Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-25-Speech-3-198"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070425.32.3-198"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I should like to explain why I voted against the Directive on criminalising violations of intellectual property rights. This started out as a good idea, and I strongly support penalties for counterfeiting and piracy.
Unfortunately, the directive as it has turned out will not help a great deal to combat counterfeiting from Asia. On the contrary, instead of offering protection for innovative business people, the inconsistency of some paragraphs make them open to misuse in the fight for competitiveness. Even European business people may in the future be faced with unfair complaints, perhaps from Asian counterfeiters. The Union should be focusing on enforcing intellectual property rights outside its borders, not on criminalising its own citizens and businesses.
I am opposed to the idea that for the first time in its history the Union will intervene in the criminal law of the Member States. I do not agree that the Union should enforce criminal liability against legal entities in countries, like the Czech Republic, that do not have this in their law. I object to the notion that the general public, journalists, scientists and ordinary consumers could be punished under so-called ‘derived criminal liability’.
To conclude, I should like to ask for my first vote on Articles 43 and 44 to be changed. I was in favour, but I pressed the red light by mistake."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples