I wonder do IFSO want to respond to the Commission copyright consultation (deadline 31.10.2004)? http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyright/review/consultation_en.h tm
The UK AFFS are drafting a response at http://www.affs.org.uk/~alex/CopyrightAndRelatedRightsResponse
I am involved in the FIPR response to which organisations can sign up to or use as a base for their own responses.
There are a couple of specific proposals related to the software directive (1991) to which IFSO may wish to comment.
(1) Decompilation. Proposal: Argument that the scope of Art 6 on decompilation is too limited and doesnt meet current market demands. The Commission upholds the view that the provisions on decompilation are still valid, but these should be monitored along with technical developments. Justification: lack of case law and other evidence. Do IFSO agree?
(2) Protection of technical measures. Proposal: Not to introduce the legal protection of TPMs as in Art 6(1) of the EUCD, even though Art 7 of the Software Directive doesnt explicitly provide for protection against circumvention, and even if this were to be counterbalanced by a mechanism to ensure availibility of some exceptions, such as in Art 6(4) of the EUCD. Justification: this might in practice inhibit or prevent the application of the exceptions in the Software Directive. The Commission believes that the current Art 7 fulfills the terms of Art 11 of the WCT by providing for adequate protection. Question: Do IFSO wish to endorse this recommendation and use it in arguments against Art 6 of the EUCD.
Note: The Commission takes the EUCD as its benchmark, which is the most recent and also the most horizontal measure in the field of copyright, reviews four earlier Directives: software Directive (1991); Rental Right Directive (1992); Term Directive (1993); Database Directive (1996) and compares these with the EUCD.
Teresa
PS I plan to be at the meeting tomorrow.