Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-24-Speech-3-443"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080924.36.3-443"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, this question is central to the future cultural economy of Europe. Despite the existence of the Directive on copyright in the information society the situation in terms of the collective management of copyright and related rights for online services is extremely complex, particularly because of the territorial nature of copyright law and the absence of a pan-European licensing system. This situation has been made even more complicated by the lack of a coherent policy on the part of the European Commission, with the Directorate-General responsible for the single market and copyright, on the one hand, and the DG for competition policy, on the other, often acting for their own account and without any overall view of the sector concerned, especially as regards the interests of the creative talents of Europe.
In fact, by refusing to legislate and also by ignoring the different resolutions adopted by Parliament and opting instead to attempt to regulate this sector by way of recommendations and administrative decisions the Internal Market and Services Directorate-General has created a climate of legal uncertainty. Against this background we now have the Directorate-General for Competition starting legal proceedings against a player in this sector that was only trying to act in compliance with the Commission recommendation of 2005.
Thus the Commission took this decision against CISAC in July. It did not impose financial penalties but rather sought to change the way that CISAC and its member associations operated. This situation reflects the fact that the European Commission chose to ignore the warnings that had been expressed by Parliament, particularly in its resolution of 13 March 2007, which also contained concrete proposals for controlled competition as well as for the protection and encouragement of minority cultures within the European Union.
Moreover, since then we have seen a whole series of initiatives, only one of which has been legislative in nature: a far-fetched appraisal of the recommendation on collecting societies, an assessment report and Green Paper on the 2001 Directive, questions about home copying, free access by way of a decision of the Directorate-General for Research to 20% of the calls for tender under the Seventh Framework Programme, a time extension to the rights of performing artists, for which a directive is to be considered, and so on.
This is why the Committee on Legal Affairs has posed the following question: does the Commission not think that it would be preferable to make sure that any changes imposed, for example on CISAC members, should be subject to a broad consultation of all the interested parties so as to put an end to the incongruity of the present legal situation that has resulted from the divergent positions adopted by the Commission? Does the European Commission intend to reconsider its policy in this sector in the light of Parliament’s resolution of 13 March 2007 so that a global approach may be found that takes into account not only the interests of the users but also the interests of the licence holders and of the creative community? We are convinced that the CISAC case demonstrates that the approach the Commission has taken by adopting non-mandatory provisions, or ‘soft law’ as it is called, or by way of purely administrative decisions, is inconsistent and contrary to the principle of legal certainty because the parties affected by it have no means of appeal or discussion.
Tomorrow the Commission intends to continue with this ‘soft law’ approach by adopting another recommendation, this time on creative content online, which will also deal with the issue of multi-territory licensing. This will not be a recommendation under the codecision procedure. Does the Commission plan to involve Parliament in drawing up this recommendation in an effective manner? Or, in this sector that is so crucial for the future economy and culture of Europe, is the Commission once again going to ignore those who represent the Member States and their citizens?
For this reason I have two suggestions to make. Firstly, as it has done for home copying, the Commission should put in place a platform for all the stakeholders so that this dossier can be opened and examined by all those who have a need to know. Parliament, for its part, will give its opinion either way. The Committee on Legal Affairs has now set up an
working group on copyright issues with a remit to present all the stakeholders with a clear long-term global vision of intellectual and artistic property and of its role in the knowledge and cultural economy. This group is to hold its first meeting tomorrow morning."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples