Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

EU Commission vs EU Parliament

Options
  • 15-02-2008 4:00pm
    #1
    ressem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,426 ✭✭✭


    There's an article in the papers today about McCreevy looking for performers' copyright control to be extended from 50 years to 95 years.

    However just last month the EU parliment in the form of the committee on culture and education voted no to the amendment 82 which
    Calls on the Commission to propose a directive designed to protect artists who risk seeing their work fall within the public domain in their lifetime, and to consider the competitive disadvantage posed by less generous protection terms in Europe than in
    the United States;

    The US has a "Sonny Bono" act which gives corporations ownership of works for 95 years.

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/am/696/696239/696239en.pdf

    (Amendment 80 is the one about getting our ISP to spy on us, by the way.)

    But the commission, in the persona of McCreevy, seems to be going on a solo run, claiming that he can't think of a good reason why performers should only get 50 years benefit, despite all sorts of reports existing on the topic.
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mccreevy-proposals-to-extend-copyright-1290122.html?r=RSS

    So does the commission assign more importance to lobbying by U2, McCartney et al than to the parliament recommendations?

    My opinion is that they do give undue weight to lobbyists, formed by looking at their decisions during this and the EU wide software patents debate before.


Advertisement