Differences between revisions 39 and 51 (spanning 12 versions)

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 2006 the European Commission will propose a new directive (with most of the content of both 2005 proposals).

Main points

Scope

Patents have to be taken out. [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII:] "It is in practice impossible to write and sell software products without certainty that your product does not violate one of the 65,000 software or business method patents granted by the European Patent Office." [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En Others] protested criminalisation of patent infringement too. In general, the directive should be limited to rights of which it is proven that civil protection is not enough.

No criminalising of inciting and abetting beyond general rules that exist in some countries making it a crime to incite to a crime

Elements of a crime

Reto M. Hilty, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for IP, Professor of Law [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty said:]

"As a matter of fact, a harmonisation of IP criminal statutes can be justified from the point of view of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality only in connection with actions by which the following elements of a crime are fulfilled cumulatively:

- Identity of the exploited object of protection (the good takes on characteristic elements of a protected product or label in a targeted and unmodified fashion – construction, assembly, etc.) - Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit - Potential to cause considerable damage - Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)"

Note these are the minimal elements.

Rejection

There are good grounds for rejection. See [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty] and [http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051122.pdf FFII] If the directive does not meet the requirements menioned above (scope and elements of a crime), the directive should surely be rejected.

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.

-  ⇤ ← Revision 39 as of 2005-11-24 12:38:27 → 
  Size: 4783
  Editor: amorvita
  Comment:
+   ← Revision 51 as of 2006-02-24 16:42:34 → ⇥
  Size: 5127
  Editor: amorvita
  Comment:
-Deletions are marked like this.
+Additions are marked like this.
 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. Now these criminal penalties are back in 2 new European Commission proposals.
+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 2006 the European Commission will propose a new directive (with most of the content of both 2005 proposals).
 Line 14:
-== IPRED 2 adds criminal sanctions to a legal minefield ==
+== Main points ==

== Scope ==

Patents have to be taken out. [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII:] "It is in practice impossible to write and sell software products without                                                                                              certainty that your product does not violate one of the 65,000 software or                                                                                            business method patents granted by the European Patent Office." [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En Others] protested criminalisation of patent infringement too. In general, the directive should be limited to rights of which it is proven
that civil protection is not enough.

No criminalising of inciting and abetting beyond general rules that exist in some countries making it a crime to incite to a crime

== Elements of a crime ==

Reto M. Hilty, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for IP, Professor of Law [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty said:]

"As a matter of fact, a harmonisation of IP criminal statutes can be justified from the point of view of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality only in connection with actions by which the following elements of a crime are fulfilled cumulatively: 

 - Identity of the exploited object of protection (the good takes on characteristic elements of a protected product or label in a targeted and unmodified fashion – construction, assembly, etc.) 

 - Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit 

 - Potential to cause considerable damage 

 - Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)"

Note these are the minimal elements.
-Line 17:
+Line 40:
-In order to fight piracy, IPRED 2 makes all commercial violations of “intellectual property rights" a crime. All commercial violations. But not all intentional commercial violations of these rights are piracy. Trademark and patent infringements are always commercial infringements, but by no means always piracy. This criminalisation of acts by commercial organisations that are not pirates is very serious. The principal issue is that IPRED 2 confuses piracy and commercial infringement. IPRED 2 criminalises companies that are not pirates.
+== Rejection ==
-Line 19:
+Line 42:
-• Take copyright. The question whether a work 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. Severe sanctions on copyright violations may endanger freedom of speech. 

• Take Patent law. 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? He can go to jail, together with Europe's software developers, since IPRED 2 criminalises companies that are not pirates.

Trade mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy are already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. Furthermore, IPRED 1 is being implemented right now. At the moment no assessment can be made whether an instrument is missing. Yet prison sentences go up more than a 100 times in some cases. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.

Internet file sharing of copyrighted material is a new issue, that requires a balanced and well thought-out solution. The question may be asked whether a society that reacts to new developments with an everything-is-a-crime approach is a viable society. In our opinion we are witnessing an overreaction that will cause more damage than good.
+There are good grounds for rejection. See [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty] and [http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051122.pdf FFII] If the directive does not meet the requirements menioned above (scope and elements of a crime), the directive should surely be rejected.
-Line 28:
+Line 45:
+== links ==
-Line 30:
+Line 48:
-[http://www.ipred.org/en More]
+[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]
-Line 32:
+Line 50:
-------------------------------------
+: COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)
-Line 35:
+Line 53:
-COM(2005)276 final
+[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements
-Line 37:
+Line 55:
-/0127(COD)
+[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn IPRED2: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement]
-Line 39:
+Line 57:
-/0128(CNS)
+[http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006]
-Line 58:
+Line 75:
+[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]
-Line 60:
+Line 80:
-[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1]
+[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)