Dutch Socialist Party proposes to reform private copying levy
With the national elections in The Netherlands coming up on 12 September 2012, the Dutch Socialist Party (SP) released a report about IT bottlenecks and possible policy solutions for these issues. One of the main topics addressed in the report is the modernization of copyright.
According to the SP, more effort is needed to make sure creative people are rewarded for their work. Due to the development of the internet, creative content became widely available and consumers now often download movies and music without paying for it, causing creators to lose income. The private copying levy, a levy on empty media carriers like CD-ROMs or DVDs, was designed to compensate for that loss. However, consumers buy less CD-ROMs and DVDs nowadays, as they can store their downloaded content on hard disks, mp3 players or mobile phones. Therefore, the SP wants to expand the range of the private copying levy to these kinds of devices.
The SP is not the first to discuss a reform of the private copying levy. Last month, Stichting Thuiskopie, an organization that collects and redistributes funds generated by the private copying levy, also suggested that the range of the levy should be expanded and wants to increase the fees. Furthermore, Fred Teeven, the Dutch Secretary of Security and Justice, wrote in a letter to the government that a reform of the private copying levy is necessary to comply with the law.
It is debatable whether expanding the private copying levy is an effective solution to the problem. Obviously, not every consumer that buys a hard disk, smartphone or mp3 player might use it to store illegally downloaded content on it. Nevertheless, we are happy to see that the discussion on the future of copyright is taken more and more seriously and is now even part of an election program. As the SP states in its report: "On the long term, the future for makers of music and movies lies within their ability to make smart use of the possibilities that internet and IT offer. For a lot of creative people, the internet is already a wonderful platform that brings in money."
Read more about the private copying levy on FutureOfCopyright.com:
Source: SP ICT Report (in Dutch)
By: Marjolein van der Heide
Comments(6)
Leonard
Something is wrong here. Private Copy Levies within EU don't compensate for illegal downloading. The levies compensate for legal copying only. It may be that SP wants to expand the levies to include illegal copying as well, but the article gives the impression illegal copying is already included. That is not the case today.
phulshof
When it comes to audio/video, there is no such thing as "illegal downloading" in the Netherlands. Under the home copying law, downloading of such material is legal (while uploading is not). The levies as such are also supposed to compensate for such private copies.
Future of Copyright
Actually, downloading from an illegal source is not 'legal' or 'illegal' in the Netherlands. Downloading from an illegal source is considered to fall under the homecopying exception. As such it is not copyright infringement, but legal or illegal are not really correct terms to use. The homecopying exception is not applicable to software. Furthermore, the homecopying exception is under discussion in the Netherlands and it is likely that pre-judicial questions will be asked to the European Court of Justice to see whether the Dutch system is in line with the berne 3-step test as codified in Directive 2001/29/EC.
phulshof
Why are legal and illegal not the right terms to use, considering we speak of infringement or not under copyright law? If it's not permitted by law, doesn't that qualify as illegal, with the opposite being legal?
FoC
we feel legal and illegal are not really right to use in the Dutch context as it is still unclear what legal and illegal is. While the Minister has expressed that someone who makes a homecopy from an illegal source acts within the boundaries of the homecopying exception, this notion is still challenged. We can only definitifely say if it is legal or legal once there is more clarity on the Dutch homecopying exception and its relation to the Berne 3 step test. Hopefully, the Dutch Hoge Raad will ask this question to the ECJ.
phulshof
I think considering the difference between articles 16b/c and 45k, it is clear that the home copy of audio/video was not intended to require a legal source. The minister (law giver?) confirmed this. I'm sure that this view is challenged by the NVPI/BREINs of this world, but in the end it's the law giver who determines the legality. Checking whether a source is legal or not is practically impossible anyway, so I can understand why this method was chosen when articles 16b/c were written.
See also:
http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2007/08/12/om-downloaden-niet-langer-gedogen-was-dat-illegaal-dan/
I'm not sure whether implementing the exceptions in the EU directive require additional 3 step tests. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out. I think we can at least establish that it's legal under current Dutch law; whether that law violates EU law, and needs to be updated remains to be seen.
Your comment