European Parliament elections: do not forget who voted for your freedoms and who voted for censorship.
Final Vote in the European Parliament plenary on the text agreed between the 3 institutions in trialogue.
Trialogue negotiations between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission to reach an agreement on the entire Copyright Directive. This process has no formal timeline. However, the Parliament side will be keen to reach a deal quickly (as it would be uncomfortable if such a bad proposal was voted too close to the May 2019 elections).
European Parliament plenary vote on the Copyright Directive at noon CET (provisional)
Deadline for MEPs to table amendments to the European Commission text for the 12 September plenary vote
JURI Mandate to negotiate with Council on Copyright Directive rejected at plenary vote
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) expresses concerns over Copyright Directive: the introduction of further monitoring obligations may “exacerbate” the already “endemic monitoring” of internet users.
An EU Copyright AMA is organised by SPARC Europe on Reddit, with the contributions of Professors Lionel Bentley (Cambridge), Martin Husovec (Tilburg), Martin Kretschmer (Glasgow) and Christina Angelopoulos (Cambridge).
84 music organisations express further support for Article 13 of the Copyright Directive as a remedy to the ‘value gap’.
The new Italian Government no longer supports the Copyright Directive in a statement by Luigi Di Maio, the Italian Minister of Labor and Economic Development.
UK Music (a British campaigning and lobbying group for the music industry) urges British MEPs to support the copyright reform at the plenary vote of 5 July.
A new study by João Pedro Quintais, entitled “Untangling the Hyperlinking Web: In Search of the Online Right of Communication to the Public”, examines the proposals of articles 11 and 13 in light of the online right of communication to the public. Focussing particularly on hyperlinking practices, the study finds that the proposed reform would jeopardise freedom of expression and information, as well as undermining the safe harbour provisions of the eCommerce Directive.
The European Parliament JURI Committee adopts articles 11 and 13 of the Copyright Directive and a mandate for the Committee to start negotiations with the Council. MEPs announce that they will collect the signatures to contest this mandate in the EP plenary.
The European Parliament IMCO Committee hosts a public hearing on the regulation of illegal content removal, at which Google and Facebook state they are in favour of filters.
A new study, entitled “Content Censorship and Council Carelessness – Why the Parliament Must Safeguard the Open, Participative Web 2.0” by Martin Senftleben is published. It notes that the proposed changes from secondary liability to a strict, primary liability are an “unprecedented step” in regards to CJEU jurisprudence, which will likely unduly burden online service providers.
Over 70 Internet pioneers and experts submit a joint letter to the European Parliament in opposition to article 13, which creates a direct threat to the Internet. The group includes the inventor of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, co-founder of the Mozilla Project Mitchell Baker, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, cryptography expert Bruce Schneier, and net neutrality expert Tim Wu.
Copyright Directive discussed at Competitiveness Council meeting
EU Council Permanent Representatives agrees at the COREPER meeting to finally a grant a mandate the Council Presidency to negotiate with the EP on the Copyright Directive, based on the Council agreed position. The position was reportedly approved without the support of Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Belgium, or Hungary.
A group of representatives from the cultural and creative European industries submit a letter to EU Council supporting a “meaningful solution to the ‘transfer of value’ or ‘value gap’”, and discouraging the latest revisions to Article 2 (determining which services are subject to the Directive’s liability) and Article 13 (particularly in relation to the criteria of “knowledge” and the preservation of safe harbours).
A report by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations has concluded that requiring internet platforms to proactively monitor or filter content presents a risk to freedom of expression. The Report warns that content filtering mechanisms amount to “pre-publication censorship”.
An article by Quirin Schiermeier details how scientists from open-access institutions (such as SPARC) are concerned about the latest revisions of the proposed Copyright Directive.
GitHub call for article 13 amendments as it creates a high level of uncertainty for the software industry and the free and open source software community.
The Tribune of European filmmakers signs a letter of support in regards to Copyright Directive
A new study by Dr. Jan Bernd Nordemann, requested by the European Parliament, is published entitled “Liability of Online Service Providers for Copyrighted Content – Regulatory Action Needed?” The study concludes that the current provisions of the E-Commerce Directive are flexible enough so as not to require reform.
Latest consolidated Estonian Presidency Compromise Proposal published
Over 80 European and global organisations send an open letter to the Competitiveness Council in regards to the Copyright Directive. The letter includes an annex of all known letters, opinions, studies and statements sent in respect of the proposed Directive, outlining multiple and serious concerns.
Open letter from 17 Polish NGOs addressed to the Polish authorities (including the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Digital Affairs) on the filtering obligation in the copyright reform proposal, urging the Polish government to oppose the idea of censoring the Internet.
Vote of the European Parliament LIBE (Civil Liberties) Committee Opinion on the Copyright Directive, which removes automated content filters from Article 13.
A study by Professors Martin Senftleben, Christina Angelopoulos, Giancarlo Frosio, Valentina Moscon, Miquel Peguera and Ole Andreas Rognstad submits recommendations on article 13 of the Copyright Directive. The study concludes that Article 13 is a flawed legal instrument.
Over 50 NGO’s representing human rights and media freedom submit an open letter to EU Parliament requesting the deletion of article 13.
A variety of rightholders (including Premier League, EuroConema, and GESAC) object to the draft opinion issued by the IMCO Committee.
A new study by Prof. Giovanni Sartor, requested by the European Parliament, is published entitled “Providers Liability: From the eCommerce Directive to the future. The study concludes that, whilst an EU regulation is needed to harmonise approaches to secondary liability, that intermediaries should be “maximally protected from liability when their intervention may affect their users’ freedom of expression”.
Open letter by trade associations and stakeholder organisations representing consumers, digital rights groups and technology businesses requesting clarity on article 13.
Vote of the European Parliament CULT (Culture and Education) Committee Opinion on the Copyright Directive, which worsens Article 13.
Vote of the European Parliament ITRE (Industry) Committee Opinion on the Copyright Directive, which does not cover Article 13.
Letter to Members of the European Parliament by Polish digital rights organisations to express their concern with the concepts of the general monitoring obligation for user-generated content required by Article 13.
Axel Voss replaces Therese Comodini Cachia as Rapporteur for the Copyright Directive
Open letter from over 60 civil society and trade associations – representing publishers, journalists, libraries, scientific and research institutions, consumers, digital rights groups, start-ups, technology businesses, educational institutions and creator representatives – asking European lawmakers to oppose the most damaging aspects of the proposal, including Article 13.
Open letter from over 20 startups and online services to Members of the European Parliament to raise their raise their serious concerns regarding proposed Article 13.
Open letter from human and consumer rights calling to stop the censorship machine. The letter warns that impact of the proposed measures to weaken the current intermediary liability protections in European law will inevitably be felt in every policy area
Draft Report by initial JURI Rapporteur MEP Comodini Cachia.
Open letter by academics considering the EU Copyright Reform proposals as unfit for the digital age. The letter remarks that with respect to both Articles 11 and 13, independent empirical evidence has been ignored, consultations have been summarised in a misleading manner, and legitimate criticism has been labelled as anti-copyright.
Vote of the European Parliament IMCO (Internal Market and Consumer Protection) Committee Opinion on the Copyright Directive, which removes automated content filters from Article 13. IMCO has a shared responsibility with the lead JURI Committee on Article 13 and its Recitals.
Study from Dr Christina Angelopoulos, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) at the University of Cambridge, on online platforms and the Commission’s new proposal. This study concludes that the proposal’s current wording is incompatible with existing EU directives, as well as with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
EPP hearing on the Copyright Directive organised by MEP Comodini Cachia.
Public hearing by the JURI (Legal Affairs) Committee on the Copyright Reform.
Maltese EPP MEP Comodini Cachia is appointed as Rapporteur in the lead JURI (Legal Affairs) Committee of the European Parliament.
Open letter from 40 academics expressing their concerns about Article 13 as it imposes a general monitoring obligation upon a great number of providers of intermediary services.
The European Commission presents a legislative package for the modernisation of the EU copyright rules including a new directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market. The document is published with its Impact Assessment and the Executive Summary of the latter.