Campagne vote pleniere rapport gallo

From La Quadrature du Net
Revision as of 11:38, 5 July 2010 by Neurone227 (talk | contribs) (Who? : traduction)
Jump to navigationJump to search


Prenez 5 minutes pour lutter contre l'application dogmatique du copyright en Europe

NON à une approche passéiste du partage de fichiers !

NON à toujours plus de surveillance !

Pas de Police Privée du Copyright en Europe !

Deutsch English Español Italiano

De quoi s'agit-il ?

En bref

S'il est voté par le Parlement Européen, le rapport Gallo orientera les futures politiques Européennes en matière de copyright dans une direction répressive et dogmatique, en renforçant par exemple la répression du partage de fichiers sans but commercial. Face à ce rapport, il existe une résolution alternative qui propose une approche équilibrée, en renforçant le dispositif de lutte contre la contrefaçon de biens matériels, et en demandant une réflexion plus poussée sur l'impact du partage de fichiers.

Vous pouvez agir maintenant pour aider les Parlementaires Européens à comprendre l'importance de ces sujets, et les inciter à soutenir la résolution alternative plutôt que le rapport Gallo.

The Gallo report

The "Gallo report" is an initiative report (non-legislative text) initiated by the French EPP, Sarkozyst, Member of the European Parliament Marielle Gallo, "on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market". It has been adopted in the JURI committee (committe for legal affairs), and will be voted in plenary on July 8th.

Gallo report:

  • amalgamates a vague notion of "online IPR infringements" (including non-commercial ones) with physical goods counterfeiting (that poses real threat to consumers health and safety);
  • calls for more repression in the name of dogmatic vision of a terrible prejudice caused by filesharing, while the US Government Accountability Office recently concluded that industry figures were all inflated, that positive impact of filesharing should be considered, and while many studies prove that the prejudice is minimal or inexistent. Gallo report calls for a new criminal enforcement directive (IPRED2), when no impact assessment has been made of the previous enforcement directive (IPRED) so far.
  • calls for "non-legislative" means of combating filesharing. Such "non-legislative" means, also called "voluntary agreements" were also described in a communication by the European Commission on "IPR enforcement" (dated Sept.11th 2009). They are contractual based sanctions against individuals doing non-for-profit filesharing, and can be decided between rights-holders and operators: restriction of access, taargeted filtering, bandwidth cap, etc... This is literally an open door to private copyright police and justice.

The rapporteur, Marielle Gallo, made sure that any amendment calling for a distinction between for-profit and non-for-profit filesharing was rejected during the vote in JURI committee.

The alternative proposal to Gallo report

An alternative report has been tabled by the S&D group. It includes many amendments that were rejected, according to the will of the rapporteur Gallo. Amendments from the vote in the Legal affairs committee (JURI), and amendments coming from the Consumers (IMCO) and Industry (ITRE) committees also rejected.

The alternative proposal:

  • is much stronger than the initial report on combatting counterfeiting of physical goods
  • is stronger at protecting consumers against harmful counterfeit products
  • condemns for-profit "online infringement", but stops there.
  • is overall much more consensual and less dangerous than the initial Gallo report.

(alternative proposal is still in the final stage of negotiations and will be tabled on monday)

Alternative MUST be voted in place of the original Gallo report!

Quand ?

Le vote est prévu pour la session de 12:00 du jeudi 8 juillet

Une demande de report du vote sera présentée à la conférence des Présidents de lundi.

Qui ?

Tous les eurodéputés doivent être ciblés. Ils sont sous une pression extrêmement élevée de la part des lobbys de l'industrie du divertissement et des éditeurs.

En particulier, les efforts doivent être portés sur :

In particular, effort should be focused on:

  • Les membres de l'ALDE (libéraux). Ils sont la clé d'un vote très partagé entre deux groupes majeurs. Au sein de JURI, sous l'influence de leur membre Toine Manders, ils ont aidé le rapporteur Gallo à faire adopter son rapport et à faire rejeter tous les amendements selon sa volonté.
  • Les membres de l'EPP (conservateurs). Ils peuvent être difficiles à convaincre, car le rapporteur Gallo est de leur groupe politique et car ils ont historiquement une position plus répressive. Cependant, au cours de la législature précédente, ils ont été nombreux à voter, avec 88% du Parlement Européen, l'amendement 138 du Paquet Télécom (disposant que les restrictions aux droits fondamentaux ne devraient être ordonnées que par l'autorité judiciaire), ce qui va à l'encontre de la notion de « moyens extra-judiciaires » de combattre le partage de fichiers. De plus, les membres EPP d'Espagne, de Pologne et de Suède peuvent être plus faciles à convaincre. Les ultra-libéraux pourraient être convaincus que le partage de fichiers n'est au pire qu'un problème économique et que la législation européenne n'a pas à intervenir pour aider une industrie à innover... et/ou que, comme la plupart de ces industries se trouve aux États-Unis, ce n'est pas le rôle de la législation européenne que de les aider.
  • Les membres S&D (socialistes) d'Espagne et d'Italie, sous l'influence forte des lobbys de producteurs, éditeurs et auteurs, peuvent avoir du mal à soutenir la proposition alternative.


E-mail and call Members of the European Parliament

Use Political Memory to find the contact info of the relevant MEPs.

  • MEPs receive hundreds of mails per day, so sending an email -- even if is important -- is often not enough to convince them.
  • A phonecall has much more impact. Most of the time you will talk to assistants who are young and intelligent people.
  • The best is to send an email, then call. You can start by asking "(Hello my name is XY and I live in Z) I just sent you an email, have you read it? No? Let me tell you about it... ".
  • Always be polite. Your interlocutor is working under a lot of pressure. He or she has probably only little knowledge of what is at stake with the Gallo report, but has a good capacity of understanding.
  • Make sure to be concise -the phone call may last only 1 or 2 minutes, or just a few seconds- and to include relevant documents and references.
  • Always follow-up a phone call by email (to send documents and references discussed over the phone, to answer to unanswered question, to go further). Rinse and repeat. ;)


Here are a few things that you may want to mention in your communications with MEPs and their assistants:

  • The original Gallo report, as voted in JURI, lacks fundamental distinctions between commercial IPR violations that endanger consumers (counterfeiting) and not-for-profit infringements, such as file-sharing. Failing this, the final report could strengthen potentially disproportionate and dangerous enforcement policies whose impact has never been assessed.
  • The original Gallo report calls for private copyright police, when infringement is done in an extra-legislative (extra-judicial) way, upon accusation by the rights-holders, and with the cooperation of the Internet Service Providers. Such schemes comparable to the "three strikes" policies (HADOPI, DEBill laws) have been so far a political and technical failure, and negate fundamental rights (right to a fair trial, freedom of communication).
  • The increasing repression that we have seen develop in the last fifteen years has not benefited artists ; Internet users are being tracked down by rights holders and are treated like dangerous criminals; Liberty-killer schemes such as graduated response of Net filtering are being implemented ; This trend profoundly undermines the protection of fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression, privacy and the right to a fair trial.
  • There is no consensus on the fact that file-sharing is damaging artistic creation in Europe. The US Government Accountability Office has recently released a study explaining that all the studies pointing to important financial losses are based on a flawed methodology. At the same time, an increasing number of reports underlines the neutral or positive impact of file-sharing on creation, access to culture, and the economy at large.
  • Today, the defense of creativity, innovation but also of the rights and freedoms of EU citizens should compel policy-makers to break with the harmful dogmatism induced by a few industry groups.
  • The Parliament must promote a balanced and evidence-based approach to IPR enforcement.


Posez ici les questions qui peuvent apparaître lorsque vous participez (détails pratiques, arguments bloquants, etc.). Nous essaierons d'y répondre aussi rapidement que possible.