Differences between revisions 112 and 255 (spanning 143 versions)

Introduction] Analysis] How To] Fact sheet] Downloading]

The Criminal Measures IP Directive: Criminalizing the industry

The European Commission has proposed a directive to combat piracy and other infringements of "intellectual property rights" (IP-rights), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. While it does make sense to combat clear cases of piracy, it is nonsense to combat other infringements than such clear cases, with criminal measures. These other infringements occur during normal commercial business conduct, civil courts decide on them. The Commission criminalises the industry, inhibits the desired freedom to act in the market. Decent people can be treated as organised criminals.

A badly drafted Commission proposal was matched by badly drafted European Parliament amendments, and an amendment changed after the vote. The proposal is now in the hands of the Council.

Behind closed doors the EU, US and Japan negociate an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), with much the same content, or even worse. See our ACTA page.

Commission withholds key study on criminal measures from European Parliament

Commission withholds key study on criminal measures from European Parliament

Official Journal of the European Union publishes corrupted text

Update: In a letter to MEP Eva Lichtenberger, the President of the European Parliament admitted a mistake was made. The text will be corrected.

Adopted amendment 15, excluding parallel importation, is not incorporated in the consolidated text. MEP Eva Lichtenberger wrote the President of the European Parliament a letter.

Heise has the story.

The FFII has the analysis

Despite formal objections raised on 4 December 2007 by MEP and shadow rapporteur Eva Lichtenberger the Official Journal of the European Union published the controversial and contested version. See the second part of the PR.

The Official Journal of the European Union

Coalition report on the European Parliament vote

Wednesday 25 April 2005. The European Parliament voted on the Criminal Measures IP directive.

FFII press release

FFII/BEUC/EBLIDA/EFF Coalition report on the vote

Carte Blanche Criminal Law

Wednesday 25 April 2007 the European Parliament will vote on the Criminal Measures IP directive.

Take action: www.copycrime.org

Just prior to the Legal Affairs Committee vote the music industry asked to keep "commercial scale" undefined. They claimed it would be better for reasons of subsidiarity (in this case: leave it to the member states).

Since when does the music industry care about subsidiarity? Earlier they had asked for deletion of the commercial scale condition (as an element of the crime). They would love to see not for profit filesharers in prison.

Legal Affairs Committee washes hands in innocence

The European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee voted on the Criminal Measures IP directive. Overall impression: the experts kept the definitions vague. The experts leave it to the European Court of Justice to clarify the directive. If they want to leave it to the Court, why do they want to be involved in the first place?

The Prosecution Paradise Directive

A disproportional directive will cause a Prosecution Paradise, with ample opportunities for trolls.

Legal Affairs committee votes on criminalising downloading

Monday Februari 26 and Tuesday Februari 27, 2007, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee will discuss and vote on a proposal by Mr Manders, MEP, to criminalise downloading.

The proposal was rejected.

The Criminal Measures IP Directive: European Commission criminalises the industry

Commercial infringements

Beyond clear cases of piracy, it is impossible to tell in advance whether an act is an infringement or fair competition. On a daily basis companies try out the boundaries of "IP-rights". Is this product a look alike? Is this copycat or will the patent be invalidated? Is this work an independent recreation? Companies reach agreements or fight it out in civil courts. If a right was indeed infringed, damages are paid. This is a fair process. Adding criminal sanctions to this fair process creates a big threat potential that inhibits the desired freedom to act in the market.

Bizarre consequences

By not making a distinction between piracy and other infringements, the Commission creates bizarre consequences. It is impossible to write software without violating patents. A whole industry will be criminalised. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. With this directive, we could see Bill Gates in prison. Even companies which merely use properly licensed software are criminalised, since such use is intentional, commercial scale and can infringe on software patents. And people who share files on the internet, on a not-for-profit basis, can be treated as organised criminals. You better watch what your kids are doing with your computer.

Superfluous

To combat piracy the legal means are already installed. What is actually needed is better coordination between countries. Copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting are already crimes throughout the EU, the TRIPS-treaty sees to that. Unlike the directive, the national laws are carefully balanced. With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.

Carte blanche

An other bizarre aspect of the proposal is that is has an open end: all existing and future "IP-rights" are covered. It is a carte blanche. Seen this misguided, superfluous and outrageous directive, is there anyone who wants to give the Commission carte blanche?

No competence

Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. In our opinion, only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the Commission exceeds its competence with this directive.

Conclusion and analysis

The directive has to be rejected:

it is misguided, superfluous and outrageous
the Community lacks legitimacy and competence

If not rejected, member states should take the directive to the European Court of Justice.

A complete rewrite could be contemplated. This would result in a directive that does not go any further than the TRIPS treaty. Since we already have the TRIPS treaty, it would not make much sense. While this approach would take away the gross aspects of the directive, it would not solve the competence question.

For conclusion and analysis see our analysis page.

Full name

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

COM(2006)0168

C6‑0233/2005

2005/0127(COD)

English

More translations will be available later on. Change "en" twice in the link for translations.

ipred.org

In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out.

The criminal measures are back in the 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 (DCMEIPR ?). This new directive is often called IPRED 2.

ipred.org is set up by Vrijschrift.org

-  ⇤ ← Revision 112 as of 2006-07-16 11:57:33 → 
  Size: 5509
  Editor: AnteWessels
  Comment:
+   ← Revision 255 as of 2009-05-30 23:30:39 → ⇥
  Size: 13293
  Editor: localhost
  Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
-Deletions are marked like this.
+Additions are marked like this.
 Line 8:
+------
 [[[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 9:
+Line 11:
-= European Commission criminalises the industry =
+------
-Line 11:
+Line 13:
+= The Criminal Measures IP Directive: Criminalizing the industry =
''The European Commission has proposed a [[http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en|directive]] to combat piracy and other infringements of "intellectual property rights" (IP-rights), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. While it does make sense to combat clear cases of piracy, it is nonsense to combat other infringements than such clear cases, with criminal measures. These other infringements occur during normal commercial business conduct, civil courts decide on them. The Commission criminalises the industry, inhibits the desired freedom to act in the market. Decent people can be treated as organised criminals.''
-Line 12:
+Line 16:
+A badly drafted Commission proposal was matched by badly drafted European Parliament amendments, and an amendment changed after the vote. The proposal is now in the hands of the Council.
-Line 13:
+Line 18:
-The European Commission has proposed a directive to [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en  criminalise all intentional commercial scale infringements] of "intellectual property rights" ("IP-rights"), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. Copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting are already crimes throughout the EU, the TRIPS-treaty sees to that. The Commission goes much further, disregarding the fact that beyond copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting, infringements of "IP-rights" are very complicated. Such infringements often occur during normal business conduct. The European Commission criminalises the industry.
+Behind closed doors the EU, US and Japan negociate an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), with much the same content, or even worse. See our [[acta|ACTA]] page.
-Line 15:
+Line 20:
-Even companies which merely use properly licensed software are criminalised, since such use is intentional, commercial scale and can infringe on software patents. And people who share files on the internet, on a not-for-profit basis, can be treated as organised criminals. You better watch what your kids our doing with your computer.
+----------
-Line 17:
+Line 22:
-Criminal courts are not the right place for complicated infringements. Civil procedures are the right choice for them, and more rewarding for the right holders since they can ask for damages.
+=== Commission withholds key study on criminal measures from European Parliament ===
 * [[http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/Commission_withholds_key_study_on_criminal_measures_from_European_Parliament|Commission withholds key study on criminal measures from European Parliament]]
=== Official Journal of the European Union publishes corrupted text ===
==== Update: In a letter to MEP Eva Lichtenberger, the President of the European Parliament admitted a mistake was made. The text will be corrected. ====
Adopted amendment 15, excluding parallel importation, is not incorporated in the consolidated text. MEP Eva Lichtenberger wrote the President of the European Parliament a letter.
-Line 19:
+Line 28:
-In all European countries copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting are already forbidden. Unlike the directive, these national laws are carefully balanced. With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.
+[[http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/100175|Heise has the story.]]
-Line 21:
+Line 30:
-Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. In our opinion, only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive.
+[[http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/Mistake_in_EP_provisional_consolidated_text_Criminal_Measures_IP_directive|The FFII has the analysis]]
-Line 23:
+Line 32:
+Despite formal objections raised on 4 December 2007 by MEP and shadow rapporteur Eva Lichtenberger the Official Journal of the European Union published the [[http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/Commission_withholds_key_study_on_criminal_measures_from_European_Parliament|controversial and contested version]]. See the second part of the PR.
-Line 24:
+Line 34:
---------------------------------------------------
+[[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:074E:0527:0533:EN:PDF|The Official Journal of the European Union]]

=== Coalition report on the European Parliament vote ===
Wednesday 25 April 2005. The European Parliament voted on the Criminal Measures IP directive.

[[http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/European_Parliament_Criminalises_Businesses,_Consumers,_Innovators|FFII press release]]

[[http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/Report_on_EP_vote|FFII/BEUC/EBLIDA/EFF Coalition report on the vote]]

=== Carte Blanche Criminal Law ===
Wednesday 25 April 2007 the European Parliament will vote on the Criminal Measures IP directive.

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

Just prior to the Legal Affairs Committee vote the music industry asked to keep "commercial scale" undefined. They claimed it would be better for reasons of subsidiarity (in this case: leave it to the member states).

Since when does the music industry care about subsidiarity? Earlier they had asked for deletion of the commercial scale condition (as an element of the crime). They would love to see not for profit filesharers in prison.

[[http://www.ipred.org/april2007|read more]]

=== Legal Affairs Committee washes hands in innocence ===
The European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee [[http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/JURI_Tabled_Amendments|voted]] on the Criminal Measures IP directive. Overall impression: the experts kept the definitions vague. The experts leave it to the European Court of Justice to clarify the directive. If they want to leave it to the Court, why do they want to be involved in the first place?

[[http://www.ipred.org/legalaffairs07|read more]]

=== The Prosecution Paradise Directive ===
A disproportional directive will cause a Prosecution Paradise, with ample opportunities for trolls.

[[http://www.ipred.org/prosecutionparadise|read more]]

=== We do not want our kids to be criminals - just for enjoying a videoclip on YouTube ===
==== Legal Affairs committee votes on criminalising downloading ====
Monday Februari 26 and Tuesday Februari 27, 2007, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee will discuss and vote on a proposal by Mr Manders, MEP, to [[http://www.ipred.org/download|criminalise downloading]].

[[http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/JURI_Tabled_Amendments|The proposal was rejected.]]

----------
 <<BR>>

= The Criminal Measures IP Directive: European Commission criminalises the industry =
''The European Commission has proposed a [[http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en|directive]] to combat piracy and other infringements of "intellectual property rights" (IP-rights), such as patents, copyright and trade marks. While it does make sense to combat clear cases of piracy, it is nonsense to combat other infringements than such clear cases, with criminal measures. These other infringements occur during normal commercial business conduct, civil courts decide on them. The Commission criminalises the industry, inhibits the desired freedom to act in the market. Decent people can be treated as organised criminals.''

=== Commercial infringements ===
Beyond clear cases of piracy, it is impossible to tell in advance whether an act is an infringement or fair competition. On a daily basis companies try out the boundaries of "IP-rights". Is this product a look alike? Is this copycat or will the patent be invalidated? Is this work an independent recreation? Companies reach agreements or fight it out in civil courts. If a right was indeed infringed, damages are paid. This is a fair process. Adding criminal sanctions to this fair process creates a big threat potential that inhibits the desired freedom to act in the market.

=== Bizarre consequences ===
By not making a distinction between piracy and other infringements, the Commission creates bizarre consequences. It is impossible to write software without violating patents. A whole industry will be criminalised. Microsoft has been violating many patents, and had to pay huge damages. With this directive, we could see Bill Gates in prison. Even companies which merely use properly licensed software are criminalised, since such use is intentional, commercial scale and can infringe on software patents. And people who share files on the internet, on a not-for-profit basis, can be treated as organised criminals. You better watch what your kids are doing with your computer.

=== Superfluous ===
To combat piracy the legal means are already installed. What is actually needed is better coordination between countries. Copyright "piracy" and trade mark counterfeiting are already crimes throughout the EU, the TRIPS-treaty sees to that. Unlike the directive, the national laws are carefully balanced. With its weak definitions, the directive distorts carefully balanced national procedural law systems.

=== Carte blanche ===
An other bizarre aspect of the proposal is that is has an open end: all existing and future "IP-rights" are covered. It is a carte blanche. Seen this misguided, superfluous and outrageous directive, is there anyone who wants to give the Commission carte blanche?

=== No competence ===
Interestingly enough, it is the first time the European Union proposes criminal measures, without the member states having a veto. In our opinion, only countries have enough legitimacy to make criminal laws. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the [[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En|Commission exceeds its competence]] with this directive.

----------
-Line 27:
+Line 94:
+The directive has to be rejected:
-Line 28:
+Line 96:
-For reasons of legitimacy and competence, the directive has to be rejected. If not rejected, scope and definitions have to be narrowed severely.
+ * it is misguided, superfluous and outrageous
 * the Community lacks legitimacy and competence
If not rejected, member states should take the directive to the European Court of Justice.
-Line 30:
+Line 100:
-For conclusion and analysis see our [http:analysis analysis page].
+A complete rewrite could be contemplated. This would result in a directive that does not go any further than the TRIPS treaty. Since we already have the TRIPS treaty, it would not make much sense. While this approach would take away the gross aspects of the directive, it would not solve the competence question.
-Line 32:
+Line 102:
+For conclusion and analysis see our [[http:analysis|analysis page]].
-Line 33:
+Line 104:
+----------
-Line 34:
+Line 106:
--------------------------------------------------------



In April 2006 the European Commission [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en announced the directive.]


[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)

The directive is an amended version, [http://www.ipred.org/history see the History]



Full name:
+== Full name ==
-Line 51:
+Line 109:
+COM(2006)0168
-Line 52:
+Line 111:
-[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs]
+C6‑0233/2005
-Line 54:
+Line 113:
-[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]
+/0127(COD)
-Line 56:
+Line 115:
-: COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)
+ * [[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf|English]]
More translations will be available later on. Change "en" twice in the link for translations.
-Line 58:
+Line 118:
-Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]
+ * [[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/fr/06/st08/st08866.fr06.pdf|French]]
 * [[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/de/06/st08/st08866.de06.pdf|German]]
 * [[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm|Council documents on the subject]]
 * [[http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=193131#381074|Commission]]
 * [[http://preview.tinyurl.com/ytfdrd|Council Substantive Criminal Law Working Groups' agenda]]
 * [[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&ssf=DATE_DOCUMENT+DESC&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=400&typ=Simple&cmsid=638&ff_TITRE=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=COPEN&dd_DATE_REUNION=|COPEN]]
 * [[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&ssf=DATE_DOCUMENT+DESC&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=400&typ=Simple&cmsid=638&ff_TITRE=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=JAI&dd_DATE_REUNION=|JAI]]
 * [[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&ssf=DATE_DOCUMENT+DESC&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=400&typ=Simple&cmsid=638&ff_TITRE=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=DROIPEN&dd_DATE_REUNION=|DROIPEN]]
----------
-Line 60:
+Line 128:
+== Links ==
 * [[http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en|Commission announcement]]
 * The directive is an amended version, [[http://www.ipred.org/history|see the History]]
 * [[http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/directive_of_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_on_criminal_measures_aimed_at_ensuring_the_enforcement_of_intellectual_property_rights.pdf|Max Planck Institute: Statement on Directive on Criminal Measures Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights]] ([[http://tinyurl.com/y7yfvh|as tinyurl]])
 * [[http://action.ffii.org/ipred2|FFII action page]]
 * [[http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/secure/file/157008/e:/teamsite-deployed/documents//templatedata/Internet%20Documents/Non-government%20proposals/Documents/ipcriminalsanctions310806.pdf|Comments by the Law Society of Engeland and Wales]] [[http://tinyurl.com/y79cfk|(tinyurl)]]
 * [[http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw|Dutch Parliament]]
 * [[http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.9/ipcriminal|EDRI]]
 * [[http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html|FSF Europe]]
 * [[http://c-176-03.blogspot.com/2006/11/european-court-of-justice-crosses.html|European Court of Justice crosses the Rubicon]]
 * Reinier Bakels presentation for SANE: ISO Open Document Format [[attachment:RBB060517.odp]] PDF [[attachment:RBB060517.pdf]] !PowerPoint [[attachment:RBB060517.ppt]] !OpenOffice.org [[attachment:RBB060517.sxi]]
 * [[http://www.ipred.org/nl|NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk]]
 * EU News [[http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/alertedition/en/JudicialCooperationCriminal.html|Criminal law]] | [[http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/alertedition/en/EuropeanConstitution.html|Constitution]]
 * [[http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_data/docs/2004/6/21/Councils%20rules%20of%20procedure.pdf|Council rules of procedure]]
-Line 61:
+Line 143:
-[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006]

[http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051127.pdf FFII letter Nov 27th]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005]

[http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII]

[http://plone.ffii.org/Members/coordinator/FFII%20UK%20IPRED2%20consultation.pdf/download FFIII-UK]

[http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSFE]

[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf 2005 Commission proposal]

Reinier Bakels made a presentation for SANE. You can download it in:

 * ISO Open Document Format attachment:RBB060517.odp
 * PDF attachment:RBB060517.pdf
 * PowerPoint (please [http://www.openoffice.org download OpenOffice] and use ISO Open Document Format) attachment:RBB060517.ppt
 * OpenOffice.org 1 attachment:RBB060517.sxi
[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]


-------------------
+----------
-Line 93:
+Line 146:
+In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out.
-Line 94:
+Line 148:
-In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out.
+The criminal measures are back in the ''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'' (DCMEIPR ?). This new directive is often called IPRED 2.
-Line 96:
+Line 150:
-The criminal measures are back in the 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 (DCMEIPR ?). This new directive is often called IPRED 2. 

ipred.org is set up by [http://www.vrijschrift.org Vrijschrift.org]





----------
[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)

----------
[http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=25&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=2003&nu_doc=1383&type_doc=Regulation Customs regulation]

----------
+ipred.org is set up by [[http://www.vrijschrift.org|Vrijschrift.org]]