|
Size: 4854
Comment:
|
Size: 6332
Comment: removing useless links
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 8: | Line 8: |
| = Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive 2 = | |
| Line 11: | Line 10: |
| 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. | = European Commission exceeds competence with criminal measures on violations of "intellectual property" rights = '''IPRED2: Makes violations of "intellectual property rights", such as patents, a crime. Makes adolescents that share files organised criminals.''' It is the first time Brussels interferes with criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? Ipred.org says no. And the answer is certainly no, if the Commission exceeds its competence. As minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En pointed out], harmonisation of penalties should only be done if there is a real EU interest. The [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty only legal ground] for a directive like this, a harmonisation of criminal measures, is a distortion of trade, i.e, if the non-harmonised state leads to a competitive advantage of member states having lower penalties. In 10 of the EU's 25 countries patent infringement is a crime. Does the fact that it is not a crime in all 25 countries lead to distortion in trade, does it give the countries in which it is not a crime a competitive advantage? Nobody has ever claimed such a thing. There is no legal ground for including patent infringement in this directive. There are 10 more IP rights for which this question has to be answered. If the competence issue is solved for some of the IP rights, then the 4 requirements of a crime (see below) have to be met in order to meet the subsidiarity and proportionality requirements. The Commission proposal does not meet them. Without the competence, subsidiarity and proportionality requirements met, the directive is illegal, has to be rejected. As far as many companies are concerned, patents have to go out - a political reason for rejection. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? - a political reason for rejection. Do we want our adolescents that share files on the internet to be treated as organised criminals? - yet an other reason for rejection. The Commission made a severe faute passe in a sensitive field. The proposal should meet a flat rejection in first reading in the European Parliament. |
| Line 14: | Line 33: |
| == IPRED 2 adds criminal sanctions to a legal minefield == | 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.] Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.] [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations) |
| 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. | [http://www.ipred.org/history History] |
| 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. | == Main points == |
| Line 21: | Line 44: |
| • 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. | |
| Line 23: | Line 45: |
| 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. | == Scope == |
| Line 25: | Line 47: |
| 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. | 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. No criminalising of inciting and abetting beyond general rules that exist in some countries making it a crime to incite to a crime |
| Line 29: | Line 53: |
| == Elements of a crime == | |
| Line 30: | Line 55: |
| [http://www.ipred.org/en More] | Reto M. Hilty, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for IP, Professor of Law [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty said:] |
| Line 32: | Line 57: |
| ------------------------------------ | "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. They are better defined more sharp to prevent accidents. The Commission proposal does not even meet the minimal elements. Since the stated aim of the directive is to combat "piracy", the fourth requirement should be "criminal intention", not "Intent or contingent intent". == == == |
| Line 35: | Line 72: |
| COM(2005)276 final | [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations) |
| Line 37: | Line 74: |
| 2005/0127(COD) | [http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs] |
| Line 39: | Line 76: |
| 2005/0128(CNS) | |
| Line 41: | Line 77: |
| [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:] 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] |
|
| Line 53: | Line 101: |
[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs] [http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf Commission proposal] |
[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf 2005 Commission proposal] |
| Line 63: | Line 108: |
| [http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] | [http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004) |
| Line 67: | Line 112: |
| 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 74: | Line 113: |
| [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 75: | Line 115: |
| == 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 violations of "intellectual property" rights
IPRED2: Makes violations of "intellectual property rights", such as patents, a crime. Makes adolescents that share files organised criminals.
It is the first time Brussels interferes with criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? Ipred.org says no.
And the answer is certainly no, if the Commission exceeds its competence. As minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En pointed out], harmonisation of penalties should only be done if there is a real EU interest. The [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty only legal ground] for a directive like this, a harmonisation of criminal measures, is a distortion of trade, i.e, if the non-harmonised state leads to a competitive advantage of member states having lower penalties.
In 10 of the EU's 25 countries patent infringement is a crime. Does the fact that it is not a crime in all 25 countries lead to distortion in trade, does it give the countries in which it is not a crime a competitive advantage? Nobody has ever claimed such a thing. There is no legal ground for including patent infringement in this directive. There are 10 more IP rights for which this question has to be answered.
If the competence issue is solved for some of the IP rights, then the 4 requirements of a crime (see below) have to be met in order to meet the subsidiarity and proportionality requirements. The Commission proposal does not meet them.
Without the competence, subsidiarity and proportionality requirements met, the directive is illegal, has to be rejected.
As far as many companies are concerned, patents have to go out - a political reason for rejection.
Should we want a Union with a democratic deficit to write our criminal laws? - a political reason for rejection.
Do we want our adolescents that share files on the internet to be treated as organised criminals? - yet an other reason for rejection.
The Commission made a severe faute passe in a sensitive field. The proposal should meet a flat rejection in first reading in the European Parliament.
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.]
Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]
[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)
[http://www.ipred.org/history History]
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.
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. They are better defined more sharp to prevent accidents. The Commission proposal does not even meet the minimal elements. Since the stated aim of the directive is to combat "piracy", the fourth requirement should be "criminal intention", not "Intent or contingent intent".
==
[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)
[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)
[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]
[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]