Size: 862
Comment:
|
Size: 2099
Comment:
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 1: | Line 1: |
= Factsheet = | ------ [[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/backdoor Backdoor]] ------ |
Line 3: | Line 3: |
=== 2005/0127 (COD) === | = Legal means already available = |
Line 5: | Line 5: |
=== 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) ==== |
Line 7: | Line 7: |
* the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambigious infringements of "intellectual property" rights | ==== 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 ==== * the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights |
Line 9: | Line 12: |
Line 10: | Line 14: |
Line 11: | Line 16: |
* contestable and weak rights gain great threath potential * desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited * it is superfluous, to combat piracy the legal means are already installed * the proposal has an open end: all existing and future "IP-rights" are covered, it is a carte blanche |
* contestable and weak rights gain great threath potential, the desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited * right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions, this threatens the neutrality of police investigation * criminal investigation authorities should not be able to act on their own initiative without a prior complaint of the rights owner, because licensing arrangements are not published and the rights owner has the fundamental right to dispose of his rights as he desires * the directive can be abused * criminal law must be precise and may not contain open concepts, the legality principle ("lex certa" and "lex scripta") is violated * the directive harmonises the enforcement of substantive law that is not harmonised * carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted * the directive adopts a general concept of "intellectual property", it breaks the age-old "numerus clausus" (closed system) principle of "intellectual property", and "absolute rights" ("iura in rem") in general: until now, the principle is freedom of information (and imitation) unless there is an explicit statute preventing that * the proposal is not essential, the Community lacks competence |
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/backdoor Backdoor
Legal means already available
2005/0127 (COD)
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
- the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights
- decent people can be treated as organised criminals
- the legal means to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available
- beyond clear cases of piracy and counterfeiting civil sanctions are sufficient
- contestable and weak rights gain great threath potential, the desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited
- right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions, this threatens the neutrality of police investigation
- criminal investigation authorities should not be able to act on their own initiative without a prior complaint of the rights owner, because licensing arrangements are not published and the rights owner has the fundamental right to dispose of his rights as he desires
- the directive can be abused
- criminal law must be precise and may not contain open concepts, the legality principle ("lex certa" and "lex scripta") is violated
- the directive harmonises the enforcement of substantive law that is not harmonised
- carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted
- the directive adopts a general concept of "intellectual property", it breaks the age-old "numerus clausus" (closed system) principle of "intellectual property", and "absolute rights" ("iura in rem") in general: until now, the principle is freedom of information (and imitation) unless there is an explicit statute preventing that
- the proposal is not essential, the Community lacks competence