Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.6.2-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, we need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve in this directive. This directive, as a piece of intellectual property legislation, must try to incorporate structures to reward the creative industries, which in my own Member State alone contribute GBP 60 billion to our national economy and GBP 8 billion of exports. They also employ 1.4 million people. At the same time we must not strangle or restrict freedom of access for legitimate users. This fits in with the EU action plan and the forthcoming summit in Stockholm.
The fact is that the Internet genie is out of the bottle. We cannot stop technology, but neither can we allow it to render copyright dead or to let it be abused as a safe haven for piracy, parasites and mass illegal copying. Yesterday's Napster ruling clearly showed that copyright has to be applied to cyberspace. We must not encourage people to infringe copyright.
The composition of the compromise amendments tabled by the rapporteur has maintained this balance between rightholders and users effectively. The exceptions which currently exist in Article 5 mean that the generous provisions on exceptions that we have in the UK will continue to help vulnerable users and ensure that schools, libraries and research and education institutions can benefit from private copying. In the UK we also record programmes so that we are able to watch at the time and place we choose and that, of course, needs to remain intact.
It is however regrettable that some unnecessary, unhelpful amendments have crept in at the last stage in committee. I refer to: Amendment No 11, which seeks to give an exemption to broadcasting companies which no one else enjoys and which would reduce performers' and artists' rights in contravention of the WIPO Treaty; and Amendment No 4 which, in the second part, introduces an unnecessary and unwarranted EU restriction of the freedom of national courts to decide how to deal with injunctions, in particular concerning piracy, and amendments on levies. While this is well-intentioned, we cannot support this approach because it could be interpreted, taken in a vague sense, to mean that levies should always be introduced when you have no technical protection in place. The UK does not operate a system of levies and we do not want to see it introduced through the back door.
Finally, as with every other piece of legislation on the Internet that comes before us in this House, we should use the provisions of the directive, the review clause in Article 12 and the role of the contact committee to prevent both the abuse of private copying and any abuse or limitation on fair use."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples