Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-118"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Copyright and related rights in the Information Society2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010213.6.2-118"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-13-Speech-2-1192
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Thors2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that many people must have been rather anxious when Mr Harbour said he wanted to see a review of the directive within 18 months. So, is there to be a return to all that lobbying? Is it not all a bit too soon? Everything that can be said about the directive has already been said. It is therefore a little difficult to begin to speak now. I nonetheless want to express my warm thanks to our wonderful rapporteur. I also want to say that the official line of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party at first reading was more balanced than that of the parliamentary majority. We may therefore also consider that essential parts of the common position need to be changed. At first reading, we were concerned that the parliamentary majority was jeopardising the Internet’s function and that there was a danger of creating a system which also made it unattractive to have material on the Net in Europe. The results of the have been published on the Net in the last few days, partly in the journal, Nature and partly in the journal, Science. Via Nature, everyone can access the material but, via Science, it can only be accessed by paying SEK 3 million. That is, of course, a protection of copyright. But is it the same thing as promoting the spread of science and knowledge? Where is the right balance to be found? This is something I believe we should reflect upon when we adopt a position on the directive. I also want to point out once again that our group’s official position now is to have as few amendments as possible. The common position is a fragile compromise which must not be disturbed. Otherwise, we might not get the WIPO Treaty signed, which is of course the most important thing."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Human Genome Project"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph