By Christian Vanneste on May 5th, 2009 in Hadopi, Interventions
This night, I intervened to defend an amendment of opposition aiming at instituting a valuation of Hadopi. I remind you that law DADVSI envisaged a report of valuation: The Government presents a report to the Parliament on the implementation of all the dispositions of the present law in eighteen months according to its promulgation. This report includes a specific chapter on the conditions of installation of a public platform of downloading allowing every living creator who is absentee of online commercial offer to make available his writings or his interpretations to the public and to get from it a fair remuneration. In spite of my requests repeated to the Government, to Jean-Luke Warsmann, president de la Commission des lois, and to Jean-Fran ois Cop , this valuation was always refused me. Report of my intervention:
Mr Christian Vanneste. I am astounded to see that neither the reporter nor the minister ever bring positive answer. Know-how of openings is sometimes needed, and a law is not voted by pushing back all proposals systematically, even though they are sometimes full of common sense. More of opening of mind would make easier the parliamentary work a lot.
I moreover hear that there is not law DADVSI. But there is one: proof is there that you legislate precisely to change it! I indeed remind that law DADVSI included the principle of a calibrated quick-witted answer founded on a system of fines and that it is because of the cancellation of this device by the Constitutional Council that we are with a disproportional trouble three years of prison and 300 000 euro of fine which punish counterfeiting. It is what intends to change current law. Law DADVSI exists therefore.
Having said that, it would have much better existed if, as law demanded it itself, it had been assessed. Indeed, if the Government had practiced, as I applied for it, the valuation to which he was compelled eighteen months afterwards vote of law, perhaps executive and Parliament they would have been able to rectify shooting without calling anybody of outside in the political world, shortly considered to be one great knowing , in comparison with the parliamentarians unable to make whatever it is of good.
I have a lot of admiration as the film-makers and as the one who is here, but it is the parliamentarians who make law, and not film-makers who are in stands! We must aim at the common good and at not the interest of this or that profession, at whatever is its artistic or economic interest.
I would mean finally that, for the adversaries of the text as for supporters, the proposal of Mrs Erhel can be only positive. There is nothing arguable indeed to want to know, one year or two after the vote of law, which were his effects. She will have answered your waitings and carried her fruits, madam minister, and in that case you am will have won; is, as we think of it, she will turn out to be ineffectual and we will regret it, notably for the film-makers and for the musicians.
I ask therefore the reporter and the minister to come back on their opposition, with no sense. By accepting this amendment, you will show opening of mind and you will make develop the text, beyond the left-right clash which we attend for week.
Mr Jean Dionis of Stay. Very well!
Mrs president. Word belongs to Mrs Christine Albanel, minister of culture.
Mrs Christine Albanel, minister of culture. We have already had on this text forty-two hours of debate and adopted two hundred and sixty amendments.
Mr Christian Vanneste. It does not belong to a minister to judge the length of a parliamentary debate!
Mrs Christine Albanel, minister of culture. I do not judge the length of debate but remind of a fact. As for the adoption of two hundred and sixty amendments, it means that the text considerably evolved and that it was improved.
Mr Patrick Bloche. These were only amendments of the reporter!
Some producers, actors, investors and others who orbit around the realisation of a film complain that their cupidity could be threatened and that it is necessary to them to work in fact indeed to produce new films instead of living on a private income of situation because they created 1 film some years ago.
To assure them sometimes shameless benefits because out of proportion with a decent remuneration of their job (benefits which they put besides well sheltered from any taxation) they want to supervise the access to culture and are going to end up killing it.
Indeed, of the own admission of the bulimics of great benefits cheap, a film is about 6 months in the circuit of cinema halls and of paid specialised networks Television, then 6 months in DVD then master key (possibly, and with chance) on the free chains.
In this period of time some films (not to say certain number) taken " to the hatch for a heap of reasons.
Not appearing any more in commercial traditional circuits, they disappear little by little and in this walk towards neglect, the token is next to the mediocre with only from time to time a recall in life to furnish a programme
Therefore, if downloading can appear arguable for films of less than a year, (would need however (Re) to ask the question of the price of places for young people or families having no means to put 8 in 9 per capita) why this hunt for the light-fingered villain of benefit for all writings without exceptions why not to forbid downloading only for films of less than a year and to leave the chance of a second life in more ancient writings which otherwise are going completely to disappear.
The same diagramme can be applied for musical compositions
Are the defenders of Culture only the defenders of the Culture of the Money?
Copyright Christian Vanneste - Deputy of the North 2007. All rights reserved.