Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.3.2-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Fourtou, all the shadow rapporteurs, and also the Commission and the Council, for the structured, constructive cooperation that we have enjoyed over the past three months because, to my mind, the way in which a compromise has been achieved on this Directive is exceptional. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market took a rather different view, but, ultimately, I think that this compromise is a start, and indeed I hope that it is adopted.
We finally have recognition of intellectual property rights throughout Europe. Although there were already various directives and laws in existence, for example regarding copyright, e-commerce, and software, there was no discussion – or at least insufficient – of enforcement, and as a result we in Europe find ourselves with a hotchpotch. In that regard, it is good that we now have a kind of umbrella legislation for harmonised implementation, throughout the EU, of all the directives already in existence in the field of intellectual property rights.
As many have now said, counterfeiting and piracy within Europe are growing hand over fist. We are seeing criminal organisations switching from drug trafficking to counterfeit goods because the chance of being caught is minimal and there is just as much money in it, if not more. I think that we must call a halt to this. I think that we need a harmonised approach, not only because criminal organisations are earning money illegally from these goods, but also in order to protect our economy, to achieve the Lisbon objectives, and ultimately, in particular, to protect consumers.
Why so? We are not just talking about pirated CDs, as some people think, but about a broad spectrum of products that are being counterfeited. I shall take toys as an example. I have seen toys that contain cadmium. Under the Directive on cadmium, this substance is prohibited in toys manufactured in Europe, but counterfeit products can still contain it, as they are illegally imported. Medicinal products are another example. There are examples of painkillers that contain talcum powder, and I think that this is unacceptable. Much money is to be made from it but, in my opinion, consumers must be protected. Even aircraft parts are being counterfeited, because there are large profits to be made from this. It is a good thing that something is being done to put an end to this.
I was the one who, at the Green Paper stage, suggested including a reference to criminal law. The reason for this is that we would not buy a stolen bicycle, because it has been stolen – our principles would not allow it – but we would like a counterfeit Breitling watch or other counterfeit product, because it is cheap. If this is included in criminal law, and possession of a somewhat dearer counterfeit product becomes a punishable offence, there will no longer be a market for this, and there will no longer be an incentive for organisations to produce counterfeit goods.
It is a shame that certain strict rules have not been included, as my colleague Mr Berenguer Fuster has already remarked, but I nevertheless welcome the compromise that has been reached. A large number of ambiguities that lobbyists have been using up to now as arguments for voting against it have been removed from the proposal. It is my opinion that this proposal is the beginning of the end of counterfeiting, and I hope that this will develop into a fully-fledged directive with fully-fledged means of monitoring compliance with it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples