Out of Step? Are Musicians Unsporting if They Want to be Paid?

Can it be true that the London Olympics organising Committee is asking musicians to provide their services for free of charge for the forthcoming games? Are the PRS and PPL being asked to waive licence fees for the public performance of copyright works at the events? Is this an amateur sporting event or could it be mistaken for dancing?

EU copyright at Fordham: a report (part II)

Having highlighted the position of the Commission as to EU copyright harmonisation (here), an assessment of the last twenty years of harmonisation was provided - inter alia - by Prof Bernt Hugenholtz of the University of Amsterdam.

First, he divided the harmonisation process into three phases, these being (1) 1991-2000, when core copyright directives were issued; (2) 2002-2008, when Member States transposed such directives into national laws; (3) 2009-, in which the CJEU has been playing a pivotal role in interpreting such directives. 

Bernt Hugenholtz

Overall, copyright harmonisation has had positive effects, in that approximating the laws of EU Member States has enhanced legal certainty, favoured the emergence of common principles, as well as the establishment of EU external competence in this field. The negative effects of copyright harmonisation can be held to be the following: (1) slow response to technological development; (2) harmonisation has always moved upwards (see databases); and (3) the overall process has been fairly intransparent, thus favoring lobbying (see the case of term extension(s)).

As to the future of EU copyright, Prof Hugenholtz indicated that lawmaking at the EU level has the potential to become increasingly difficult, due to the following aspects: (1) ever growing number of Member States; (2) increasingly central role of the European Parliament; (3) ongoing discussions as to social legitimacy of copyright; (4) lack of normative constitutional mandate in primary EU law to legislate in the area of copyright. 

This said, the alternatives on the table are substantially two: do nothing or unify copyright at the EU level.

Trevor Cook

Speaking of copyright reforms, Trevor Cook of Bird&Bird LLP offered an enlightening insight into copyright's exceptions and limitations and dealt with the heated topic concerning whether something like US fair use should be pursued in Europe too. This, claimed Trevor, would be inconsistent with the InfoSoc Directive and it is not sure that it would be desirable to introduce in the first place. This is beacuse of the unpredictable outcome of fair use defences in the US. In any case, exceptions and limitations may be extended and updated at the EU level, even lacking an initiative of EU legislative. Reliance on fundamental rights has increased, both before national courts and the CJEU. The latter is because of the new status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights following the Lisbon Reform Treaty (as very recent examples, see the decisions in Scarlet and Netlog). This view was upheld also by Mr Justice Peter Charleton of the High Court of Ireland, Dublin.

Graham Smith

An analysis of recent CJEU decisions was offered in the presentations by Graham Smith of Bird&Bird LLP and Professor Lionel Bently of the University of Cambridge.

Graham has offered a thoughtful overview of aggregating and related cases in the EU.

Lionel Bently

Prof Bently, who has called the harmonising effects of CJEU case law 'harmonisation by stealth' (see earlier 1709 Blog post here), has highlighted how CJEU activism is likely to cast ambiguities on the scope and meaning of EU copyright. This may result in Member States asking the Commission to be more active in the future, so to prevent contradictory and ambigous outcomes. Despite this, harmonisation via CJEU case law has had positive effects too, as it has touched upon aspects which could have not been harmonised with legislation alone. Above all, the outcomes of CJEU decisions are legitimate, though it is doubtful in the first place whether the Court was legitimated to act in lieu of EU legislative. In addition to this, doubts persist as to whether the harmonising effects of CJEU judgments are consistent with national legislation. Finally, the effects of these decisions have contributed to transitional uncertainty in the laws of some Member Stares, notably the UK.

In conclusion, from the presentations offered at Fordham, EU copyright is in need of amelioration. At the moment, there are no ambitious EU legislative initiatives. In any case, these are regarded cautiously and are deemed to require careful consideration before being undertaken. So, at the end of the day, it is not clear whether CJEU activism is the result of unavoidable gaps in legislative instruments or whether, instead, harmonisation via CJEU case law has been made necessary to supply lack of legislative initiative tout court. The best guideline for future action at the EU level? Directly from the LEGO store at the Rockfeller Center:

EU copyright at Fordham: a report (part I)

This blogger has just come back from New York, where she attended the 20th Fordham IP Conference, a symposium held every year, when leading academics, representatives of the judiciary and industry alike gather together at the Upper West Side premises of the Fordham Law School to discuss the most recent trends in the über-cool world of IP.

As far as copyright is concerned, this year particular attention was devoted to the current state of affairs in the EU, with specific sessions covering an entire afternoon of the two-day conference.

A blue print

As is well known, a lot is going on at the moment in EU copyright. Taking account of the activism of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which has resulted in the de facto harmonisation of important aspects of EU copyright, and considering both the political (see the Commission's agenda as set out in its 2011 blueprint) and academic (see the 2010 Wittem Project) efforts to engage in a thorough discussion as to the future of this area of the law, it is undeniable that copyright is THE must-have debate this season.

The Wittem Castle,
The Netherlands

Starting with views from the Commission, Head of Unit - Copyright, DG Internal Market & Services Maria Martin-Prat first recalled that in the 1990-2000s copyright harmonisation occurred whenever this was necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. This objective is and remains at the centre of attention when it comes to legislative initiatives.

At the moment, said Martin-Prat, the priority of the Commission is to facilitate licensing across the EU. Interestingly enough, this implies facing the issue of territoriality. In any case, the establishment of EU-wide licensing system is not going to affect the territoriality of Member States' copyright laws. This is because territorial rights do not necessarily imply territorial licensing, explained the Head of Unit.

Maria Martin-Prat

This said, the Commission's efforts are directed at tackling five areas of copyright. These include improving the functioning of collective licensing and management and, possibly, setting out an extended collective licensing system; favoring mass digitisation of works and facilitating the use of out-of-commerce works, along with orphan works.

As to the issue of whether we need more harmonisation (read: do we need a EU-wide copyright law?), Martin-Prat thought it correct to say that the CJEU has been very active lately (in the last year only, twelve decisions were published and nine references are still pending). However, she found that the concepts harmonised by the CJEU (such as 'originality', 'work', etc) would have never been defined at the level of EU directives alone, so the CJEU has just been filling out gaps which could not but be left out of EU legislation. When she heard this, this blogger was a bit concerned about the implications of such a view. First, it is questionable whether this has been actually the case (see the case of 'originality', which was actually defined, but in relation to limited and specific subject matter, such as computer programs, databases and photographs).  Secondly, such a view implies that CJEU interventions can (ought to) be pretty pervasive as regards the copyright laws of EU Member States.

A EU copyright code, held Martin-Prat, may be a good idea, but this is not going to happen any time soon, as more urgent issues need to be addressed first. These concern private copying; rights of (online) reproduction, licensing and making available; and copyright limitations and exceptions.

As announced in the 2011 blueprint, the review of the InfoSoc Directive has just been started and, in any case, no legislative initiatives will be taken till next year (to say the least?).

Is it a red letter day for The Pirate Party over Dutch injunction?

It looks like the principles behind SABAM v Netlog and more importantly SABAM v Scarlet might be tested soner rather than later – and the testing might be done by none other than the Pirate Party in the Netherlands who have recently been taken to task by Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN. The Scarlet decision by the ECJ (on a referral from the courts in Belgium) decided inter alia that the fundamental rights enshrined in EC Directives (2000/31, 2001/29, 2004/48, 95/46 and 2002/58) must be interprested as precluding an injunction made against an internet service provider which requires it to install a system for filtering all electronic communications …. which applies to all customers indiscriminatly. This did not trouble the High Court in Newzbin 2.

The decision in Netlog (a social networking site) similarly held that a filtering system that would require the owner to carry out general minitoring of information stored on its servers would be prohibited by Artivle 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive.

In the Pirate Party case, BREIN had successfully secured a web-block injunction against the Pirate Bay itself January, on the ground that the Pirate Bay was liable for the copyright infringement of many of its users. The injunction named two internet service providers, Ziggo and XS4ALL, and BREIN is now pursuing action to extend the injunction to other internet providers in the Netherlands. The thorn in their side have been ‘savvy file sharers’ who know exactly how to get round web blocks – and then make that information available online to others – so BREIN has been monitoring them too. And guess who one of those offering this advice is – yes – step forward the Dutch Pirate Party who posted a reverse proxy’ to enable access (effectively nullifying the court order) until ordered to take that down by the Dutch court in a new injunction. The Court in the Hague required the political party to take the proxy offline or pay a fine of €10,000 (£8,225) per day, up to a maximum €1,000,000 (£822,500).The Pirate Party sort of complied, but then seemingly posted a new page complaining about the injunction, and posting new advice and links to allow keen file sharers to access the Pirate Bay. BREIN subsequently demanded these be removed, though so far it seems that only the hyperlinks have been taken down.

Now the Dutch Pirate Party has now announced it plans to sue BREIN itself over the injunction and Torrentfreak reports that the Dutch Pirate Party said: "By dragging BREIN to court, the Pirate Party finally has the chance to put forward arguments to strike the court injunction that was unilaterally imposed on it last Friday by the Dutch entertainment industry organisation" and in a blog Dutch Party member Blauwbaard said “after the legal harassment continued here on Saturday night, when BREIN sent an email at 8.15pm demanding additional draconian measures under the threat of penalties, the Pirates are anxious to finally get their day in court”. Will this one run? Best I can say is that it might do.

Three of the Pirate Bay co-founders had previously threatened to sue BREIN for defamation in Sweden and Holland.

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-ordered-to-shut-down-pirate-bay-proxy-120414/

http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/filtering-is-not-for-social-networks.html

and http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/will-copyright-owners-see-red-over.html

Evidence-based policy -- or policy-based evidence? An academic responds

The content of this post is self-explanatory: it is the defence by Professor Martin Kretschmer against criticisms that have been made of his research paper, "Private Copying and Fair Compensation: An empirical study of copyright levies in Europe”, in circumstances in which, in the absence of any formal platform for a response, the posting of a public statement is appropriate. The 1709 Blog is pleased to help Professor Kretschmer clarify his position and hopes that this will facilitate further debate on what is -- whatever the state of evidence -- a sensitive and controversial topic.  He writes:

Private Copying and Fair Compensation

A response by Martin Kretschmer to the public, and less public reception of his study on copyright levies addressing in particular five unpublished arguments circulated by Will Page, Chief Economist of UK collecting society PRS for Music

1. Context 

During my 2010/11 ESRC fellowship at the UK Intellectual Property Office, I researched and wrote a 75-page report entitled “Private Copying and Fair Compensation: An empirical study of copyright levies in Europe”. Published on 19 October 2011, the report has been exposed in many places. It is cited in the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2011, p. 116), in the government’s response to Hargreaves and in the government’s copyright consultation (which closed on 21 March 2012). It has been discussed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (Geneva, 15 February 2012, here)  and by the European economic think tank Bruegel (Brussels, 28 March 2012, here).

Interestingly, the report is cited by both proponents and opponents of copyright levies. The opponents focus on one part of the report’s conclusion (p. 71): “Within the constraints of EU law, the UK’s economically efficient option appears to be the de minimis argument (= no harm): a certain amount of copying in already priced into the first retail purchase.” For an example of this reading, see Nokia’s discussion paper: Recent Trends in Alternatives to Copyright Levies (7 March 2012): “Just before Christmas 2011 the UK government published proposals to introduce a statutory private copying exception for the digital age, while at the same time rejecting copyright levies, following the Recommendations in Professor Martin Kretschmer’s report on ‘Private Copying and Fair Compensation’, commissioned by the UK-IPO, claimed to be the first official empirical study of copyright levies in Europe which concluded that the levies system across Europe is ‘deeply irrational’.”

The proponents of copyright levies draw on a different aspect of the report, as summarised for example by Out-law.com (20 October 2011): “People should be able to buy a licence that allows them to download and pass on copyright material in a way that would currently break the law, an academic has said. He said that this would encourage innovation and compensate rights owners.”

This reading is based on my analysis of the following activities users may consider as private:

(i)                Making back-up copies / archiving / time shifting / format shifting;

(ii)              Passing copies to family / friends;

(iii)            Downloading for personal use;

(iv)            Uploading to digital storage facilities;

(v)              File sharing in digital network;

(vi)            Online publication, performance and distribution within networks of friends;

(vii)          User generated content / mixing / mash-up (private activities made public).

I indeed argue that users would find it hard to understand permitting some of these activities, and not others (p. 19): “A more widely conceived exception that would cover private activities that take place in digital networks [activities (iii) to (vii)] might be better understood as a statutory licence. Possible rationales for issuing such a licence include: making the copyright system more permissive for consumer led innovation, as well as non-economic arguments (such as influencing the bargaining position of creators versus producers, or preserving fundamental rights of privacy). The EU concept of “compensatable harm” contributes little towards assessing an appropriate scope and tariff for such a licence. There is no case for copyright levies unless the payment of levies is linked to clear consumer permissions, and an argument is made why scope and tariff of these permissions cannot be left to the market.”

There are some critics who have taken a different line altogether. They suggest methodological faults with the research. Will Page, Chief Economist of UK collecting society PRS for Music, has produced a presentation in which he offers such a critique. While published criticism is welcome, and part of the academic process, Mr Page’s presentation slides have not been published, yet his critique has been circulated in various settings where I am unable to respond. It is therefore appropriate to offer a perspective on Page’s critique and a response to the points he raises.

2. Peer review 

The report “Private Copying and Fair Compensation” was commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office under a fellowship programme supported by the UK Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC). Research councils fund independent, peer reviewed research.

From its conception, the research was conducted to these standards.

·         The state of the art of economic thinking regarding “copyright compensation” was reviewed by a panel of leading economists on 14 October 2010, and the notes were published on the website of the Centre for IP Policy & Management;

·         the functioning of the levy system was discussed by a panel of stakeholders convened by the IPO on 1 December 2010, including representatives from right holders, collecting societies, ICT firms and consumers;

·         the research design, early findings and draft report of the study were exposed to the IPO Copyright Expert Advisory Group (of which Mr Page is a member) for peer review on 4 February, 30 March and 23 June 2011;

·         the draft final report was published in June 2011 as a working paper on the website of the Centre for IP Policy & Management, and presented at a peer reviewed conference (European Policy for IP, Brussels, 19 September 2011).

Mr Page had numerous opportunities to comment on the methodological approach of the study, but the minutes of the Copyright Expert Advisory Group do not show any critical interventions. Concerns with the methodology of a study may arise from unwelcome findings, and their subsequent policy implications.

3. Mr Page’s critique 

My report is based on three separate studies. Mr Page takes issue with Study II  “Empirical effects of copyright levy schemes”, which is introduced in the report with this paragraph (p. 38):

As an empirical starting point for assessing the economic effects of levy schemes, three product level studies were conducted, plotting retail prices against levy and VAT rates in a selection of 20 countries. This data should help to establish who is paying for the system (consumers, retailers, manufacturers), whether there are implications for product innovation and launch, and if there are trade effects (cross border arbitrage, pan-European price points regardless of levies).

In other words, this is a first attempt to establish if levies have an effect on retail prices, and consider possible explanations for who is paying for the levies, as someone must.

Study II ends with these findings:

1. The costs of indirect charges (including VAT and levy) may be passed onto consumers, or absorbed by manufacturers or distribution channels/retailers.

2. If products are sold via a distribution channel, the retailer is ultimately responsible for pricing.

3. Manufacturers of some premium products (Apple iPod Touch) with selective distribution channels appear to be able to pass on the full indirect tax burden to consumers.

4. Some manufacturers may absorb the levy for some products (where there is concentrated purchasing power of retailers). The costs will be carried as reduced profit by their shareholders. This appears to be the case for printers/scanners.

5. Where consumer markets are very competitive, and there are dispersed distribution channels lacking purchasing power, the cost of levies may be absorbed by the retailer.

6. There appears to be a pan-European retail price point for many consumer devices regardless of levy schemes (with the exception of Scandinavia where consumers are willing to pay a premium).

7. For the launch strategy of high value innovative products (tablet computers), manufacturers seem to ignore the levy. In a second phase, they may either decide to pass on, or absorb.

The key message from Study II is that levies are not automatically passed on to the consumer, and that there are several competing explanations why “pass on” does, or does not occur.

In his slide presentation, Mr Page appears to state five criticisms.

•       Kretschmer ignores Company structure.

Firms subsidise printers to charge a premium on cartridges.

Answer: Yes, it is well known that the price of printer cartridges may subsidise printers. This does not change the need to explain why there are countries with comparatively high levy rates (Germany) where printers are traded at a similar price as in non-levy countries (UK).

•       Kretschmer doesn’t look at market over time.

                Single time period under study omits dynamic effects.

Answer: Yes, in a larger study it would be desirable to look at retail pricing over time, not only as a snap shot. However, the basic challenge remains: to explain the pattern observed.

•       Kretschmer makes minimum attempt to normalise prices.

                Surely price discrepancies need fuller explanation.

Answer: Yes, in a larger study it would be desirable to make adjustments (e.g. for exchange rate variations over time, and purchase power parity). But again this does not affect the validity of the central observation, that levies are not consistently passed on (even in a single market with a single currency where surely no adjustments are needed).

•       Kretschmer omits any demand-side analysis.

                Does the demand for printers differ given the country?

Answer: This is not a study of the market for printers. The retail data offer a challenge. Mr Page may find a demand-side explanation why prices differ in different countries, and why levies are not consistently passed on. If they are not passed on, the onus remains with Mr Page to show who pays for the levy.

·         Kretschmer misunderstands the concept of competitive markets.

In (perfectly) competitive markets, it would not be possible to absorb the levy. Therefore imperfect market dynamics should be considered. Unfortunately, they were not.

Answer: In perfectly competitive markets, levies must be passed on as, by definition, such markets are perfect. However, the study investigates real markets, and under imperfect competition the findings are supported by the theory. The suggestion that manufacturers are prepared to absorb levies came from interviews with manufacturers. I qualify this carefully (p. 56):

The extent to which it is profit maximising to pass on the levy depends on a number of factors. These may vary across different markets. Economists may consider the degree of competition, elasticity of demand, and if levies are applied uniformly to all manufacturers (firm-specific or industry-wide costs). It also matters that levies, as indirect charges, are not fixed costs but depend on sales.

In summary, I have offered new data which are in need of an explanation. The data are transparent, publicly available and open to examination by others who may conclude differently.  I concluded that there was no coherent rationale for the European levy system as I found it. Setting of tariffs and distribution of collected fees are seemingly arbitrary, and not based on an underlying concept of economic harm (Studies I & III). Consumer permissions associated with levy payments are incomprehensible (Study I). Study II contributes to our understanding of who pays for copyright levies. All researchers should welcome more data, and I would join Mr Page in this call.

Martin Kretschmer

Professor of Information Jurisprudence

Director, Centre for IP Policy & Management

Bournemouth University

This defence is also posted on the website of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management, Bournemouth University, here.

shark hunt gets geeky

Grooveshark, now facing legal actions from all four major record labels whilst also bringing its own legal action against Digital Music News to try and find out who leaked apparently confidential information about the company's activities, has been criticised by Jeff Price, the boss of TuneCore which represents self releasing acts who use the digital sphere to distribute their music, who has accused Grooveshark of "knowingly and willingly using a legal loophole to steal from artists and songwriters” adding “Even worse, [Grooveshark bosses] try to defend themselves by having the attitude of ‘hey, we love artists and all we are doing is trying to support them’. What a load of crap”.

Price also gives a fairly basic analysis of Grooveshark's business model, noting that “When you have 30 million people coming to your website, you have a lot of web traffic. This means you can start making money by charging entities to advertise on your site. After all, you reach tens of millions of consumers. Just think of all the money Grooveshark makes by selling ads” but the points out “There is just one really big, big problem: they don’t get licenses and don’t pay the artists, the labels and/or the songwriters for the use of the music that’s making them tons of money. I can assure you, 99% of the hundreds of thousands of TuneCore artists whose music is in Grooveshark have not been paid a single penny”.

Grooveshark has pleaded DCMA 'safe habour' as a defence against infringement claims from both record labels and music publishers, but many have criticised the company's takedown procedures and Price supports the allegation of a ‘deliberately shoddy takedown system’ made by the major labels, and says that far from supporting artists, Grooveshark exploits the DCMA provisions to profit from music that it doesn’t pay for saying "I actually met with people at Grooveshark a few times. You think politicians don’t provide straight answers? Wait until you talk to these guys. I’ve never experienced anyone trying to so hard to convince me that 2+2 does not equal 4. They wanted TuneCore to enter into a deal with them, but the whole thing made me sick" and adding (somewhat controversially) “Some scumbag saw this legal loophole, and must have thought something like: My meal ticket is in. Here is a way to make a lot of money by using music without having to pay artists, labels or songwriters”.

Lightsabers at dawn, let battle commence!

Its all on the TuneCore blog

and see here http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/not-quiet-sea-for-grooveshark.html

New US Agreement for Digital and Mobile Music Usage

The RIAA, the National Music Publishers' Association and the Digital Media Association have resolved the Copyright Royalty Board rate proceeding under s 115 of the US Act. Reported by Billboard and at All Access Music Group the "new pact, which keeps the current song rate of 9.1 cents for downloads, CDs and other physical formats, 24 cents for ringtones, and the same formulas, with limited changes, used to determine the mechanical rate for different kinds of subscription and free interactive-streaming services".

Private copying and reprography: a new era or a new ear?

António Vitorino

On 2 April 2012 António Vitorino launched a mediation process for resolving discrepancies arising from private copying and reprography levies. From our friend Magali Delhaye comes this most revealing note:

"Mr. António Vitorino, a former European Commissioner responsible for Justice and Home Affairs as well as a former Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Portugal, announced on 2 April 2012 the launch of the mediation process on private copying and reprography levies for which he had been appointed by Commissioner Barnier. The creation of this mediation process was announced in May 2011 within the framework of the Communication on a Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights and it aims at laying the foundations for legislative action on private copying levies at EU level.

Mr. Vitorino explains in his statement that, as of this month, he will start discussions with those he has identified as key stakeholders on the basis of the following identified core issues:

“1. Methodology for setting levy tariffs
2. Cross-border sales
3. Determination of the person or entity liable to pay the levy
4. Visibility of the levy
5. Private copying and reprography in the context of new digital forms of distribution of copyright- protected content and the implications for levy systems.”

He is also inviting other stakeholders and organisations “which have a keen interest in finding workable solutions to the above-mentioned issues to send [him] their succinct and constructive contributions in writing. Contributions should be based on the questionnaire in Annex and sent to: markt-levies-mediation-2012@ec.europa.eu by 31 May 2012.” 

The former Commissioner expects to finalise his consultations in the summer and to present his conclusions and recommendations to Commissioner Barnier during autumn 2012".

Adding to this, Sandra Alverà (Manager, European Legal and Government Affairs, Panasonic Europe Ltd) -- who also drew our attention to this launch -- points to the following passage from this item posted in the European Commission's Midday Express:

"The objective of the mediation process is to identify ways to tackle the discrepancies characterizing the levy systems as set out at national level, as well as to assess the functioning and the scope of the private copying and the reprography exceptions in today's fast evolving digital environment. The results of the mediation will be used to make recommendations for legislative action at EU level".

She then notes Mr Vitorini's own words on the topic here and cites the specific issues that lurk behind the five headings listed above:

"1. Methodology for setting levy tariffs
1) How could methodological coherence in tariff setting for private copying levies be achieved across the EU?
2) How could methodological coherence in tariff setting for reprography levies be achieved across the EU?

2. Cross-border sales
1) How should levies be collected in cross-border transactions?
2) How should double payment be avoided in cross-border sales?

3. Determination of the person or entity liable to pay the levy
1) Who should be liable to pay private copying levies?
2) Who should be liable to pay reprography levies?

4. Visibility of the levy
1) Should an obligation be introduced to display the levy on each invoice in the sales chain, including on the consumer's invoice?

5. Private copying and reprography in the context of new digital technologies
1) In what way are levy systems affected by new business models and technological developments? Do such developments allow rightholders to control and license copying by private individuals to such an extent that it could have a material impact on the way private copying and reprography is dealt with at EU level?"

With rights owners considering their copyright works to be discrete and potentially valuable assets while licensees often view the same works as mere commodities, and with collecting societies (where relevant) occupying an uncomfortable space between the two, it will be a rare and unusual mediation that will find much common ground upon which to build consensus-based legislative solutions. Meanwhile, all lobbying will be presumably directed towards Mr Vitorini and thus away from those European policymakers and legislators who may feel that they've been lobbied quite enough already, thanks. In this new era for private copying and reprography, Mr Vitorini's will be the new ear.