Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.3.2-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, contrary to Mr Imbeni, I do not want to praise the procedure followed because an ‘early conciliation’, as Mr Imbeni put it, is not a good procedure. There is a good reason why the conciliation has its rules and its methods of proceeding: in order that a large number of MEPS, and Parliament itself, might be involved in the debate and in clarifying the uncertainties in the text that little by little takes shape. This also means that it is not, then, four or five representatives from political groups that commandeer the procedure to achieve a compromise text a few days from the vote, with orders for MEPs and individual MEPs in the groups to toe the party line and not to touch what four or five MEPs have decided in this early conciliation. I, contrary to Mr Imbeni, do not consider this to be a good procedure. We then notice the implications in connection with this report. It is not true that this compromise clearly limits the scope. If this were the case, if this were also your intention, then you would, for example, be able to adopt Amendment No 101 – which we tabled with some other Members – which explicitly limits the scope to intentional infringements for commercial gain. The truth is that, even though criminal sanctions have been removed from the compromise, preventative measures remain that are very dangerous regardless of the outcome of the inquiry and the procedure. The risk is adopting a system which thus makes it simple, and even partly up to private companies themselves, to search, confiscate goods and take preventive measures that risk putting the market in a situation of uncertainty and instability, where those who are most organised in having lawyers and legal consultations – large corporations – will best succeed in scaring and blackmailing small and very small businesses and also the end consumer.
It is not true that private copying is excluded from the scope of this compromise, because it is not excluded from preventive measures. Why all this? Why was it necessary to do all this and to devise this type of special emergency legislation? Perhaps because the laws on intellectual property are laws that have been superseded to a large extent by digital technology. The risk is that you, the very people who want intellectual property to be respected, in the same way as physical property – and this is also our concern – end up adopting laws that cannot be respected. It is not with policing measures and private policing that the desired objective is achieved. Such measures achieve the opposite, that is to say they delegitimise the power and value of the laws."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples