Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-22-Speech-3-474"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090422.59.3-474"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to think that I have learned a lot from my time here as European Commissioner. Some people might contend that I have not, but I think I have.
But I was lobbied fairly intensively by ordinary performers. Yes, the high-profile performers came and lent their support to the cause, because the ordinary performers thought that it would be better to have some of the big names in this particular area as well, but the ordinary performers – the session musicians, who most people have never heard of – were the biggest lobbyists here. I think it is significant to note that, as Mr Heaton-Harris said, 38 000 session musicians support this particular proposal.
So one has to make a judgement on which is the proper way to go forward. I would say that most people know the singers of their favourite four songs or records, but I doubt very much that many of them know who actually wrote them. But the writer of the song is entitled to life plus 70 years.
If I named six tunes here tonight out of the most popular tunes created, I doubt that there would be anyone in this Chamber who would be able to name who wrote the songs, but each one who knows a particular record would be able to say: that was sung by such and such. The writer gets life plus 70, but the performer gets only 50 years from the date of his performance.
From any type of moral perspective that is unfair. Some people had one hit song when they were 21 or 22 and were then never heard of again, and they did not make an awful lot of money out of it. In their twilight years when they are approaching 70 and beyond I think it would be only reasonable that they could have a little bit of additional income. You can boil down all the technical arguments and the intellectual arguments and everything else, but on the basis of fair play I think that argument wins out.
As Mr Crowley and others mentioned, this was a genuine attempt to address some of these issues – and some very conflicting issues. We have done our best to get a proposal. Mr Crowley has put an extraordinary degree of work into this area in trying to reach agreements and compromises and has worked long and hard.
I shall just refer to some of the issues raised.
Ms Gill, who is very supportive of the proposal and I thank her very much for her support, mentioned the ‘use it or lose it’ clause, which kicks in after a year, but, in the implementation in Member States, Member States can allow it to kick in after three months or six months if they so wish.
Ms Bowles – and I do not doubt for one moment her sincerity in this regard – feels she is not in a position to vote for this particular proposal or the compromise proposal put forward by Brian Crowley. She mentioned the matter of contracts. Well, I do not think the matter of contracts should kill the proposal. It is definitely another issue which could be the subject of another initiative if – and only if – this proposal succeeds.
Ms Lichtenberger made a fine address. I would point out to her that EUR 2 000 certainly is not peanuts for a session player. The fund, as I said earlier, is endorsed by 38 000 performers and I think they should know.
Mr Medina Ortega, from his vast experience as a politician, made a very good point, and I agree with him that we have to propose something here that has a reasonable chance of flying in the Council of Ministers as well. As he pointed out, we have to be realistic, because, with different views there as well, we have to come forward with a proposal – as Mr Crowley and others have done – that has a realistic chance of flying in the Council of Ministers, and he put that point very forcibly and well.
But one thing that I have learned is that anything touching on the area of intellectual property is fraught with all types of pitfalls. There have been a number of issues raised in this whole area of intellectual property in Parliament and the Council of Ministers, both in my time as Commissioner and in my time previously as an Irish government minister, and some of these issues have been around for 20/30 years. So I have learned that any aspect of this topic gets a tremendous amount of coverage, generates a lot of debate and polarises a lot of Members of Parliament, Member States and different stakeholders.
Mr Schmidt and Mr Musacchio made points about the existing label business models, but we are not endorsing the existing label business models. A 70-year term is open to all new innovative business models.
Mr Holm referred to the possibility of being fined, for example, for singing
but I think he has his ideas confused here. It is not about the song: it is only about its recording by a performer, so Mr Holm can sing
any time he wishes and he will not be in danger of being penalised in any way. This is about the recording by the performer, not by the writer.
Mr Mavrommatis made a number of points which we have noted but I think 70 years is the best proxy for life.
In conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation and admiration for the efficient handling of this file by everybody involved in the European Parliament. It has resulted in the compromise proposal put forward by Brian Crowley, and I think it demonstrates our willingness to improve the legal framework for our creative community. I think that in the future it will show that protecting those who create was the right choice, and that increasing efficiency of rights management infrastructures will prove wrong those who claim that better protection will lead to a less thriving online culture.
I would like to thank everybody concerned with the debate, particularly the rapporteur Brian Crowley, not because he is a colleague of mine from Ireland and a long-standing friend, but because he has put in an extraordinary amount of work to try and make this compromise acceptable to as many competing interests in Parliament as possible and also facilitated a compromise which, as Mr Medina Ortega has said, has a reasonable chance of acceptance in the Council of Minsters as well.
So I have learned that it is exceptionally difficult to address anything in this area and try to reach an acceptable solution. During my time here as Commissioner there have been many instances where we have failed to reach any agreement in certain areas.
That being so, I am not the least bit surprised at the depth and sincerity of the arguments put on all sides of this debate, because any issue relating to the intellectual property area always generate this kind of argument, and people who are on the opposing side of the compromise proposal put forward by Mr Crowley will be on totally the opposite side in other areas of intellectual property.
So it is very interesting, in this type of debate, to see people who would take one position in other areas of intellectual property taking a different position here, because this is a very difficult area, and I accept the sincerity of the people who have contributed.
There is little point in my going over all the various points raised individually and debating them, because they have been debated ad nauseam in the committee. One thing that Mr Crowley and rapporteurs from other committees did is to give it a lot of time. Parliament has given this an exceptional amount of time and an exceptional degree of effort, and many of the assistants and people in my own DG worked exceptionally hard on this to try and reach what we thought would be an acceptable compromise.
But I will touch on some of the areas. Let me just eliminate a few points at the outset that do not relate so much to this debate as to what surrounded the earlier debate by which we came up with this proposal.
Let me assure you that the people who asked me to go forward with a proposal here were the performers – that is where the intensive lobbying came from.
If there is disagreement here in the House and in Member States, I can equally say there were different views in my DG on this issue when I first came to it as to how we should proceed, and many of the differing viewpoints put forward here were reflected there as well. I think that is natural: if it generates such divided views here and in other Member States you can expect the same in the DG."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples