The DSM Directive and Its Adoption by Member States: Looking Back at EU’s Controversial Copyright Directive

The European Union’s Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive is an ambitious act that seeks to reform the Copyright Law in a multitude of ways, so as to accommodate modern and upcoming digital practices into the copyright sphere. It redefined several areas of the law, and brought along some positive as well as controversial provisions in an attempt to afford better protection for copyright owners, streamlining rights, marking boundaries around scientifically and academically justifiable means of exploitation of protected data, etc.

Despite the efforts to make several changes in the law, even member states that supported a number of controversial aspects of the Directive, such as France and Germany, failed to implement it fully. By June 7, 2021, the deadline set for the transposition, only two countries – Hungary and Netherlands – had fully implemented it. In order to understand the controversy around the DSM Directive 2019/790, it is necessary to understand the legal basis and effect, the relevant provisions, and the eventual implementation of the Directive.

Binding Force of Directives

EU copyright directiveDirectives such as this find their force in Article 288 of the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which deals with the EU’s power to adopt regulations, directives, decisions, etc. When the Union adopts a directive, a deadline is set for its implementation, which may require member countries to alter or add to their existing laws, known as ‘transposition’. Therefore, each country will have to give effect to a directive by the passing of national laws.

Directives have often been considered to be not directly binding upon member countries. To counter the problem of non-implementation, the CJEU formulated the Direct Effect doctrine as per which individuals can invoke a European provision before a national or European Court irrespective of transposition. With respect to Directives, this doctrine of Direct Effect is only applicable when provisions do not carry any ambiguity and are unconditional. If applicable, the state may be held liable to pay compensation for non-implementation.

A Directive Marred by Ambiguity

The 2019 Directive brought about some drastic changes in copyright law. However, common impediments to the efficient implementation of both the positive and controversial changes are the host of unreasonably strict restrictions and ambiguous terminologies contained in them.

Two articles that received criticism the most are Article 15 and Article 17 (Article 11 and 13 respectively in the Draft). Article 17 is a stringent mechanism (informally dubbed as ‘the meme killer’ or ‘upload filter’) meant to impose liability upon online services to remove any content available online that infringes copyright. Essentially, it seeks to change the intermediary liability regime in the EU whereby an online content-sharing website would have to obtain “authorization from the rightsholders… for instance by concluding a licensing agreement” in order to legally communicate or make available to the public access to copyrighted or protected works. This procedure is said to act as an upload filter for protected works which effectively requires services to monitor the material uploaded. Failing to do so would make the content providers liable for unauthorized acts of communication unless they can establish that:

  1. they made their best efforts to obtain authorization
  2. they have made best efforts to prevent future availability of the content in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence
  3. they have acted expeditiously to remove and prevent future availability of infringing content on a takedown notice

Despite the extensive provision, no definition has been provided for what is meant by terms such as “best efforts” and “high industry standards of professional diligence”. As different judicial systems may interpret such terms differently, vague terms like these may result in unnecessary litigation.

Similar ambiguities exist with provisions permitting text and data mining (TDM) for scientific and academic purposes as well. Article 3 deals with TDM for the purposes of scientific research, where no prior permission or compensation is needed for mining of data overworks obtained through “lawful access”. Article 4, on the other hand, leaves scope for everyone else involved in TDM. The provisions of this article do not allow data mining where the right holders have expressly reserved the right to reproduction over their work in an “appropriate manner”. Again, the terms “lawful access” and “appropriate manner” have not been defined in the Directive which could possibly result in litigation as to what exactly is meant by lawful access and what are the host of appropriate manners for restricting TDM.

Another controversial provision in the Directive is Article 15 under “Title IV – Measures to Achieve a Well-Functioning Marketplace for Copyright”, which seeks to protect press publisher’s rights. The article seeks to protect publishers of press publications by providing them with the exclusive right of reproducing and communicating their works for two years, post which the exclusive right expires. The implications of the law are such that news aggregators would have to obtain permission from the publishers before using their content. However, short extracts and non-commercial uses have been exempted from the application of this article. Initially having drawn much criticism as a “link tax”, proposals such as remuneration by platforms to rightsholders for hyperlinking their works are no longer covered by this provision. However, links in other forms may be subject to the provisions of Article 15.

Conclusion

The DSM Directive has divided content creators and proponents of freedom of speech and expression. The difficulty in interpretation and application of some of the aforementioned provisions of the Directive is evident from its implementation among member states. While the Netherlands has fully implemented the Directive more or less in its literal sense, some others such as Denmark have only implemented those provisions that strengthen rightsholders’ position (such as Articles 15 and 17). The delay in implementation is also attributable to substantial lobbying with regard to some of the provisions, as well as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the DSM Directive still remains controversial legislation towards which countries have shown tardiness in implementation.

Author: Tamish Kumar – a student of Symbiosis Law School, currently an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys.  In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at sudhanshu@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010