8 Amendments of Julia REDA related to 2017/2007(INI)
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. Whereas the use of 3-D printing is becoming more and more widespread in the society, notably in the education field, in citizen and start-up fora, such as ‘maker spaces’, as well as in the private sphere;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas, from a copyright point of view, useful distinctions should be made: for instance,, in particular between home printing for private use and printing for commercial use, andor for uses covered by copyright limitations and exceptions on the one hand, and printing for commercial use on the other hand; distinctions between B2B services and B2C services should also be taken into account.
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. Whereas 3D printing has not fundamentally altered the way copyright applies; however, due scrutiny should be brought to how exclusive rights are allocated and implemented, in consideration of the large amount of open-source licenses governing the creation of software in this domain, and in compliance with uses allowed under intellectual property law;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas general liability rules, including those on the liability of intermediary service providers as defined in articles 12 to 14 of the e-commerce Directive, also apply to 3D printing; whereas a specific liability regime could be envisaged for damage caused by an object created using 3D-printing technology, as the number of stakeholders involved in the process often makes it difficult for the victim to identify the person responsible; whereas those rules could make the creator or vendoseller of the 3D file liable, or the producer of the 3D printer, or the producer of the software used in the 3D printer, or the supplier of the materials used for printing, or even the person who creaprinted the object, depending on the cause of the defect discovered and on the damage that occurred;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P b (new)
Recital P b (new)
Pb. Having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipate problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement, the EU will have toIs of the opinion that in order to anticipate the legal and ethical problems raised by 3D printing technologies, the EU should carefully consider adoapt newing legislation or tailor existing laws to the specific case of 3D technology; stresses that, in any case, the legislative response should avoid duplicating rules and should take inseek to acencount projects that are already under way; adds that innovation needs to be accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraintrage innovation;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes the applicability, necessity and practicability of existing liability rules for intermediary service providers which transmit, cache or host and considers them appropriate for 3D printing service infrastructure.