9 Amendments of Barbara KAPPEL related to 2017/2003(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises the fact that all collaborative economies, covering the full spectrum from market-oriented to gift- based, apre rooted in human cooperative behaviour and that no matter how diverse they are, or will become, they are all identified by resource sharing, the active empowerment of citizens, community- accepted innovation, andsuppose a collaborative model of consumption (renting, lending, exchanging, sharing, bartering and giving), which is applied in ways and on scales which were not possible in the past, thanks to the intensive use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a key enabler;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that ICTs allow innovativethe phenomenon does not involve a technological breakthrough or the triumph of an ideas within the collaborative economies to evolve quickly and efficiently, while connecting and empowering participants, reducing the need for intermediation, decreasing direct costs and overheads, channelling rich information flows and reinforchich, by acting on the structure of a traditional activity, enables it to become more efficient, ‘achieving more with less’; observes that the only real innovation in collaborative economies, and in the sharing economy in general, lies in the elimination of all forms of intermediation: whether commercial or public (ing trust between peers; erms of regulation and taxation);
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Observes that the major transnational platforms of the sharing economy, which gather and redistribute an enormous flow of information, are setting themselves up as new intermediaries; notes that, despite a heavier burden of costs (costs of intermediation even exceed 20%), they can set lower prices thanks to the fact that the technology of innovation requires minimal fixed investment and because of the asymmetry by virtue of which the cost of such prices falls not on the platform itself but on workers or their customers; observes that it follows that, in certain circumstances, such platforms may even constitute a barrier to the creation and development of local collaborative economy initiatives;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the sharing and monetisation of underused assets rbeleases a wealth of positive environmental and other externalities, thus making industries and services more resource-efficient, lowers the up-front costs of market entry and creates opportunitiesonging to an operator himself receives particular impetus in an economy where internal demand is exhausted, where it becomes essential to economise on expenditure and therefore the decisive criterion becomes price rather than quality and safety; notes that, consequently, the ‘added value’ of the sharing economy lies in the systematisation of the subsistence economy, in the absence of an added- value economy; it is a ‘fend-for-yourself economy’;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that collaborative economies thrive in communities in which knowledge- and education-sharing models are strong, thereby consolidating a culture of open innovathe profits generated in this way for the most part fall to owners of hardware and software, to the oligopolists of the digital world, and to those who manage the payments and transactions, supporting open-sourced hardware and software, and expanding our heritage of common goods and creative commonswho incidentally can legally evade taxation thanks to the free movement of capital;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8