Proposition 54K2451

Projet de loi transposant en droit belge la directive 2014/26/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 26 février 2014 concernant la gestion collective du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins et l'octroi de licences multiterritoriales de droits sur des oeuvres musicales en vue de leur utilisation en ligne dans le marché intérieur.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

May 2, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive copyright intellectual property literary and artistic property

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Stéphanie Thoron (MR) 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 ¶

June 1, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mrs Lalieux and Mrs Dierick. They refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the bill that is submitted to us today concerns the collective management of copyright and also related rights, also the granting of multiterritorial licenses of rights on musical works.

More specifically, it is the transposition of European Directive 2014/26. On the one hand, a legal framework must be established to ensure the proper functioning of collective management of copyright, while imposing greater transparency on entities carrying out management activities in Belgium and strengthening both their information obligations and the supervision of their activities. On the other hand, it aims to facilitate, in an increasingly cross-border context, the granting of multiterritorial copyright licenses for the use of music on the Internet.

It is clear that, in terms of content, the transposition of the Directive ...

Where is Minister Peeters?

I just heard that Minister Peeters could not be present. The government is represented in the banks of the Parliament and even double. There are two members of the government present.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance had the decency to postpone his bill registered today in plenary session, because he knew he would not be there. Mr. Peeters was there to answer an up-to-date question. Not to say that he is abroad or elsewhere. He was there half an hour ago.

This is about copyright. This is a fundamental project, which has undergone a lot of discussion and there are still questions because the report is not accurate enough. I would like to hear Mr. Peeters again on specific questions that I will ask him here in the plenary session. Therefore, I ask either to postpone this point, or that the Minister come immediately to the plenary session. This way of working is not good. His presence is a minimum. He said he did not accept the hearings. At some point, however, the Parliament must still be able to exercise its rights a little longer.

I agree with the words of my colleague. I would really like to insist. In the committee, we had extremely difficult and complex discussions. It is well known that there is a large field mobilization around this text. Mr. Minister Peeters knew that this was not an anodin text. This is not a transposition, as we may sometimes have, and it does not require any debate. There was a debate in the committee.

We have all been questioned directly by copyright companies. I think this is an important debate. We must hold it with Minister Peeters who must provide answers to all our questions. In fact, either we discuss this with the Minister, or we postpone it. Indeed, here it is a matter of seriousness and respect towards the whole sector.

I told you what I knew. I don’t know more, but I understand your questions and requests.

Therefore, I will now suspend the meeting so that I can inform myself of the Minister’s presence.

The session is suspended for ten minutes so that I can inform myself. Return to around 16:30.

Please apologize for this interruption and I give the floor for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat my words. It is clear that, in terms of content, the transposition of the Directive does not constitute a major revolution for Belgian collective management companies. In fact, the provisions contained in the Directive had already been amended by the Act of 30 June 1994 on copyright and related rights by the adoption of the Act of 10 December 2009.

Nevertheless, the year has primarily helped to dust and restructure Book XI, in order to ensure better readability, but above all a greater legal certainty for all actors in the sector.

It is true that there are still questions regarding collective management rights and more specifically regarding the problem of direct injection. Other colleagues also spoke about this legal uncertainty related to the evolution of technologies.

I agree, the problem is complex, especially from a legal and economic point of view. The minister reassured us. His services, he told us, are currently studying all possible alternatives. And we are promised that a solution will be found by the end of the year. I will be ⁇ attentive to this.

However, there has been a delay in the transposition of this Directive. Also, dear colleagues, I can only invite you to follow us in this bill, on which my group and I will vote in favour while waiting for a favorable outcome on the issue of direct injection. I thank you.

Mr. Minister, following your absence, we had to remind you of all your interest in copyright. Transpositions are not in their advantage. The authors will judge your absence by themselves.

As I said in the committee, we have no principle opposition to the bill since it is the transposition of a directive that allows some interesting advances. You know that the previous government had already outpaced the directive in terms of transparency of management companies.

But our problem, Mr. Minister, and we have long exposed it to you, is what is not found in the transposition of the directive, what is not found in your bill! Your bill is in the right line of what you have done regarding reprographics. You remember the debate we participated in together in the committee! There were indeed legal conflicts for which you wanted clarity. What did you do in your bill regarding reprography? You gave the right, the state gave the right, to the multinationals instead of giving the right to our authors, our journalists, our publishers. This affects the whole Belgian creation.

What are the consequences of your rush? The ruling was made: Reprobel won against HP. Your law is a waste. The destruction of the dual system that you triggered in your previous law was not legitimate since the courts gave Reprobel the right. You once again hastened a law and a directive, without debate, since only the opposition took the word.

Today, the authors will have ten million fewer because you have given the multinational right and, by doing so, wrong the authors!

But the courts have shown you that your precipitation had not been useful and that it is even superbly damaging. Mr. Minister, I hope that you will then return to the Reprobel Law. It is important.

As far as the law concerns us, as you know and as Mr. Friart has repeated, there is a legal uncertainty related to the notion of direct injunction and cable retransmission. That was the whole discussion we had in the committee. Also, Mr. Minister, you did not tell us why you wanted to move forward now. You have requested an opinion from the Intellectual Property Council. The opinion will be given in the coming days. At the same time, you requested a study. But what you could have done is to remove any definition and not validate the current definition.

I know you are late. It is not the fault of Parliament. It is not the author’s fault. This is not the fault of the management companies. It is not the fault of the people you punish through this law. I sincerely think you should have postponed your law to September when you have the opinion of the Intellectual Property Council. This delay does not justify the government’s rush.

We heard it, you will implement a solution by the end of the year. What is the solution, Mr. Minister? Will you once again give reason to the strongest, to a multinational, to Telenet? It must be cited because today, only Telenet does not pay copyright when it comes to direct injection.

While a parliamentary working group was formed by Telenet, we wonder why Telenet is once again benefited! There is the question of the conflict of interests of some and there is obviously the question of the intense lobby of Telenet. I find it unacceptable that a government gives righteousness to a multinational at the expense of our authors and creators.

If you tell us, as you did in the committee, that you will wait for the outcome of all the appeals before the courts, know that Telenet has just reintroduced a appeal to the Brussels Court of Appeal. Knowing the judicial backdrop of this Court of Appeal, we will have a sentence only in two, three or four years! Will you really wait for the outcome of all the appeals?

The consumer pays for these copyrights by paying his subscription to Telenet. These are not provisioned by Telenet and therefore the citizen is the dindon of the farce, as well as our creators and authors. This is unacceptable!

Mr. Minister, the lack of choice you knowingly make through this project is in line with the government’s policy towards artists and creators. The latter are constantly accumulating retreats in terms of copyright. For all these reasons, we will abstain from this project.

You are waiting for a study. But the technological advances continue! For me, the only solution is that, regardless of the technology through which the content passes, authors are entitled to a fair remuneration. I ask you, therefore, to affirm here, because you did not do it in commission, that you will finally defend the authors and their rights! Will direct injection or any other technology be subject to laws that have been voted by a large majority in this parliament on copyright? We demand that, Mr. Minister.

Today, we only receive negative signals from you and this government. I think the authors will remember it at the right time!

Many things have already been said. The debate was long, interesting, but also lively in the committee. The text of the draft law transposing the European Directive 2014/26/EU that you propose to us contains interesting things. But it has a fundamental problem, which you have recognised in the commission: it is the legal uncertainty around direct injection and around the concept of cable retransmission. Several judicial decisions have been made. You mentioned this during the committee discussions. There have been different interpretations, and at least two different views of these legal concepts exist.

Beyond the legal controversy, the problem is that it has a direct impact on all authors and creators in that country, and on all remuneration and income that is due to them. These definitions and this legal uncertainty can actually reduce their income. We are talking about millions of euros for thousands of artists. This situation is clearly unlikely for them today. This is regrettable, especially since we have the opportunity to do this work seriously, and to go to the bottom of things.

You ask us to vote in a certain hurry, since you reminded the European timing that requires us to vote. Again, we are required to vote in the absence of answers on the central concept of this text and on the authors. That is the problem. If you provide answers and a clear legal view of this definition, we would not even have a debate here. The problem is that you push us to vote by presenting us with a tight timing, although you can’t blame these conditions to parliamentarians. We are forced to take a decision today when the advanced legal studies have not been carried out to the end, and this uncertainty remains.

We have already discussed this in the Economic Committee, where you answered us that you would use a legal analysis, so we would get answers by the end of the year. We either wait until the end of the year to reopen the debate and vote on this text as soon as we have all the information – this seems to me to be a serious and successful method – or you commit yourself before the Parliament by announcing a clear timetable describing the analyses to be provided and the steps to be taken before the end of this year. Above all, it is important that based on the results of the studies you ordered, you promise to modify the text you want us to vote today. You have to engage, Mr. Minister. If the analysis confirms the contradictory nature of the conclusions of the courts, you must tell us: "I commit to modify the text in one way or another", so that the artists of that country know what to stick with. Your income is directly related to your project. For our group, this aspect is quite fundamental. We want clarity in this regard.

These are the problems that your project poses. We will vote in a few minutes for a text whose heart is made up of opaque definitions, which will have an effect on the artists. There are still contradictory interpretations. For us, this is not serious. Most importantly, thousands of artists will face huge difficulties. I think you know it, since you have been requested – just like us – by copyright companies. A real concern is expressed.

I sincerely believe that you need to provide clear answers in terms of commitment. You could therefore request the postponement of the vote on the text while waiting to have all the studies, but I do not feel that this is the direction we are going to take. At least, you must commit to adapting the text according to the analyses that will be transmitted to you. This is the minimum we ask for. In any case, my group will not be able to support your bill, insofar as the clarity is not fully made.

Mr. Minister, we attended a feeding committee but I have a little impression of an unsuccessful work, of a work that did not go to the end of what was thought to be done, of a partial work. Indeed, work is underway to determine the redefinition of cable retransmission in order to address the current legal uncertainty. You have decided to address this issue separately from the project you are presenting to us at the moment.

We regret that you did not take the bull by the horns and sought to solve the problem in order to add to this bill a new definition that would dispel legal uncertainty and especially litigation. I think that is the problem. We talked about the fact that there was money. There are authors who do not touch these sums. This is of course a major concern.

The definition of retransmission should be clarified to provide legal certainty for all actors. The fact that this definition is taken as such should not be regarded as an adequate response to the problem of this definition today.

Mr. Minister, you have pledged before us to reach a solution by the end of this year. You had even specified "a study before the summer, a legal study in the coming weeks and the results of a second study on the economic situation." This is your challenge and the timetable you set yourself.

Mr. Minister, the disputes are numerous and I know that between the time of the commission and today, a second meeting was held, notably the Intellectual Property Commission. Instead of finishing a report, we started a debate again. I think it is time to call the end of recreation and that the SPF Economy really moves to reach a solution. It is necessary to multiply the sessions and engage in a consensus work with all the actors of this Intellectual Property Commission.

Mr. Minister, I invite you to ask the SPF Economy to mobilize all the technical skills necessary for the completion of the economic studies that will evaluate alternative systems.

Finally, you must actively participate, with a project, in the work of the European Council on direct injection and you must not limit yourself to following developments at the European level.

This is your challenge! Here are the signs I give you. I expect you to take the question hand-to-hand to offer us a solution this year.

I would like to thank you for the answers you have given me and for confirming the timetable you have announced in the commission. In fact, many people are waiting for a solution.

First, it was agreed that the government would be represented when this point was discussed. If the presence of the Minister is explicitly requested, the Minister will come.

That has nothing to do, Mrs. Lalieux, that I would not take this draft seriously, nor the discussion. We have postponed the committee meeting to give you the opportunity to examine the entire draft. I totally disagree with your first intervention as if this would not be an important design for us.

Secondly, I also totally disagree with the insinuations as if this would be driven for one or another group. Neither for Telenet, nor for anyone else, here is only somewhat of a mix of interests or anything else. For all clarity, I take away from it and I have no message about it. I regret the way you approach this important design and smash it with an atmosphere of interference and interference by a particular company, because that is not the case and I can guarantee that.

You may have been lobbied by some management companies. That is possible, but then I would like to know what and what arguments they argue that you presented here on the floor. That is what I want to talk about. I know very well that some management companies are concerned. And I know very well that certain management companies have registered and contacted Members of Parliament. We need to talk about this before you make such statements.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we have a directive here that needs urgent implementation. According to some colleagues, we can still take some time and we should not get too much of it if Belgium is condemned. I try to work as quickly as possible in difficult circumstances, around very technical files, to avoid being drawn back on the fingers by Europe.

I also do not accept the very tendential explanation — of which the record — that you have held about reprography, Mrs. Lalieux. I can assure you that copyrights are very dear to me and that I will do everything I can to protect them absolutely. A very important point is the direct injection. This is indeed a very complex problem, both legally and economically, and it will still take a lot of energy to create clarity on it. I have commissioned my services to prepare a legal study. The Intellectual Property Council did not reach a unanimous opinion on 18 May. This will be reviewed again in June. So there is still a lot of discussion needed and hopefully there will be a comparison.

I have ordered a legal study, which I hope will be able to receive in the coming weeks. An economic study was also announced.

I can assure you, following the question of Mr. de Lamotte and others, that by the end of the year, after important discussions on very complex issues at European level, I will come here with a solution related to direct injection.

I will talk to all stakeholders, including Telenet, to resolve the problem as soon as possible in favor of the authors.

Furthermore, I deeply regret the way the opposition speaks about a very important work, in which a lot of energy has been consumed and for which we have followed the necessary advice.

I call for the approval of the draft and I commit myself to propose, by the end of the year, a solution related to direct injection, which will provide the authors with the necessary guarantees of proper treatment. By the way, the present draft is already fulfilled in a better way. We will continue to do that. Let us now approve the draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, you know, you can scream, but the facts are there. The facts are simply there. I do not invent anything. Even the Ethics Committee has spoken on this issue in this Parliament.

I would also like to remind, very calmly, Mr. Minister, that the only operator that does not pay the copyright – this is a reality – has once again cited management companies. He appointed them yesterday. They are strong, of course, because we will vote on a project that gives them a white-seed. He appointed them yesterday, Mr. Minister. This could continue for 20 years. Each time, the winners will be lawyers.

Who are the biggest losers today? These are the authors and consumers. I remind you that in the Telenet subscription, consumers pay for copyright. That is 20 million. And they will continue in court as long as the politician does not take responsibility. The politician can take responsibility by saying that direct injection is similar to any other technology and that copyright must be paid even on that technology. Mr. Minister, you can scream, you can say that my words are shameful, but the reality is what it is.

Compared to Reprobel and reproduction, Mr. Minister, your bill causes a decrease of 10 million. It is a reality. You will make the accounts at the end of the year. They claimed 24 million. You never said the number. I will come at the end of the year to see if the 24 million will be paid in copyright. Today it is 10 million fewer.

You were wrong in your bill. The court has just given the right to Reprobel against HP. One of the arguments in your bill, Mr. Minister, was that legal conflicts had to be resolved. How did you solve them? Giving the right to the strongest. These are just facts, Mr. President. I expect you to prove to me the opposite of the parliamentary entry. But I fear that in the meantime tens of millions will be lost for authors and creators.

Thank you for your answers, Mr. Minister, but again, you say that some want to postpone the text to the end of the year, that this is not serious and that you do not want to. But what is not serious? It is working just before the deadline, and asking parliamentarians to work quickly on a text that is not finalised and that contains huge legal uncertainties. This is not serious! Don’t tell us, “Because of you, we will have to pay compensation to Europe by returning the text to the Greek calendes at the end of the year.”! and no. We call for a serious analysis of this text so that it does not contain any more legal uncertainties. Today, we are not able to do this. You have recognized it. This is the content of the discussion we had in the committee.

I repeat that we can postpone the discussion and vote on this text by the end of the year, when we have all the elements. I am not asking for a postponement for a postponement; I am asking for serious and detailed work. Don’t say we’re here just to report. This is not the question. I address to you. Do not confuse the speakers; thank you! In your speech, you blame us for wanting to postpone the text by the end of the year. It is only about taking the work seriously. This is what is important for us.

You have committed to finding solutions in favor of the authors. This is the most important thing and I am aware of it. I cannot do more at the moment. This is really fundamental and I would have liked that you also commit to eventually changing the text that this Parliament is about to vote in a few moments. This is what is important: it is necessary to adapt the text according to the analyses that will be made, otherwise the commitments will remain somewhat dead letter. Mr. Minister, I would like you to commit, on behalf of the Government, to change the text according to the result of the legal analyses you requested, by the end of the year. This is what all the authors and artists concerned with these legal uncertainties expect. This is what we expect from the Ecolo-Groen group. Therefore, we can only abstain when voting on this text.

A brief response, Mr. Speaker, taking note of the responses of Mr. Minister, since we do not go further today, I think, and taking note of the decisions, the project and the timetable that have been expressed. I note in my agenda the dates you have communicated to us, Mr. Minister, and I look forward to meeting you with the commitments you have made to the authors, so that these problems can be resolved.