Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.3.2-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to return to the different stakeholders in this directive and to the parties affected by it, to whom the Commissioner referred – consumers, industrialists and artists. I do not want them all to be put on the same footing.
Firstly, as regards consumers, I regret that the Commission proposal has not been kept as it was. I regret it has been broadened rather too far, in that it holds consumers, as – shall we say – citizens, every bit as responsible for piracy as industrialists. This is my first point on consumers. Treating all European citizens as consumers in this way seems simplistic.
The second very important point is this: If this directive seeks to combat something that exists now, how will things turn out in the future? Over the last few years, discussions concerning intellectual property and industrial property have highlighted the difficulties relating to borders. Some say that intellectual property is the oil of the twenty-first century. They may be right. If intellectual property really is the oil of the twenty-first century, then of course it is important to talk about it. Nonetheless, the fact that this House has discussed such matters as the ability to patent living organisms or free software suggests how important the issue of borders will be in future.
Even if this problem has not yet arisen, it definitely will in future. Not everything can become industrial or intellectual property. It is essential to raise this issue, but in a sensible manner. Borders will certainly be an issue in the near future and thereafter even if they are not yet one today.
This leads me to speak on behalf of, or to speak for, those who use acronyms. I am of course talking about artists. Are artists happy to be equated with industrialists? As a member of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, I do my best to listen to all those sectors. From what I have read and from what I understand, we would do well to take account of artists’ views on intellectual property. If we take account of the views of industrialists and consumers, should we not also consider artists, especially as they are always referred to in connection with the need to combat piracy?
As regards artists, authors’ rights and intellectual property do not appear to be the only problem, and that – as music and music piracy are talked about so glibly – young artists and creative artists would like a different approach. It may be necessary to defend these artists appropriately in this regard. I do not believe that the House should allow all these various parties to be dealt with in the same way."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples