Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-04-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000504.2.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in common with the previous speaker, I would firstly like to thank Mrs Fourtou for the wonderful work she has done and for providing us with such excellent information. After all, piracy is commonly thought to be a trivial offence: people might think of Calvin Klein T-shirts or RayBan sunglasses that one can buy for next to nothing on some far-flung beach, or they might think of CDs that one can easily get hold of on the quiet. What many people are not really aware of yet is that piracy poses a real threat to public health and to the consumer in general when it involves spare parts for vehicles, particularly aircraft, or medicines, and I believe we have a duty to pass on this information, so that when it comes to taking preventive measures, it is easier to get away from the idea that piracy is a trivial offence.
The point has already been made several times today that we are confusing issues. However, I am not accusing Mrs Fourtou of this, rather all those of us who do not take the time to get to grips with the minor detail of each text, and who are no longer able, owing to pressure of work, to properly verify and counter-verify the investigations that texts require, for we are confusing issues. We are confusing copyright with the protection of industrial property. They are two different things. They are the same in that they both relate to counterfeiting in this instance, and to criminal activity. Needless to say, both types of activity must be punished.
Mention has also already been made today of the fact that artists, for example, would suffer terrible financial losses as a result. I would take issue with this because it is not strictly true. After all, artists are just happy to be heard, and it is of secondary importance to them whether the CD is a pirated copy or not, because once they have become so famous that pirated copies are being made of their CDs, they can manage perfectly well without these royalties. But they create a market for themselves in which to appear. I thought I would just mention this as a side issue.
There is also a terribly malicious rumour circulating, which cannot, of course, by its very nature, be verified, that a great deal of counterfeiting and piracy goes on under cover of industry itself. That is the most reprehensible thing I have ever heard! If that really is the case – and we would have to look into it of course – then our approach should not be to punish consumers in the first instance, but those involved in the manufacture of the goods. There is also a difference, as I see it, between a small family in a poor country endeavouring, in a ‘family firm’, to improve its fortunes a little by counterfeiting, and T-shirts or other products of our consumer world, produced under the protective mantle of industry simply being sold there so as to create a market. I would like to see us draw distinctions here.
Finally, I would like to stress once again that I am sceptical as to whether we really should be meting out such severe punishment to the end-user, for it is scarcely possible these days to detect the difference between an original and a copy. One needs a trained eye to do so!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples