Full text 
Procedure : 2008/0157(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0070/2009

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 22/04/2009 - 17
CRE 22/04/2009 - 17

Votes :

PV 23/04/2009 - 8.8
CRE 23/04/2009 - 8.8
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :


Wednesday, 22 April 2009 - Strasbourg OJ edition

17. Term of protection of copyright and related rights (debate)
Video of the speeches

  Neena Gill, on behalf of the PSE Group . – Mr President, this report has had a long, and at times complex, birth within Parliament, subject to intense lobbying from all sides, and with myths and counterclaims being the order of the day. Owing to the urgency and importance of getting this report adopted in this parliamentary term, the rapporteur and our fellow shadow rapporteur have worked hard to reach agreement on the key points in the Council’s position. I therefore congratulate all those who have been involved in coming to a sensible, just and sustainable consensus. I am, however, disappointed that the Council has failed time and again to reach any similar agreement.

I am pleased, though, that the report meets my main aims and the objectives of the PSE Group, and that, if we are to have an extension of the copyright term of protection, increased revenues must first and foremost benefit the performers. That is why I am able to accept the compromise amendments tabled by the rapporteur, as there are extra measures for performers.

I would like to single out some key amendments: Amendment 58, which is a permanent ‘use it or lose it’ clause; Amendments 59 to 61 on a permanent claim for session players, under which labels have to set aside 20% of all sales revenue; Amendment 62 on a clean slate for featured artists; Amendment 71 on the possibility for featured artists to renegotiate better contracts; and, finally, Amendment 75 on an assessment of the impact on audiovisual performers.

I would therefore like to ask colleagues who have reservations to reconsider and vote for this report. I recognise that it is not perfect and that there are concerns. In different circumstances I would have liked it to have addressed, especially for featured artists, the time period allowed for record labels under the ‘use it or lose it’ clause, which kicks in after a year rather than after a matter of months, which would have been preferable.

To conclude, I would ask the Council urgently to come to agreement on this issue. All the other key players have reached agreement, and performers need clarification sooner, rather than later.

Last updated: 29 October 2009Legal notice