Differences between revisions 169 and 176 (spanning 7 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 169 as of 2007-01-18 10:05:22 →
Size: 7881
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
← Revision 176 as of 2007-01-30 15:01:49 → ⇥
Size: 9851
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 12: Line 12:
= The second IPR Enforcement Directive: European Commission criminalises the industry =
= The Prosecution Paradise Directive =

All over Europe piracy and counterfeiting are already prosecutable (TRIPS art 61). The Criminal Measures IP Directive adds disproportionality. The Commission proposal is not limited to piracy. All commercial scale infringements will be crimes, even normal business acts by regular companies. Even untested rights, which may soon evaporate in a civil court cases, become grounds for prosecution. And the rights holders may assist the police.

Some MEPs even proposed in amendments to remove the “commercial scale” condition” or to weaken it, to remove “intentional”, to involve consumers, to criminalise the young generation.

Why do some push for a Prosecution Paradise?

In a knowledge economy, owning information is a certain win. But you still have to fight it out in civil courts sometimes. It is easier and cheaper if the state (the prosecutor) takes care of eliminating competitors, however weak your rights may be, however justified your competitors acts may be. Criminal courts are inexperienced with IP, they will readily provide court orders, criminal law gives wide competences. Suing the young generation for high damages is bad PR, recording companies rather leave it to state prosecutors.

In short, criminalisation is used for profit maximalisation. Put maximum pressure on competitors, make them crack.

The eighties of the last century were characterised with “get rich fast”, it was a poker game. This is worse. Winner takes all, and the others can go to jail. It's utterly cynical. It's jeopardizing Europe's future. The Community will never win the hearts and minds of the Europeans if it supports such an agenda.

The criminal measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. Reject the directive.


= We do not want our kids to be criminals - just for enjoying a videoclip on YouTube =


== Legal Affairs committee votes on criminalising downloading ==

Update: meeting and vote are postponed


Monday January 29 and Tuesday January 30, 2007, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee will discuss and vote on a proposal by Mr Manders, MEP, to [http://www.ipred.org/download criminalise downloading].


-----------------------------------


= The Criminal Measures IP Directive: European Commission criminalises the industry =
Line 38: Line 70:

== Legal Affairs committee votes on criminalising downloading ==


Monday January 29 and Tuesday January 30, 2007, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee will discuss and vote on a proposal by Mr Manders, MEP, to [http://www.ipred.org/download criminalise downloading].

------------------

http://www.ipred.org/MainPage Introduction http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis http://www.ipred.org/howto How To http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet http://www.ipred.org/download Downloading

The Prosecution Paradise Directive

All over Europe piracy and counterfeiting are already prosecutable (TRIPS art 61). The Criminal Measures IP Directive adds disproportionality. The Commission proposal is not limited to piracy. All commercial scale infringements will be crimes, even normal business acts by regular companies. Even untested rights, which may soon evaporate in a civil court cases, become grounds for prosecution. And the rights holders may assist the police.

Some MEPs even proposed in amendments to remove the “commercial scale” condition” or to weaken it, to remove “intentional”, to involve consumers, to criminalise the young generation.

Why do some push for a Prosecution Paradise?

In a knowledge economy, owning information is a certain win. But you still have to fight it out in civil courts sometimes. It is easier and cheaper if the state (the prosecutor) takes care of eliminating competitors, however weak your rights may be, however justified your competitors acts may be. Criminal courts are inexperienced with IP, they will readily provide court orders, criminal law gives wide competences. Suing the young generation for high damages is bad PR, recording companies rather leave it to state prosecutors.

In short, criminalisation is used for profit maximalisation. Put maximum pressure on competitors, make them crack.

The eighties of the last century were characterised with “get rich fast”, it was a poker game. This is worse. Winner takes all, and the others can go to jail. It's utterly cynical. It's jeopardizing Europe's future. The Community will never win the hearts and minds of the Europeans if it supports such an agenda.

The criminal measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. Reject the directive.

We do not want our kids to be criminals - just for enjoying a videoclip on YouTube

Update: meeting and vote are postponed

Monday January 29 and Tuesday January 30, 2007, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee will discuss and vote on a proposal by Mr Manders, MEP, to [http://www.ipred.org/download criminalise downloading].

The Criminal Measures IP Directive: European Commission criminalises the industry

The European Commission has proposed a [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en directive] to combat piracy and other infringements of "intellectual property rights" (IP-rights), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. While it does make sense to combat clear cases of piracy, it is nonsense to combat other infringements than such clear cases, with criminal measures. These other infringements occur during normal commercial business conduct, civil courts decide on them. The Commission criminalises the industry, inhibits the desired freedom to act in the market. Decent people can be treated as organised criminals.

Commercial infringements

Beyond clear cases of piracy, it is impossible to tell in advance whether an act is an infringement or fair competition. On a daily basis companies try out the boundaries of "IP-rights". Is this product a look alike? Is this copycat or will the patent be invalidated? Is this work an independent recreation? Companies reach agreements or fight it out in civil courts. If a right was indeed infringed, damages are paid. This is a fair process. Adding criminal sanctions to this fair process creates a big threat potential that inhibits the desired freedom to act in the market.

Bizarre consequences

By not making a distinction between piracy and other infringements, the Commission creates bizarre consequences. It is impossible to write software without violating patents. A whole industry will be criminalised. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. With this directive, we could see Bill Gates in prison. Even companies which merely use properly licensed software are criminalised, since such use is intentional, commercial scale and can infringe on software patents. And people who share files on the internet, on a not-for-profit basis, can be treated as organised criminals. You better watch what your kids are doing with your computer.

Superfluous

To combat piracy the legal means are already installed. What is actually needed is better coordination between countries. Copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting are already crimes throughout the EU, the TRIPS-treaty sees to that. Unlike the directive, the national laws are carefully balanced. With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.

Carte blanche

An other bizarre aspect of the proposal is that is has an open end: all existing and future "IP-rights" are covered. It is a carte blanche. Seen this misguided, superfluous and outrageous directive, is there anyone who wants to give the Commission carte blanche?

No competence

Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. In our opinion, only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En Commission exceeds its competence] with this directive.

Conclusion and analysis

The directive has to be rejected:

  • it is misguided, superfluous and outrageous
  • the Community lacks legitimacy and competence

If not rejected, member states should take the directive to the European Court of Justice.

A complete rewrite could be contemplated. This would result in a directive that does not go any further than the TRIPS treaty. Since we already have the TRIPS treaty, it would not make much sense. While this approach would take away the gross aspects of the directive, it would not solve the competence question.

For conclusion and analysis see our [http:analysis analysis page].

Full name

Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights

COM(2006)0168

C6‑0233/2005

2005/0127(COD)

More translations will be available later on. Change "en" twice in the link for translations.

ipred.org

In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out.

The criminal measures are back in the Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (DCMEIPR ?). This new directive is often called IPRED 2.

ipred.org is set up by [http://www.vrijschrift.org Vrijschrift.org]

MainPage (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:39 by localhost)