|
Size: 2894
Comment:
|
Size: 10466
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = IPRED 2: = == Do we really want to see Bill Gates behind bars? == |
We would like to thank you for the invitation to send in notes. We would like to draw your attention to the following points. |
| Line 4: | Line 3: |
| The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But not all commercial violations of "intellectual property" rights are piracy. If we want to stop piracy, the thing to do is to stop counterfeiting. Beyond counterfeiting, things are unclear and very complicated. | IPRED 2 confuses piracy and commercial infringement. IPRED 2 criminalises companies that are not pirates. |
| Line 6: | Line 5: |
| In copyright, parodies, independent recreations and citations are free. The question whether something is an "independent recreation" or a violation of copyright is a though question. Questions like these should be handled in civil courts, not criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require more precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium. | Patents, especially software patents, are unfit for criminal sanctions. |
| Line 8: | Line 7: |
| IPRED 2 covers 11 "intellectual property" rights. We see counterfeiting with copyright and trade marks. What are the other 9 "intellectual property" rights doing in IPRED 2? | Depending on the outcome of the lawmaking process and interpretation by courts, not for profit activities will be a crime, or organised crime or not. |
| Line 10: | Line 9: |
| The aim of IPRED 2 is to stop piracy. But piracy is already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. The problem has already been solved. IPRED 2 goes further than solving the problem, and becomes a problem itself. | We could see adolescents' not for profit actions countered with means suited for fighting organised crime. We should be very clear about whether we want this. It should not be an "accidental" byproduct of this directive. |
| Line 12: | Line 11: |
| The Commission made no assessment of the current situation. Are there any real problems today due to unintended legal limitations? How would the directive work out in various criminal law systems? | There was a call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive, which was motivated by the remark that courts could interpret "commercial scale" differently. This is not an argument, since the ECJ will have the final say. More importantly, removing or undermining "commercial scale" will have enormous consequenses, not for profit activities by individuals will be criminalised. |
| Line 14: | Line 13: |
| In a case like trade names, prison sentences go up more than a 100 times. 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. In our opinion we are witnessing an overreaction that will cause more damage than good. Levies on writeable CDs, DVDs, etc are an indication that there are more possible ways to follow. And first it should be clear too in how far file sharing actually stimulates buying. |
| Line 16: | Line 15: |
| In trade marks, currently typically only counterfeiting is a crime. Trademark infringement in general is very complicated and subtle. Not suited for criminal sanctions. | The directive is not just a harmonisation. In many cases, minor offences become criminal offences. Fines go up. Maximum custodial sentences go up, in the case of Dutch trade name violations more than a 100 times. Violations that did not have criminal sanctions now are criminalised. For instance patents have criminal sanctions only in 10 EU countries. |
| Line 18: | Line 17: |
| Patent law has many issues. Definitions are unclear and drifting. There is a major quality problem. 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? Do we really want to see our neighbor, that hardworking owner of a Small or Medium Sized Enterprise put away for 4 years? IPRED 2 sets the framework. It is the lowest form of lawmaking. Big companies want to lock in customers, lock out competitors, acquire as many rights as possible and make these rights as strong as possible. The lawmaker has to strike a fair balance. IPRED 2 is not balanced. For the sake of responsible lawmaking, protection of carefully balanced national procedural law systems, subsidiarity and legal security, we ask you to say No to these superfluous and detrimental proposals. On July 6th the European Parliament rejected the software patents directive. We heartily thank you for that. The IPRED 2 directive is even more absurd. It should be rejected in first reading. We wish the Parliament the wisdom it had on July 6th 2005. Thank you. |
Severe sanctions on copyright violations may endanger freedom of speech. Severe sanctions pose a threat, and will provoke false threats. A US study revealed that a third of them demanded removal when the target had a clear legal defense. Take down notices often result in online materials being pulled from the Internet, generally without notice to the target. |
| Line 29: | Line 21: |
Conclusion For the sake of protection of carefully balanced national procedural law systems, subsidiarity and legal security, in order to keep Europe's software developers out of jail, in order to reach a balanced and well thought-out solution for internet file sharing, we ask you to reject these superfluous and detrimental proposals. Introduction PRED 2 adds criminal sanctions to a legal minefield 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. • 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. The "commercial scale" requirement is not clear enough. Some right holders claim a possible loss of income is enough - an interpretation contrary to TRIPS. Depending on interpretation by courts, not for profit activities will be a crime, or organised crime or not. We even see a call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive. This would for instance make file sharing by adolescents a crime, or organised crime, with very severe sanctions. The call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive was motivated by the remark that courts could interpret "commercial scale" differently. This is not an argument, since the ECJ will have the final say. More importantly, removing or undermining "commercial scale" will have enormous consequenses. Do we want not for profit file sharing to be organised crime? As seen above, not for profit file sharing may become organised crime. We could see adolescents' actions countered with means suited for fighting organised crime. We should be very clear about whether we want this. It should not be an "accidental" byproduct of this directive. Many countries have levies on writeable CDs and DVDs, etc. Public and companies are already paying, even if they store only their own material. We are about to lower our standard of what is crime and organised crime. We are about to make many in our societies criminals and criminalise many commercial organisations that are not pirates. We may cross the line. If our youngsters are criminals already, what would they care about other crimes? If companies are criminalised, shouldn't they go underground or leave Europe? Internet file sharing of copyrighted material is a new issue, that requires a balanced and well thought-out solution. The above mentioned levies are an indication that there are more possible ways to follow. And first it should be clear too in how far file sharing actually stimulates buying. The question may be asked whether a society that reacts to new developments with an everything-is-a-crime approach is a viable society. The reaction is panic-stricken, not wise. In our opinion we are witnessing an overreaction that will cause more damage than good. Legal threats Severe sanctions pose a threat, and will provoke false threats. A US study of a sample of nearly 900 take down notices collected by the Chilling Effects project revealed that a third of them demanded removal when the target had a clear legal defense. Take down notices often result in online materials being pulled from the Internet, generally without notice to the target. [WWW] http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2005/legalFlaws.html Privatise the police Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions (framework art 4, see also the explanatory memorandum on this article). This threatens the neutrality of police investigation. == Commercial scale == The "commercial scale" requirement is not clear enough. Some right holders claim a possible loss of income is enough - an interpretation contrary to TRIPS. Depending on interpretation by courts, not for profit activities will be a crime, or organised crime or not. We even see a call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive. This would for instance make file sharing by adolescents a crime, or organised crime, with very severe sanctions. The call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive was motivated by the remark that courts could interpret "commercial scale" differently. This is not an argument, since the ECJ will have the final say. == Do we want not for profit file sharing to be organised crime? == As seen above, not for profit file sharing may become organised crime. We could see adolescents' actions countered with means suited for fighting organised crime. Many countries have levies on writeable CDs and DVDs, etc. Public and companies are already paying, even if they store only their own material. We are about to lower our standard of what is crime and organised crime. We are about to make many in our societies criminals and criminalise many commercial organisations that are not pirates. We may cross the line. If our youngsters are criminals already, what would they care about other crimes? If companies are criminalised, shouldn't they go underground or leave Europe? Internet file sharing of copyrighted material is a new issue, that requires a balanced and well thought-out solution. The above mentioned levies are an indication that there are more possible ways to follow. And first it should be clear too in how far file sharing actually stimulates buying. The question may be asked whether a society that reacts to new developments with an everything-is-a-crime approach is a viable society. The reaction is panic-stricken, not wise. In our opinion we are witnessing an overreaction that will cause more damage than good. Legal threats Severe sanctions pose a threat, and will provoke false threats. A US study of a sample of nearly 900 take down notices collected by the Chilling Effects project revealed that a third of them demanded removal when the target had a clear legal defense. Take down notices often result in online materials being pulled from the Internet, generally without notice to the target. [WWW] http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2005/legalFlaws.html Privatise the police Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions (framework art 4, see also the explanatory memorandum on this article). This threatens the neutrality of police investigation. |
We would like to thank you for the invitation to send in notes. We would like to draw your attention to the following points.
IPRED 2 confuses piracy and commercial infringement. IPRED 2 criminalises companies that are not pirates.
Patents, especially software patents, are unfit for criminal sanctions.
Depending on the outcome of the lawmaking process and interpretation by courts, not for profit activities will be a crime, or organised crime or not.
We could see adolescents' not for profit actions countered with means suited for fighting organised crime. We should be very clear about whether we want this. It should not be an "accidental" byproduct of this directive.
There was a call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive, which was motivated by the remark that courts could interpret "commercial scale" differently. This is not an argument, since the ECJ will have the final say. More importantly, removing or undermining "commercial scale" will have enormous consequenses, not for profit activities by individuals will be criminalised.
Internet file sharing of copyrighted material is a new issue, that requires a balanced and well thought-out solution. In our opinion we are witnessing an overreaction that will cause more damage than good. Levies on writeable CDs, DVDs, etc are an indication that there are more possible ways to follow. And first it should be clear too in how far file sharing actually stimulates buying.
The directive is not just a harmonisation. In many cases, minor offences become criminal offences. Fines go up. Maximum custodial sentences go up, in the case of Dutch trade name violations more than a 100 times. Violations that did not have criminal sanctions now are criminalised. For instance patents have criminal sanctions only in 10 EU countries.
Severe sanctions on copyright violations may endanger freedom of speech. Severe sanctions pose a threat, and will provoke false threats. A US study revealed that a third of them demanded removal when the target had a clear legal defense. Take down notices often result in online materials being pulled from the Internet, generally without notice to the target.
Conclusion
For the sake of protection of carefully balanced national procedural law systems, subsidiarity and legal security,
in order to keep Europe's software developers out of jail,
in order to reach a balanced and well thought-out solution for internet file sharing,
we ask you to reject these superfluous and detrimental proposals. Introduction
PRED 2 adds criminal sanctions to a legal minefield
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.
• 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.
The "commercial scale" requirement is not clear enough. Some right holders claim a possible loss of income is enough - an interpretation contrary to TRIPS. Depending on interpretation by courts, not for profit activities will be a crime, or organised crime or not.
We even see a call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive. This would for instance make file sharing by adolescents a crime, or organised crime, with very severe sanctions.
The call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive was motivated by the remark that courts could interpret "commercial scale" differently. This is not an argument, since the ECJ will have the final say. More importantly, removing or undermining "commercial scale" will have enormous consequenses.
Do we want not for profit file sharing to be organised crime?
As seen above, not for profit file sharing may become organised crime. We could see adolescents' actions countered with means suited for fighting organised crime. We should be very clear about whether we want this. It should not be an "accidental" byproduct of this directive.
Many countries have levies on writeable CDs and DVDs, etc. Public and companies are already paying, even if they store only their own material.
We are about to lower our standard of what is crime and organised crime. We are about to make many in our societies criminals and criminalise many commercial organisations that are not pirates. We may cross the line. If our youngsters are criminals already, what would they care about other crimes? If companies are criminalised, shouldn't they go underground or leave Europe?
Internet file sharing of copyrighted material is a new issue, that requires a balanced and well thought-out solution. The above mentioned levies are an indication that there are more possible ways to follow. And first it should be clear too in how far file sharing actually stimulates buying.
The question may be asked whether a society that reacts to new developments with an everything-is-a-crime approach is a viable society. The reaction is panic-stricken, not wise.
In our opinion we are witnessing an overreaction that will cause more damage than good.
Legal threats
Severe sanctions pose a threat, and will provoke false threats. A US study of a sample of nearly 900 take down notices collected by the Chilling Effects project revealed that a third of them demanded removal when the target had a clear legal defense.
Take down notices often result in online materials being pulled from the Internet, generally without notice to the target.
[WWW] http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2005/legalFlaws.html Privatise the police
Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions (framework art 4, see also the explanatory memorandum on this article). This threatens the neutrality of police investigation.
Commercial scale
The "commercial scale" requirement is not clear enough. Some right holders claim a possible loss of income is enough - an interpretation contrary to TRIPS. Depending on interpretation by courts, not for profit activities will be a crime, or organised crime or not.
We even see a call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive. This would for instance make file sharing by adolescents a crime, or organised crime, with very severe sanctions.
The call to remove "commercial scale" from the directive was motivated by the remark that courts could interpret "commercial scale" differently. This is not an argument, since the ECJ will have the final say.
Do we want not for profit file sharing to be organised crime?
As seen above, not for profit file sharing may become organised crime. We could see adolescents' actions countered with means suited for fighting organised crime.
Many countries have levies on writeable CDs and DVDs, etc. Public and companies are already paying, even if they store only their own material.
We are about to lower our standard of what is crime and organised crime. We are about to make many in our societies criminals and criminalise many commercial organisations that are not pirates. We may cross the line. If our youngsters are criminals already, what would they care about other crimes? If companies are criminalised, shouldn't they go underground or leave Europe?
Internet file sharing of copyrighted material is a new issue, that requires a balanced and well thought-out solution. The above mentioned levies are an indication that there are more possible ways to follow. And first it should be clear too in how far file sharing actually stimulates buying.
The question may be asked whether a society that reacts to new developments with an everything-is-a-crime approach is a viable society. The reaction is panic-stricken, not wise.
In our opinion we are witnessing an overreaction that will cause more damage than good.
Legal threats
Severe sanctions pose a threat, and will provoke false threats. A US study of a sample of nearly 900 take down notices collected by the Chilling Effects project revealed that a third of them demanded removal when the target had a clear legal defense.
Take down notices often result in online materials being pulled from the Internet, generally without notice to the target.
[WWW] http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2005/legalFlaws.html Privatise the police
Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions (framework art 4, see also the explanatory memorandum on this article). This threatens the neutrality of police investigation.