Differences between revisions 34 and 44 (spanning 10 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 34 as of 2005-11-19 17:53:25 →
Size: 4534
Editor: amorvita
Comment:
← Revision 44 as of 2006-02-24 15:57:27 → ⇥
Size: 2921
Editor: amorvita
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 8: Line 8:
Line 10: Line 11:
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. These criminal penalties came back in 2005 in 2 new European Commission proposals. Following a European Court decision in an other case, they were retracted, [http://wiki.ffii.org/Com051123En for formal reasons.] In January 2006 the European Commission will propose a new directive (with most of the content of both 2005 proposals).
Line 11: Line 13:
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. [http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]
Line 13: Line 15:
= IPRED 2 = 2005 : COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)
Line 16: Line 18:
[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty]
Line 17: Line 20:
== No solution for piracy ==



== Introduction ==
 
In order to fight piracy, IPRED 2 makes all commercial violations of “intellectual property" rights a crime. All commercial violations. But not all commercial violations of “intellectual property” rights are piracy. Trademark and patent infringements are always commercial infringements, but by no means always piracy. This criminalisation of acts by commercial organisations not being pirates is very serious. The principal issue with IPRED 2 is that it is confusing piracy and commercial infringement. If fighting piracy is the objective, piracy and counterfeiting are to be criminalised. And not every commercial violation of “intellectual property” rights.
 
Take copyright. The question whether something is an “independent recreation” or a “violation of copyright” is a subtle question. Questions like these should be handled in civil courts, not in criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium.
 
IPRED 2 covers 11 “intellectual property” rights. We have trade mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. The other 9 “intellectual property” rights shouldn't be in IPRED 2.
 
Trade mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy are already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. 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?

Prison sentences go up more than a 100 times in some cases. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.

Patent law definitions are unclear and drifting. 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?





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

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


COM(2005)276 final

2005/0127(COD)

2005/0128(CNS)

 [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005]
Line 66: Line 36:

[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]
Line 68: Line 41:
[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] [http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive 2

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. These criminal penalties came back in 2005 in 2 new European Commission proposals. Following a European Court decision in an other case, they were retracted, [http://wiki.ffii.org/Com051123En for formal reasons.] In January 2006 the European Commission will propose a new directive (with most of the content of both 2005 proposals).

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

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

[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty]

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

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

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

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

Interesting starting points:

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 WhyWikiWorks and the WikiNature. Also, consult the WikiWikiWebFaq.

This wiki is powered by MoinMoin.

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