Differences between revisions 29 and 137 (spanning 108 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 29 as of 2005-11-17 15:31:30 →
Size: 3755
Editor: amorvita
Comment:
← Revision 137 as of 2006-07-30 18:11:38 → ⇥
Size: 6237
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 8: Line 8:
= Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive 2 =
Line 10: Line 9:
COM(2005)276 final = European Commission criminalises the industry =
Line 12: Line 11:
2005/0127(COD) ''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.''
Line 14: Line 13:
2005/0128(CNS) == 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 it competence] with this directive.
Line 17: Line 34:
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: --------------------------------------------------
Line 19: Line 36:
== Conclusion and analysis ==
Line 20: Line 38:
Proposal for a
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights		 The directive has to be rejected:
 * it is misguided, superfluous and outrageous
 * the Community lacks legitimacy and competence
Line 24: Line 42:
Proposal for a
COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION
to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences		 If not rejected, scope and definitions have to be narrowed severely.
Line 28: Line 44:
== No Justification == For conclusion and analysis see our [http:analysis analysis page].
Line 30: Line 46:
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 32: Line 48:
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. 		== Full name ==
Line 35: Line 50:
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. 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
Line 37: Line 52:
== Neutrality of police investigation ==

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://www.ipred.org/en More]

------------------------------------		 2005/0127 (COD)
Line 47: Line 56:
-------------------------------------------------------
Line 48: Line 58:
 * [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Commission announcement]
 * [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]
 * [http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII information overview page]
[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2060510En FFII analysis]
Line 49: Line 66:

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII]
Line 56: Line 71:
[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1]
Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. You can download it in:

 * 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 59: Line 81:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf -------------------

== 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]
Line 62: Line 92:
----------------------------------

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
Line 72: Line 94:
== How to use this site ==
Line 74: Line 95:
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. ----------
[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004) - civil measures, adopted
Line 76: Line 98:
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.		 [http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals] - criminal measures, retracted for formal reasons.
Line 82: Line 100:
To learn more about what a WikiWikiWeb is, read about MoinMoin:WhyWikiWorks and the MoinMoin:WikiNature. Also, consult the MoinMoin:WikiWikiWebFaq.
Line 84: Line 101:
This wiki is powered by MoinMoin. ----------
[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]

----------

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.

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 it 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, scope and definitions have to be narrowed severely.

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

2005/0127 (COD)

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII information overview page] [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2060510En FFII analysis] [http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk]

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

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

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

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

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]

[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004) - civil measures, adopted

[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals] - criminal measures, retracted for formal reasons.

[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)