Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.6.2-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this directive regulates the protection of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is an important directive and its path has by no means been easy. We have reached the second reading and Parliament is now called upon to express its opinion on the position adopted by the Council which, as you will remember, was forwarded to us 18 months after it had been adopted at first reading. The reason for this is that a controversial, delicate compromise had to be found between all the interests covered by the directive. I see this difficult, delicate compromise as a step forward for, apart from anything else, it includes many of the points proposed by Parliament at first reading.
There was room for improvement in some parts of the directive and this is what I have attempted to do. Although some compromise amendments were adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, opinion is still divided, particularly with regard to the article on copying for technical purposes, or caching, and the article on private copying. There are many amendments regarding this point which I do not endorse.
The reason why, as far as private copying is concerned, the compromise amendments adopted in committee represented a major new development benefiting the authors lies in the fact that they stipulate that private copying – and I quote – must be
"made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly or indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation".
This amendment introduces a new principle into Community legislation, in that it limits the scope of the definition of private copying, to the benefit of the authors, while clearly, at the same time, safeguarding the legitimate interests of the consumer.
This amendment, adopted by the committee, halts the huge increase in exchanges of unauthorised copies between users of sites such as Napster, and it will mean that it is no longer possible to describe the exchange of unauthorised works between Napster users as private copying. I see this as an improvement on the text of the common position.
With regard to the other element, technical copying, I feel that the balance achieved in the common position is more than sufficient to protect both rightholders and consumers. Although the intention behind the amendments tabled on this issue – Article 5, point 1 – to provide greater copyright protection is commendable, none of the amendments are acceptable, apart from anything else because they relate to application, not regulation which is the subject of this directive. Furthermore, these amendments are intended to introduce a system of dual authorisation of works on the Internet, one for hosting and one for caching, which would be a heavy burden for the network management.
Therefore, to sum up, the vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market showed that it is possible to reach a broad consensus, to adopt the directive and to improve the common position without running the risk of a long, tedious conciliation procedure; all this after three years of debate, argument and dispute. In my opinion, this is an opportunity which the European Parliament must take: if, tomorrow, it supports the agreement reached in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and adopts the amendments which are the result of a broad compromise between a large number of political groups, then we will, at last, be able to adopt the directive. This will benefit not only the European Union, which has been waiting for legislation on the subject for a long time, but also and most importantly, the rightholders. Indeed, if the directive is adopted, not only will the exceptions which are still disputed enter into force, but also, most importantly, the rule established by Article 2 which lays down the principle of authorisation of rightholders for the use of works in new digital environments.
For all these reasons, it should I hope, be possible, at last, to adopt the text of this directive tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples