I come to the third point. They react to it with particular indignation. It is the request of Mr. De Batselier and the way this was discussed in the committee. I give Mr. De Batselier his position. It is not about that. I also contacted him. Their

The main concern of Mr. De Batselier was, and he was not alone, that all structured collections of scientific articles created to educate the people of the assembly on the points that will be discussed there, of course, should not fall under copyright protection. It is quite obvious that they should not fall into that. I referred to Article 8. Article 8 has a first member and has a second member. The focus was on paragraph 1, but I referred to the integrity of Article 8, including Part 2. Their

Therefore, I have told you that you will not find any jurisprudence for disputes which ask whether a trial has already been conducted or a dispute has been raised over the fact that someone claimed copyrights on scientific articles that served to inform the Parliament. This has not happened until now. Their

I, of course, hear that caution requires to anticipate it, ⁇ . I tell you that the doctrine of law is clear and clear. There is no jurisprudence on this, so we look at the jurisprudence. The jurisprudence makes it very clear that these types of activities are fully covered by Article 8 and that, in other words, it is not necessary to take in these additional measures.

Mr. Speaker, if I can afford it, I would like to ask you to listen carefully. Did Mr. De Batselier in the committee say or not that the answer, the so-called reassurance of the minister, was not relevant in this matter and that the problem, in his opinion, continued to exist? I do not say that.

Mr. Tante, I had contact with Mr. De Batselier yesterday, whom I think I know better than you. I discussed this issue with him. I also told him what position we had already taken in the committee and that I would also repeat this position, including his only remaining concern whether the scientific bundling of articles should allow Members to effectively conduct the debate on the substance of a case, whether or not it falls within the scope of Article 8. I told him that this is the case and that I would say that openly here today in the committee. By the way, there have been enough speakers who have asked me to talk about this.

I want to, but one must at least have the intellectual honesty, Mr. Minister, to say what has actually been stated in this matter by Mr. De Batselier. I suppose you may have struck him in Knokke or elsewhere. I read you a text that is the reflection of what he thinks about it.

I also have that text.

It is useful to reveal the content of it, Mr. Minister.

I quote: "At the request of the competent minister, that amendment was rejected because it would be superfluous. According to the existing article 8 of the Copyright Act of 30 June 1994, speeches delivered at meetings of representative bodies may be freely used and there is no copyright on official acts of the government." Then it comes: “This reasoning is not correct. In no way is it intended to limit parliamentary information files to a collection of official acts and speeches. Such information files are primarily a structured collection of scientific articles on a particular subject. The purpose of providing that information through an intranet or a secure extranet is to document the members of Parliament and the political groups as best as possible, thereby supporting them in their legislative and control duties. For the public communication of those articles via the Internet is in the current state of affairs” — listen properly — “ ⁇ requires the consent of the rightholders. Article 8 of the Copyright Act cannot be invoked in this regard."

That is clear. I had hoped that you would yourself draw attention to this.

I will give you an answer. If you read this text, Mr. Tant, there is only a reference to Article 8, §1. As I said before, there is a second paragraph that reads as follows: "There is no copyright on official government acts." According to the jurisprudence, the second paragraph covers all preparatory documents for regulation and the discussions concerning them. Their

It is good that the comment was made, but the law provides an adequate answer. In this Parliament, one is often the first to say that in every law that comes into effect, two laws should be abolished each time, but I note that if one can add another part to a legislative text, one does not hesitate to do so, even if it is superfluous. It is not good to continue working in this way and therefore to regulate more than necessary if there is already adequate protection.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. I would like to urge that this legislation be effectively adopted. If Belgium were to face a second condemnation — and it is absolutely not unthinkable that this happens the next day — this would, of course, have a ⁇ heavy impact, while this bill is precisely intended to accommodate a literal transposition of the Directive of the European Union.