Gallo report: La Quadrature’s voting recommendations

Posted on

La Quadrature du Net just sent the following voting recommendations to the Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) of the European Parliament regarding the Gallo Report, along with a 13-page memo. Everyone can weigh in on the vote by calling JURI MEPs!!

This report is essential for the future of copyright enforcement in the EU. The very dangerous draft of Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) must absolutely be amended to avoid the further criminalization of not-for-profit activities such as file sharing, whose negative effects have yet to be proved.

On Tuesday, MEPs Françoise Castex and Catherine Trautmann wrote an op-ed (available in English) in which they rightly underline the need to adapt “intellectual property” to the digital age. This constructive approach is the one that should prevail in the Gallo report, through the adoption of the relevant amendments.

A wiki-based campaign page has been set up to provide interested citizens with all the necessary tools to contact JURI MEPs and make a difference during Tuesday’s vote. For more background, you can read La Quadrature’s latest press release on the Gallo report.

Dear Member of the Committee on Legal Affairs,

Just a few days ahead of the JURI committee vote on the Gallo report — which will take place on Tuesday, June 1st — we want to stress how important it is to amend the dogmatic and dangerous draft of Mrs. Marielle Gallo.

The time for change has come. As we point out in the attached memo, the EU must put an end to the criminalization and ruthless repression of millions of citizens engaging in not-for-profit exchange of cultural works over the Internet – especially when one considers how biased the studies that provide the justification for such policies are.

Repression has not led to any progress for rights holders. It has only hampered the development of innovative business-models — ones really adapted to the digital environment. It has excluded file sharing from the creative economy, when this widespread social practice should have been embraced and regulated to contribute to the creative economy.

At the same time, repression undermines the rule of Law in the EU. As graduated response schemes and Internet filtering develop in Europe and at the International level (ACTA), the fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users are being eroded.

It is time to reconcile artists, innovators and consumers, and to build the foundation of a thriving creative industry in Europe. A few days ago, the Commission’s Digital Agenda paved the way for a much needed reform of EU copyright. Through this report, you have the opportunity make a useful contribution to this process by calling for an open-ended debate on the future of copyright, in the interest of all stakeholders.

You can do so by adopting:
Amendment n°17 and amendment n°69, to base EU policies on sound evidence and empirical data;
Amendment n°7, amendment n°43, amendment n°44 and amendment n°79, to recognize the dangers of a one-size-fits-all approach to IPR enforcement;
Amendment n°14, amendment n°26 and amendment n°54, to properly assess the current EU framework regarding IPR enforcement before pushing for further legislative action, especially in the field of criminal law;
Amendment n°121, to oppose non-legislative measures to repress online file-sharing of copyrighted works;
Amendment n°20, amendment n°83, amendment n°101, amendment n°108 and amendment n°116, to initiate a debate on the future of the Internet-based creative economy and alternatives to repression.

At the same time, you should reject:
Amendment 22, which relies on an erroneous interpretation of international copyright law
Amendment 48, which promotes a repressive approach without even calling for a prior objective and impartial assessment of current IPR enforcement measures
Amendment 77, which calls for necessary and biased communications campaign on IPR targeting young people;
Amendment 88, which alleges that file sharing is the direct cause of job losses and is prejudicial to the European economy, despite many impartial studies pointing to the contrary;
Amendment 91, which suggests that freedom of expression and the right to privacy on the one hand, and intellectual property rights on the other hand are of equal importance.

For further voting recommendations, see also:

Yours sincerely,

La Quadrature du Net