Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-122"

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	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010213.6.2-122"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-13-Speech-2-1232
lpv:speaker	lp:Janelly Fourtou2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (1999-11-11--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Union pour la démocratie française (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-11--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would, of course, also like to commend Mr Boselli’s determination to achieve a balance in a text that has been under discussion for nearly three years. His task was made all the more difficult by the Council’s failure to adopt all Parliament’s amendments at the first reading stage. As has been mentioned, the aim of the new directive is to adapt current legislation to the new technologies while respecting the international treaties adopted in 1996. There is a legal void with regard to copyright protection in the digital age. The Internet is a powerful tool but it must not be an unregulated area. The cultural and economic stakes are high and, with the Internet expanding at an incredible pace, a legal framework in Europe must be found, as in the United States, where this kind of framework was adopted two years ago. It is, therefore, an urgent matter, all the more so because this directive is a key factor in the fight against illegal copying, a matter particularly close to my heart, and because pirate copying is the scourge of the information society. It becomes all the more crucial in a digital age because the first copies and any subsequent copies retain a quality close to that of the original. Consumers are acknowledged as being entitled to make private copies. It is only natural that the eligible parties are fairly compensated in return, it is only fair. In order to ensure that we are talking about purely private copies, the law must be written in sufficiently restrictive terms and the wording of the definition must be perfectly unambiguous. So I am in favour of a restrictive definition of private copying. In order to protect works of art against illegal copying, eligible parties must be given the opportunity to use technical protection. That is why hackers, as they are called, must be fought by clamping down on the means they offer to the public to overcome protection systems, thereby encouraging the illegal copying of protected works of art. This new context is constantly changing and raises many questions and concerns. The directive must balance the interests of consumers and eligible parties. It is trying to resolve these issues as quickly as possible but in a necessarily imperfect way. If we amend this directive, we shall, in two years’ time, be able to determine its shortcomings and weaknesses in the light of the incredible developments in the information society."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph