Zum Portal des Europäischen Parlaments zurückkehren

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (ausgewählt)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Index 
 Vollständiger Text 
Verfahren : 2016/0280(COD)
Werdegang im Plenum
Entwicklungsstadium in Bezug auf das Dokument : A8-0245/2018

Eingereichte Texte :

A8-0245/2018

Aussprachen :

PV 11/09/2018 - 12
CRE 11/09/2018 - 12

Abstimmungen :

PV 05/07/2018 - 6.4
CRE 05/07/2018 - 6.4
PV 12/09/2018 - 6.4
CRE 12/09/2018 - 6.4

Angenommene Texte :

P8_TA(2018)0337

Plenardebatten
Dienstag, 11. September 2018 - Straßburg Vorläufige Ausgabe

12. Urheberrecht im digitalen Binnenmarkt (Aussprache)
Video der Beiträge
PV
MPphoto
 

  Julia Reda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group . – Mr President, copyright law is complex and, when it comes to tomorrow’s vote, all of you have been getting mixed messages, and there is a reason for that. The problems that the rapporteur, Mr Voss, wants to solve are serious, but they are not, in large part, problems caused by copyright law. Copyright law cannot bring back lost newspaper subscriptions and it cannot bring back lost advertising revenues. If that’s the problem we want to solve, we need the Commission to bring in online advertising regulation, because this is how tech companies are threatening to destroy the news business. The truth is that news articles are already protected by copyright, and if platforms use them without paying they are already breaking the law.

Our alternative proposal will allow publishers to enforce that law without limiting the freedom to link. The neighbouring right, on the other hand, has been tried and has failed before. Simply wishing it will work this time around is not a solution. It is time that we turned the discussion away from what we would like the proposals to do, towards what they will actually do.

If we make platforms directly liable for everything, they won’t get a licence from every rightholder in the world. Even if they could find all the rightholders, if just one of them refused a licence, the platforms would have to filter. Mr Cavada may deny that, or say that these filters will only block legal content, but simply wishing that automatic filters can do that is not going to make it true. Until algorithms are smart enough to have a sense of humour, then they won’t know the difference between a parody and a copyright infringement. They would simply block both. If we want YouTube or Facebook to pay creators, let’s write that into the law, as many of the alternative amendments from the left side of the House actually do. Upload filters will just give YouTube and Facebook an excuse not to pay. Instead, they will sell their filters to small European platforms, a danger that even the United Nations Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression had called by its name: censorship.

The proposals may be well intended, but they suffer from a reality gap. We have to stick to what copyright law can do to support creators without trying to bend it to solve other problems and without threatening fundamental rights. That is what the amendments I have tabled do. They are not what big tech wants and they are certainly not the Pirate Party position. They are the proposals by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and by the previous PPE rapporteur, and they are 100% supported by Europe’s leading copyright academics. Please vote for them so that we can preserve the positive parts of this directive that will actually help creators.

 
Letzte Aktualisierung: 21. September 2018Rechtlicher Hinweis