GEDIPE- Audiovisual Producers Collective Rights Management
GEDIPE
GEDIPE- Associação para a Gestão Coletiva de Direitos de Autor e de Produtores Cinematográficos e Audiovisuais is a Collective Management Organisation, according to the definition provided by art.
ID: 868455939435-84
Lobbying Activity
Response to Assessment of the effects of the Recommendation on combating online piracy of sports and other live events
26 May 2025
Despite the conclusions drawn by EUIPO on its latest Online Copyright Infringement in the EU Films, Music, Publications, Software and TV (2017-2023) regarding the apparent stabilisation of piracy levels for television content and publications, and decreasing values for music and films, there was an increase in live events piracy, namely regarding sports (0,75 accesses per user/month in October 2022, 0,53 accesses per user/month in 2023) and 10% increase in 2023 regarding the subscription and use of IPTV piracy. In 2024, there were 10.8 million illicit retransmissions of live events, representing a risk for cyberattacks and malware. According to the data provided by the Grant Thornton data gathering exercise report, 81% of those were not even suspended during the event. Only 2.7% were addressed within the scheduled 30 minutes, and 20% took another 90 minutes. In Portugal, for example, the number of piracy services' users has risen towards 1 million (600.000 homes according to a report made by Bournemouth University for AAPA before the pandemic). These homes would have contributed an extra 250 million if legalised, of which 76 million would have contributed to tax income. Illegal SVOD income reaches 35 million. Unfortunately, the most recent data provided by MUSO (14.05.2025) reveal an alarming growing trend in the levels of television piracy, of which online sport events are a subset. Sport is undoubtedly the most pirated content in Portugal, reaching 48% in 2022 and representing 54% of the internet access per user/month in 2023. In 97% of the cases, it was done by streaming, whereas desktops and mobile devices were the most used. The Portuguese, with 8 accesses per user/month, rank above the EU average (5 accesses/user/month). Law 82/2021 has been a progress, at the time, but it has reached a deadlock on account of the spreading of VPNs and alternative DNS services, such as Cloudflare, Cisco, Google, Quad9, Yandex and so many other public resolvers, which allow the circumvention of any blocking duly determined by Copyright Supervisory Authority (IGAC). This problem must be addressed, in line with the French and Greek current draft laws and the Italian law already in force. As anticipated, there was no reaction to the Commissions Recommendation, since the most important issue would be that all the EU Members implemented a similar framework where rapid response mechanisms could ensure that the IP addresses of users acting as the source of illegal content were blocked, at least, for the duration of the sports event. In Spain, for example, IP blocking is the rule for online event piracy, and it is very effective, since the bad actors need some time to change to another IP address, and this acts as a deterrence factor. Dynamic injunctions should also become available to all EU rightsholders as a tool to implement articles 8/3 of 2001/29/EC Directive (InfoSoc) and 11 of 2004/48/EC (Enforcement Directive). Another extremely important tool is Cease & Desist letters to be sent to the consumers premises, to make them aware of the crime they are committing, resulting in less money available to sporting clubs and broadcasters. Countries such as the UK, the U.S., Italy, Canada, France, and Ireland already have them, whereas Germany, Spain and Danmark have adopted similar tools on the private sector. A higher coordination degree between Member States and the joint efforts of EUIPO and EUROPOL could provide an adequate response to the current situation, which is insufficient and doesnt need a soft law approach: legally binding rules are now necessary.
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation of the Geo-blocking Regulation
10 Mar 2025
GEDIPE is the Portuguese Collective Management for Cinema and Audiovisual Producers. It is a member of AGICOA and EUROCOPYA, and also of FEVIP, which is a Portuguese Association whose purpose is to promote and defend the Cinema Industry namely by participating in the fight against Digital Content Piracy. The European audiovisual sector, representing 47 billion and over 2 million jobs is strongly opposed to inclusion in the scope of the Regulation on account of the circumstance that its economic structure relies on territorial exclusivity and cultural and linguistic diversity, as opposed to other economic goods and services. A ban on geo-blocking technology, that allows territorial segmentation of markets could lead to a homogenisation of all the content available, as well as a race to the bottom for the lower access tariffs, thus reducing the chances of producers recouping their investment, which currently depends on how much pre-sales income is obtained. Hence, the importance of exploitation windows and territorial exclusivity, which is incompatible with the abolition of online geographical borders. The Commission claims that such widening of scope would generate growth due to a growing demand for cross-border works, but the level of theatrical admissions proves otherwise. In fact, there is much uncertainty about those positive perspectives since including the audiovisual sector in the GBR may trigger pan-European exclusive licensing, potentially altering market structures and raising prices in regions where these are lower, thus negatively affecting consumer welfare. In addition, such inclusion would jeopardize the legislative and regulatory efforts being made by Countries such as Italy, Spain, France, Danmark and Greece to fight digital piracy at national level, via DNS and IP blocking, which is also the case of Portugal, where Law 82/2021 of the 30th of November has decreased piracy levels. AAPA for instance, points out that dissatisfaction with geo-blocking primarily stems from consumers wanting to access content for free, rather than a widespread demand for cross-border access. In fact, according to the same statistics that the Commission uses (Flash Eurobarometer 477) only less than 15% of surveyed consumers have attempted to access audiovisual content from another EU country, suggesting that the issue may not be as significant as portrayed and not worth endangering the whole industry. The same source shows that the huge majority of users is only searching for free content and searches abroad for content that is not available in their own country (which may well be for marketing reasons). This is market-oriented and would not change in case GBR included audiovisual: geoblocking would still be needed if the requisite rights were not held by the trader. The so-called Portability Regulation already enables transitory access to ones home-subscribed services, when travelling abroad for a short time. A report for SROC, prepared by Oliver & Ohlbaum Associates Ltd of January 2020 on The impact of potential changes to geo-blocking regulation on sport concludes that changes in geo-blocking could lead to substantial revenue losses for the sports industry, up to 26% of their rights income, mostly affecting smaller markets with lower access costs and leading to a significant decline in media revenue and harm to Grassroots Sports. According to an OXERA study from March 2020, including the audiovisual sector within the scope of the Regulation, even subject to a requisite rights limitation, would have material negative effects throughout the value chain. Previously, an Oxera and Oliver & Ohlbaum 2016 report had found that removing territoriality would lead to short-run, annual losses of up to 9.3bn of consumer welfare; 8.2bn of industry revenue; 48% of film and TV output not compensated by access to cross-border content even because content would lose language and cultural diversity. Please consider attached doc
Read full response