Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Cederschiöld, on her very serious work. She has clearly identified the problems created by the approval of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s treaties. Their approval is undoubtedly an historic occasion because for the first time the European Union is participating as a contracting party in an international treaty that governs the field of intellectual property. It is a fact that the road has been a long one, mainly because of the legal problem that arose in connection with the extent to which the Community could be considered to have absolute competence in matters of intellectual property. The problem has been overcome. Today we are asked to give our assent in effect to two treaties: the treaty on intellectual property and the treaty on interpretations, performances and phonograms. As regards the first of these, it seems to provide an effective solution for the long-standing demands by the creators of artistic and literary works, while at the same time creating a framework of protection in relation to issues such as distribution, rental and the presentation of their works to the public. As regards the second treaty on performances and phonograms, it must be stressed that for the first time an international treaty signed by the Community as well recognises exclusive rights for performers, interpreters and artists for reproduction, distribution and rental to the public, and the right to fair remuneration for radio broadcasts. In that context a noteworthy and important step forward is the treaty’s treatment of the right of reproduction. Even though, as the Commission says, the texts of the treaties do not contain special provisions to regulate all the respective issues raised by technological development, it can nevertheless be said that within the legislative framework created, performing or interpreting artists enjoy broader protection than that accorded by the Treaty of Rome or even by the Community directives. Interpreting Article 7 of the Treaty, we can conclude that the application of protection for reproduction does not only mean protection for the reproduction of the interpretations or performances themselves as such that are embodied in recordings, but also protection against copying, whether in whole or in part and whether permanent or temporary, and protection against any other form of production. It would be appropriate, however, for us also to mention some points which should be at the focus of future WIPO work or the work of other diplomatic conferences. First, there is the right of distribution as referred to in Article 8(1). The option accorded to States by the next paragraph of the same article to regulate the exhaustion of the above right is dangerous and is one of the Treaty’s most negative points, since there is nothing to prevent States from enacting special conditions for the exhaustion of the right, a thing that would be to the disadvantage of artists. As regards rental rights, on interpretation of Article 9, we can conclude that the exclusive right of rental belongs to artists, interpreters or performers, only if this is laid down by national legislation. I think this conflicts with Article 13. To conclude, I want to say that ratification of these treaties opens a horizon for property rights. In the 21st century, the century of knowledge and the invisible economy, intellectual property will be the dominant form of property and will, in many cases, be more important than traditional property. We are at the dawn of an age in which new legislation will be created, where the right to utilise intellectual property will clash head on with the public interest in terms of its dissemination and exploitation by the public at large.

Political group: PSE