Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.6.2-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor on this important subject. I should like to begin by saying that the discussion on this subject has taken a long time, as Mr Boselli indicated a little while ago – I think he said three years. That indicates the importance, as well as the controversial nature, of this proposal.
Amendment No 12 as currently drafted risks undermining the Commission's own powers to take measures when Member States take action that affects the functioning of the internal market. For this reason the Commission cannot see its way to accepting it.
Amendment No 13 adds nothing to the text of Article 6(4) which already provides for fair compensation for private copying. In the light of the above, we support the compromise amendments by the rapporteur and the Legal Affairs Committee but not Amendments Nos 2, 4, 11, 12 and 13. Moreover, a series of further amendments, namely Amendments Nos 16 to 45, have also been tabled in Parliament. The majority of those amendments have been rejected by the Legal Affairs Committee. Three amendments, however, namely Amendments Nos 26, 27 and 28, are new.
In all cases, however, the issues raised by those amendments have been thoroughly considered, not just in the course of this second reading, but throughout the history of this directive – considered by my services but also by Member States. None of those further amendments are acceptable to the Commission.
I should now like to address some of the questions and comments made this afternoon more specifically. First of all, there are the questions and remarks made by Mr Medina Ortega, Mr Manders and Mr Echerer on private copying and on the use of the words "for private use". The question is should or should not the Commission support Amendment No 5 and if so, why? In reply to that question, I should like to say that the Commission is of the view that Amendment No 5 provides greater security for rightholders while at the same time allowing legitimate private copying in a manner which is enforceable both by Member States and by rightholders and it clarifies what is commercial by including ends that are both direct and indirect.
There are several safeguards built into this directive which qualify the extent to which private copying may take place and thereby act as a deterrent to piracy. That is particularly the case in relation to the protection of technological measures. The Commission is of the opinion that the reference to "private use" is too narrow a formulation and would give rise to difficulties in enforcement especially in the private domain.
Then there is the question and a comment made by Mr Manders on Article 5 and in particular on the words "transient" and "incidental". On that point, Article 5(1) has been at the centre of attention in all institutions. There have been many amendments tabled both in the Legal Affairs Committee and again here in Parliament which propose changing the text of the common position. The Legal Affairs Committee very wisely rejected all those amendments when it voted on 6 February 2001 and the Commission accepted the text of the common position which states that the acts of copying, in order to be exempted, must be transient
incidental and that they should form an essential part of a technological process. The Commission prefers "or" to "and" in this context because making the conditions cumulative by adding "and" may make the whole exception too narrow and less operational. In addition, including "essential" seems to make sense, as it would be difficult to justify why the exception should privilege acts of reproduction which are not an "essential" part of a technological process.
The current text of Article 5(1) together with the interpretative guidance provided in recital 33 ensures – in the Commission's opinion – a satisfactory balance between the rights of rightholders and the legitimate interests of other parties involved such as telecom operators, users, consumers and other parties.
Together with Article 8 on remedies and sanctions, Article 5(1) will help to provide for effective copyright protection against piracy whilst at the same time promoting the smooth operation of networks.
In particular, it gives service and access providers the necessary legal certainty for their activities on the networks. Responding to comments made by Mrs Fraisse, Mrs Villiers and a number of others on Amendment No 11, may I say the following. There is already an exception for broadcasters based on an amendment adopted by this Parliament at first reading. It introduced a new exception for broadcasters relating to so-called ephemeral reproductions. To introduce a further exception would not only disturb the balance of rights achieved, but could also lead to a violation of Member States' international obligations. In relation to Amendment No 11, a similar amendment was proposed at first reading. The Commission could not accept that amendment as it disturbed the balance between the parties concerned and might have caused considerable damage to authors, performing artists or other holders of the rights concerned. The Commission is in agreement with Mrs Fraisse, Mrs Villiers and almost all speakers in rejecting this amendment.
I wish to thank Mrs Palacio for her support throughout the history of this proposal. If it had not been for her leadership and guidance in the Legal Affairs Committee, it would not have been possible to steer our way through both the first reading and now the second reading, and the Commission is duly grateful to her. The Commission would also like to thank the rapporteur and Parliament in general for the excellent work performed. The common position represents the views of an entire cross-section of diverging interests: the creative and artistic communities, the academic, educational and scientific communities and also consumer groups and bodies representing socially disadvantaged users. Nonetheless, in spite of the complexity of the groups whose interests have to be taken into account, the directive ensures a sufficiently high degree of copyright harmonisation and it should be possible to reach a final agreement today. We have gone very far in meeting the concerns of everyone so, as Mr Boselli put it earlier this afternoon, I hope that this proposal will be approved tomorrow and that it will be adopted with as little change as possible.
After long discussions, in which this Parliament played a very constructive role, we are meeting today to consider what I hope will be a balanced compromise. We now need to agree as rapidly as possible on a set of rules on copyright and related rights in the information society at European level, in order to increase the competitiveness of the Community and to implement our obligations at international level. This directive will be a cornerstone in the establishment of a harmonised legal framework on copyright, in a digital environment in particular. As such, it belongs to those measures for which the Lisbon Summit at the end of last year set us a clear deadline.
The Community needs such a framework if it is not to lag behind its major trading partners and, as was remarked this afternoon, we are already lagging behind the United States. Furthermore, without such a framework in place, rightholders and users cannot respond to the challenges posed by technology in the market place.
The adoption and implementation of this directive is also a precondition for the European Union to ratify rapidly the two WIPO treaties which were adopted in 1996. Here we carry an important responsibility as the coming into force of the WIPO treaties depends largely on this directive and therefore on us. The formal decision to ratify the treaties was adopted by the Council on 16 March 2000. Parliament has already endorsed that decision, but without this directive neither we nor the Member States could move towards ratification of those treaties.
Throughout the legislative process, Parliament has played a significant role. The important changes to this directive introduced after the first reading clearly reflect the influence of this Parliament. We welcome the constructive approach of the rapporteur, Mr Boselli, and of the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, Mrs Palacio – whom it is a particular pleasure to see again today – and also the members of the committee which Mrs Palacio chairs. They have shown a keen sense of appreciation of the issues at stake in this directive, reducing the number of amendments to 15. Most of those amendments were, in fact, compromise amendments, also on crucial issues. The Commission appreciates the efforts made by the rapporteur on private copying and by the Committee on Legal Affairs when it voted not to amend the technical copies exception.
The Commission is in a position to accept all of the compromise amendments. We have, however, concerns about some of the other amendments which have been voted. I shall now say something about each of those amendments, although very briefly.
Firstly, Amendment No 2. It deals with remuneration schemes and the products to which they apply, even though such schemes are outside the scope of the directive. This directive requires fair compensation for certain of the exceptions, one of which is private copying. The system of fair compensation envisages flexibility for Member States, rightholders and users to establish the basis on which those exceptions apply.
Amendment No 4 does not respect the principle of proportionality because it seeks to lay down conditions for the granting of injunctions. But the issue of sanctions is already adequately dealt with in the directive.
Amendment No 11, about which I shall be speaking in reply to some remarks made a little while ago, adds a further exception for broadcasters, framed in terms which were rejected by Parliament itself at first reading. The exception proposed goes too far and risks putting the Community in breach of its international obligations under the WIPO treaties, for which this directive is meant to be the instrument of ratification."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"or"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples