Enforcing right in a meaningful manner
            Respect for IP rights is an essential feature of  the innovation value chain, since rights that cannot be enforced are of no  (economic) value. The lack of a clear and predictable IP enforcement system had  a chilling effect on investment in IP in general. Effective enforcement of  copyright in the digital world is challenging because of the inherent  cross-border nature of the internet, the remaining differences in national IP  enforcement systems, and the speed with which commercial-scale infringers can  change the sources and location of their infringing activity.
            Right holders seeking respect of their right in  the online world need effective cross-border court orders. However that is  difficult in the absence of a fully harmonised system of substantive law. More  generally, although a number of legal tools exist at EU or Member State level  to tackle infringements of copyright, there are various problems with the  accessibility and efficiency of these measures. There are also concerns  regarding the protection of fundamental rights when those tools are applied,  particularly against non-commercial scale infringers. The remaining differences  in the IP civil enforcement frameworks of Member States and the aforementioned  uncertainties surrounding how they are applied make cross-border actions slow and  costly, whereas commercial-scale infringers can rapidly move within the single  market.
            Thus, the current framework is not effective in  ensuring respect of copyright, in particular in cross-border cases, which are  very common on the internet. The key challenge is to rapidly identify and  tackle the source of such activities with the assistance of intermediaries, in  particular the most harmful commercial-scale infringements that seek to  generate profits. This is particularly difficult on the internet when the  problematic service is located outside of the jurisdiction of the seized court  and when the service facilitating the infringements is shielded from the  specific liability regime provided for by the EU legal framework. The challenges range  from collecting evidence to using a fragmented judicial system to actually  “catch” the illegal source.
            A focus on enhancing due diligence obligations  for all actors in the value chain of digital content distribution could be  considered. Even if intermediaries do not necessarily carry out themselves acts  that would require the authorisation of the right holders, they could be  encouraged to pro-actively help in addressing the commercial offer of  copyright-infringing content on the internet. This could be done through  different means that should be proportionate and balanced, and would help  uphold the reward function of copyright for the creative industries.
            More generally, in order to ensure that all  potential measures are effective and proportionate, legal clarifications could  be brought on the different intermediaries that can be involved, on the types,  conditions and duration of these measures, as well as the articulation between  the different fundamental rights involved. This would concern, in particular,  the protection of privacy, of personal data, freedom of information and  expression, freedom to conduct a business and the right to property. Finally, there should  also be a focus on the “follow the money” approach. Piracy will thrive as long  as it is a “business model”, but its financial resources could be threatened by  limiting the provision of payment services and advertising to such websites.