En relación con los artículos clave del texto que ha preparado la Comisión en 2016, sigue sin haber acuerdo al menos en dos cosas importantes en la economía y sociedad digital.
Una, la responsabilidad de los proveedores y plataformas por los contenidos que suben los usuarios (porque se exigiría a sitios como YouTube o Vimeo que monitoricen el proceso y filtren), y dos, los derechos remuneratorios de los editores de periódicos, que trataré otro día.
La Presidencia que ha tomado el relevo a Eslovenia este primer mes de 2018, viendo que los intereses están muy encontrados, pide que se llegue a un acuerdo previo a su envio al Parlamento y concretamente pide que se clarifique qué es “comunicación al público a los efectos de esta directiva” y si están comprendidos en ese tipo de actos los servicios que ofrece YouTube, Vimeo u otras plataformas en las que usuarios (sean estos ciudadanos o empresas) distribuyen contenido o bien gratuitamente o en alquiler o venta”.
Comparto bastantes de las peticiones de la Asociación de Empresas de Electrónica, Tecnologías de la Información, Telecomunicaciones y Contenidos Digitales AMETIC, usuarios y audiencias reunidos en iCmedia, y las startups y emprendedores tecnológicos agrupados en la Asociación Española de Startups, que "han manifestado su profunda preocupación por la posición oficial de España en el proceso de discusión y negociación de la Directiva europea de Copyright al entender que la actual redacción de su artículo 13 supone una amenaza para el ecosistema de Internet, el desarrollo de la economía digital y la creación de riqueza y empleo en España, especialmente al reinterpretar el concepto de “comunicación pública” afirmando que todo proveedor, plataforma o sitio online lo realiza ante contenido subido por sus usuarios.
Ofrezco alguna cita más del articulado para su comprensión.
Sobre el art. 13 sigue habiendo posturas encontradas y ofrecen 3 borradores de texto y cito lo que dice la nota del Consejo
Three draft compromise proposals by the Presidency with different options on Article 13 have been discussed in the Working Party. In the first option3 the Presidency proposed to clarify under which conditions information society services providers storing and giving access to user uploaded content are communicating to the public, using the criteria suggested by some delegations. A number of delegations showed support to the idea of the clarification itself but some of them raised concerns about the criteria used, which they found to be too similar to those used under Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive and expressed their preference for copyright relevant criteria based on the case law of the CJEU.
La postura por la que se inclina la EU es a considerar que los proveedores y “emisores” si deben responder. Lo que dicen es que en su caso NO SE APLICA la exención de responsabilidad que fija el Directiva de eCommerce del 2000, aunque al final veremos que van a delegar al desarrollo de cada Estado al aplicar la Directiva. Destaco algunos de sus razonamientos:
Based on these comments, the Presidency tabled a second compromise proposal4. In this proposal the Presidency used criteria from the CJEU as requested by the delegations. However, even though the direction taken was considered to be the right one, further comments were made by the delegations with regard to some of the criteria used. Additionally, some delegations asked for a clarification on the link between the communication to the public and the E-Commerce Directive by providing that Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive does not apply to the service providers regulated by Article 13. At the same time, concerns were raised on whether this approach would lead to excessive liability of such providers, as they would be considered primarily liable for copyright infringements in cases where their users upload content in which they do not hold any rights and without having been authorised by rightholders to do so. Questions were also raised with regard to the link between the clarification on communication to the public and the measures to be taken, where it was felt that more clarity was needed on which service providers should take the measures.
..
Under this proposal, service providers that communicate to the public and are not eligible for the limited liability regime under Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive would not be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of content uploaded by their users under the condition that they take effective measures with regard to the content identified by rightholders and, if ex ante identification of the content is impossible, remove such uploaded content upon a notification by rightholders and avoid future uploads of this specific content.
Si pueden exonerarse de responsabilidad si los titulares de derechos no les facilitan los datos necesarios para adoptar medidas (datos con que filtrar, capar o limitar difusión de música, cine, etc). Como hasta ahora YouTube bloquea música, cine, tv cuando sus DRMS o sistema de Digital Rights Management System identifica la obra. Lo que indica la Directiva es que no podrán “quejarse” los titulares de derechos (normalmente en Europa a través de las Entidades de Gestión y en USA más vía Sindicatos o Consorcios de empresas) que no faciliten a las plataformas los datos correspondientes.
Furthermore, these service providers would not be liable for the specific unauthorised content uploaded by their users if no relevant data is provided by rightholders to allow the service providers to apply the measures. A significant number of delegations expressed their concerns that this approach would add a new liability exemption, thus not achieving the objective of strengthening the rightholders' position. A few delegations found this approach to be a balanced one and other delegations did not express their views.
Y finalmente, aunque todo puede seguirse aquí en el portal legislativo de la UE, copio la
ÚLTIMA POSICIÓN DEL CONSEJO. ENERO 2018
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market - Orientation debate on Articles 11 and 13
ST 5284 2018 INIT - 2016/0280 (COD)
Value gap provisions
Taking into account the different approaches by the delegations and the difficulties to reach an agreement on some fundamental elements of Article 13 and of the related recitals, the Presidency considers that political guidance should be sought on the most important questions in order to be able to progress with the discussions on Article 13. With this purpose, the Presidency would like to seek political guidance on the following questions :
(1) Should there be a clarification in Article13 that service providers that store and give access to user uploaded content perform, under certain conditions, an act of communication to the public or should Article 13 be limited to self-standing measures, applying to user uploaded content platforms with a significant amount of uploaded content, without any clarification on communication to the public, as in the Commission proposal?
(2) Should there also be an explicit provision in Article 13 clarifying that such services are not eligible for the limited liability regime under Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive meaning that they would be taken out of Article 14 of E-Commerce Directive and be primarily liable for copyright infringements when their users upload content not authorised by rightholders?
(3) If the user-uploaded content platforms should be liable, should they be liable in all cases or should there still be some targeted liability mitigation provided for to avoid potentially excessive impact on platforms storing and giving access to user uploaded content?
(4) If there is a clarification of the communication to the public, should there also be an obligation to apply measures as an additional provision, and if so, should it apply to the same service providers as those concerned by the clarification on communication to the public or should the scope of this obligation be different, potentially wider?
In addition to the above, within the context of questions concerning communication to the public and applicability of the limited liability regime as provided for under the E-commerce Directive, the Presidency would like to invite delegations to consider the following:
- Would a possible solution be a text without any language regarding those issues in Article 13, but a recital that would recall the existing principles of EU law which are relevant to determine the conditions under which user uploaded content platforms engage, based on the existing case-law of the ECJ, into a copyright relevant act and are not covered by the limited liability in Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive?
