|
Size: 2282
Comment:
|
Size: 3930
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| We kindly thank you for the invitation to send in notes. We would like to draw your attention to the following: | |
| Line 2: | Line 3: |
| == Commercial scale == | * IPRED 2 confuses "piracy" and commercial infringement. IPRED 2 criminalises companies that are not pirates. |
| Line 4: | Line 5: |
| 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. | * Patents, especially software patents, are unfit for criminal sanctions. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. But do we really want to see Bill Gates in prison? Europe´s software developers are to be kept out of prison. |
| Line 6: | Line 7: |
| 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. | * 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 8: | Line 9: |
| 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. | * There even 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 word. More importantly, removing or undermining "commercial scale" will have enormous consequenses, not for profit activities by individuals will be criminalised. 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. "Commercial scale" is not clear enough. |
| Line 10: | Line 11: |
| == Do we want not for profit file sharing to be organised crime? == | * Not for profit internet file sharing of copyrighted material is a new issue, that requires a balanced and well thought-out solution. 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. 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? Criminal law should be the ultimum remedium. |
| Line 12: | Line 13: |
| * Severe sanctions on copyright violations may endanger freedom of speech. | |
| Line 13: | Line 15: |
| * Severe sanctions pose a threat, and will provoke false threats. A US study revealed that a third of take down notices 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 14: | Line 17: |
| * Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions. This threatens the neutrality of police investigation. | |
| Line 15: | Line 19: |
| * 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 do not have criminal sanctions now are criminalised. For instance patents have criminal sanctions only in 10 EU countries, while in the Netherlands the government proposed to remove the criminal sanctions. | |
| Line 16: | Line 21: |
| * IP rights do not have clear delimitations. It is even often unclear whether an IP right is valid. Enforcement of IP rights calls for a very balanced approach. | |
| Line 17: | Line 23: |
| * National laws make distinctions between minor and criminal offences, between lower and higher sanctions. They may offer other solutions than sanctions. All these subtleties are destroyed with the directive's all-is-a-crime approach. Carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted. A violation of subsidiarity principle. | |
| Line 18: | Line 25: |
| * Trade mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy are already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. The main problems are countered. IPRED 1 is being implemented at the moment. Effects are not clear yet, it is unknown whether further measures are needed. Why would we rush IPRED2? | |
| Line 19: | Line 27: |
| 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. | We conclude that the directive and framework are untimely, distortive and do not offer a proper solution for new issues. They should be rejected. |
| Line 21: | Line 29: |
| It is even doubtful whether "commercial scale" will be enough of a requirement to prevent to above scenario. | You will find more information about this here [url] (pdf with www.ipred.org/en content) |
| Line 23: | Line 31: |
| 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. |
Some remarks on TempRemarks |
We kindly thank you for the invitation to send in notes. We would like to draw your attention to the following:
* IPRED 2 confuses "piracy" and commercial infringement. IPRED 2 criminalises companies that are not pirates.
* Patents, especially software patents, are unfit for criminal sanctions. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. But do we really want to see Bill Gates in prison? Europe´s software developers are to be kept out of prison.
* 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.
* There even 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 word. More importantly, removing or undermining "commercial scale" will have enormous consequenses, not for profit activities by individuals will be criminalised. 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. "Commercial scale" is not clear enough.
* Not for profit internet file sharing of copyrighted material is a new issue, that requires a balanced and well thought-out solution. 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. 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? Criminal law should be the ultimum remedium.
* 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 take down notices 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.
* Right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions. This threatens the neutrality of police investigation.
* 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 do not have criminal sanctions now are criminalised. For instance patents have criminal sanctions only in 10 EU countries, while in the Netherlands the government proposed to remove the criminal sanctions.
* IP rights do not have clear delimitations. It is even often unclear whether an IP right is valid. Enforcement of IP rights calls for a very balanced approach.
* National laws make distinctions between minor and criminal offences, between lower and higher sanctions. They may offer other solutions than sanctions. All these subtleties are destroyed with the directive's all-is-a-crime approach. Carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted. A violation of subsidiarity principle.
* Trade mark counterfeiting and copyright piracy are already forbidden in European countries. On a world-wide scale, the TRIPS treaty sees to that. The main problems are countered. IPRED 1 is being implemented at the moment. Effects are not clear yet, it is unknown whether further measures are needed. Why would we rush IPRED2?
We conclude that the directive and framework are untimely, distortive and do not offer a proper solution for new issues. They should be rejected.
You will find more information about this here [url] (pdf with www.ipred.org/en content)
Some remarks on TempRemarks