Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-406-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120703.21.2-406-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, today, my strong recommendation to this House is that we reject the ACTA Treaty.
The third major area of concern I have is the role of Internet service providers (ISPs). Provisions which might push ISPs to monitor online behaviour and report individuals for IPR infringement is very dangerous. It is not the role of ISPs to police the Internet, and we should not be privatising law enforcement in this way.
We have had many debates in this Chamber on international agreements. I have often said that the devil is in the detail. This time, the devil is in the lack of detail. Rights holders in the creative and manufacturing industries are voracious in pursuing their rights, often understandably so when you see the level of counterfeit and piracy they face.
But this means that a vague text is dangerous. We cannot guarantee that civil liberties will be robustly protected by the ACTA Treaty provisions. When it comes down to protecting intellectual property rights or protecting civil liberties, civil liberties should always be central to the concern of this House. The freedom of the Internet is highly valued by our citizens and we interfere with that at our peril.
At the outset of this debate though, let me make it clear that, unlike some, I do not criticise the Commission for bringing forward this proposal. It is their role as the institution with the right of initiative to do so. But the role of Parliament has been strengthened under the Lisbon Treaty and it is our job to scrutinise international agreements and to give them or deny them our consent.
Over the last three or four months, I have carefully studied the text. I have spoken to the officials who have negotiated this agreement. I have spoken to the rights holders that it seeks to protect, and I have engaged with civil society organisations who have serious concerns about this agreement.
I personally have come to the conclusion that there are serious flaws and serious concerns about the way that this agreement could be misinterpreted and implemented. Therefore, as rapporteur, I cannot recommend that the Parliament gives it its approval.
Before, I have described myself as the accidental rapporteur. I genuinely came to this report with no agenda on ACTA and, if anything, I was probably regarded as having a pro-IPR agenda. I know of authors and musicians who are far from wealthy and who depend on the protection of their creations to make a living.
As I have said before, creativity is the raw material of the European Union. In September 2011, we were here debating the EU 2020 strategy and the future of trade policy. Protecting European intellectual property is a key part of that. We cannot compete globally as a low-wage economy and we should not try. Protecting our innovation and creative industries is vital for job creation and for economic recovery.
But this is not a vote about the general importance of IPR. It is a vote on the text of the ACTA Treaty. I have listened to civil society’s concerns on this agreement and, while some of the perceived threats of ACTA were perhaps exaggerated or unfounded, I am convinced that there are some key problems with the treaty.
The first is a lack of clear definition of ‘commercial scale’. ACTA refers to ‘commercial activities for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage’. But what exactly is ‘indirect commercial advantage’. What if one person copies a piece of music or a film and gives it to a friend, who gives it to another friend, and so on. Is that ‘commercial scale’, or is that simple private usage? I know the Commission will say that it is not ‘commercial scale’ because commercial scale is defined in European law. But ‘commercial scale’ is not defined in the ACTA Treaty.
It is also possible that ACTA could unintentionally criminalise individuals if we do not have a clear and precise definition of ‘commercial scale’. I also have related concerns to the sanctions contained in the ACTA Treaty which appear sometimes to be excessive in terms of the civil and criminal penalties."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples