Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-216"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.7.2-216"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I can confirm that the principle of ‘fair compensation’, as described in the directive, is a new concept, to be distinguished from the right to receive fair remuneration, indicated with the term ‘copyright’ in the context of reproduction for private use.
As is indicated in the directive, the concept of fair compensation offers Member States a considerable degree of flexibility or freedom of judgment when they decide on the form, the modalities or the level of fair compensation regulations. However, pursuant to recitals 35 and 38, Member States that apply copyright meet the condition that fair compensation must be in place. Relevant legislation implementing the directive need not necessarily contain a specific reference to the principle of fair compensation.
In accordance with the directive, Member States are obliged to ensure that fair compensation is in place for three of the exceptions to the reproduction right listed in the directive. First of all, there is the exception of reproduction for private use. This is the exception with most relevance for copyright, because usually, rights are levied with regard to reproduction for private use of sound and audio-visual material. The second one pertains to the exception for reprographics or photocopying and the third one relates to transmissions in some social institutions such as hospitals or prisons.
It seems probable that the Member States that had levy systems in place in the past, will continue to allow reproduction for private use in combination with levy systems and that they will also apply these to certain digital products. It is true that the different systems continue to result in differences in application with regard to carriers or equipment to which they apply and/or the amounts claimed, including the differences in application to digital carriers. This is due to the fact that the EC legislator ruled against a higher degree of harmonisation during negotiations about the directive.
As far as analogue copying for private use is concerned, the directive acknowledges that it is unlikely that the existing differences will have a major impact on the development of the information society. With regard to digital copying for private use, the directive underlines that due account must be given to differences between digital and analogue copying for private use, and that in certain cases, a distinction must be drawn between them.
At the same time, it must be stressed that the directive does not require Member States to abolish copyright, or to take a stand for or against copyright in comparison to digital rights management systems."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples