Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.4.3-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Protecting copyright and related rights, which plays a part in the creative process, is in itself a problematic issue. It becomes more critical in the new information society, as it is called – inaccurately, for that matter. The new technologies, symbolised by the Internet, appear to grant absolute freedom, which favours the consumer but prevents creative artists and industries receiving all the due profits from works of art and reproductions.
That is why it is difficult to reconcile the divergent interests of consumers, industries and rightholders. How can the profits of the so-called cultural industry be protected without putting an end to the freedom that allows people to collect all the works of arts they find whilst surfing the Internet?
For an industry that is making a profit out of information technologies, as they are pompously known, the Brussels proposal for a directive on copyright is a fair compromise.
For authors and composers, this compromise weakens copyright protection. For instance, radio broadcast archives would be excluded from protection, as would short-lived reproductions and works of art referred to in libraries or multimedia libraries.
Authors are quite rightly demanding fair compensation for the losses they will incur because of the exceptions. In the case of authors, compromise will have to be reached between the three parties by way of contracts.
Exceptions to protection would, in fact, be subject to expropriations for which there should be compensation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples