Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-151"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010214.4.3-151"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-14-Speech-3-1522
lpv:speaker	lp:Toine Manders2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the Commissioner on the result they achieved with this important report, which was very nearly the focus of more lobbying than any other report has been. Why was there was so much lobbying? Because the legislation stemming from this report will have an enormous impact on society, and the lobbyists must act as the mouthpiece of this self-same society. Ultimately, I myself am very satisfied with the result achieved, which struck a fair balance between the interests of the consumer, industry and the rightholders. Although I advised the Liberal Group to stick to the line of the common position, including the compromise amendments tabled by the rapporteur, and to reject the remaining amendments, in view of the attitudes within the group, I have taken the liberty of deviating from this line with my vote on the latter I believe that the purpose of copyright law is to protect the rightholders, and this could be done more effectively than the strategy adopted by the report. I have some concerns about the multiplicity of potential exemptions per Member State when it comes to copying rights, and about the possibility of being able to intervene in technical measures, because I feel this could disrupt the principles of the internal market. Reasonable recompense will always have to be paid in the case of exemptions imposed by the government, regardless as to who picks up the tab, because I think it is unjust that rightholders then have to offer their work for free. Regarding Amendment No 2, I believe that double payment must be avoided. The purpose of Amendment No 1 appeals to me a great deal, but the wording goes much too far for my taste in this case. Naturally it is desirable to be able to listen to, or watch, old recordings via the digital highway as well, but only with due recompense for the rightholders, and if they are demonstrably difficult to trace it is important to have a collective licence system in place which functions as a safety net. In the matter of caching, I would have thought it more desirable for this report to tie in more closely with the e-commerce directive. The digital techniques will ultimately start working in a self-regulatory way and I do not see that as a risk but as an opportunity for the further development of our society. All in all, I am very satisfied with the outcome, and I feel that it will give Europe legislation that strikes a better balance than the much vaunted American legislation."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph