Activities of Sharon BOWLES related to 2007/2261(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
White Paper on Sport (debate)
Amendments (11)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the Commission’s proposals concerning the economic dimension of sport; notes that commercial success and sportsmanship are compatible and mutually beneficial; acknowledges the link between the economic value of sport and the licensing and protection of intellectual property rights;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises the rapidly changing nature of the European sport economy which is increasingly based on investment in and development of innovative sport content through digital technologies; recognises the need to prevent the undermining of intellectual property rights and goodwill, to minimise piracy and reduce the scope for illegal operations on the Internet;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that commercial contracts concerning intellectual property associated with sport (including those incorporating the sale of television and new media rights concerning a sport) should always fully comply with EC competition law and be negotiated and completed in a transparent manner; but subject to this believes that sport broadcasts should be accessible tohrough the widest possible range of people including throughrange of media and platforms, noting that it is desirable for some sport still to be broadcast on free-to- air channels;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes the complexity of separating competition law aspects from purely sporting aspects, so that certain situations have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; therefore opposes any moves towards establishing a block exemption for sport as regards the EC competition rules;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that simply relying on the Court of Justice to rule in the last resort produces an unsatisfactory case-by-case approach, and a lack of legal certainty, especially since the reasoning in the case- law is not invariably clear or consistent, as witness the line of cases from Walrave to Meca-Medina; notes the complexity of separating commercial competition aspects from purely sporting matters, which is such that some matters do have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and therefore opposes any moves seeking block exemption from the competition rules laid down by Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Specifically asks the Commission and the Member States to explore with sport and betting operators the creation of a workable, equitable and sustainable framework to ensure that all sports in Europe remain free from the pollution of illegal betting and retain the trust of the European sporting public;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Emphasises the rapidly changing nature of the European sport economy, which is increasingly based on investment in and development of innovative sports content through digital technologies; recognises the need to prevent the undermining of intellectual property rights and goodwill, to minimise piracy and to reduce the scope for illegal operations in online environments;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Expresses concern at the – sometimes systematic – erosion of copyright by users of social networking sites; recognises the exciting development of “user-generated” content, but also the increased risk of copyright abuse; considers that, where technology permits embedded or attached identification of a copyright indication, it is not unreasonable to require filtering to detect such an indication by the service providers of the sites as well as more pro- active takedown procedures; considers, however, that some standardisation of the technology is desirable in order to prevent the filtering requirement from being over- burdensome;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Recognises legitimate concerns of sports organisations regarding 'ambush marketing'; notes in this context that trademark and copyright law may not always be wide enough to prevent this parasitic practice; observes that review of the provisions of 'passing off' law, available in some Member States, may indicate ways forward for possible remedies;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Opposes setting up an additional agency at EU level in the form of an EU sports agency and regards the existing national and international decision- making and dispute settlement bodies as sufficient;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Repeats its previous call (apropos ofin regard to football) for the Commission to take action concerning betting and sport; specifically asks the Commission and the Member States to explore with sports and betting operators the creation of a workable, equitable and sustainable framework to ensure that all sport in Europe remains free from the pollution of illegal betting behaviour and retain the trust of the European sporting public;