Differences between revisions 194 and 198 (spanning 4 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 194 as of 2007-02-06 12:07:57 →
Size: 10824
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
← Revision 198 as of 2007-03-20 14:39:52 → ⇥
Size: 14849
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 13: Line 13:
= Legal Affairs Committee washes hands in innocence =

The Legal Affairs Committee [http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/JURI_Tabled_Amendments voted] on the Criminal Measures IP directive. Overall impression: the experts kept the definitions vague. The experts leave it to the European Court of Justice to clarify the directive. If they want to leave it to the Court, why do they want to be involved in the first place?

It seems to be the new trick in town since the Constitution was voted down: leave it to the Court. Even if the Treaty does not provide enough space, nobody can stop the Court. It has been called a legal coup d'etat here and there.

Everybody wants to limit the directive to clear cases of piracy. The [http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/directive_of_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_on_criminal_measures_aimed_at_ensuring_the_enforcement_of_intellectual_property_rights.pdf Max Planck Institute], together with the [http://www.cipa.org.uk/download_files/preliminary_Proposed_Enforcement.pdf Chartered Institute of Patent Agents] gave detailed recommendations to solve this issue. Non of these recommendations made it to the Legal Affairs Committee report.

For instance amendment 30: "This Directive lays down the criminal measures necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the context of counterfeiting and piracy."

Piracy is not defined. And the formulation can be turned
around: These are measures in the context of counterfeiting and piracy, they
are very broad, so apparently piracy and counterfeiting have to be seen in a
broad way. Like this it only leads to word inflation. How strong is the
limitation? The ECJ can even turn a treaty around, as they showed with
C-176/03.

A clear limitation, based on the work of the Max Planck Institute, was overwhelmingly voted down: "For the purposes of this Directive, 'infringement' means an infringement
where the infringing item emulates the characteristic elements of a protected
product or distinctive sign in an unmodified fashion."

The importance of this limitation, meant to exclude conflicts over the extent of protection by legitimate commercial enterprises, was not seen by the Committee.

The Commission proposal makes inciting an infringement a crime too. This is a huge threat to everybody in the software and the internet industry. From FFII to BSA run amok against this. It is still in.

Design rights, which are unexamined, are still in. The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents about them: "The position in relation to registered designs is particularly difficult. It is widely recognised that
the effect of having no substantive examination is that there are many designs which are
registered which are not valid. If criminal sanctions applied to infringement of such rights then it
would seriously impact on the freedom of others to use those designs. Even if it were a defence
to show that the registered design was invalid (or that it was believed to be), it is likely that there
would be a substantial adverse effect on legitimate competitors, who would not be willing to take
the risk of criminal liability. Commercial organisations are willing to take a commercial risk in
relation to civil liability – that they will be found liable for damages if their commercial
judgement is wrong; but such issues should be left to civil remedies, not to criminal ones."

Wise words, but we cannot expect the Legal Affairs Committee to listen to wise words.

A solid definition of commercial scale by the Max Planck institute was not used: "commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit". The rapporteur invented: "(b) 'infringements on a commercial scale' means any infringement of an
intellectual property right committed to obtain a commercial advantage; this
would exclude acts carried out by private users for personal and not for
profits purposes;"

"This would" shows the origin, a civil law consideration (IPRED). It is weak and not suited for criminal law.
Line 15: Line 61:
All over Europe piracy and counterfeiting of "intellectual property rights" are already prosecutable (TRIPS art 61). The Criminal Measures IP Directive adds disproportionality. The European Commission proposal is not limited to piracy. All commercial scale infringements will be crimes, the proposal criminalises IPR disputes that are essentially of a civil nature and occur between legitimate commercial enterprises. Even untested rights, which may soon evaporate in a civil court cases, become grounds for prosecution. And the rights holders may assist the police. All over Europe piracy and counterfeiting of copyright and trademark rights are already prosecutable (TRIPS art 61). The Criminal Measures IP Directive adds disproportionality. The European Commission proposal is not limited to piracy. All commercial scale infringements will be crimes, the proposal criminalises IPR disputes that are essentially of a civil nature and occur between legitimate commercial enterprises. Even untested rights, which may soon evaporate in a civil court cases, become grounds for prosecution. And the rights holders may assist the police.
Line 38: Line 84:
5 The criminal measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. A directive will only have symbolic meaning. A far more realistic approach was suggested by the Dutch Parliament. Its [http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw letter] should be reconsidered. There should be no hesitation to reject the directive. 5 The criminal measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. At best, a directive will only have symbolic meaning. A far more realistic approach was suggested by the Dutch Parliament. Its [http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw letter] should be reconsidered. There should be no hesitation to reject the directive.
Line 51: Line 97:
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]. 		Monday Februari 26 and Tuesday Februari 27, 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

Legal Affairs Committee washes hands in innocence

The Legal Affairs Committee [http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/JURI_Tabled_Amendments voted] on the Criminal Measures IP directive. Overall impression: the experts kept the definitions vague. The experts leave it to the European Court of Justice to clarify the directive. If they want to leave it to the Court, why do they want to be involved in the first place?

It seems to be the new trick in town since the Constitution was voted down: leave it to the Court. Even if the Treaty does not provide enough space, nobody can stop the Court. It has been called a legal coup d'etat here and there.

Everybody wants to limit the directive to clear cases of piracy. The [http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/directive_of_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_on_criminal_measures_aimed_at_ensuring_the_enforcement_of_intellectual_property_rights.pdf Max Planck Institute], together with the [http://www.cipa.org.uk/download_files/preliminary_Proposed_Enforcement.pdf Chartered Institute of Patent Agents] gave detailed recommendations to solve this issue. Non of these recommendations made it to the Legal Affairs Committee report.

For instance amendment 30: "This Directive lays down the criminal measures necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the context of counterfeiting and piracy."

Piracy is not defined. And the formulation can be turned around: These are measures in the context of counterfeiting and piracy, they are very broad, so apparently piracy and counterfeiting have to be seen in a broad way. Like this it only leads to word inflation. How strong is the limitation? The ECJ can even turn a treaty around, as they showed with C-176/03.

A clear limitation, based on the work of the Max Planck Institute, was overwhelmingly voted down: "For the purposes of this Directive, 'infringement' means an infringement where the infringing item emulates the characteristic elements of a protected product or distinctive sign in an unmodified fashion."

The importance of this limitation, meant to exclude conflicts over the extent of protection by legitimate commercial enterprises, was not seen by the Committee.

The Commission proposal makes inciting an infringement a crime too. This is a huge threat to everybody in the software and the internet industry. From FFII to BSA run amok against this. It is still in.

Design rights, which are unexamined, are still in. The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents about them: "The position in relation to registered designs is particularly difficult. It is widely recognised that the effect of having no substantive examination is that there are many designs which are registered which are not valid. If criminal sanctions applied to infringement of such rights then it would seriously impact on the freedom of others to use those designs. Even if it were a defence to show that the registered design was invalid (or that it was believed to be), it is likely that there would be a substantial adverse effect on legitimate competitors, who would not be willing to take the risk of criminal liability. Commercial organisations are willing to take a commercial risk in relation to civil liability – that they will be found liable for damages if their commercial judgement is wrong; but such issues should be left to civil remedies, not to criminal ones."

Wise words, but we cannot expect the Legal Affairs Committee to listen to wise words.

A solid definition of commercial scale by the Max Planck institute was not used: "commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit". The rapporteur invented: "(b) 'infringements on a commercial scale' means any infringement of an intellectual property right committed to obtain a commercial advantage; this would exclude acts carried out by private users for personal and not for profits purposes;"

"This would" shows the origin, a civil law consideration (IPRED). It is weak and not suited for criminal law.

The Prosecution Paradise Directive

All over Europe piracy and counterfeiting of copyright and trademark rights are already prosecutable (TRIPS art 61). The Criminal Measures IP Directive adds disproportionality. The European Commission proposal is not limited to piracy. All commercial scale infringements will be crimes, the proposal criminalises IPR disputes that are essentially of a civil nature and occur between legitimate commercial enterprises. 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 Members of the European Parliament 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.

A disproportional directive will cause a Prosecution Paradise, with ample opportunities for trolls.

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. Litigation companies (trolls) will be able to put maximum pressure on companies that create products and extort disproportional license fees. The current proposals create huge privacy risks when "IP owners" can direct investigation into anyone they accuse of "piracy".

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, kids included. It's jeopardizing Europe's future.

We assume nobody deliberately wants to create a Prosecution Paradise.

Measures to take

1 Amendments making the directive broader in scope have to be rejected.

2 The crime has to be defined as proposed by the [http://www.ipred.org/art3 Max Planck Institute].

3 Weak rights have to be taken out of the scope. In fact, only the rights known to be pirated can stay in: copyright and trademark right.

4 Art 7, which allows the rights holders to assist the police, has to be deleted.

5 The criminal measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. At best, a directive will only have symbolic meaning. A far more realistic approach was suggested by the Dutch Parliament. Its [http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw letter] should be reconsidered. There should be no hesitation to reject the directive.

BR

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

Monday Februari 26 and Tuesday Februari 27, 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].

BR

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)