Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.6.2-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after considering this issue of the directive on copyright and harmonisation which primarily involves a list of exceptions, I feel that we have quite simply agreed to maintain a confused situation in order to give ourselves time to give some thought to this matter.
This confusion is due to the fact this directive represents three different interest; i.e. authors and creative artists, consumers, who are also users, and producers and market makers. Producers and market makers are trying to fit in between the other two and I feel that the directive is also in this uneasy position with its list of exceptions, to which the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has just added another, extremely problematic, exception regarding broadcasting. I believe that we are favouring the opinion of consumers. However, what are we trying to make them buy? I put to you the question: just what shall we buy in the near future, if we fail to protect and defend creativity? That is the question we should ask ourselves.
As it happens, outside my parliamentary career, I have written books and I use public libraries and research centres. In both cases, we need to have some protection, some security rather than insecurity, in order to be able to produce works. If I look at this from the consumer’s point of view, I am surprised that Parliament, the defender of Market Europe, defends production in this market in such an ultimately very poor fashion, because, given this list of exceptions, people will refuse to pay for goods which they will want for nothing. You must admit that it is surprising.
The conditions in which these goods are produced are not being questioned either; yet, to produce goods, we need creative artists and authors. I have no idea what you will sell or buy when you no longer have any creative artists or authors but, in any case, Market Europe will not fare very well. That is what will happen to the markets.
Now, if we take a close look at the details of the directive, it becomes apparent that if we say, for example, that archives come into being immediately, or after an hour, this means that everything broadcast on television is archive material. Anyone with an interest in history is slightly surprised to hear archives being defined in this way. If archives are just that and if private copying is widespread, what can we do to ensure that culture, and indeed cultural diversity, is not just heritage, museums, not just a list that we will find in places that are the stuff of archives and museums, but that it is a living creative field? To do that, we must – like it or not – assist artistic creation. To assist artistic creation, we must support copyright rather than criticise and attack it. That is what my group will try to defend by its vote tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples