Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-138"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-04-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Enforcement of intellectual property rights (criminal measures) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070423.18.1-138"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-04-23-Speech-1-1392
lpv:speaker	lp:Jacques Toubon2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 member; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; JURI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we all want to make progress and successfully clamp down on counterfeiting, which is economically, socially and culturally unacceptable, and Mr Zingaretti has worked hard to come up with this compromise proposal. However, I am struck, in this debate, by the great confusion among those who, in defending consumers, scorn the rights of creators and performers and those who, at the same time, defend Community competence and want the national judiciaries to remain sovereign entities. I believe that there are some real problems there that deserve to be looked at in more depth. I have clear ideas about one point, anyway, and that is the cultural impact of this text. I am referring to the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 that were adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs. They propose definitions of intellectual property rights. That is not the aim of the directive. They propose a restrictive wording of intentional infringement and commercial scale. This goes against the discretion of the national courts and, above all, in fact, it falls short of making peer-to-peer file sharing a criminal act. The result is that the provisions, on the one hand, go against the particularly the 2001 Directive on copyright, and, on the other hand, present a considerable risk for creation and cultural diversity, by undermining the national laws that curb such behaviour, prejudicing as it does the rights of authors and performers. That is why, in this instance, I support the wording of the original proposal by the Commission and, in any case, in our debate, Amendment 30 tabled by Mrs Bowles. We are on very serious ground as far as cultural diversity is concerned."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"acquis communautaire"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph