|
Size: 2182
Comment:
|
Size: 2282
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? == |
== 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? == |
| Line 5: | Line 13: |
| 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. Take copyright. 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 in criminal courts. For reasons of human rights, criminal laws require precise definitions. And criminal law should be the ultimum remedium. IPRED 2 covers 11 "intellectual property" rights. Trade marked and copyrighted works may be counterfeited. The other 9 "intellectual property" rights shouldn't be in IPRED 2. 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 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? Prison sentences go up more than a 100 times in some cases. IPRED 2 is excessive and distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems. |
|
| Line 15: | Line 14: |
| 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? 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. |
|
| Line 19: | Line 15: |
| For the sake of protection of carefully balanced national procedural law systems, subsidiarity and legal security, we ask you to say No to these superfluous and detrimental proposals. The European Parliament rejected the software patents directive. We heartily thank you for that. The IPRED 2 directive and framework should go the same way. Thank you. |
If executed together with others, file sharing could be regarded as organised crime. We could see adolescents' actions countered with means suited for fighting organised crime - as if we or our friends never tried to slip into the picture theatre or circus without paying. And all this while many countries have levies on writeable CDs and DVDs, etc. Public and companies are already paying, even if they store only their own material. It is even doubtful whether "commercial scale" will be enough of a requirement to prevent to above scenario. 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. |
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?
- If executed together with others, file sharing could be regarded as organised crime. We could see adolescents' actions countered with means suited for fighting organised crime - as if we or our friends never tried to slip into the picture theatre or circus without paying. And all this while many countries have levies on writeable CDs and DVDs, etc. Public and companies are already paying, even if they store only their own material.
It is even doubtful whether "commercial scale" will be enough of a requirement to prevent to above scenario.
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.