Differences between revisions 51 and 53 (spanning 2 versions)
Revision 51 as of 2007-01-17 20:07:17
Size: 4623
Editor: AnteWessels
Revision 53 as of 2007-04-21 13:42:17
Size: 4631
Editor: AnteWessels
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
------ [[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/downloading Downloading]] ------ ------ [[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 24: Line 24:
Note most action at the moment is going on at the [http://action.ffii.org/ipred2 FFII] See [http://action.ffii.org/ipred2 FFII]
Line 26: Line 26:
Take action: [http://www.copycrime.org www.copycrime.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

Fight IPRED 2 effectively How To

The second IPR Enforcement Directive

Why you should fight IPRED 2

With this directive decent people can be treated as organised criminals.

See the [http://www.ipred.org/MainPage#preview introduction] and the links there.

Fight the directive

To do

The directive has to be rejected. See also our [http://analysis analysis]

See [http://action.ffii.org/ipred2 FFII]

Take action: [http://www.copycrime.org www.copycrime.org]

Spread the word

Spread the word:

  • decent people can be treated as organised criminals
  • the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights
  • contestable and weak rights gain great threat 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

For more, follow the links above.

Pawn in a power struggle

To effectively fight the directive, it is important to understand it is a pawn in a power struggle. It is the first time the European Community makes a directive containing criminal measures without the member states having a veto. A recent European Court of Justice judgment (C-176/03) opened this possibility. In this case 11 of the then 15 member states supported the Council point of view that the Community can not make criminal measures directives without the member states having a veto. They lost. Needless to say, the Commission and European Parliament like this, the Council and member states don't.

National parliaments

The first time the Commission uses its competence, it does so in a bold way. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive. The Parliament sent a letter to commissionar Frattini, and informed all national parliaments in the Union to rally support for its position. [http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw English] version, [http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fy66g2qw French] version

In our opinion, the competence question has to be explored fully. If not rejected, member states should take this directive to the European Court of Justice.

If you are living in the EU, inform the members of your parliament about this. Ask for their position. (See also [http://www.ipred.org/backdoor Backdoor])

[http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/91212.pdf European Council October 5 and 6]

France, Spain and Portugal are most pro the directive.

European Parliament

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert.do?language=en&redirection European Parliament contact information]


The 11 member states supporting the Council in case C-176/03:

Kingdom of Denmark, represented by J. Molde, acting as Agent,

Federal Republic of Germany, represented by W.‑D. Plessing and A. Dittrich, acting as Agents,

Hellenic Republic, represented by E.‑M. Mamouna and M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

Kingdom of Spain, represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues, F. Alabrune and E. Puisais, acting as Agents,

Ireland, represented by D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and P. Gallagher, E. Fitzsimons SC and E. Regan BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and C. Wissels, acting as Agents,

Portuguese Republic, represented by L. Fernandes and A. Fraga Pires, acting as Agents,

Republic of Finland, represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Kruse, K. Wistrand and A. Falk, acting as Agents,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by C. Jackson, acting as Agent, and R. Plender QC,

Let's roll!

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