Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-17-Speech-3-481"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081217.27.3-481"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, thank you Mr Susta. It should, of course, have been easy for us to come to a sound agreement here. However, Parliament’s rules force us to present separate resolutions with no opportunity to vote on individual amendments. This makes it difficult to achieve a compromise in which the wishes of the majority in Parliament have a chance of being accurately represented. This is extremely unfortunate, because it means that if the Green resolution does not receive support tomorrow, for example, we will be voting through a proposal that entails control of the Internet and the content of the Internet and it will mean that distributors will be made responsible for this. This would be very unfortunate, as this is not even Parliament’s intention.
There are two ways in which piracy and counterfeiting pose a threat to consumers and to people in general. They can be exposed to environmentally hazardous goods or to fake medicines that are dangerous to health and so be affected directly. However, they can also face the threat of excessive measures to protect trademarks, and copyright in particular. It is a question of finding a good balance. I think that Parliament’s clear message to the Commission and the Council when they continue their negotiations is that, however the vote goes tomorrow, we will clearly state that personal use that is not for profit must not be treated as a crime. ACTA must not give access to private computers, music players and the like. This is a clear message from Parliament.
As regards criminal law, we must vote for the Green alternative proposal if we do not want some sort of image of us suddenly introducing criminal law at European level. Of course we have absolutely no mandate for doing anything of the sort. The question is whether it would work and how can it create a balance in a penalty scale in one country when the penalty scale in another country would, in fact, end up completely wrong. Doing this at international level then does not look as if it will work at all. The Green proposals are therefore better.
The original proposal says that no exceptions will be made for travellers. For a traveller who brings with him goods worth no more than EUR 400 to then be equated to a businessman who is able to bring 50 containers is unreasonable. Above all, it is unreasonable to vote to remove the rules on the qualitative content of the Internet, qualitative statistics which regulate content and also secondary responsibility and the responsibility of intermediaries.
In order to allow more Members to vote on the Green resolution, we will submit an oral amendment to remove Article 15, which was clearly somewhat controversial, and then I hope that many of you will be able to support our proposal. Thank you."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples