Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.14.2-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. I believe she has touched on a few important points, which I intend to raise again myself very shortly. First and foremost, we are discussing Parliament’s assent to the aforementioned WIPO treaties. Nothing is in force yet and so this time Parliament’s decision will carry some weight. In signing up, the EU is acting in accordance with its intention to arrogate all internal and international powers, but it is unclear as to where the powers withdrawn from national control, are to end up. Therefore assent will only be the order of the day here if the EP is involved in the development of WIPO law every step of the way, from start to finish, and has the right of codecision.
This is not provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam. What does the Commission have to say to that? Crucial aspects have remained unclear in the draft treaties, and the rapporteur says the same. To quote one example: the concept “author” is not defined in any way in the Treaty, which would make the situation ripe for litigation amongst parties to the Treaty. I would like to ask the Commission at this point if it intends to go into this with its eyes shut? Does it intend to impose its own definitions of copyright on other parties to the Treaty?
In addition, the WIPO approach is based on the concept of individual rights. This will lead to problems for indigenous people such as the Sami, for they have a different notion of rights: that of collective rights.
However, there are also public interests at stake. For example, it is unclear as to whether public libraries will even be allowed to loan books, videos and cassettes at no charge in the future. This would directly affect the individual’s right to equality of opportunity with regard to access to education. Why does the Commission say nothing about this? Does it in fact want to privatise education? Economic interests are there in the large print of the treaties; public interests, on the other hand, are there in very small print indeed.
We have been conjuring up images of the penniless poet, but what we are talking about here is the total marketing of the soundtrack of Titanic. Furthermore, the relationship between WIPO and TRIPS has not been clarified, particularly as parts of the two treaties overlap. One could now say: “fine, TRIPS, the difference is trade-related intellectual property, but WIPO is mainly about relevance to trade. Therefore, how do we distinguish between these two treaties and ought there to be cooperation? If so, what form should this take? Should we set a precedent with WIPO so as to give the EU complete control over TRIPS too?
All in all, there is still a huge amount of room for improvement and clarification as far as the draft is concerned. I expect the Commission to provide some information on the questions that have been raised so that I can at least give an explanation of vote for my group."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples