Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-110"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.6.2-110"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, before beginning my speech, I must confess that I have a double interest in this issue. On the one hand, I am an owner of intellectual property, being the author of several books and publications, and, on the other, I am a member of the Internet Foundation, which has various supporters in this Parliament.
Today coincides with an important event from the point of view of intellectual property in the information society, that is the judgment of the San Francisco Appeal Court in the Napster case, which brings us closer to finally resolving the vexed question of the use of the Internet to breach intellectual property rights. The judgment of the San Francisco Court of Appeal confirms intellectual property rights and establishes certain measures for the protection of intellectual property in the United States.
The challenge facing us is to ensure that Europe also establishes a system which would safeguard intellectual property, otherwise we could find that, by means of installations in Europe, the effective protection measures which are currently being adopted in the United States under the Millennium Law, which has been in force for more than two years, could be violated. We are lagging behind the United States, and, in this respect, I am in agreement with the rapporteur in the sense that we should bring this directive into play as soon as possible.
Now, in doing so, the Socialist Group is concerned that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. We have tabled two amendments which we consider to be very important.
Firstly, the amendment relating to what is known as private copying. Private copying, which was a traditional right of any person obtaining an intellectual work or intellectual property, must now, in the information society, be subject to very strict requirements, because of the enormous ease of reproduction. This amendment proposes that the private copy should be intended for the personal use of the person making it, because otherwise, given the ease of reproduction, we run the risk that many copies can be made for the private use of persons other than the person making the copy.
Secondly, another very important amendment is the one relating to the incidental and transitional nature of reproduction. If, as a consequence of the processes established by the information society, it is necessary to make a copy of a transitional and incidental nature, this should be intended to be of a genuinely transitional nature. It would be unacceptable to create large libraries of intellectual property so that, at any given moment, the person who has been using that property can access it at will. We believe that the accumulation of requirements that they be of a transitional and incidental nature is essential to safeguarding intellectual property.
I hope that in tomorrow's vote the various political groups can come to an agreement in order to offer alternatives which will truly guarantee the protection of intellectual property in the information society, since in a few years time, all intellectual property will probably be of the type that travels around the great communications networks."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples