Skip to top of page

Høringssvar på EU's mediadirektiv

1) Do you agree that fostering the adoption of interoperable DRM systems should support the development of online creative content services in the Internal Market? What are the main obstacles to fully interoperable DRM systems? Which commendable practices do you identify as regards DRM interoperability?

- We do not agree. There is no such thing as interoperable DRM. Though specific DRM software can be made to interoperate, the function of DRM is the opposite of interoperability. **The purpose of DRM is to hinder interoperability**.

- There is no way that material regulatered by DRM can be used on a truly free software platform (where the user is free to modify and run all software, e.g. software released under the GPL).

- DRM will hamper creativity due to the negative effect of the DRM restrictions.

- Any interoperable standard for online content recommended by EU or Member State authorities should be open and wholly unencumbered by patents, or the proprietor of such patents should be willing to grant an unlimited, unconditional and cost-free license for anyone who wants to implement said standard.

- Trying to implement and enforce a so called interoperable DRM system will create a multi-firm DRM regime, that will create as cartel for content. It will exclude small companies and free software developers from distributing software and hardware players for content in such a DRM regime thus hindering competition. We fear that eventually such a regime will be used to exclude content that is not "protected" by this interoperable DRM. Then it will effectively lock out a huge amount of free culture and independent art. We fear that one day there will not be any book-readers that will let us read Søren Kierkegaard,

2) Do you agree that consumer information with regard to interoperability and personal data protection features of DRM systems should be improved? What could be, in your opinion, the most appropriate means and procedures to improve consumers' information in respect of DRM systems? Which commendable practices would you identify as regards labelling of digital products and services?

- All products using DRM must be declared as such so that the consumer can avoid them if he/she likes. We propose to use Creative Common labeling.
- If a particular DRM solution restricts the user to a particular device and/or a particular software or content vendor, this should be very clearly stated (e.g., "Will only work with Microsoft Windows" or "Will only work with device XXX").

3) Do you agree that reducing the complexity and enhancing the legibility of end-user licence agreements (EULAs) would support the development of online creative content services in the Internal Market? Which recommendable practices do you identify as regards EULAs? Do you identify any particular issue related to EULAs that needs to be addressed?

- It should be clarified that an EULA is not binding for the consumer as it does not constitute an agreement made between two parties. The consumers' rights must not be overruled an EULA.

4) Do you agree that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in relation to the application and administration of DRM systems would enhance consumers' confidence in new products and services? Which commendable practices do you identify in that respect?

- No, it could easily weaken consumers confidence in DRM.

- We believe that the industry's use of DRM should be discouraged. New and improved business models, not DRM and restrictions, are the solutions to illegal copying.

5) Do you agree that ensuring a non-discriminatory access (for instance for SMEs) to DRM solutions is needed to preserve and foster competition on the market for digital content distribution?

- No. National and community courts are sufficient to regulate copyright.

- DRM is a poor solution because it may restrict the consumers legal use of content.

- DRM shold not be supported by EU or by any Member States.

- We belive that any such "non-discriminatory access" will in fact be discriminatory against e.g., free software and free culture.
The trend today is that the traditional content providerds are producing less and less material while more and more is producted by everyone else, the general public. We fail to see how for example teenagers making songs for fun, can benefit from this kind of distribution. But we do see how it kan be used to keep them out.

6) Do you agree that the issue of multi-territory rights licensing must be addressed by means of a Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council?

- Yes. The provision against international consumption in the Infosoc directive must be removed. E.g. country codes on DVDs are a technical restriction on free competition that should be removed through harmonisation.

- Multiterritorial licences may be good as well as bad depending on whether they strengthen consumers' rights or not.

- It is very disappointing that COM/2007/0836 does not mention Creative Commons licenses, whereas the information providers' interests are at core of the paper. Creative Commons is the most important new contribution to how creation is promoted online.

7) What is in your view the most efficient way of fostering multi-territory rights licensing in the area of audiovisual works? Do you agree that a model of online licences based on the distinction between a primary and a secondary multi-territory market can facilitate EU-wide or multi-territory licensing for the creative content you deal with?

- We do not see any reason for making such distinctions.
- It is more important that consumers' rights and small scale creativity is supported by a graded scale of permissiveness in licensing, e.g. through the use of Creative Commons licenses.

8) Do you agree that business models based on the idea of selling less of more, as illustrated by the so-called "Long tail" theory, benefit from multi-territory rights licences for back-catalogue works (for instance works more than two years old)?

- Yes, under the conditions mentioned under 6) and 7).

9) How can increased, effective stakeholder cooperation improve respect of copyright in the online environment?

- Stakeholder cooperation is not necessary. The right holders will be able to confine illegal copying, sufficiently.

10) Do you consider the Memorandum of Understanding, recently adopted in France, as an example to followed?

- No, it is absolutely cogent that the internet service providers have no influence on the content exchanged via the networks. Excluding persons from the internet is a reduction of their right of expression and information, which is extremely doubtful and also disproportionally severe.

11) Do you consider that applying filtering measures would be an effective way to prevent online copyright infringements?

- No, they can easily bypassed. They will be (and are already) used to intentionally or unintentionally block legal copying. Filtering causes privacy problems and can facilitate censorship.

- Filtering is an effective way of destroying the freedom of the internet. It should be avoided by all means.

- The pure existence of institutionalised censorship removes the basis for our perception of society as a free society for free individuals. Openness will find better solutions than filtering to save children from sexual exploitation, as well as better solutions for fair remunerations schemes for appreciated artists and authors.

- Empirically, illegal copying has not prevented legal online-reselling. There are sufficient legal means to confine illegal copying so that it is absolutely unecessary and much too harmful to develop new restrictions on the exchange of information on the internet.