The European Council seeks a backroom deal with the European Parliament on the controversial copyright extension plans. A meeting is scheduled at the April 29.
Attachés will examine the possibility of a first reading agreement with the European Parliament on the Term Directive (8898/09). The meeting will take place in Presidency Room No 1, floor 50. N.B. Participation is limited to Attachés only
The short phrase “Term Directive (8898/09)” stands for the very controversial
Term of protection of copyright and related rights (amending Directive 2006/116/EC) (Directive) 2008/0157 COD 24/07/2008, 12217/08 COM(2008) 464.
Of course no one ever used the phrase “term directive” before. In the European Parliament:
Parl. Ctee: JURI – LEHNE, Klaus-Heiner
Rapp.: Brian CROWLEY (UEN-IE)
A document adopted in Parliament one year ago and then put to coma was registered at the Council under the document number 8898/09. For more obfuscation the document is available only in French from the Council register:
Proposition de directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil modifiant la directive 2006/116/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil relative à la durée de protection du droit d’auteur et de certains droits voisins – Résultats de la première lecture du Parlement européen (Strasbourg, du 21 au 24 avril 2009) PDF 30-04-2009
Why the clandestine approach on the Council side? Why don’t they reference the correct dossier name and procedure? I assume you may find the answer in the delicate substance of the proposal. I remember I met an economist in Parliament who tried to get the results of his research to the attention of MEPs, and basically saw the dossier as a great scam.
The dossier became widely known informally as the “Cliff Richard pension fund” because it was promoted by aging UK rock musicians, a kind of special gift to the music industry by the outgoing Commissioner. I haven’t monitored the dossier any further. In any case, outrageous policy making.
Here the OEIL file on COD/2008/0157, Prelex interinstitutional overview,
Sköne Oke 
What is so secretive about the council of ministers talking among themselves to come up with their common view on the topic of copyright in order to start first negotiations with the European Parliament? And after first reading, we´ll get second reading. I´d say you are right in time to start influencing your government to do the right thing as wel as your MEPs.
Judith Sargentini
Member of the European Parliament for the Dutch Greens
Indeed, in principle that appears to be the case. But if there is a “first reading agreement” there won’t be a second reading. That is why it is so crucial to always add poison pills in a first reading parliament phase.
The copyright extension proposal was voted in first reading Parliament one year ago, by another Parliament term. The dossier was then put to coma in the Council for one year. Now the legal base changed with the introduction of the Lisbon treaty and it appears interesting how this affects pending dossiers. In other words can the Council just agree and avoid a second reading? What about the Commission’s promise to pull “zombie proposals”?
The Lisbon treaty also added openness requirements for Council deliberations. But that was not my point, it was the cover-up: “Term Directive (8898/09)”
On the substance I feel I cannot argue. Here you find a little bit background from ORG analysts, a UK civil liberties group.
http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension
[…] Council seeks backdoor deal on copyright extention Why the clandestine approach on the Council side? Why don’t they reference the correct dossier name and procedure? I assume you may find the answer in the delicate substance of the proposal. I remember I met an economist in Parliament who tried to get the results of his research to the attention of MEPs, and basically saw the dossier as a great scam. […]