Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-05-Speech-2-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090505.3.2-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, there is one point I would particularly like to praise the rapporteur for. I think it is very good that, on certain points, Commissioner Reding has distanced herself from her proposal. The approach to frequency bands is – as the legal framework is now to be laid down – much more balanced, than was originally provided in the Commission’s proposal.
In my opinion – as we have now agreed – with frequency bands much better consideration will be given to public interests for the benefit of broadcasting. In view of the current debate surrounding financial markets, I believe that with our debate we have actually prevented trouble. This proposal, as it has now been brokered, will, in a much more balanced way, take into account the relationship between the market and what the market can create, and the tasks of the state. I believe that it represents progress for the security of our democracy and that it can also make a valuable contribution to culture.
Even if we still have discussions within the Group ahead of us, I would like to state here and now that I am not at all satisfied with the compromise with regard to the restriction of the rights of Internet users in cases where infringements are believed to have been committed.
I know that the original Amendment 138 did not have the optimal form judicially. However, I see that the compromise which has now been found fails to guarantee that, before the fundamental rights of a citizen in the European Union are restricted, a judge will be involved in this decision to restrict fundamental rights. Commissioner, I would be very interested in hearing how you interpret the compromise, and in particular what, in your opinion, this compromise that we now have on the table, means for the French Hadopi model.
I believe that we will create two different situations for the consideration of basic rights. Things will perhaps be better in one Member State than in another. I think that it is a very, very badly worded compromise. As Parliament we should do better than this. As far as the rights of artists are concerned, Madam President, I agree with my fellow Member Mrs Mann that authors’ rights must be regulated in a different regulation and not within the framework of a market regulation."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples