Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-526-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-07-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120703.21.2-526-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-07-03-Speech-2-526-5002
lpv:speaker	lp:Adam Gierek2
lpv:spokenAs	member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Unia Pracy (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; ITRE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; ENVI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement deals with three important issues: 1) the commercial right to use a trademark; 2) the rights of Internet users to operate in the digital environment (Article 27); 3) the entitlement of the creators of intellectual property to the financial benefits of marketing their works. There are no serious doubts about points one and three, although they do need clarification, but there may be a great many doubts over Article 27(1) to (8) and, in particular, paragraph 4, in which online service providers are required to breach the right to the protection of personal data. Paragraph 6 is not acceptable either, as it speaks of the circumvention of ‘an effective technological measure’ and of devices which are ‘primarily’ – but not exclusively – designed or produced to be used for this kind of circumvention thanks to ‘computer programmes’ which they contain. I would like to point out that in 2005, Parliament rejected at second reading a report drafted by the Committee on Legal Affairs entitled ‘Patentability of computer-implemented inventions’. This means that computer programmes cannot be patented, and the big computer firms cannot forbid the use of their devices for the design of new, innovative computer programmes by European IT developers, and this includes programmes for use on the Internet. This would hamper innovation in the field of new IT applications, for example. We should take the obvious case of fake goods out of ACTA and give detailed attention to intellectual property rights in the Internet and how to protect them, on condition, however, that the open source principle in the Internet will be maintained."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph