Proposition 53K3391

Projet de loi portant insertion du livre XI, "Propriété intellectuelle" dans le Code de droit économique, et portant insertion des dispositions propres au livre XI dans les livres I, XV et XVII du même Code.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Feb. 21, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive European Patent Office European patent audiovisual equipment copyright database medicinal product commercial law industrial property computer systems intellectual property international agreement Internet plant variety right trademark patent law designs and models crop production judicial proceedings reprography invention pesticide legal code seed

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (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 27, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

It is a worthy initiative to finally take the first steps in the reform of intellectual property law. In particular, copyright is effectively compromised. That is a step forward. However, it remains a work in progress, as you mentioned. I think the next parliamentary parliament will have to consider this as well.

We have made a lot of comments and submitted amendments. I will not repeat them all here, but I would like to share a few principle concerns.

The N-VA also advocates smart and efficient management agreements. This means that every law firm enters and pays based on a real consumption. In addition, what is collected should also preferably be reimbursed to the rightholders with as little overhead costs as possible. That is what it is about. The keywords here are transparency and accountability, especially when assessing the correct course of financial flows.

It is also evident that a company by definition cannot collect for non-affiliated members. The mandatory collectivisation of the right to a fair remuneration also gives the recognised management companies too much unilateral power, which will have detrimental consequences for future investments in domestic production and performance.

We find the ceiling on the operating costs of the management companies in the bill, namely fifteen percent, too weak. Currently, only one management company is above that percentage. We should have shown a little more ambition.

We suggest that the issuance of a license for recognition as a management company by you as a Minister, is linked to compliance with all of the above-mentioned legal requirements.

I would like to emphasize a second principle. We lack in this bill a number of legal provisions that respond to new technological developments. We have the impression that here we actually redistribute the cake, which holds to the acquired from the past, but does not provide sufficient tools to make the cake larger in the future. There is a missed opportunity for which we will have to do much more work in the future.

A third note concerns libraries and heritage institutions. Currently, libraries cannot simply borrow e-books, even if they pay a fee for them. First, they must ask the author or publisher for permission. If they don’t get it, the book doesn’t come to the library.

Let me give an example of the heritage institutions. Museums and archives should not digitise and display their collections of the twentieth century on a website without initiating and completing the endless search for the author or rightholder, which is usually undiscoverable. This means that researchers often have to travel around the country to view digital publications. I think that in this regard, we have not fully adapted copyright to the reality of a digital society.

In fact, copyright is still somewhat out of balance in this regard. This has consequences for anyone who borrows a book in the library, who visits a museum or does culture in any other way. However, it is also an obstacle to innovation, research and education. That is a pity, because innovation, research and education are very important in our society. If we do not continue to do so, we will continue to create a social divide. The digitalization of collections and intellectual designs lowers the threshold for citizens to access them, and that is what our participatory society needs. In that regard, the institutions should be able to obtain a fair use policy according to the Anglo-Saxon model, in other words, fair use so that they can also carry out their socially relevant tasks in the long term. Thus, cultural, scientific and educational institutions can keep our rich culture available and accessible to everyone.

My fourth observation concerns the regulator. It is useful and we support it, but only on the condition that it is organized independently because it contributes to the restoration of the image of the sector. Regulatory funding should not involve any additional costs for the final consumer or the government. There are also questions about the role of the guard dog. Is the active intervention in the price determination a task of that guard dog or just not?

In the context of the administrative simplification, the question may also be asked whether it is not more cost-effective to merge the Regulation service and the control service. We have debated this in the committee extensively. We differ in opinion on this.

I would like to link this to the competition document. In order to safeguard its independence and impartiality, the composition of that service is crucial. At the Competition Service, the officials are appointed by the King, as is the case with the regulator, which in fact becomes an integral part of the FOD Economy. It is also composed by officials and can therefore hardly be called an autonomous guard dog. The parallel is drawn directly. In the draft I find insufficient guarantees in terms of professional competence and professional secrecy for the people sitting in the regulator. According to the N-VA faction, this is a gap.

Finally, the practice of fair remuneration is sensibly expanded. The copyright, which is an acquisition of the Enlightenment, thus comes more and more into political water. The wage of a creator is increasingly the result of a political negotiation. This seems to be a questionable evolution.

For these reasons, our group will abstain from voting on this bill.

First of all, I would like to remind you that cultural policy revolves around three distinct objectives: fostering cultural creation, enabling access to culture and ensuring fair remuneration for artists. In addition to the protection of works, copyright primarily participates in this third objective of fair individual remuneration.

Copyright is not the only source of revenue for authors, and it is well known that the great success of some does not benefit the less-known artists or those who are not yet successful. The code, however, provides for a mechanism that would allow 30% of the rights earned for private copying to be reinvested in the cultural world. These 30% have never been implemented due to the lack of an agreement between the Communities and the federal state. I really hope that, in the next legislature, those 30% will benefit the whole creation, all the artists, because this is also the solidarity between artists. Some experience great success, while others need to be supported. This percentage would help to support the creation in our state.

In the disappointing chapter is the lack of progress and agreements on the presumption of audiovisual cessions. You tried, of course, but the debate is not over, as you talked about the need to present solutions for 2015. I hope that the debate that will be put back on the table will lead to a balanced solution, taking into account the risks taken by producers, and that will allow, tomorrow, authors and performers to benefit from the success of a production, which is not the case today.

We would, however, welcome the enlargement of the list of inalienable rights. It was important! This guarantees that the perceived rights will result well to the original rightholders.

Another reason for satisfaction, Mr. Minister, is the creation of the function of regulator. Even if indeed discussions have revolved around this regulator, it cannot be sanctioning. Nevertheless, it will be able to give an opinion and if the opinion is not followed by the management company, this regulator will be able in this case to go to court. I hope that he will also be able to resolve years-old discussions. He must intervene to try to put oil into the rods, because discussions in this sector are sometimes very long and conflicts very large. But the regulator will not be able to close the matter either.

More transparency will be imposed on management companies, which is positive. Their costs will be limited, the service being essentially the collection, distribution and, above all, the payment of these fees, which is also an advance.

Finally, Mr. Minister, as I said in the committee, we are entitled to hope that this law will resolve disputes with cable operators. I quoted Telenet: for years, this company hasn’t paid for copyright, but all its customers have to pay for it. However, the rights are not redistributed to authors or artists; for me, this is unacceptable! We don’t even know if the company is committed.

I hope that this new law, through the establishment of this regulator, will finally allow to settle this conflict so that authors and artists touch what they are entitled to and that customers are not fooled.

This project represents a real progress in favour of artists and performers.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask that the projects no. 3429 and 3430 be discussed immediately after this point?

We will continue to discuss these projects.