BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST Heft 12, 98

Statement

To Mr Roberto Barzanti
Member of the European Parliament
Via di Città, 85
I-53100 Siena
Fax: +39-0577 28 12 04 / cc Fax: +33-388 17 9945

Dear Mr Barzanti,

Thank you very much for speaking as the European Parliament's rapporteur on the draft Copyright Directive at our joint AIB/EBLIDA/ECUP conference on copyright and licensing for libraries which was held a week ago in Rome.

In response to your offer to send you the conference participants' views on the draft EU Copyright Directive, we would like to make the following statement.

The European library community strongly supports intellectual property protection. We agree that the legitimate interests of the rightholders need to be protected. However, the basic principle for a democratic society, that every citizen should have access to information in whatever form it may be produced, cannot be stressed enough. A democracy can only function with active and well-informed citizen. The principle mission of the library is to collect, organise and maintain materials for future generations and to provide access to information to everybody regardless of his or her financial means. Moreover the creative industries will thrive only if creators have reasonable access to published information, for example through libraries.

We therefore request that particular attention is given to the need for adequate exceptions and limitations to keep the balance in copyright. Copyright protects not only the rights owners of a work, but also public access to that work once it is published. This is confirmed in the Preamble of the WIPO Copyright Treaty: "...recognising the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information, as reflected in the Berne Convention..." At present, the balance in the draft EU Directive is heavily weighted towards the commercial interest of the information industry.

1. We therefore welcome very much your proposal to add to the recitals of the draft Directive, that rights should be harmonised with "due respect for the application of the exceptions allowed under national law in accordance with international agreements."

2. We also welcome your proposal to add in recognition of the specific role of libraries that "specific contracts or licenses should be promoted which, without creating imbalances, favour such establishments and the disseminative purpose they serve."

3. We support your addition in Article 5.2.c that expressly mentions exceptions for specific reproductions made by establishments "such as, in particular, libraries and archives".

4. We also support your amendment to Article 5.3.b which seeks to cover exceptions for the use for all "people with disabilities" to the extent that it is necessary.

1. The Directive should contain a minimum mandatory list of exceptions to ensure a minimum level of harmonisation of fair practice exceptions. It also has to take account of the different legal traditions in the Member States by offering them the option of keeping, in addition, other exceptions to copyright which are traditionally given under national law and comply with the Berne Convention. The WIPO Copyright Treaty gives Member States the permission to do so.

2. The Directive should contain a revised article 5.3 that permits Member States to provide for exceptions to use and copy materials for educational, learning, research and private purposes which is justified by the fair practice. These exceptions have of course to be in line with the Berne Convention, and do not legitimate each and every copying. Cloning (i.e. multiple back to back copying) would not be a fair practice and should be unlawful. But all other types of copying can be clearly defined and restricted by the three-step-test.

3. The Directive should contain a revised text for technological measures. This should be based more closely on Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. The circumvention of technical measures must be allowed for activities that are permitted by law, such as making use of given exceptions. Otherwise it will render all exceptions useless.

4. The Directive should contain, apart from mandatory exceptions, a new article similar to Article 15 of the Database Directive that ensures that any contractual provisions contrary to these exceptions shall be null and void. Mandatory exceptions could then not be ignored in contract or license agreements.

Yours sincerely,
For the conference participants:

Barbara Schleihagen Director EBLIDA

Rossella Caffo Associazione Italiana Biblioteche/AIB