WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Copyright directive.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/133 provisional basis, and the Commission has adopted a proposal for a Council Decision formalising the its existence (3). The recent conclusions of the Lisbon European Council of 23/24 March 2000 also follow up this strategy. The Commission does not have the information requested under points 2 and 4. (1) OJ L 245, 26. 8. 1992. (2) COM(1999) 347 final. (3) COM(2000) 134 final. (2000/C 374 E/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/00 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 March 2000) Subject: Copyright directive In its answer to question H-0691/99 (1), the Commission said that it feared that a more limited drafting of Article 5. 1 of the Directive on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in the Information Society could jeopardise the proper functioning of the networks. In the meantime, the Council has adopted a political agreement on the proposed e-commerce Directive, which contains rules exempting intermediaries from liability for content transmitted and hosted on their networks. including copyright content. Can the Commission explain why it still needs a wide exception to copyright for internet intermediaries under Article 5. 1, knowing that the e-commerce Directive, in particular regarding caching? this exception could conflict with some of the provisions of (1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999). Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (2 May 2000) The exception enshrined in article 5(1) of the proposal for a directive on copyright and related rights in the information society (1) for certain technical acts of temporary copying made on the networks is a necessary consequence of the comprehensive definition of the reproduction right, as set out in article 2 of the same proposal. It provides service and access providers with legal certainty for their activities as it exempts, where appropriate, certain acts of copying from the scope of the reproduction right. In the Commissionís view, the exceptions and limitations to the rights under article 5 of the proposal, as amended by the Commission (2), are not overly wide in scope but ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of rightholders and the legitimate interests of other groups involved (telecommunication operators, users, consumers, and others). The need for such an exception has not diminished with the adoption of a common position on the proposal for a directive on electronic commerce (3), as the latter instrument does not harmonise copyright protection on substance but rather, as regards copyright infringements and others, addresses certain aspects of liability for activities in the network environment. The Commission has drafted and negotiated both internal market initiatives in parallel taking due account of each other as the two initiatives are complementary in aiming to ensure a coherent and appropriate internal market framework for the information society. (1) OJ C 108, 7. 4. 1998. (2) OJ C 180, 25. 6. 1999. (3) OJ C 169, 16. 6. 1999