|
Size: 6993
Comment:
|
Size: 10064
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 9: | Line 9: |
| = Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive 2 = '''Makes violations of "intellectual property rights", such as patents, a crime. Makes adolescents that share files organised criminals.''' Incidentally, 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? 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 |
------ [[http://www.ipred.org/MainPage Introduction]] [[http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis]] [[http://www.ipred.org/howto How To]] [[http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet]] [[http://www.ipred.org/download Downloading]] ------ |
| Line 35: | Line 13: |
| == Rejection == | = The Prosecution Paradise Directive = |
| Line 37: | Line 15: |
| There are good grounds for rejection. The 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. Both minister Donner (NL) and professor Hilty [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En pointed this out already]. See also [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty] | All over Europe piracy and counterfeiting of "intellectual property rights" are already prosecutable (TRIPS art 61). The Criminal Measures IP Directive adds disproportionality. The European Commission proposal is not limited to piracy. All commercial scale infringements will be crimes, even normal business acts by regular companies. Even untested rights, which may soon evaporate in a civil court cases, become grounds for prosecution. And the rights holders may assist the police. |
| Line 39: | Line 17: |
| 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. | Some Members of the European Parliament even proposed in amendments to remove the "commercial scale" condition or to weaken it, to remove "intentional", to involve consumers, to criminalise the young generation. |
| Line 41: | Line 19: |
| 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. | Why do some push for a Prosecution Paradise? |
| Line 43: | Line 21: |
| Without the competence, subsidiarity and proportionality requirements met, the directive is illegal, has to be rejected. | In a knowledge economy, owning information is a certain win. But you still have to fight it out in civil courts sometimes. It is easier and cheaper if the state (the prosecutor) takes care of eliminating competitors, however weak your rights may be, however justified your competitors acts may be. Criminal courts are inexperienced with IP, they will readily provide court orders, criminal law gives wide competences. Suing the young generation for high damages is bad PR, recording companies rather leave it to state prosecutors. |
| Line 45: | Line 23: |
| As far as many companies are concerned, patents have to go out - a political reason for rejection. | In short, disproportional criminalisation is used for profit maximalisation. Put maximum pressure on competitors, make them crack. The eighties of the last century were characterised with "get rich fast", it was a poker game. This is worse. Winner takes all, and the others can go to jail, kids included. It's utterly cynical. It's jeopardizing Europe's future. The Community will never win the hearts and minds of the Europeans if it supports such an agenda. One must be fanatical - deluded - about IP rights to wish a Prosecution Paradise. The criminal measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. Reject the directive. -------------------- [[BR]] |
| Line 49: | Line 35: |
| == 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". == == == |
= We do not want our kids to be criminals - just for enjoying a videoclip on YouTube = |
| Line 68: | Line 38: |
| [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations) | == Legal Affairs committee votes on criminalising downloading == |
| Line 70: | Line 40: |
| [http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs] | Update: meeting and vote are postponed |
| Line 73: | Line 43: |
| [http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals] 2005 : COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS) |
Monday January 29 and Tuesday January 30, 2007, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee will discuss and vote on a proposal by Mr Manders, MEP, to [http://www.ipred.org/download criminalise downloading]. |
| Line 78: | Line 46: |
| [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements | ----------------------------------- [[BR]] |
| Line 80: | Line 49: |
| [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement] | = The Criminal Measures IP Directive: European Commission criminalises the industry = |
| Line 82: | Line 51: |
| [http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006] | ''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. Decent people can be treated as organised criminals.'' |
| Line 84: | Line 53: |
| [http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051127.pdf FFII letter Nov 27th] | == Commercial infringements == |
| Line 86: | Line 55: |
| [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005] | 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. |
| Line 88: | Line 57: |
| [http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk] | == Bizarre consequences == |
| Line 90: | Line 59: |
| [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII] | 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. |
| Line 92: | Line 61: |
| [http://plone.ffii.org/Members/coordinator/FFII%20UK%20IPRED2%20consultation.pdf/download FFIII-UK] | == Superfluous == |
| Line 94: | Line 63: |
| [http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSFE] | 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 its competence] with this directive. |
| Line 97: | Line 74: |
| [http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf 2005 Commission proposal] | -------------------------------------------------- |
| Line 100: | Line 77: |
| [http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper] | == Conclusion and analysis == |
| Line 102: | Line 79: |
| ----------------------------------- | The directive has to be rejected: * it is misguided, superfluous and outrageous * the Community lacks legitimacy and competence |
| Line 104: | Line 83: |
| [http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004) | If not rejected, member states should take the directive to the European Court of Justice. |
| Line 106: | Line 85: |
| ---------------------------------- | A complete rewrite could be contemplated. This would result in a directive that does not go any further than the TRIPS treaty. Since we already have the TRIPS treaty, it would not make much sense. While this approach would take away the gross aspects of the directive, it would not solve the competence question. |
| Line 109: | Line 88: |
| [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] | For conclusion and analysis see our [http:analysis analysis page]. |
| Line 111: | Line 90: |
| ------------------------ | ------------------- |
| Line 113: | 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 |
== 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 COM(2006)0168 C6‑0233/2005 2005/0127(COD) |
| Line 121: | Line 103: |
| == How to use this site == | * [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf English] More translations will be available later on. Change "en" twice in the link for translations. * [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/fr/06/st08/st08866.fr06.pdf French] * [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/de/06/st08/st08866.de06.pdf German] * [http://tinyurl.com/9djqm All EU documents on the subject] |
| Line 123: | Line 109: |
| 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. | |
| Line 125: | Line 110: |
| 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. |
|
| Line 131: | Line 111: |
| To learn more about what a WikiWikiWeb is, read about MoinMoin:WhyWikiWorks and the MoinMoin:WikiNature. Also, consult the MoinMoin:WikiWikiWebFaq. | |
| Line 133: | Line 112: |
| This wiki is powered by MoinMoin. | ------------------------------------------------------- == Links == * [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Commission announcement] * The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History] * [http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/directive_of_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_on_criminal_measures_aimed_at_ensuring_the_enforcement_of_intellectual_property_rights.pdf Max Planck Institute: Statement on Directive on Criminal Measures Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights] ([http://tinyurl.com/y7yfvh as tinyurl]) * [http://action.ffii.org/ipred2 FFII action page] * [http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/secure/file/157008/e:/teamsite-deployed/documents//templatedata/Internet%20Documents/Non-government%20proposals/Documents/ipcriminalsanctions310806.pdf Comments by the Law Society of Engeland and Wales] [http://tinyurl.com/y79cfk (tinyurl)] * [http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw Dutch Parliament] * [http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.9/ipcriminal EDRI] * [http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSF Europe] * [http://c-176-03.blogspot.com/2006/11/european-court-of-justice-crosses.html European Court of Justice crosses the Rubicon] * Reinier Bakels presentation for SANE: ISO Open Document Format attachment:RBB060517.odp PDF attachment:RBB060517.pdf !PowerPoint attachment:RBB060517.ppt !OpenOffice.org attachment:RBB060517.sxi * [http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk] * EU News [http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/alertedition/en/JudicialCooperationCriminal.html Criminal law] | [http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/alertedition/en/EuropeanConstitution.html Constitution] ------------------- == 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/MainPage Introduction http://www.ipred.org/analysis Analysis http://www.ipred.org/howto How To http://www.ipred.org/factsheet Fact sheet http://www.ipred.org/download Downloading
The Prosecution Paradise Directive
All over Europe piracy and counterfeiting of "intellectual property rights" are already prosecutable (TRIPS art 61). The Criminal Measures IP Directive adds disproportionality. The European Commission proposal is not limited to piracy. All commercial scale infringements will be crimes, even normal business acts by regular companies. Even untested rights, which may soon evaporate in a civil court cases, become grounds for prosecution. And the rights holders may assist the police.
Some Members of the European Parliament even proposed in amendments to remove the "commercial scale" condition or to weaken it, to remove "intentional", to involve consumers, to criminalise the young generation.
Why do some push for a Prosecution Paradise?
In a knowledge economy, owning information is a certain win. But you still have to fight it out in civil courts sometimes. It is easier and cheaper if the state (the prosecutor) takes care of eliminating competitors, however weak your rights may be, however justified your competitors acts may be. Criminal courts are inexperienced with IP, they will readily provide court orders, criminal law gives wide competences. Suing the young generation for high damages is bad PR, recording companies rather leave it to state prosecutors.
In short, disproportional criminalisation is used for profit maximalisation. Put maximum pressure on competitors, make them crack.
The eighties of the last century were characterised with "get rich fast", it was a poker game. This is worse. Winner takes all, and the others can go to jail, kids included. It's utterly cynical. It's jeopardizing Europe's future. The Community will never win the hearts and minds of the Europeans if it supports such an agenda. One must be fanatical - deluded - about IP rights to wish a Prosecution Paradise.
The criminal measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available. Reject the directive.
We do not want our kids to be criminals - just for enjoying a videoclip on YouTube
Legal Affairs committee votes on criminalising downloading
Update: meeting and vote are postponed
Monday January 29 and Tuesday January 30, 2007, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee will discuss and vote on a proposal by Mr Manders, MEP, to [http://www.ipred.org/download criminalise downloading].
The Criminal Measures IP Directive: 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. Decent people can be treated as organised criminals.
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 its 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, member states should take the directive to the European Court of Justice.
A complete rewrite could be contemplated. This would result in a directive that does not go any further than the TRIPS treaty. Since we already have the TRIPS treaty, it would not make much sense. While this approach would take away the gross aspects of the directive, it would not solve the competence question.
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
COM(2006)0168
C6‑0233/2005
2005/0127(COD)
More translations will be available later on. Change "en" twice in the link for translations.
[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/fr/06/st08/st08866.fr06.pdf French]
[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/de/06/st08/st08866.de06.pdf German]
[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm All EU documents on the subject]
Links
[http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Commission announcement]
The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History]
[http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/directive_of_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_on_criminal_measures_aimed_at_ensuring_the_enforcement_of_intellectual_property_rights.pdf Max Planck Institute: Statement on Directive on Criminal Measures Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights] ([http://tinyurl.com/y7yfvh as tinyurl])
[http://action.ffii.org/ipred2 FFII action page]
[http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/secure/file/157008/e:/teamsite-deployed/documents//templatedata/Internet%20Documents/Non-government%20proposals/Documents/ipcriminalsanctions310806.pdf Comments by the Law Society of Engeland and Wales] [http://tinyurl.com/y79cfk (tinyurl)]
[http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw Dutch Parliament]
[http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSF Europe]
[http://c-176-03.blogspot.com/2006/11/european-court-of-justice-crosses.html European Court of Justice crosses the Rubicon]
Reinier Bakels presentation for SANE: ISO Open Document Format attachment:RBB060517.odp PDF attachment:RBB060517.pdf PowerPoint attachment:RBB060517.ppt OpenOffice.org attachment:RBB060517.sxi
[http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk]
EU News [http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/alertedition/en/JudicialCooperationCriminal.html Criminal law] | [http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/alertedition/en/EuropeanConstitution.html Constitution]
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]