编者按：欧洲议会于2019年3月26日通过《数字单一市场版权指令》（Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market），大成巴黎合伙人David Masson以及大成法兰克福合伙人Dr. Constantin Rehaag对此发表评论文章，现大成上海合伙人杨宇宙律师将该文进行翻译，供大家参考。
经过近三年的激烈辩论,欧洲议会在2019年3月26日正式通过了《数字单一市场版权指令》。该指令经全体辩论和表决，最终以348票赞成，274票反对，36票弃权获得通过。
尽管直到最后一刻，关于修正案的许多提议(已全被拒)和强烈反对的声音依然不断涌现，但这次投票仍对三方会谈（欧洲议会、欧盟理事会和欧盟委员会的会谈）于2月13日达成的协议进行了确认，特别是关于协议中两个最有争议的问题。
版权力度增强
正如预料，第17条(即草案第13条)要求可以让用户自行发布内容的在线平台与版权所有人达成协议。如果没有这样的协议，上述平台将对未经版权所有人授权的向公众传播的行为承担直接责任 (2000/31/EC指令第14条除外)。除非在线平台可以证明有下列行为：
1.已尽最大努力获得授权；
2.在收到版权所有人发出具有充分证据的通知后，迅速采取行动，将有关作品从其网站删除或禁用对已通知作品的访问，并尽最大努力防止其今后被重新上传；
3.建立机制以防止这些作品在最开始以及将来被发布。
这些令反对者们担心会严重妨碍言论自由和创意的机制，成为了批评指令的焦点。因为有观点认为只有通过上传过滤器的方式才可以处理上传到比如Youtube的大量的数据。三方会谈为这一措施给予了保留余地。他们为小平台(在欧盟成立不到三年，月营业额不到1000万欧元，每月用户人数不足500万的在线服务平台)开了特例。这些平台只需要证明他们有穷尽一切可能获得授权，并且出于避免对未授权作品承担责任的目的，立即行动删除了版权所有人通知的未经授权的作品的行为。此外，通过自动化流程，在用户表达观点过程中限制他们的言论，诚然令人不愉快。但事实上利益攸关方必须在指令生效后进行对话，以确定最佳做法和统一步骤——无疑这是一个减轻措施中可能有的消极影响的机会。
另外，出于对审查制度的担忧，过滤机制不应阻止在网上发布引用、拼贴或模仿的内容(表情包和GIF动图也被排除在指令限制范围之外)。该指令进一步规定了关于非营利性百科全书、市场、开源软件开发和共享平台，以及更普遍的关于教育、研究和文化遗产保护的例外情况。
发布者的邻接权
关于新闻文章，第15条(即草案第11条)创设了一项新的邻接权，强制网络平台在文章发表后两年内向使用其内容的新闻发布者支付报酬。
当上述文章被个人使用或用于非商业目的时，不适用此项新权利。而且，指向新闻文章的超链接，在单独一个链接或附带“个别词句或非常简短的摘录”之时，可以自由共享(这引起对这一规定在平台上的适用性的疑问)。
该指令的官方最终版本将在未来几天公开发布。各成员国将有24个月的时间将新规则纳入本国立法体系中。这将为国家层次敏感问题的讨论打开一个新的窗口。这一版本的指令，为在版权有效保护框架下协调利益和防范欧洲层面反对者的威胁言论自由论提供了机会。就连坚决支持欧洲一体化的基民盟(CDU)------德国大联盟中的保守成分，也希望在全国范围内禁止上传过滤器。也许改革不会像今天看起来这样有争议。
After almost three years of intense debates, EU MPs formally passed the new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market on March 26th, 2019. The text was adopted in plenary session by 348 votes in favor, 274 against and 36 abstentions.
Notwithstanding a number of proposals for amendments (all rejected) and fierce opposition until the very end, this vote was a confirmation of the agreement reached by the EU Trilogue on February 13th, in particular regarding its two most controversial issues.
Copyright enhancement
As expected, Article 17 (ex. Article 13 of the draft) requires online platforms that allow their users to publish content themselves to conclude agreements with right holders. In the absence of such agreements, said platforms would be held directly liable for unauthorized acts of communication to the public (exception to Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC), unless they demonstrate that they have:
made best efforts to obtain authorization;
acted expeditiously, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice by the rights holders, to remove from their websites or to disable access to the notified works and made best efforts to prevent their future uploads; and
established mechanisms to prevent these works from being published initially and in the future.
These mechanisms, which opponents of the reform fear to be especially detrimental for the right to free speech and creativity, were the focal point of the criticism against the Directive as there is the view that only upload filters can manage the huge amount of data that is uploaded to e.g. Youtube. The Trilogue moderated this measure and created an exception for small platforms (online service providers with less than three years of existence in the Union, a turnover of less than €10 million and less than 5 million users per month). These platforms will only need to prove that they have done everything possible to obtain authorization and that they have acted promptly to remove unauthorized works that have been reported to them by rights holders, in order to avoid being held liable for unauthorized works. Apart from that, it actually sounds unpleasant to submit to an automated process to control one's utterance in the process of expressing opinions. But it is also true that there is a requirement for stakeholders to enter into a dialogue after the Directive has entered into force in order to define best practices and harmonize procedures – certainly a chance to mitigate negative effects of the mechanisms, if any.
Additionally and in response to fears of censorship, filtering mechanisms shall not prevent the posting of quotations, pastiches or parodies online (Memes and GIFs are also excluded from the scope of the Directive). The text further provides for exceptions regarding non-profit encyclopedias, marketplaces, open source software development and sharing platforms, and more generally regarding education, research and the preservation of cultural heritage.
Neighboring right for publishers
As regarding press articles, Article 15 (ex. Article 11) creates a new neighboring right, which imposes online platforms to remunerate press publishers whose content they use, during two years after the publication of an article.
This new right does not apply when said articles are used by individuals or for noncommercial purposes. Further, hyperlinks directing to news articles, alone or accompanied by “isolated words or very short excerpts”, may be freely shared (which questions the applicability of this provision to platforms).
The official definitive version of the Directive should be publicly available in the coming days. Member States will have 24 months to transpose the new rules into their national legislation. This will open a window for debates about sensitive issues on national level. This time gives opportunity to reconcile interests within the framework of effective protection of copyright and defense against threats to freedom of expression that were raised by opponents on the European level. Even the deeply pro-European CDU, the conservative portion of Germany's grand coalition, wants to prevent the use of upload filters at a national level. Maybe the reform will not become so controversial at it appears to be today.
作者：David Masson
Dr. Constantin Rehaag
译者：杨宇宙
虞晨