|
Size: 4632
Comment:
|
Size: 2896
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 4: | Line 4: |
| The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But not all commercial violations of "intellectual property" rights are piracy. If we want to stop piracy, the thing to do is to stop counterfeiting. Beyond counterfeiting, things are unclear and very complicated. | The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But not all commercial violations of "intellectual property" rights are piracy. If we want to stop piracy, the thing to do is to stop counterfeiting. Beyond counterfeiting, things are unclear and very complicated. |
| Line 6: | Line 6: |
| In copyright, parodies, independent recreations and citations are free. The question whether something is an "independent recreation" or a violation of copyright is a though question. Questions like these should be handled in civil courts, not criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require more precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium. | In copyright, parodies, independent recreations and citations are free. The question whether something is an "independent recreation" or a violation of copyright is a though question. Questions like these should be handled in civil courts, not criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require more precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium. |
| Line 10: | Line 10: |
| The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But piracy is already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. The problem has already been solved. IPRED 2 goes further than solving the problem, and becomes a problem itself. | The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But piracy is already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. The problem has already been solved. IPRED 2 goes further than solving the problem, and becomes a problem itself. |
| Line 12: | Line 12: |
| The Commission made no assessment of the current situation. Are there any real problems today due to unintended legal limitations? How would the directive work out in various criminal law systems? | The Commission made no assessment of the current situation. Are there any real problems today due to unintended legal limitations? How would the directive work out in various criminal law systems? |
| Line 14: | Line 14: |
| In some cases, like trade names, prison sentences go up more than a 100 times. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems. | In some cases, like trade names, prison sentences go up more than a 100 times. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems. |
| Line 16: | Line 16: |
| In trade marks, currently typically only counterfeiting is a crime. Trademark infringement in general is very complicated and subtle. Not suited for criminal sanctions. | In trade marks, currently typically only counterfeiting is a crime. Trademark infringement in general is very complicated and subtle. Not suited for criminal sanctions. |
| Line 18: | Line 18: |
| Patent law has many issues. Definitions are unclear and drifting. There is a major quality problem. In some sectors, like the software industry, it is impossible not to violate patents. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. But do we really want to see Bill Gates in prison? Do we really want to see our neighbor, that hardworking owner of a Small or Medium Sized Enterprise, put away for 4 years? IPRED 2 sets the framework. It is the lowest form of lawmaking. | Patent law has many issues. Definitions are unclear and drifting. There is a major quality problem. In some sectors, like the software industry, it is impossible not to violate patents. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. But do we really want to see Bill Gates in prison? Do we really want to see our neighbor, that hardworking owner of a Small or Medium Sized Enterprise, put away for 4 years? IPRED 2 sets the framework. It is the lowest form of lawmaking. |
| Line 27: | Line 27: |
| [http://homepage.mac.com/crapes/23.html webcam private] | [http://squabbler.bravepages.com/5.html amature asian girls] | [http://prowlers.fcpages.com/60.html webcam sex live] | [http://homepage.mac.com/extortive/39.html teen transsexual] | [http://laniard.150m.com/58.html ontario school district] | [http://eave.kogaryu.com/57.html boy virgins] | [http://homepage.mac.com/kibbutz1/87.html teen webcam porn] | [http://laniard.150m.com/33.html dick models] | [http://gasolines.envy.nu/3.html giant cum shots] | [http://barnyards.freewebpages.org/85.html ffm bdsm] | [http://sweetbrier.150m.com/55.html live webcam broadcasting] | [http://hotseat.angelcities.com/34.html flintstones xxx] | [http://sinuous.150m.com/81.html voyer up skirts] | [http://saber.100freemb.com/89.html best female ejaculations] | [http://homepage.mac.com/unhandiest/69.html college gril webcam] | [http://treatments.dreamstation.com/92.html black pornstar tgp] | [http://racialists.00freehost.com/94.html preggo blond] | [http://extenuated.g0g.net/41.html bbw movie clips] | [http://menopausal.greatnow.com/35.html mother spanks teenager] | [http://amusingly.angelcities.com/54.html diseases oral sex] | [http://homepage.mac.com/bindweed/55.html webcam lesbian] | [http://risk.dreamstation.com/70.html private webcam xxx] | [http://infinities.9cy.com/24.html hot webcam strip] | [http://jeremiah.9cy.com/34.html redhead whores] | [http://glamorous.9cy.com/32.html erotic wives] | [http://donal.exactpages.com/46.html latina cocksuckers] | [http://hermetical.741.com/65.html shemales in sylmar] | [http://homepage.mac.com/quinines/35.html webcam vid] | [http://zircons.741.com/11.html huge anal insertions] | [http://umpires.1accesshost.com/80.html webcam girl video] |
IPRED 2:
Do we really want to see Bill Gates behind bars?
The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But not all commercial violations of "intellectual property" rights are piracy. If we want to stop piracy, the thing to do is to stop counterfeiting. Beyond counterfeiting, things are unclear and very complicated.
In copyright, parodies, independent recreations and citations are free. The question whether something is an "independent recreation" or a violation of copyright is a though question. Questions like these should be handled in civil courts, not criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require more precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium.
IPRED 2 covers 11 "intellectual property" rights. We see counterfeiting with copyright and trade marks. What are the other 9 "intellectual property" rights doing in IPRED 2?
The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But piracy is already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. The problem has already been solved. IPRED 2 goes further than solving the problem, and becomes a problem itself.
The Commission made no assessment of the current situation. Are there any real problems today due to unintended legal limitations? How would the directive work out in various criminal law systems?
In some cases, like trade names, prison sentences go up more than a 100 times. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.
In trade marks, currently typically only counterfeiting is a crime. Trademark infringement in general is very complicated and subtle. Not suited for criminal sanctions.
Patent law has many issues. Definitions are unclear and drifting. There is a major quality problem. In some sectors, like the software industry, it is impossible not to violate patents. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. But do we really want to see Bill Gates in prison? Do we really want to see our neighbor, that hardworking owner of a Small or Medium Sized Enterprise, put away for 4 years? IPRED 2 sets the framework. It is the lowest form of lawmaking.
Big companies want to lock in customers, lock out competitors, acquire as many rights as possible and make these rights as strong as possible. The lawmaker has to strike a fair balance. IPRED 2 is not balanced.
For the sake of responsible lawmaking, protection of carefully balanced national procedural law systems, subsidiarity and legal security, we ask you to say No to these superfluous and detrimental proposals.
On July 6th the European Parliament rejected the software patents directive. We heartily thank you for that. The IPRED 2 directive is even more absurd. It should be rejected in first reading. We wish the Parliament the wisdom it had on July 6th 2005.
Thank you.