Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-426-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120703.21.2-426-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I think it is quite clear from the level of the debate that we have all received a lot of correspondence from a number of constituents. Yet most of my correspondence has come from non-constituents from all round the world warning me of gloom and doom if ACTA were to be passed, and of the end of the Internet. Frankly, that is a load of rubbish and we should really focus on some of the concerns that we all had at the beginning.
There were concerns right across the House on transparency; there were concerns on the issue of fundamental rights and civil rights for citizens and I think some of those issues would have been dealt with by the European Court of Justice. I think we also have to be quite clear that many of the laws about the Internet which are worrying us actually come from national governments. The ‘three strikes and you are out’, for example, and some of the American proposals on the Internet have nothing to do with ACTA.
These are national governments that have brought in these measures but I think there is also an important distinction to be made. In his book ‘Free’, Chris Anderson, the editor of ‘Wired’, makes a distinction between the world of atoms and the world of bits. He says that in a world of increased processing power, increased bandwidth and increased storage, the price of digital products tends towards zero and therefore he proposes new business models for digital products.
The problem with that view is that people should be allowed to give away and share if they want but, at the same time, we should not prevent those who want to use intellectual property and make money out of intellectual property from being allowed to do so. We should allow both business models to be able to coexist.
Overall, my real concern about this is that many political groups wanted a referral to the ECJ. We pushed the Commission for a referral to the ECJ but, when the Commission actually goes ahead and listens to us and refers to the ECJ, what do we do? We move the goal posts and we complain about a referral to the ECJ and we ask for rejection. I actually think that is quite dishonourable and we will not be taken seriously if we continue to act in this way.
I have to say, as someone who is concerned about European integration, that in some way, I welcome the undermining of the ECJ in this way because the ECJ has been one of the greatest pushers for European integration. If you are going to set that precedent, I thank you, but let us focus on the issue at hand. Let us not move the goal posts when we have asked for a referral in the first place. The most honourable thing to have done would have been to wait for the referral to the ECJ and wait for the ECJ to rule. In fact, the ECJ’s ruling may even have given you ammunition against those who are against ACTA. I welcome any blue cards at this stage. Bring it on."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples