Mobilisation Paquet-Telecom Reponses MEPs

English

Answer of a tory MEP (EPP/Con)

I suspect this is copy-pasta, so here's the body:-

My colleagues Malcolm Harbour MEP and Syed Kamall MEP have been involved with tabling some of the amendments involved in the Telecoms Package. Rather than reduce the rights of internet users and inhibit freedoms, the amendments are in fact intended to reinforce the openness of the Internet. Both have been responsible for making sure that consumers' rights are respected, with copyright issues being restricted to public service information only.

The amendments have been created to strike a balance between the need for monitoring of unlawful activity, thus protecting ordinary lawful users of the Internet, whilst ensuring "sweeping powers" are not handed down to authorities. It is evident that this protection should not extend to any unlawful content or applications. In fact, the question of lawfulness is outside the scope of this legislation and depends on the national laws of each country. It is to be decided by the relevant judicial authorities of each country, not by the ISPs. The intention is however not to turn ISPs into "copyright police". Whilst I appreciate that P2P and other filesharing devices are invaluable for businesses such as your own, the aim of this package is to clamp down on its illegal usage. I have no doubt that the Internet will move fast to fill the void left by their absence for legitimate, legal usage; already there is talk of a "legal P2P" alternative being created.

Amendment K1 refers to the free movement of goods and makes it clear that a country can not start requiring manufacturers to incorporate features that would allow detecting or preventing for example copyright infringement, as that would hinder the free movement of the computers and other terminal equipment concerned. Any such requirements would have to be agreed by all member states of the EU. We are not aware of any such proposals. Specifically, it states "in implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no mandatory requirements for specific technical features, including, without limitation, for the purpose of detecting,intercepting or preventing infringement of intellectual property rights by users, are imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment which could impede the placing of equipment on the market and the free circulation of such equipment in and between Member States".

Amendment H2 asks national regulatory authorities to promote - not force - cooperation, as appropriate, regarding protection and promotion of lawful content. It is entirely independent of "flexible response" and does not prescribe the outcome of any such cooperation. As opposed to the text proposed by the Commission, amendment H3 shifts the burden of explaining the law from the ISPs to the appropriate national authorities. It also broadens the concept so that any type of unlawful activities are covered, not only copyright infringement. Such other activities could be for example child pornography. This public interest information would be prepared by the relevant national authority and then simply distributed by the ISP to all their customers. It involves no monitoring of individual customer usage of the internet.

The package gives national regulatory authorities and the Commission the power to take appropriate action to prevent degradation and slowing of traffic and against unreasonable restrictions of users' possibilities to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice. None of the amendments have been drafted by any outside lobbying organisation.

Position of Roger Knapman (NI/UKIP, UK, South West England)

"Roger Knapman MEP has asked me to thank you for your email and to reply as he is currently travelling to Strasbourg. He agrees withyou about the telecoms "package" and will be opposing it. He sees it as another example of unnecessary regulation from Brussels and a further potential threat to individual freedom.

Piers Merchant, assistant to Roger Knapman"

(Cette section contribué sous CC-bysa)

Answer of Andrew S. Reed (Office of Nigel Farage)

Thank you for your message about the insertion of provisions relating to IPR into the Telecoms Package.

Be assured that UKIP's MEP's will vote against any such insertion and, indeed, against the package itself and any amendment which extends its scope or hastens its introduction.

This is because the EU is inherently, irreformably and dangerously un-democratic and anti-democratic.

I quite agree with you about the undesirability of the elements you mention; but the content of the provisions is less significant, to us, than their source.

Nevertheless, I'm sure we shall vote as you would wish.

Yours sincerely

Français

Maxime Herrmann - Assistant de Catherine Trautmann (PSE)

Monsieur, Nous sommes en contact avec la Quadrature du Net et l'amendement de compromis qu'ils signalent n'est plus sur la table de discussion entre les groupes politiques. Je suis d'ailleurs désolé qu'ils aient maintenu la diffusion de cette note malgré la rencontre que j'ai eue avec l'un d'eux vendredi 27 juin (et l'assurance apportée que cet amendement ne serait pas maintenu tel quel), mais attire votre attention sur le fait que celle-ci a récemment été corrigée et que le rapport de Mme Trautmann n'est plus concerné.

Merci en tout cas de votre message. Bien cordialement,

---

Suggestion de réponse à la réponse : Toutes les dispositions dangereuses qui étaient dans le rapport Trautmann se sont comme par magie retrouvées dans le rapport Harbour dès que La Quadrature du Net a commencé à mettre la lumière dessus. Si Mme Trautmann a admis que ces dispositions étaient problématiques, gageons qu'elle s'opposera à leur vote dans le rapport Harbour, et qu'elle et ses collègues socialistes ne laisseront pas implémenter dans le droit européen le projet de riposte graduée de Mr Sarkozy. Monsieur Malevé,

Mme Vergnaud's position (PSE)

La position du PSE et de Mme Vergnaud qui est responsable de ce dossier pour le PSE en IMCO est claire : les éléments liés à la riposte graduée n'ont rien à faire dans le paquet télécom, ça doit être discuté dans le cadre de "Content online". Il a été tenu compte du risque évoqué, et en l'état actuel des compromis en ITRE et en IMCO, ainsi que du vote en LIBE (coopération renforcée avec IMCO sur la partie ePrivacy), rien ne permet la riposte graduée, et le PSE est vigilant sur ce point.

Le seul point favorable aux ayants-droits, en ce sens soutenus par le PSE, c'est l'information contractuelle et post-contractuelle aux consommateurs, contenue dans les compromis IMCO (information générale sur le respect des droits et libertés d'autrui, y compris les droits d'auteur, distribuée par les opérateurs et rédigée dans le cadre d'une coopération entre autorités, opérateurs et ayants-droits).

Si vous souhaitez d'avantage d'informations, vous pourvez vous adresser directement au Bureau de Madame Vergnaud. Sincères salutations

Giovanna Corda