Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-131"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-04-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Enforcement of intellectual property rights (criminal measures) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070423.18.1-131"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-04-23-Speech-1-1322
lpv:speaker	lp:Rainer Wieland2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2007-03-26--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-01-19--2007-06-19)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; JURI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; PETI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, the lead committee on this report is that on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, to which I in fact belong, and which concerns itself primarily with the rights to intellectual property, but I am now the draftsman of the opinion on this matter of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and propose to limit myself to considering it from that angle. Commissioner Verheugen discussed our need for this piece of legislation, and it is indeed true that we do, but we should be doing more than merely constantly tinkering with the minimum penalty. At the end of the day, adding or subtracting a whole year or six months to or from the minimum or maximum penalty helps nobody. I am firmly persuaded – and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has come round to this view – that we have to make a start on working on the principle of precision. We have put the case for this directive ultimately to include – irrespective of whether patents are included, which is, in the first instance, irrelevant – a positive list of its scope, so that the public – for whom the legislation is intended – do not get to read of some vague concept, but can see a list showing where and in what ways they can expose themselves to penalties. In so doing, we are – as the Commissioner said – entering the realm of definitions. If we now start, in civil law, to put together what is termed a toolbox, then we are also on the threshold of laying down similar definitions in the sphere of criminal law too. There is no use fiddling with the legal consequences unless we also work on the definitions; that is what we must do, that is why this directive is a first step, and that is why I do not quite see the point of the criticism. One starting point is the attempt at defining what is meant by ‘commercial’. We are trying to define the term ‘intention’, but please can we do this not only with reference to this area of applicability, but …"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker.)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph