Over recent years,private copying has become a highly contentious and almost religious issue. However, at European level, discussionsseem to be moving forwardconstructively,with EU internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy recently announcing his wish for technology companies and collecting societies to down weapons and start meaningful dialogue.

At the heart of the debate is the question of how creators and performers are compensated by the consumer electronics industry.On the Continent it is recognised and not contested that authors receive fair compensation from those who manufacture devices that allow and enable the copying and dissemination of creative works.

This moral creed is also reflected by the proper interpretation of European law,and 22 out of 27 EU member states have compensation mechanisms in place.

The key issues here are uniformity and transparency. The Commission is still attempting to find its way through the schism between right holders and consumer electronics industries antagonised by the differences in private copying regimes throughout the European Union. This is an unenviable taskand it often feels like we are stuck in the Dark Ages, especially as the same old arguments keep recurring, such as the ones concerning the application of technological protection measures. These issues are not relevant here and it is rather irritating that some of the commentators on copyright seem to have missed several years of human development since the era of enlightenment; or at least since the adoption of the Copyright Directive which to the objective observer like myself is rather enlightened.

However, despite such unwelcome distractions,at least there is political and pan-industry unity on the basic belief that creators and performers should be compensated for allowing consumers to make private copies. McCreevy himself stated that such fair compensation "cannot be contested".

Well, apart from the UK that is. This country’s view on whether to compensate creators and performers is still to be agreed.

In April, the Music Business Group put forward a proposal on behalf of the entire UK music industry which we hoped would find favour with government: an exception for format shifting, subject to a licence. This, we hoped, could be the Reformation that ends the schism, leading to a balanced and mutually agreed Anglican third way, without having to kill the bridal creators and performers.

Of course, such a journey will not be without challenges. Given recent events at the Eurovision Singsong Contest and the lackof a football team from these islands at Euro 2008, I can understand the desire of parts of the mainstream for some kind of UK separatism.

However, there does seem to be a wind of change on the Continent and a general willingness to overcome entrenched positions. This all bodes well for the Commissioner’s proposed roadmap, hopefully instigating a forum for discussion not dissimilar from the medieval Council of Constance in 1414 to overcome the schism.

McCreevy and his colleague from DG Culture will be chairing this forum with a maximum of 15 selected representatives. It should commence operationsin mid-September and report back to the Commission within six months. The forum will not only discuss ways toc lamp down on dishonest traders who do not pay levies, but also suggest some EU-wide criteria on the calculation of tariffs and a transparent methodology for the administration of private copying levies or any alternatives thereof.

Let us pray that those in Whitehall hear their call. This is no time for our country to remain agnostic and miss the European private copying Reformation.

Florian Koempel,Legal Counsel, European Affairs of British Music Rights is a lawyer specialising in copyright and intellectual property.

View PDF version of article