Differences between revisions 23 and 105 (spanning 82 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 23 as of 2005-11-14 12:51:20 →
Size: 3567
Editor: ip43-37-166-62
Comment:
← Revision 105 as of 2006-07-08 12:53:31 → ⇥
Size: 4859
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 8: Line 8:
= Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive =
= European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on infringements of "intellectual property" rights =


The European Commission has proposed [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en a directive to criminalise infringements of "intellectual property rights"] ("IP-rights"), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. The stated aim is to combat "piracy". While massive infringements on for instance copyright are indeed a problem, the directive itself is a bigger problem. Due to very weak definitions, the directive does not only criminalises pirates, but also companies that are not pirates. And even 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 our doing with your computer.

Should severe infringements of "IP-rights" go unpunished? Will Europe become a pirate continent without the directive? No, in all European countries copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden. Unlike the directive, these national laws are carefully balanced. Also, companies can go to civil courts to get damages, which is more rewarding than getting infringers in jail.

With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.
Line 12: Line 20:
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. Now these criminal penalties are back in 2 new European Commission proposals. Often these are referred to as IPRED 2. The official names are: Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. The first question to be asked is whether we want this. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? Our answer is no, we believe only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws.

Does the Community have the competence to make this directive? The Dutch Parliament [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En unanimously decided the Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive.

The Commission made a severe faute passe in a sensitive field. The proposal should meet a flat rejection.

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

== Conclusion and analysis ==

For conclusion and analysis see our [http:analysis analysis page].
Line 15: Line 33:
Proposal for a
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights
Line 19: Line 34:
Proposal for a
COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION
to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences
Line 23: Line 35:
== No Justification == -------------------------------------------------------
Line 25: Line 37:
The proposals lack proper justification, the justification given is just one A4 page long. There is no need for the proposals, piracy is already prohibited in European countries. In some cases, penalties go up more than a 100 times. There is no indication at all that this is needed.
Line 27: Line 38:
TRIPS already lays down severe provisions on means of enforcing trade-related intellectual property
rights. These include the implementation of criminal procedures and criminal penalties. In no way the Commission makes clear these are not enough.
Line 30: Line 39:
In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). It is being implemented at the moment. Effects are not clear yet, it is unknown whether further measures are needed. In April 2006 the European Commission [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en announced the directive.]
Line 32: Line 41:
== Neutrality of police investigation ==
Line 34: Line 42:
Right-holders can help the police to draw conclusions. There goes neutrality of police investigation. (framework art 4, see also the explanatory memorandum on this article) [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)
Line 36: Line 44:
[http://www.ipred.org/en More] The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History]
Line 38: Line 46:
------------------------------------
Line 40: Line 47:

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


[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs]

[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]

2005 : COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)

Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]


[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006]

[http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051127.pdf FFII letter Nov 27th]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005]
Line 49: Line 79:
[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf 2005 Commission proposal]
Line 50: Line 81:
Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. You can download it in:
Line 51: Line 83:
----------------------------------  * ISO Open Document Format attachment:RBB060517.odp
 * PDF attachment:RBB060517.pdf
 * PowerPoint (please [http://www.openoffice.org download OpenOffice] and use ISO Open Document Format) attachment:RBB060517.ppt
 * OpenOffice.org 1 attachment:RBB060517.sxi
[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]
Line 53: Line 89:
Interesting starting points:
 * RecentChanges: see where people are currently working
 * WikiSandBox: feel free to change this page and experiment with editing
 * FindPage: search or browse the database in various ways
 * SyntaxReference: quick access to wiki syntax
 * SiteNavigation: get an overview over this site and what it contains		 ----------
[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)
Line 60: Line 92:
----------
[http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=25&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=2003&nu_doc=1383&type_doc=Regulation Customs regulation]
Line 61: Line 95:
== How to use this site ==

Note: To prevent spammers from spamming the wiki, you need be logged in to edit pages. If you don't have an account yet, just go to "Login" and create an account.

A Wiki is a collaborative site, anyone can contribute and share:
 * Edit any page by pressing '''[[GetText(Edit)]]''' at the top or the bottom of the page
 * Create a link to another page with joined capitalized words (like WikiSandBox) or with {{{["quoted words in brackets"]}}}
 * Search for page titles or text within pages using the search box at the top of any page
 * See HelpForBeginners to get you going, HelpContents for all help pages.

To learn more about what a WikiWikiWeb is, read about MoinMoin:WhyWikiWorks and the MoinMoin:WikiNature. Also, consult the MoinMoin:WikiWikiWebFaq.

This wiki is powered by MoinMoin.		 ----------

European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on infringements of "intellectual property" rights

The European Commission has proposed [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en a directive to criminalise infringements of "intellectual property rights"] ("IP-rights"), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. The stated aim is to combat "piracy". While massive infringements on for instance copyright are indeed a problem, the directive itself is a bigger problem. Due to very weak definitions, the directive does not only criminalises pirates, but also companies that are not pirates. And even 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 our doing with your computer.

Should severe infringements of "IP-rights" go unpunished? Will Europe become a pirate continent without the directive? No, in all European countries copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden. Unlike the directive, these national laws are carefully balanced. Also, companies can go to civil courts to get damages, which is more rewarding than getting infringers in jail.

With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.

Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. The first question to be asked is whether we want this. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? Our answer is no, we believe only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws.

Does the Community have the competence to make this directive? The Dutch Parliament [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En unanimously decided the Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive.

The Commission made a severe faute passe in a sensitive field. The proposal should meet a flat rejection.

Conclusion and analysis

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

In April 2006 the European Commission [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en announced the directive.]

[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)

The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History]

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

[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs]

[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]

2005 : COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)

Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]

[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006]

[http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051127.pdf FFII letter Nov 27th]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005]

[http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII]

[http://plone.ffii.org/Members/coordinator/FFII%20UK%20IPRED2%20consultation.pdf/download FFIII-UK]

[http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSFE]

[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf 2005 Commission proposal]

Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. You can download it in:

[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]

[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)

[http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=25&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=2003&nu_doc=1383&type_doc=Regulation Customs regulation]

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