Wow, NOT a File Sharing Consultation..

.. and not three strikes!

Instead the EU with remarkable common sense has issued a Communication suggesting some non legislative ways to (additionally) crack down on filesharing and counterfeit sales on the Internet.

"The Commission aims to ensure a highly efficient, proportionate and predictable system of enforcement of intellectual property rights, both within and outside the internal market. The current legal framework provides the tools to enforce intellectual property rights in a fair, effective and proportionate way.

Complementing legislation, the actions in this Communication aim to:

• support enforcement through a new EU Observatory on counterfeiting and piracy which will bring together national representatives, private sector experts and consumers to work to collect data on and analyse the scope and scale of the problem, share information, promote best practices and strategies, raise awareness and propose solutions to key problems;

• foster administrative cooperation across Europe by developing coordination to ensure that more effective exchanges of information and mutual assistance can take place. As a result, Member States are called to designate National Coordinators. An electronic network for information sharing will also need to be available .

• build coalitions between stakeholders to overcome conflicts and disputes, by developing collaborative voluntary arrangements that focus on concrete problems, such as the sale of counterfeit goods over the internet, and are capable to adapt quickly to changing markets and technology. Such agreements can also be more easily extended beyond the EU and become the foundation for best practice at global level.

The Communication results from the Commission's IPR Strategy for Europe adopted last year and builds upon the recent Council Resolution on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan."

Naturally, content industry unimpressed:-)

(via Michael Geist)

EDIT: Meanwhile however one asks of course, but what of the Telecoms Package and when is the conciliation process taking place, after the failure of the second reading procedure?

Helpfully , the new EDRI-gram tells us :

"Preparations are being made in the EU institutions for the expected third
reading of the Telecom Package. The timescale for the remainder of the
legislative process will be determined by the official communication of the
Council Common Positions to the Parliament. In theory, this can happen as
late as mid-October, meaning that the final agreement could happen as late
as the end of November or early December.

..The Member States can be expected to push for as much of the Common
Position as possible to be retained and to push again for the
"compromise" that was agreed with the Parliament negotiators on
Amendment 138 in the first reading (but not adopted). "

Watch this space!

Update on amendment 138

If you were thinking things had gone strangely quiet on this front, well.. (via ORG blog)

"DG Information Society has quietly released its position on the Telecoms Package Second Reading, just as everyone is heading off for the summer holidays. No doubt Commissioner Viviane Reding was hoping no-one would see it. Why? It calls for a “compromise” text which the Council of Ministers was trying to push onto the European Parliament, which could have the effect of giving permission to governments to block access to Internet services and applications.

The so-called “compromise” is the replacement of Amendment 138 ( which seeks to protect users rights on the Internet) with an alternative which was drafted by the Council (sometimes known as the ‘fake 138′). The replacement, when considered in context with other Amendments in the Package, will seal in to the Telecoms Framework a right for governments to implement ‘measures regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks’.

The so-called “compromise” is positioned in Article 1 of the Framework directive, addressed to Member States. It should be read in conjunction with Amendment 1.2a of the Universal Services and Users Rights directive, which will permit broadband providers to block impose “conditions limiting access to and/or use of services and applications”. In light of T-Mobile blocking Skype, BT throttling peer-to-peer services, and Karoo, a small UK ISP cutting off users, it should now be abundantly clear what this text means. . "

Source: IpTegrity

(without prejudice - Pangloss has not seen the original text yet)

The European parliament shows backbone, huzzah

Excellent news at the eleventh hour from today'simportant vote on (yes, that again) the Telecoms Package. From EDRI-gram:

"Today, 6 May 2009, in the second reading of the Telecom Package, the
European Parliament (EP) voted again for the initial amendment 138, with an
overwhelming majority of 407 votes for and just 57 against the proposal.
However, on this same occasion, the EP rejected the amendments that
would make "network neutrality" principles mandatory.

Although initially MEP Catherine Trautmann's report included the original
amendment 138/46 as adopted in the first reading by the European Parliament,
after the opaque negotiations with the EU Council from the past 2 weeks
this amendment had been changed in a weaker version. The initial text
"without a prior ruling of the judicial authorities, notably in accordance
with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights" was replaced by "and
the right to a judgement by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by law and acting in respect of due process in accordance with
Article 6 of the ECHR."

Although the new French authority (called Hadopi) that could be established
by the three strikes French draft law can't be considered a "tribunal
established by art 6 of ECHR", the text left room to more fuzzy
interpretations by removing the wording "prior ruling". Thus the compromise
text could be interpreted that such an authority could take a decision of
cutting one's access to Internet, but one would be allowed to go to court to
challenge this decision.

But the EP decided that the initial amendment 138 needed to be supported
once again. The battle was not easy, though. MEP Rebecca Harms insisted in
the plenary for the change in the voting list and for having the original
amendment 138 first . Her position was supported by MEP Alexander Alvaro and
disagreed by the Rapporteur MEP Catherine Trautmann. The Chairwoman Diana
Wallis agreed to go on first with the vote on the Amendment 138. 407 votes
from MEPs supported the amendment, thus saying NO to 3 strikes in Europe.
Again.

....
But besides the amendment that re-instated article 138, all the other
citizen rights amendments were rejected by the plenary of the EP. Thus, the
Harbour report was adopted and the Trautmann report was rejected.

The discussions with the Council will continue and should lead to a third
reading at least for the Trautmann Report. But at the same time, there are
little chances for something to be changed in relation with the articles on
"network neutrality", that would become part of the directive."

It's good to see that all the hard work Simon Bradshaw put into our ORG memorandum on Amendment 139 may not yet have been a waste...

So what happens next? Well, either the Council of Ministers can cede Am 138 in the interests of getting the damn thing through before the next EU presidency; or they can stand fast and push the whole package to Conciliation. reportedly Commissioner Viviane Reding is pushing for the former option as she wants the package done and dusted before her term expires. It's basically down to ministerial poker now :)