BETA

21 Amendments of Godelieve QUISTHOUDT-ROWOHL related to 2012/2094(INI)

Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that infringements of intellectual property rights can pose a serious threat to legitimate trade and the competitiveness of the EU and its Member States, and that this subsequently has a negative impact on growth and employment;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned that citizens see the current system of copyright protection as a tool to ‘punish and withhold,Believes that ensuring high standards of copyright protection in the Internet environment is essential so that instead of a tool to recognise and reward’llectual property in areas of technical innovation can also be protected effectively;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the repression and control of citizens and business involves a growing technological component, through the blocking of content and the monitoring and identification of human rights defenders, journalists, activists and dissidents, as well as through the criminalisation and blocking of legitimate expression and opposition opinion online, ands well as the adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the promotion and protection of digital freedoms in all the EU's external actions, financing and aid policies, and instruments should be mainstreamed and annually reviewed so as to ensure accountability and continuity, in all the EU's external actioas well as to maintain the promotion of safeguards agains,t financing and aid policies and instruments; raud and harm to the innovative process necessary for growth;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Reaffirms the Commission's recognition of unrestricted access to the internet as part of the Copenhagen criteria;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission and the Council not to conclude trade agreements with countries where EU ICT companies are required toto advocate in all international negotiations that ICT companies may not restrict access to websites, may not remove user-generated content orand do not provide personal information in ways that could breach fundamental rights and curtail the freedom to conduct business; calls on the EU to minimise the extra-territorial application of third-country legislation on EU citizens online;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that the EU should include in future FTAs objective and transparent safeguards preserving unrestricted access to the open Internet and ensuringCalls on the Commission to ensure, in all future FTAs too, the protection of intellectual property rights in bilateral trade between the EU and the free flow of informationspective partner;
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Deplores the use of EU-made technologies and services in third countries to violate human rights through censorship of information, mass surveillance, monitoring, and the tracing and tracking of citizens and their activities on (mobile) telephone networks and the internet; takes the position, however, that the technologies in and of themselves are morally indifferent, and that malicious policy renders responsibility to the actor, and not the instrument.
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the need for more stringent supply-chain controls and corporate responsibility schemes in respect of trading in products – from equipment to mobile devices – and services, which can be used to curtail human rights and digital freedom; regards jamming and interception technology products and services as ‘single use’ items whose export should be subject to ex-ante approval.
2012/07/23
Committee: INTA
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the ban on the export of repression technologies and services to Syria and Iran; believes this ban should become a precedent for structural restrictive measures, such as an EU-wide ‘catch-all’ provision or ‘it prudent, however, to specify that these bans must be issued on a case-by-case basis, taking into accountry- specific lists’ in the dual-use regulatory frameworks when dealing with conflict zones or controversial regimes;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines the need for more stringent supply-chain controls and corporate responsibility schemes in respect of trading in products (from equipment to mobile devices) and services which can be used to curtail human rights and digital freedom;deleted
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Regards certain targeted jamming, surveillance, monitoring and interception technology products and services as ‘single-use’ items whose export should be subject to ex ante approval;deleted
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Believes companies should perform human rights impact assessments on ICTs, starting at the R&D phase, and ensure non-complicity in possible human rights violations in third countries;deleted
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Recognises that the internet has become a public space as well as a marketplace, for which the free flow of information and access to ICTs are indispensable; therefore, takes the stance that digital freedoms and free trade must be promoted and protected simultaneously in order to encourage and support the free exchange of ideas as well as increased business opportunities for EU citizens in an increasingly digital global economy;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Strongly believes that infringements of intellectual property rights can and do pose threats to international trade, and in doing so impede EU efforts to increase competitiveness of the European Union as a whole and of individual Member States in particular, and as a result, fraudulent tactics harm legitimate innovation which impacts negatively growth and employment efforts so desired from EU constituents, likewise resulting in annual private sector loses measured in the billions;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for the inclusion of conditionality clauses in EU FTAs, stipulating transparent safeguards, preserving unrestricted access to the internet,in EU FTAs of wording that preserves access to the internet, promotes transparent safeguards and ensuringes the free flow of information, while remaining in line with the EU acquis;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the EU to strive to ensure that regulation of the internet and ICTs is kept to the minimumundertaken only when the EU deems it necessary;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
29. Is concerned at the proposals by coalitions of governments and business seeking to introduce regulatory oversight and increased governmental and private control over the internet and telecom operationsRecognizes that the internet must be kept free and open for businesses and consumers, while also acknowledging the fact that proper regulation may also be necessary to protect the very same businesses and consumers from fraud and malicious online activity;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
31. Calls on the Commission to propose a new regulatory framework for e- commerce, as well as an update of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), which would balance the need for copyright reform and protection with the need to protect fundamental rights online and preserve the open internet and would serve as a basis for IPR provisions and; takes the position that the EU should continue to maintain its balanced approach to copyright protection and the protection of other fundamental rights; believes that a more concrete definition of openness is necessary, particularly in the event that efforts to enhance the aforementioned run contradictory to the EU acquis; recommends that the EU should not be afraid to project a more thorough sense of support for IPR protection when defining commitments in future FTAs;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
33. Calls on the Commission and Council to unequivocally recognise digital freedoms as fundamental rights and as indispensable, those which do not endanger and restrict EU citizens' efforts to produce creatively and innovate uniquely, and as prerequisites for enjoying universal human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and access to information and ensuring transparency and accountability in public life, while also maintaining that EU growth and job creation efforts are threatened when its citizens' ideas are counterfeited and their products are pirated;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
38. Urges the Council and Commission to include, in accession negotiations, human rights dialogues, trade negotiations and all forms of contact relating to human rights, conditionality clauses stipulating the need to respect and preserve unrestricted access to the internet, digital freedoms and human rights online; deems it, however, necessary to debate and define exactly what 'unrestricted' entails from a legislative and legal perspective;
2012/09/27
Committee: AFET