Telecoms Package Plenary Speeches

Official transcript is available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20080902+ITEM-010+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.

''' HELP NEEDED! You can help us by reviewing the automatic translation of some speeches from your native language to english. Just edit this page and fix the translation. Thank you!'''

Luc Chatel, President of the Council in office
As regards to copyright, Mr. Harbour says that we should have a notification requirement for electronic communications networks services providers to inform subscribers about unlawful uses of networks and services. He also says that we should encourage cooperation between the stakeholders in order to promote the broadcasting of legal content. This seems to be very balanced views but we have to err on the side of caution now because this is a very sensitive subject in your assembly as well as in the Council.

Viviane Reding, Member of the Commission
However, what I find more difficult is to understand why Parliament has changed the text in such a way that subscribers are not similarly empowered and informed when it comes to the privacy of their personal data. I know that Parliament takes the protection of consumers and of citizens’ fundamental rights very seriously, and that is why I am so surprised that the breach notification requirements in the Commission’s proposals are diluted by the changes now on the table. The default position should be that subscribers know of a breach of security concerning their personal data so that they can take precautions, and it cannot be left to the service provider to determine whether such a breach is likely to cause a subscriber harm – it is the subscriber and his own data which have to be protected. How, for example, can a provider know how sensitive that information is in an individual case? I would, therefore, urge Parliament to reconsider its position on this issue.

Catherine Trautmann, Rapporteur
A final problem appeared late in the work, that is the protection of intellectual property rights. I regret that this debate came to the floor at this stage in the drafting of this package, it's a bit late in the day for that to go deeper in the mechanisms allowing a strict enforcement of intellectual property rights. I just want to say that I hope that we would be able to complete the analysis of this package with calm and serenity, without being disturbed by this subject, admittedly important, since creative contants are subject from a communication by Commission.

Malcolm Harbour, Rapporteur
However, I feel that consumers are also entitled to be informed about some of the problems they might encounter, be this potential for infringing copyright, potential for unauthorised use or potential, for example, for buying things that could damage their health, like counterfeit medicines. Why should we not demand that electronic service providers carry public service messages in the same way that television channels do at the moment? That is what we are talking about, colleagues. We are not talking about this as a mechanism for enforcing copyright, which is the responsibility of national governments, but we are talking about making life easier and better for consumers.

Manolis Mavrommatis, Rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education
Madam President, as rapporteur of the opinion of the Commission Culture, I would like to point out that it is extremely important to address copyright as a fundamental right. Everybody, especially legislators, must bear in mind that if intellectual creation is not protected and if, in the name of safeguard of personal data, the legitimate rights of authors is ignored, then artistic content available to users will be reduced. Piracy and illegal distribution of music and films on the Internet is a reality which nobody can deny. However, in another state of technology, losers are the creators, who - whether we like it or not - are the source of material offered. Therefore, for the Committee on Culture, I invite all Members of all committees and political groups to protect European creativity and thereby preserve the artistic content available in new media.

Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education
Committee on Culture has taken this subject very seriously from the beginning, because one cannot legislate on electronic network or on spectrum while ignoring the reality of content that circulate on networks or use spectrum. This cannot be achieved only with pure technical concerns, nor economical ones, that would not take into account of the goals of the cultural policy and defense of diversity. The reality of a digital world forces us to work together, television operators and electronic services providers, and to legislate to promote an internal market for telecommunications, which has become inseparable from the audiovisual market. We also need a balanced response to the problem of unlawful content on Internet, that makes everyone faces his responsibility in a fight that should interest everybody in order to protect both children and culture as we know it. Therefore I support these texts as a whole as they've reached this stage and I hope that our debate and the final vote won't be infected by not informed enough external pressures.

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs
In addition, customers must have the right to reliable information not only about the legal obligations arising from the use of the service, for example in relation to intellectual property rights' holders, but also about legally imposed limits. The key for a better protection of the consumer is primarly to define with precision the responsibility of the national regulatory authorities in enforcing the terms of everyday consumer's rights.

Manuel Medina Ortega, Rapporteur of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs
Mrs. President, the speaker, Mrs. Trautmann, told that questions on intelectual property should not be mixed in this debate. I agree her, since I believe that protection of intelectual property, as well as protection of intimacy and another legal concepts, are already defined in other legal frameworks. However, it is convenient to remind at this moment that the protection of intelectual property is still important as to the content maintaining refers. It has been said that the telecommunications are like big highways where you can freely drive; but in the highway, if somebody commits a crime, the police appears. You cannot steal a car, drive it on the highway and, when the police appears, say that there exists the driving freedom on the highway. I believe that is important, from the point of view of the Parliament, to reiterate the importance of the protection of intelectual property, to reiterate the protection of private life, to even reiterate the right of people to their own intimacy, which in this moment is being infringed by the big telecommunications companies.

Rebecca Harms, in the name of Verts/ALE Group
My group doesn't agree with the attempt to regulate copyright in this report. Neither the french model, to address the french Presidency of the European Council, nor the "Three Strikes"-model will be supported by my group. Far from it! To consider this we are further on feared for the copyright as well as for the privacy protection in the Internet. A last comment about the report of Alvaro: Mr. Alvaro, once again you talked about data protection in a dedicated way but at the moment I can't see that you draw a continuous line, for example for the protection of the IP-addresses. The experiences with the Telekom-affair and the dealing with addresses via call centres are showing that IP-addresses need a highly protection. I hope we come to an agreement about that in the next two weeks.

Eva-Britt Svensson, in the name of GUE/NGL Group
Madam President, I hope that many of our fellow citizens follow this debate and get involved before the vote because this is so great changes, including on the Internet. [...] Third, Left reacts against the large influence that various industry lobby groups have had. Telecoms package should not affect copyright, but yet industry lobbies have received a hearing for the proposal. Lobbying the proposal accepted by all groups except the European United Left - the only group that voted against the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection - opens possibilities for control of downloading and free access to sites such as myspace and youtube. The amendments came in late and through the back door but there has been little debate among citizens about these major changes. For example, in Sweden, we have had a wide-ranging debate on file sharing. I work against the decision to prohibit file sharing at the national level, and I do so also at the EU level. The risk that we now take a decision at the EU level is greater than in the case of national decisions, because the lobby groups have had a major impact and influence in the EU system, and because many citizens do not have sufficient information when we discuss the issues at EU level. I hope for a strong civic opinion to guarantee freedom of expression and access to Internet services!

Desislav Chukolov (NI)
Dear Mr. President, Honourable colleagues, I'm surprised how things are being said today in this hall, and no one focused on the preservation of confidentiality of correspondence. I call on you when you discuss something as important in any way to not take an example from the United States. You know that using the subterfuge called "fight terrorism and piracy", supranational oligarchy tries to put as many citizens under the total, unconditional and inalienable civil society control. We must preserve the confidentiality of personal correspondence at all costs. I repeat again: at all costs! In Bulgaria now all phone calls are controlled. Starting from next year, our leaders want to have a full and unconditional access to all log files and exchange electronic messages from any computer. This is not done in helplessness. In Bulgaria, as well as in Europe, there are enough literate and educated professionals who can fight against any form of computer crime. This is done, I repeat again, in order to have absolute control over citizens. The right to freedom and to ensure our right to human dignity. Anyone who tries to take away our dignity must be reprimanded and denounced, but not the media who implements his intentions in this way. Before time in Bulgaria was held a shy discussion on the rights of citizens in the electronic world. The only conclusion you can do then is that any citizen to ask, happens to them what they needed. In absolute hardness guarantee all citizens in Bulgaria that the party "Attack" from the outset of his administration next year will roll over all attacks correspondence and monitoring on the Internet. In conclusion, I want you to say that if once we restrict the right of private correspondence, this will always remain so. Even if terrorists start using pigeons and correspondence. That replaced their freedom for security deserves neither liberty is not known and their own security. Thank you for your attention.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE)
Dear colleagues, the development of information society is based on networks and electronic communications services. The transition from analog television to the digital until 2012 will issue at European level a significant range of frequencies, thus allowing development of new technologies and innovative solutions, the impetus to European competitiveness in this sector. To fully benefit from the digital dividend in Europe, the European Parliament supports a common approach, flexible and balanced use, allowing, on the one hand, broadcasters continue to provide and expand their services and, on the other hand, operators of electronic communications to use this resource to provide services relating to social and economic uses and stresses the importance that digital dividend should be allocated to respecting the principle of technological neutrality. [...] Consumers' confidence in the information society services depends on the quality of services, electronic communications, safety and protection of personal data. It is essential that national regulatory authorities to ensure the consultation of all suppliers of electronic communications services before adopting specific measures in the security and integrity of electronic communications networks.

David Hammerstein (Verts/ALE)
It is obvious that only a light shadow is what remains of the ambitious project that the European Commission introduced one year ago. It is a pity by many reasons, since consumers need an independent european management and not a club of national regulators strongly influenced by the national champions. The Greens are against turning the European Agency for the Regulation of the Telecommunication Market in a simple club of regulators funded by themselves, lacking transparency and with not enough control or capacity of veto by the European Commission. The independence of this new body is in question. It is also a pity that, because of the pressure of the big telecommunication operators, it is not provided the access to the big telecommunications infrastructures to the new innovative bussiness, thus forcing doubling the infrastructures. The Greens defend technological neutrality and functional disaggregation to end with the dominant positions of the national big telecommunciations operators. However, the European Parliament has showed itself too shy, influenced by the lobbies, avoiding the interest of the new and more innovative enterprises, which are already providing a big part of the wireless services in Europe and which favor the citizens. I regret to tell that, in general, a big opportunity to give much more european value added to the telecommunications market has been lost. We are worried particularly by some dangerous proposals of Harbour report which clearly infringe the Net Neutrality principle as a communication media, threaten the users' privacy, threatens feedom on the Net and above all, clearly exceed the legal scope of the telecommunication package when it talks about content, when talking about what is lawful or unlawful, legal or illegal, of intelectual property, when talking of information filtering. This package deals with market infrastructure, deals with consumers and not about turning the Internet servers into digital policemen.

Hanne Dahl (IND/DEM)
But the package also contains some very undesirable elements, as the previous speaker said. The question of defining what is lawful and unlawful content on websites, opens the door for monitoring, recording and control of all our communications and commerce over the Internet. And to a degree that is, in some country, we do not normally consider to be democratic, dignified! We can not allow the registration, just as we can not allow service arbitrarily to close traffic, as some consider to be harmful. It corresponds to employ an army of inspectors on Europe's post offices to dissect out letters, which we consider to be harmful reading for the recipient. Who is it just to be allowed to read my mail? We must ensure that future legislation will not be an electronic straitjacket, but rather a framework in which the future of culture, society and interactive life can develop.

Eric Besson, President of the Council in office
Mrs Harms, just a few words to you Madam. In our minds, we're not talking about developpement of Internet on the one hand, and the protecting of copyrights in the other hand, piting the two against each other. This is the moment of convergence, and we need to therefore work both on the containers, the networks, and on content. We therefore need to give an advantage to authors and to creators. As you said quite rightly Madam, France attaches a great importance to copyright and the French presidency in office is not seeking to impose some kind of example, that we're taking in France with the graduated response, know as the Creation and Internet Law. We are very aware of the need to protect private life and personal data absolutely and I don't think this is in any way incompatible with other concerns we can have, Madam.

Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE)
Protection of privacy was also part of priorities, as well as protection of children, access providers having to provide free of charges parental control softwares to consumers. All these progress had to be made for the profit of the many. Therefore many provisions are about equal access to people with disabilities. People with low income or SMEs have not been forgotten. So, we tried to extend the universal services application field to high speed broadband, this is one of the priority of the French presidency, which is a very good thing. Now I would like to address content and copyright, which has tended to overshadow the rest of the improvements included in this text. Our goal has always be to provide consumers with general information about copyright, in accordance with the original proposal from Commission. Until the final vote, we will work to improve the wording of the compromises, respecting the principle of neutrality for content access. Some amendment adopted in the "Privacy" Directive, however, are quite problematic and we make sure to remove them. I would like to thank again my colleagues and I'm waiting more precise proposition from the presidency in order to improve moreover this text until the next plenary session.

Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE)
We had a very delicate discussion on network neutrality. My opinion is that extreme network neutrality, as we experienced in some amendments, will make networks more congested, slower, less efficient and more expensive. Network management is necessary to run efficient and intelligent networks and to maximise the overall user experience and value.

Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM)
I am a committed proponent of net neutrality. As the world becomes more globalised it is crucial that people have the ability to communicate freely. However, this freedom, which is of great value, must be used with respect. It must be recognised that without this respect the internet harbours the potential for abuse. We have taken action on some of the worst abuses on the internet, such as paedophilia. However, other abuses also need to be tackled. Internet service providers must play their part in preventing their platform being used for destructive forces like libel, hate and exploitation. I would say to the Commissioner that we need to do everything in our power to protect freedom and, at the same time, to promote responsibility on the internet.

Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE)
I am even more comfortable to say to Catherine Trautmann that I don't agree with her when she wants to completely exclude any reference to intellectual property rights. Beyond platforms and channels that we are talking about, specially in the text she's responsible of, what matters to everyone is what these platforms and channels allow to know. What they allow access, ie the content. And our colleagues Guardans, Medina or Mavrommatis have said this very well and I support them. There were in Commission's text two references, it would have been better to keep them. Today's discussion focuses on a reference to directives on copyright from 2001 and 2004 and on cooperation between stakeholders. What for? To promote legal offers, ie content that help consolidate the prosperity of our industry and our cultural diversity. In an offensive against these texts, which I heard a few echoes still here on these benches, it was made a scarecrow from, for example, OLIVENNES agreements. But the model we should follow is the memorandum of understanding adopted on July 24 by the British government, OFCOM and different stakeholders. As far as I know they are not supporters of bureaucracy and dictatorship on the Internet. It is about not preventing laws of our states to be enforced, about ensuring to reconcile the fundamental rights and to not prevent what could bring the new technology, new economy, at the service of our cultural diversity, of our proactive industries, of the Europeans' intelligence and talent, that are the best weapon and our best asset in global competition.

Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE)
There are parts which have to be revised - this is correct. Ms. Reding, you said at the beginning that you are surprised about the European Parliament which want to decrease the data protection. I want to say something to you about this: The European Parliament still doesn't have a mind of it's own because it will vote on these questions not earlier than in two weeks. Until then we'll revise the critical parts. I promise you that in our group there will be no diminution of data protection. When we won't come to an agreement in principle in the fields of data protection, access to the Internet and it's neutrality in the Parliament my group won't agree to it and then we have to see how to get on.

Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar (PSE)
First of all, I want to congratulate the draftpersons, since they have made a good job. This review carry out the planned objectives and it adapts to the new times and the new challenges, both for enterprises and consumers. But let me stop at a particular point in the Harbour report. It is true that the draftsman has made a magnificient job, but I believe that is not convenient to tackle in this place that set of final amendments dealing with the issue of content in the Net, in this directive, since these amendments definitely allow the undertakings to filter and block the content flowing through the Net, and finally are the consumers the ones who will lost its anonymity. Honourable members, this position is contrary to the article 12 of the Directive on Electronic Commerce, which already establishes that the undertakings must act as “mere conduit” when they tansmit electronic information. Hence, in a Rule of Law we cannot make in the Net things that we would not do in other communications. That is why I urge Mr. Harbour to remove these amendments to recover balance between copyright and the users' rights on the Internet.

Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world where everyone, governments, private companies and criminals tries to have the greatest and most uncontrolled access to our data electronically. Hence, any change in the "e-privacy directive" should do what the title implies, namely ensuring the widest possible protection of our personal data and our private life. For this reason I oppose any attempt to weaken the definition of what constitutes privacy - and therefore under the protection of the law - given European citizens. The target exceptions, specifically addresses IP, circumvent through the back door existing European legislation. And do not think that Internet providers are allowed to judge for themselves which breaches in the security of their networks harms their users and which is not, and therefore to decide for themselves when to notify users and authorities for even flagrant omissions. I respect the role and the offer of private companies, but the economic interests of large Internet companies can not dictate the laws adopted in Europe for the defence of fundamental rights of citizens.

Luc Chatel, President of the Council in office
The third subject that I intended to address, which has also come out several times in your debates, is of course the question of the protection of personal data and, more generally, issues related to content, compared to the container. Eric Besson has responded in part to you on this subject, I believe that the goal of Presidency is not to oppose each another or to impose a model, but I was sensitive to a number of interventions which have been raised this afternoon to indicate that if we build all this, this economy of the future, source of growth for tomorrow, it is of course for the European economy, but it is also to enable our culture, our players in this field, to disseminate more on a worldwide scale. So I think we cannot separate the two subjects, even though I know that in other circles some important debates are also underway on subject. One must keep in mind that this modernization of containers must also be designed to promote dissemination of our content and copyright protection so as to preserve the creation in the European Union.

Catherine Trautmann, Rapporteur
Let me also say, since I was questioned shortly by Mr. Toubon, that you cannot blame me here for not willing to take into account the necessary support to the creation in Europe. I believe it is a real vehicle for innovation, a wealth and an intellectual increase in value which is absolutely indispensable in today's world. But we must also take into account the freedom that we have to ensure with our laws - we have voted extremely important texts about the protection of personal data, and we're the only ones to have done so in the world as of today. We must reconcile these two aspects. There is no contradiction. It's indeed the same ambition to devote what falls in creative freedom as what falls in freedom of each individual. It is in that spirit that we will still go forward improving our proposals.

Pilar del Castillo Vera
Madam President, in this final intervention I want to thank the Council for its availability, that has again proved today. I also want to thank, and a lot, to the Commission, in particular to the Commissioner, the sensibility she has always proved in her fireproof defense –I would say- of an electronic communication market more competitive and of the protection to consumers. And I also want to make public my gratitude, in a very first place, to my colleagues, who, both here today and in previous working days, have proved up to which point are they sensitive to the importance this sector has for european economic growth and hence, for the employment and the welfare of all the citizens of Europe. Now, I want to just ask the Council that, in this final period to the end of the current Presidency, give this Telecom package at least a similar priority to the one given to energy –what is very important, but this package is not less important- in order we can advance from this point of equilibrium we have found and that has just pointed out my colleague Trautmann. The Parliament offers a series of proposals, in general very well balanced, I would say, that in a later stage, during the negociations with the Council and the Commission, could solve this problem successfully. Thank you very much. We expected a lot from the Presidency in this sense.

Malcolm Harbour, Rapporteur
Madam President, I find myself in the uncharacteristic position of having the last word in this major debate so I will perhaps make a few broad‑ranging remarks at the end. But first of all I would like, regarding my own report, to thank the many colleagues who have contributed and have reinforced the determination of our committee to make and carry forward those improvements. I would like to assure my colleagues that over the next couple of weeks we will be working to make those further improvements, particularly around the areas of data protection, on which we had a very successful meeting this morning: I think we can reach an agreement there. On the question of data‑breach notification, it is perhaps not surprising that we still have work to do because that was an entirely fresh piece of work that we did. I cordially invite the Commission, who have already been involved, to help us complete the drafting because, after all, it was not in their original proposal. The other point I want to make is addressed to Mrs Harms, as she is the only representative of the Green Party here. I was absolutely astounded to hear from her colleague, David Hammerstein Mintz – who I get on very well with – that he considers my report to be dangerous to net neutrality. We have spent a lot of time crafting a new proposal to actually allow regulators to intervene if they see net neutrality being trespassed upon. Yet Mr Hammerstein Mintz comes to this Chamber, without talking to me beforehand and without submitting any alternative, and tells me my report is dangerous. All I would say to Mrs Harms is that if the Green Group continue with this sort of scaremongering and demonising of our report, it will be dangerous for consumers because it will endanger everything else. I cordially invite them to come round our table and to say why our report is dangerous. Let us see if we can satisfy their concerns. Many of you may well even be receiving daily e‑mails. I had one telling me that this report is a danger to net neutrality. All I can say to you is that our intention is entirely the opposite. In conclusion, we now all have a huge responsibility to help the French presidency reach agreement. I want to emphasise that point. There is a lot of uncertainty out in the real world, among the people who are poised to make the big investments – the next‑generation networks – who want this package settled as soon as possible. We can help do that by working together as we have done successfully. It is a really big responsibility. I pledge from my side – and I know my colleagues will come with me on this – that we will spare no effort in working with the French Presidency. I want to pay particular tribute to Mr Chatel and Mr Besson for their deep engagement to this whole process and their real knowledge of the issues. Together I am sure we can get this package through in the quickest possible time.

Spanish
Thanks to Informática Verde.

Luc CHATEL, francés, por parte del Consejo
Agradece a Harbour su trabajo, y dice que su informe en materia de derechos de autor incorpora la obligación de informar a los usuarios sobre usos ilegales, y sobre la cooperación entre las partes (ambas enmiendas torpedo). Dice que en el Consejo hay gente preocupada por esto y que hay que ser prudentes con estos temas.

Viviane REDING, luxemburguesa, comisaria de Sociedad de la Información
No hace referencia a los temas de propiedad intelectual. La Comisión tiene diferencias con el Parlamento, pero no cita en ningún momento las torpedo.

Catherine TRAUTTMAN, socialista francesa, ponente de un informe
En cuanto a propiedad intelectual, dice que no se ha podido profundizar en el mecanismo para defenderla. Desea que ese tema no interfiera en esta regulación, porque habrá una nueva comunicación al respecto de la propiedad intelectual por parte de la Comisión en breve.

Malcom HARBOUR, conservador, británico
Los usuarios tienen derecho a saber sus derechos, derecho a saber si están incumpliendo el copyright, o a saber si hacen un uso no autorizado. No es un mecanismo para defender el copyright, sino para hacer la vida más fácil al usuario.

MAVROMMATIS, griego, popular
En favor de los derechos de los autores. La piratería y la distribución por Internet de películas genera un enorme daño, insta a proteger la creatividad europea.

GUARDANS, liberal, español
La realidad obliga a trabajar juntos legisladores, empresas, y autores. Necesitamos una respuesta equilibrada ante lo ilegal, para proteger tanto a los usuarios como a la cultura. Quisiera que el texto no se contamine por presiones externas.

Lidia GERINGER, polaca, socialista
Hay que defender los derechos de los autores.

Manuel MEDINA, español, socialista
Vale que haya otra comunicación pronto sobre propiedad intelectual, pero es importante que ahora en cuanto a los contenidos hagamos un refuerzo. Si alguien comete un delito, la policía interviene. Si alguien va a toda velocidad por la autopista y se le detiene no puede ampararse en la libertad. Es importante reiterar la protección de la propiedad intelectual y reiterar el derecho a la intimidad que ahora está siendo violada por las compañías de telecomunicaciones.

Rebeca HARMS, alemana, Verdes
No queda clara la protección de las direcciones IP como dato personal.

Eva-Brit SVENSSON, sueca, izquierda unitaria
Votaremos en contra de enmiendas que bloqueen el acceso a MySpace o a Youtube.

CHUKOLOV, no inscritos, Bulgaria
Defiende la confidencialidad de las comunicaciones, en Bulgaria quieren controlar todo lo que se mueve por Internet, ya controlan todas las llamadas, eso atenta contra la dignidad humana.

TICAU, Rumanía, socialistas
Defiende la neutralidad tecnológica.

HAMMERSTEIN, Verdes, España
Nos preocupa, en particular, algunas propuestas peligrosas del informe Harbour que vulneran el principio de neutralidad de la red como un medio de comunicación, atentan contra la privacidad de los usuarios, amenazan la libertad en internet y sobretodo, superan claramente el ámbito legal del Paquete de Telecomunicaciones al hablar de contenido, al hablar de lo que es "lícito" o "ilícito", legal o ilegal, de la propiedad intelectual, de filtros de información, etc.. Este paquete se trata de la infraestructura, del mercado y de los consumidores y no de convertir los servidores de internet en policías digitales.

Hahn DAHL, dinamarca, Independencia y Democracia
Intervenir en las comunicaciones es como ponerse una camisa de fuerza. Es como si me miran el interior de mis cartas.

Luc BESSON, Consejo
Niega que se pretenda imponer la respuesta graduada.

BUSOI, liberales, Rumanía
La neutralidad de la red puede hacer que las redes sean más caras y menos eficaz.

TOUBON, francés, populares
No está de acuerdo con eliminar las referencias a la propiedad intelectual. Apoya a Guardans, Medina y Mavromatis. Hay una ofensiva contra estos textos (enmiendas) en las que se han esgrimido argumentos tremendistas. De lo que se trata es de que no se pongan trabas a la aplicación de las leyes nacionales.

GEBHART, alemana, socialista
Queremos neutralidad en la red.

Francisca PLEGUEZUELOS, socialista, España
No es el sitio de tratar las enmiendas de Harbour. Al final los consumidores van a perder su anonimato. Va contra la directiva de comercio electrónico (artículo 12). No podemos hacer en la red lo que no hacemos en otras comunicaciones. Pido a Harbour que retire las enmiendas.

LAMBRINIDIS, socialista, Grecia
Los proveedores no pueden decidir qué es ilegal o no. Siempre hay que notificar a las partes afectadas. Los proveedores no pueden vulnerar derechos de los ciudadanos.

Cierra HARBOUR
Hoy el señor Hammerstein ha dicho que mi informe es peligroso, y me he quedado boquiabierto. Sin hablar conmigo anteriormente ha llegado y ha dicho de sopetón que es peligroso. Si el grupo verde continúa demonizando mi informe, eso sí que será peligroso. Que vengan Los Verdes a verme, a hablar conmigo primero, nadie ha hablado conmigo. Hoy me ha llegado otro correo diciéndome que mi informe es peligroso.

Luc Chatel, président en exercice du Conseil
Enfin, sur la question spécifique du droit d'auteur, le rapport de M. Harbour propose de maintenir une obligation générale d'information des abonnés par les fournisseurs de réseaux des services de communications électroniques sur les utilisations illégales des réseaux et des services. Il propose également d'encourager la coopération entre parties prenantes afin de favoriser la diffusion d'offres légales. Ces dispositions paraissent équilibrées mais il faudra tenir compte de la grande sensibilité de ce sujet, tant pour votre assemblée que pour le Conseil.

Catherine Trautmann, rapporteur
Un dernier problème est apparu sur le tard, celui de la protection de la propriété intellectuelle. Je regrette que ce débat ait interféré à ce point dans l'examen du paquet, je ne crois pas que ce soit le lieu pour approfondir les mécanismes permettant le strict respect de la propriété intellectuelle. Je veux simplement dire que je souhaite que nous puissions terminer l'examen de ce paquet dans la sérénité, sans se laisser perturber par cette question, certes importante, puisque les contenus créatifs font l'objet d'une communication de la Commission.

Ignasi Guardans Cambó, rapporteur pour avis de la commission de la culture et de l'éducation
La commission de la culture a pris dès le début ce dossier très au sérieux et ce parce qu'on ne peut plus légiférer sur le réseau électronique ou sur le spectre en ignorant la réalité des contenus qui y circulent et l'utilisent. Ceci ne peut pas se faire avec des critères purement techniques, voire économiques, qui ne tiendraient pas compte des objectifs de politique culturelle et de la défense de la diversité. La réalité d'un monde numérique nous oblige à travailler ensemble, opérateurs de télévision et fournisseurs de services électroniques, et à légiférer pour un marché intérieur des télécommunications, qui est devenu inséparable du marché audiovisuel. Il nous faut aussi une réponse équilibrée au problème des contenus illégaux sur Internet, qui met chacun devant ses propres responsabilités dans une lutte qui doit nous intéresser tous pour protéger et les enfants et la culture telle que nous la connaissons. Je soutiens donc l'ensemble de ces textes tels qu'ils sont arrivés jusqu'ici avec l'espoir que notre débat et le vote final ne soient pas contaminés par des pressions extérieures pas assez informées.

Eric Besson, président en exercice du Conseil
Je voudrais simplement ajouter un mot à l'attention de Mme Harms, pour lui dire qu'il ne s'agit pas, dans notre esprit, d'opposer le développement d'Internet et la protection des droits d'auteur. À l'heure de la convergence, il faut à la fois développer les contenants, les réseaux, et les contenus et, donc, favoriser la création et les auteurs. La France, vous l'avez rappelé, est attachée aux droits d'auteur et la présidence française ne cherche pas à imposer l'exemple, que nous allons promouvoir en France, de prévention et de réponse graduée, ce que nous appelons la loi création et Internet. Nous sommes enfin très conscients, comme vous l'avez dit, des nécessités de protéger à la fois la vie privée et les données personnelles. Cela ne nous paraît absolument pas incompatible avec d'autres préoccupations.

Bernadette Vergnaud (PSE)
La protection de la vie privée a aussi fait partie des priorités, de même que la protection des enfants, les fournisseurs d'accès devant fournir gratuitement aux clients les logiciels de contrôle parental. Toutes ces avancées se devaient d'être assurées pour le plus grand nombre. De nombreuses mesures concernent donc l'égal accès pour les usagers handicapés, les personnes à faibles revenus et les PME n'ont pas été oubliées. De même, le rapport insiste sur la nécessité d'élargir le champ d'application du service universel au haut débit notamment et l'inscription de ce point dans les priorités de la présidence française est une très bonne chose. Je voudrais maintenant évoquer la question des contenus et des droits d'auteur, qui a eu tendance à éclipser le reste des améliorations contenues dans ce texte. Notre objectif a toujours été de fournir aux consommateurs une information générale sur le respect des droits d'auteur, conformément à la proposition initiale de la Commission. Jusqu'au vote final, nous travaillerons à améliorer la formulation des compromis en veillant au respect du principe de neutralité d'accès au contenu. Certains amendements adoptés dans la directive "Vie privée" sont en revanche réellement problématiques et nous veillerons à les supprimer. Je tiens encore à remercier mes collègues et j'attends des propositions plus précises de la présidence afin d'améliorer encore ce texte d'ici la prochaine session plénière.

Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE)
Je suis d'autant plus à l'aise pour dire à Catherine Trautmann que je ne suis pas d'accord avec elle lorsqu'elle veut exclure totalement toute référence à la propriété intellectuelle. Au delà des plateformes et des canaux dont nous parlons, en particulier dans le texte dont elle a la responsabilité, ce qui importe à tous c'est ce que ces plateformes et ces canaux permettent de connaître. À quoi ils permettent d'accéder, c'est-à-dire les contenus. Et nos collègues Guardans, Medina ou Mavrommatis l'ont dit excellemment et je les soutiens. Il y avait dans le texte de la Commission deux références, il aurait mieux valu les conserver. Aujourd'hui la discussion porte sur une référence aux directives de 2001 et 2004 sur les droits d'auteur et sur la coopération entre les parties prenantes. Pour quoi faire? Pour promouvoir les offres légales, c'est-à-dire des contenus qui permettent d'asseoir la prospérité de notre industrie et notre diversité culturelle. On a fait, dans une offensive contre ces textes dont j'ai entendu quelques échos encore ici sur ces bancs, un épouvantail, par exemple, des accords OLIVENNES. Mais le modèle que nous devons suivre c'est le memorandum of understanding adopté le 24 juillet par le gouvernement britannique, l'OFCOM et les différentes parties prenantes. Que je sache ils ne sont pas des partisans de la bureaucratie et de la dictature sur l'Internet. Il s'agit de ne pas empêcher d'appliquer les lois de nos États, de faire en sorte de concilier les droits fondamentaux et de ne pas empêcher ce qui pourra mettre la nouvelle technologie, la nouvelle économie, au service de notre diversité culturelle, de nos industries proactives, de l'intelligence et du talent des Européens qui sont la meilleure arme et notre meilleur atout dans la compétition mondiale.

Luc Chatel, président en exercice du Conseil
Le troisième sujet que je comptais aborder, qui est revenu également à plusieurs reprises dans vos débats, c'est bien sûr la question de la protection des données personnelles et, de manière plus générale, des questions liées au contenu, par rapport au contenant. Eric Besson vous a en partie répondu sur ce sujet, je crois que l'objectif de la présidence n'est pas d'opposer l'un à l'autre ou d'imposer un modèle, mais j'ai été sensible à un certain nombre d'interventions qui se sont manifestées cet après‑midi pour indiquer que si nous construisons tout cela, cette économie du futur, source de croissance pour demain, c'est bien sûr pour l'économie européenne, mais c'est aussi pour permettre à notre culture, à nos acteurs dans ce domaine, de se diffuser davantage sur le plan mondial. Donc, je crois qu'on ne peut pas séparer les deux sujets, même si je sais que par ailleurs, dans d'autres cénacles des débats importants sont en cours sur le sujet. On doit avoir à l'esprit que cette modernisation des contenants doit être aussi destinée à favoriser la diffusion de nos contenus et la protection des droits d'auteurs de manière à préserver la création dans l'Union européenne.

Catherine Trautmann, rapporteur
Je voudrais aussi dire, puisque j'ai été interpellée tout à l'heure par M. Toubon, qu'on ne peut pas me reprocher ici une volonté de ne pas tenir compte du soutien nécessaire à la création en Europe. Je crois qu'elle correspond véritablement à un vecteur d'innovation, à une richesse et à une plus-value intellectuelle qui est absolument indispensable dans le monde d'aujourd'hui. Mais nous devons aussi tenir compte de la liberté que nous devons garantir avec nos textes – nous avons voté des textes extrêmement importants sur la protection des données personnelles, et nous sommes les seuls à l'avoir fait aujourd'hui dans le monde. Nous devons concilier ces deux aspects. Il n'y a pas de contradiction. C'est la même ambition, consacrer en effet ce qui relève de la liberté de création comme ce qui relève de la liberté de chaque individu. C'est dans cet esprit que nous irons encore vers l'amélioration de nos propositions.

Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης, Εισηγητής της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Πολιτισμού και Παιδείας
Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ως εισηγητής της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Πολιτισμού, θα ήθελα να επισημάνω ότι έχει πολύ μεγάλη σημασία η αντιμετώπιση των πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων των δημιουργών ως ισάξιου θεμελιώδους δικαιώματος. Θα πρέπει όλοι, και κυρίως οι νομοθέτες, να έχουμε κατά νου ότι, αν δεν προστατευθεί η πνευματική δημιουργία και αν, στο όνομα της διαφύλαξης των προσωπικών δεδομένων, καταπατούνται τα νόμιμα δικαιώματα των δημιουργών, τότε θα περιοριστεί και το καλλιτεχνικό περιεχόμενο που διατίθεται στους χρήστες. Η πειρατεία και η παράνομη διανομή μουσικής και ταινιών στο Διαδίκτυο είναι μια πραγματικότητα που δεν μπορεί κανείς να αρνηθεί. Ωστόσο, στην άλλη πορεία της τεχνολογίας οι ζημιωμένοι είναι οι δημιουργοί που  είτε το θέλουμε είτε όχι  είναι η πηγή του υλικού που προσφέρεται. Επομένως, εκ μέρους της Επιτροπής Πολιτισμού, καλώ όλους τους συναδέλφους όλων των επιτροπών και πολιτικών ομάδων να προστατεύσουμε την ευρωπαϊκή δημιουργικότητα και, ως εκ τούτου, να διαφυλάξουμε το καλλιτεχνικό περιεχόμενο που διατίθεται στα νέα μέσα επικοινωνίας.

Σταύρος Λαμπρινίδης (PSE)
Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, ζούμε σε έναν κόσμο όπου όλοι, κυβερνήσεις, ιδιωτικές εταιρείες αλλά και εγκληματίες επιδιώκουν να έχουν τη μεγαλύτερη δυνατή και πιο ανεξέλεγκτη πρόσβαση στα ηλεκτρονικά μας δεδομένα. Γι' αυτό το λόγο, οι όποιες αλλαγές στην "e-privacy directive" θα πρέπει να κάνουν αυτό ακριβώς που υπονοεί ο τίτλος της, δηλαδή τη διασφάλιση της μεγαλύτερης δυνατής προστασίας των προσωπικών μας δεδομένων και της ιδιωτικής μας ζωής. Για τον παραπάνω λόγο είμαι αντίθετος με κάθε προσπάθεια να αποδυναμωθεί ο ορισμός του τι αποτελεί προσωπικό – και επομένως υπό την προστασία του νόμου – δεδομένο των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Οι επιδιωκόμενες εξαιρέσεις, ειδικά για τις διευθύνσεις IP, καταστρατηγούν από την πίσω πόρτα την ισχύουσα ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία. Και δεν θεωρώ ότι οι πάροχοι υπηρεσιών Διαδικτύου επιτρέπεται να κρίνουν οι ίδιοι ποιες παραβιάσεις της ασφάλειας των δικτύων τους βλάπτουν τους χρήστες τους και ποιες όχι, και επομένως να αποφασίζουν οι ίδιοι πότε θα ειδοποιήσουν τους χρήστες και τις αρχές για ακόμα και κατάφωρες παραλείψεις τους. Σέβομαι το ρόλο και την προσφορά των ιδιωτικών εταιρειών, αλλά τα οικονομικά συμφέροντα των μεγάλων εταιρειών του Διαδικτύου δεν μπορεί να υπαγορεύουν τους νόμους που υιοθετεί η Ευρώπη για την υπεράσπιση των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων των πολιτών της.

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, autorka projektu opinii Komisji Prawnej
Pani Przewodnicząca! Unijne ramy prawne w dziedzinie telekomunikacji powstały w latach 90, skutecznie uwalniając krajowe rynki od państwowych monopoli. Efektem był znaczny spadek cen połączeń oferowanych przez konkurujących operatorów. W ostatnich latach byliśmy świadkami rewolucyjnych zmian technologicznych – telefonia komórkowa, rozwój internetu i sieci bezprzewodowych zmieniły diametralnie oblicze telekomunikacji. Prawo Unii Europejskiej musi odzwierciedlać te przemiany, także w aspekcie społecznym. Około 15% Europejczyków to ludzie niepełnosprawni, a w 2020 r. 25% społeczeństwa stanowić będą osoby starsze. To właśnie ci ludzie o specjalnych potrzebach powinni mieć zapewniony łatwiejszy dostęp do usług telekomunikacyjnych. Konieczne jest umożliwienie na terenie całej Unii bezpłatnego dostępu do wspólnego numeru alarmowego 112, także użytkownikom telefonii internetowej, oraz do innych usług elektronicznej komunikacji głosowej. Ponadto klienci muszą mieć prawo do rzetelnej informacji nie tylko o obowiązkach prawnych wynikających z korzystania z danej usługi, na przykład w odniesieniu do praw autorskich, ale i o nałożonych prawnie ograniczeniach. Kluczem do lepszej ochrony konsumenta będzie przede wszystkim precyzyjne zdefiniowanie odpowiedzialności krajowych organów regulacyjnych w zakresie codziennego egzekwowania praw konsumentów.

Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion
Nicht einverstanden ist meine Fraktion aber mit dem Versuch, in diesem Bericht auch Urheberrechte zu regeln. Wir halten davon gar nichts. Weder das französische Modell – das richtet sich auch an die Ratspräsidentschaft – noch das „Three Strikes“-Modell werden von uns unterstützt. Im Gegenteil! Wir machen uns, wenn wir uns das ansehen, sowohl weiter Sorgen um das Urheberrecht als auch um die Privatheit, den Schutz der privacy im Internet. Zum Bericht Alvaro ein letzter Satz: Herr Kollege Alvaro, Sie haben jetzt wieder sehr engagiert über Datenschutz geredet. Ich finde im Moment so, wie Sie das in Ihren Reden suggerieren, noch keine konsequente Linie zum Beispiel zum Schutz der IP-Adressen. Die Erfahrungen mit dem Telekom-Skandal und dem Handel mit Adressen über Callcenter zeigen, dass IP-Adressen höchsten Schutz genießen müssen, und hoffe, dass wir uns in den nächsten 14 Tagen darauf verständigen.

Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE)
Es gibt allerdings Teile, die müssen nachbearbeitet werden. Das ist ganz richtig. Frau Reding, Sie haben in Ihren Einführungssätzen gesagt, Sie wundern sich, dass das Europäische Parlament den Datenschutz vermindern will. Ich möchte Ihnen dazu sagen: Das gilt nicht für das Parlament – denn das Parlament wird erst in zwei Wochen abstimmen, und erst dann werden wir sehen, welche Position das Parlament in diesen Fragen hat. Bis dahin werden wir all die Dinge, die noch im Argen liegen, nachbearbeiten. Ich verspreche Ihnen, dass es mit unserer Fraktion keine Verminderung des Datenschutzes geben wird. Wenn in den Bereichen Datenschutz, Zugang zum Netz und Netzneutralität im Parlament keine zufrieden stellende Einigung zustande kommt, wird meine Fraktion auch nicht zustimmen können, und dann werden wir sehen, wie wir weiterkommen.

Eva-Britt Svensson, för GUE/NGL-gruppen
Fru talman! Jag hoppas att många av våra medborgare följer den här debatten och engagerar sig före omröstningen eftersom det rör så stora förändringar, bland annat när det gäller Internettjänster. [...] För det tredje reagerar vänstergruppen mot det stora inflytande olika industrilobbygrupper har haft. Telekomförslagen ska inte påverka upphovsrätten, men det har speciellt lobbyindustrin ändå fått gehör för i förslaget. Lobbygruppernas förslag vilka accepterats av alla grupper utom Europeiska enade vänstern - vilken som enda grupp röstade emot i utskottet för den inre marknaden och konsumentskydd - öppnar möjligheter till kontroll av nedladdning och fri tillgång till exempelvis webbplatserna myspace och youtube. Ändringsförslagen kom in sent bakvägen och utan att det har varit någon större debatt bland medborgarna om de här stora förändringarna. I t.ex. Sverige har vi haft en omfattande debatt om fildelning. Jag arbetar mot beslut om att förbjuda fildelning på nationell nivå och jag gör det också på EU-nivå. Risken att man nu tar beslut på EU-nivå är större än när det gäller nationella beslut eftersom lobbygrupperna har haft stort inflytande och påverkan i EU-systemet och eftersom många medborgare saknar tillräcklig information när vi diskuterar frågorna på EU-nivå. Jag hoppas på en stark medborgerlig opinion för att garantera yttranderätten och tillgången på Internettjänster!

Десислав Чуколов (NI)
Уважаеми г-н председател, уважаеми колеги, учудвам се колко неща се казаха днес, в тази зала, а никой не наблегна на запазване на поверителността на кореспонденцията. Призовавам ви когато се обсъжда нещо толкова важно, по никакъв начин да не вземаме пример от САЩ. Знаете, че използвайки претекста, наречен „борба с тероризма и пиратството“ наднационалната олигархия се опитва да постави колкото се може повече граждани под тотален, безусловен и неотчитаем пред гражданското общество контрол. Поверителността на личната ни кореспонденция трябва да се съхрани на всяка цена. Повтарям ви пак: на всяка цена! В България сега се контролират всички телефонни разговори. От следващата година управляващите у нас искат да има пълен и безусловен достъп до всички log файлове и разменени електронни съобщения от всеки един компютър. Това не се прави от безпомощност. В България, както и в Европа, има достатъчно грамотни и обучени специалисти, които могат да се борят срещу всякакъв вид компютърна престъпност. Това се прави, пак повтарям, с цел да се поставят под тотален контрол гражданите. Правото на свобода гарантира и правото ни на човешко достойнство. Всеки, който се опитва да отнеме достойнството ни трябва да бъде порицан и изобличен, а да не му се дава медиен комфорт да прокарва своите намерения по този начин. Преди време в България се проведе вяла дискусия по въпроса за правата на гражданите в електронния свят. Единственият извод, който се направи тогава е, че каквото и да искат гражданите, случва им се това, което им се налага. С абсолютна твърдост гарантирам на всички граждани в България, че партия „Атака“ още в началото на управлението си през следващата година ще отмени всички посегателства над кореспонденцията и следенето в интернет. В заключение искам да ви кажа, че ако един път ни се ограничи правото на частна кореспонденция, това винаги ще си остане така. Дори терористите да започнат да използват и гълъби за кореспонденция. Този, който заменя свободата си за сигурност, не заслужава нито свободата си, нито сигурността си. Благодаря ви за вниманието.

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE)
Stimaţi colegi, stimate colege, dezvoltarea societăţii informaţionale se bazează pe reţelele şi serviciile de comunicaţii electronice. Trecerea de la televiziunea analogică la cea digitală până în 2012 va elibera la nivel european o gamă semnificativă de frecvenţe, permiţând astfel dezvoltarea de noi tehnologii şi soluţii inovatoare, care să impulsioneze competitivitatea europeană în acest sector. Pentru a beneficia pe deplin de dividendul digital în Europa, Parlamentul European sprijină o abordare comună, flexibilă şi echilibrată a utilizării acestuia, permiţând, pe de o parte, difuzorilor să continue să ofere şi să îşi extindă serviciile şi, pe de altă parte, operatorilor de comunicaţii electronice să folosească această resursă pentru a oferi servicii noi care privesc utilizări sociale şi economice importante şi subliniază că dividendul digital ar trebui alocat respectând principiul neutralităţii tehnologice. [...] Încrederea consumatorilor în serviciile societăţii informaţionale depinde de calitatea serviciilor de comunicaţii electronice, de securitatea acestora şi de protecţia datelor cu caracter personal. Este esenţial ca autorităţile naţionale de reglementare să asigure consultarea tuturor furnizorilor de servicii de comunicaţii electronice înainte de adoptarea unor măsuri specifice în domeniul securităţii şi integrităţii reţelelor de comunicaţii electronice. De asemenea, consider că statele membre ar trebui să instituie măsuri pentru a promova crearea unei pieţe pentru produse şi servicii accesibile pe scară largă, care să integreze facilităţi destinate utilizatorilor cu handicap.

Hanne Dahl (IND/DEM)
Men pakken indeholder dog også nogle meget uheldige elementer, som den foregående taler var inde på. Spørgsmålet om at definere, hvad der er lovligt og ulovligt indhold på hjemmesider, åbner døren for overvågning, registrering og kontrol med al vores kommunikation og handel over internettet. Og det i en grad, der er lande, vi normalt ikke anser for demokratiske, værdig! Vi kan ikke tillade registrering, ligesom vi ikke kan tillade serviceudbyderne vilkårligt at lukke for trafik, som nogen anser for skadelig. Det svarer til, at vi ansatte en hær af kontrollanter på Europas postkontorer til at pille breve ud, som man anså for at være skadelig læsning for modtageren. Hvem er det lige, der skal have lov til at læse mine kærestebreve? Vi må sikre, at fremtidens lovgivning ikke bliver en elektronisk spændetrøje, men i stedet en ramme, hvori fremtidens kultur, samfundsdebat og interaktive liv kan udfolde sig.