Activities of Therese COMODINI CACHIA related to 2014/2151(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Intellectual property rights: an EU action plan (A8-0169/2015 - Pavel Svoboda)
Amendments (36)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Welcomes the EU Action Plan on the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and particularly emphasises and supports the application of due diligence throughout the supply chain, the ‘follow the money’ approach, the improvement of IP civil enforcement procedures for SMEs, the targeted communication campaign and the focus on commercial scale IPR infringements;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Notes that according to the Commission, the cultural and creative sectors, often IPR intensive, already account for up to 4.5% of GDP and up to 8.5 million jobs in the European Union and are not only essential for cultural diversity but also significantly contribute to social and economic development;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the key objective of the aAction pPlan should be to ensure that future measures taken toe effective enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are not based solely on data provided by the industry, in particular in the cultural and creative sectors, but on precise, unbiased data documenting IPR infringements; emphasises that the duty of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) to generate reliable data which allow an analysis of the real impact of infringements on the industry should be part of the ten-point action planwhich plays a key role in stimulating innovation, creativity, competitiveness, growth and cultural diversity;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the key objective of the action plan should be to ensure that future measures taken to enforce Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are not based solely on data provided by the industry, in particular in the cultural and creative sectors, but on precise, unbiased data documenting IPR infringements; eEmphasises that the duty of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) to generate reliable data which allow an analysis of the real impact of infringements on the industry should be part of the ten-point action plan;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that while data on the number and type of intellectual property rights in existence is relatively easy to collect and analyse, studies on the scope and scale of IP infringements and their relation to criminality have been more difficult; to this end emphasises the important role played by the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights in providing data, tools and databases to support the fight against IP infringement;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses that in a time of financial crisis when funding for culture suffers from severe cuts, IPR enforcement is often a primary source of revenue for artists and creators; stresses therefore that attaining and safeguarding a fair remuneration for artists, creators and right holders should be one of the key objectives of the Action Plan;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Stresses the importance of ensuring the application of due diligence throughout the supply chain, including the digital supply chain and all the key actors and operators in it, such as creators, artists and right holders, producers, intermediaries, internet service providers, online sales platforms, end users and public authorities;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Emphasises the importance of improving IP civil enforcement procedures for SMEs and individual creators, as they play a key role in the creative and cultural sectors and often do not have the capacity to enforce their rights given the complexity, cost and length of such procedures;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Supports the launching of targeted communication campaigns to raise awareness on the economic and potential health and safety risks associated with commercial scale IPR infringements, particularly amongst the younger generations growing up in the digital era;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Notes that, in preventing commercial scale IPR infringements, it is also important to enlarge the legal offer of diversified cultural and creative content online and to increase its accessibility; to this end calls on the Commission to take actions to support such efforts and promote investment in new competitive business models that broaden the legal offer of creative and cultural content and restore consumer trust and confidence online;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls for the action plan to be implemented quickly, so that, if necessary, the measures needed to enforce IPR, in particular in the cultural and creative sector, can be revised in the near future to take account of real needs;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Points out that in the cultural and creative sector in particular cooperation, including on the basis of self-regulation, between rights holders, authors, platform operators, intermediaries and final consumers should be encouraged with a view to detecting IPR infringements at an early stage; emphasises that the effectiveness of such self-regulation must be assessed by the Commission in the near future and that further legislative measures may be necessary;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Emphasises that in the cultural and creative sector payment service providers should be involved in the dialogue with a view to reducing the profits generated by IPR infringements in the online sphere;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that the system for the notification and removal, one URL at a time, of content that infringes IPR, has practical limitations in view of the speed with which the content in question can be made available again; calls, therefore, on operators in this sector to start thinking about how to make the notification and removal system more effective in the long term;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Notes that, in Member States where this is permitted by law, the blocking by a court ruling of internet sites which allow IPR infringements has practical limitations in the long term;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas IPR infringements including counterfeiting discourages growth, job creation, innovation and creativity;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Notes that, where IPR infringements are committed by the public, this is sometimes because it is hard or impossible to find the desired content offered legally; calls, therefore, for a wide range of user- friendly legal offers to be developed and promoted to the public;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses a more holistic approach with a focus on how to meet consumer demand by increasing the availability and the consumption of a legal, innovative and affordable legal offer, based on business models adapted to the Internet which allow to remove barriers to the creation of a truly European Digital Single Market, but keep the balance among the rights of the consumers and the protection of innovators and creators;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that in the interests of innovation, creativity and competitiveness, it is crucial that the IPR infrastructure is transparent and that full information is available to the public and to all other actors concernedo achieve a meaningful enforcement of IPR through a fully transparent, holistic, balanced and flexible system that can react rapidly to the evolving challenges that face the EU knowledge economy in the digital era;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Takes account of the need for a stable and harmonised framework for the enforcement of IPR and recalls that the current legal framework constitutes no impediment to the development of multi- territory licensing systems; to this end encourages the Commission to take note of the European unitary patent and the current revision of the trademark regulation as well as the high fragmentation of cultural and creative markets along cultural and linguistic lines;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses in particular that in order to achieve a meaningful enforcement of IPR, full information should include a clear indication of the type of IPR (for example patent, trademark, copyright), the status of its validity identity of the owners and where relevandt the identity of the ownersstatus of its validity;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that in order to stimulate innovation and competitiveness in knowledge-based sectors in the Union, IPR enforcement should not prevent opengoes hand in hand with the promotion of research and knowledge sharing, which are also identified as key elements in the ‘Global Europe’ and ‘Europe 2020’ strategies;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Emphasises the need for preventive measures and precise detection systems that lead to the swift interruption of commercial scale IPR infringing activities;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that the monies generated by enforcing IPR represent an important source of outside funding for research projects and thus a driving force for innovation and development and cooperation between universities and firms;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses the importance of sector- based agreements and good practice guides to combat IPR infringements; calls on operators in the industry to exchange information about platforms giving access to content that infringes IPR, and to take coordinated measures to reduce the income from such content or platforms;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Insists that remedies be put in place for platforms adversely affected by any measure taken to combat commercial infringements of IPR by operators in the sector on the basis of exchange of information;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Notes that some ‘cyberlocker’ platforms pay their users on the basis of the number of registered downloads of their files, which is an incitement to disseminate content that infringes IPR; calls, therefore, on the Member States to take steps to prevent such practices;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Points out that ‘cyberlocker’ platforms are one of the main hubs for IPR infringements, from which they indirectly derive income via advertising and/or subscriptions;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that potential health and safety risks of marketed goods are a very serious issue; stresses in this context that the quality of a product is a diffeStresses that IPR infringing products not only cause the direct loss of revenue to legitimate businesses but also lead to direct and indirenct issue from the status of IPR and whether there has been an infringement, and thus should be dealt with separately.job losses, to reputational damage and to increased enforcement costs whilst often having links to organised crime and posing potential health and safety risks;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas IPR infringements have a particular impact on SMEs, including in business-to-business services, and can lead to the loss of markets and, bankruptcy and loss of jobs;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that potential health and safety risks of marketed goods which infringe IPR are a very serious issue; stresses in this context that the quality of a product is a different issue from the status of IPR and whether there has been anthat a reduction in the degree of acceptance of IPR infringements in the medium and long term can only be achieved by providing young people with media skills training which seeks to make them aware of the legal and economic implications of IPR infringement,s and thus should be dealt with separatelydraws their attention to the risks referred to above.
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Encourages the Commission when addressing whether there is a need to adapt the IPR enforcement legislation to the digital era to safeguard the fair balance between all key actors in the supply chain whilst fully respecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, namely the protection of personal data and respect for private life, the right to property and the right to access to justice;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Recalls that several other issues of IPR enforcement not included in the Action Plan were identified in the consultation process on the civil enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights carried out by the Commission from 2012-2013, including the difficulties in identifying infringers and alleged infringers, the role of intermediaries in assisting the fight against IPR infringements and the attribution of damages in IPR disputes; thus recalls that the Action Plan is only a starting point in securing the enforcement of IPR;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls on the Commission to consider all possible options to address the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, including the proposal of more concrete legislative actions.
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to study the feasibility of a European label indicating to the public which internet sites are considered free of commercial IPR infringements.