The comments came from European Digital Rights (EDRi), a body
that comprises 17 privacy and civil rights organisations from 11
countries in Europe. Its paper - a response to a European
Commission consultation - has been endorsed by 19 other
parties.
The consultation asked whether the existing set of EU Directives
on copyright and related rights need to be simplified or re-worked.
The Commission's own recommendation was for fine-tuning rather than
an overhaul. To EDRi, the Commission's approach is "an exercise in
hedge-trimming," when what Europe really needs is "a change to the
landscape."
The Database Directive was passed with an aim of protecting the
investment in making a database, since copyright law evolved with
more creative works in mind, albeit copyright law does offer
complementary protection to some databases.
EDRi accuses the law of creating "a serious imbalance between
the rights of users and producers, with the latter appearing to
have been given perpetual protection." The directive affords a
15-year term of protection; but this term is renewable for
additional 15-year terms if modifications or updates are made to
the database. This is how a regime of perpetual protection can
result.
EDRi also points to the fact that other member states of the
World Intellectual Property Organisation – in particular the US –
"remain unconvinced" of the need for an international treaty on
databases. "It is time for the Commission to acknowledge that the
Database Directive was a mistake, and repeal it," states EDRi.
The 12-page paper also attacks the current time limits on
copyright. The music industry has called for an increase in the
life of certain copyrights from 50 years to 95 years. The
Commission has already expressed reluctance to do this. But EDRi
wants to go further in the opposite direction.
EDRi argues that the function of copyright is to maximise the
quantity of works available for the public to enjoy by limiting the
right holder's monopoly. Yet the "great majority of all
copyrights," says EDRi, "remain locked up in publishers' safes." So
EDRi is calling for a "use it or lose it" clause.
Its proposed clause applies to works that have once been made
commercially available but then cease to be made commercially
available. After a three year period of no longer being
commercially available, the work's creator - such as an author -
has a right to recover the copyright from its current owner - such
as a publisher. But if such a work is not commercially available
for five years, then all copyrights should expire, making it open
to anyone to publish the work.
The paper also argues for a new Digital Rights Directive to
place new responsibilities on rights holders; and a Digital
Preservation Directive, which would require publishers to deposit
unprotected copies of digital works in a national library
system.
The consultation closed on 31st October.
