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.