|
Size: 862
Comment:
|
Size: 2037
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = Factsheet = | ------ [[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]] ------ = Fact sheet = |
| Line 7: | Line 11: |
| * the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambigious infringements of "intellectual property" rights | * the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights |
| Line 9: | Line 14: |
| Line 10: | Line 16: |
| Line 11: | Line 18: |
| * contestable and weak rights gain great threath 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 |
* contestable and weak rights gain great threath potential, the desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited * right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions, this threatens the neutrality of police investigation * criminal investigation authorities should not be able to act on their own initiative without a prior complaint of the rights owner, because licensing arrangements are not published and the rights owner has the fundamental right to dispose of his rights as he desires * the directive can be abused * the directive harmonises the enforcement of substantive law that is not harmonised * the directive adopts a general concept of "intellectual property", it breaks the age-old "numerus clausus" (closed system) principle of "intellectual property", and "absolute rights" ("iura in rem") in general: until now, the principle is freedom of information (and imitation) unless there is an explicit statute preventing that * criminal law must be precise and may not contain open concepts, the legality principle ("lex certa" and "lex scripta") is violated * carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted * the proposal is not essential, the Community lacks competence |
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
Fact sheet
2005/0127 (COD)
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
- the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights
- decent people can be treated as organised criminals
- the legal means to combat piracy and counterfeiting are already available
- beyond clear cases of piracy and counterfeiting civil sanctions are sufficient
- contestable and weak rights gain great threath potential, the desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited
- right-holders may assist the police with the investigation, help to draw conclusions, this threatens the neutrality of police investigation
- criminal investigation authorities should not be able to act on their own initiative without a prior complaint of the rights owner, because licensing arrangements are not published and the rights owner has the fundamental right to dispose of his rights as he desires
- the directive can be abused
- the directive harmonises the enforcement of substantive law that is not harmonised
- the directive adopts a general concept of "intellectual property", it breaks the age-old "numerus clausus" (closed system) principle of "intellectual property", and "absolute rights" ("iura in rem") in general: until now, the principle is freedom of information (and imitation) unless there is an explicit statute preventing that
- criminal law must be precise and may not contain open concepts, the legality principle ("lex certa" and "lex scripta") is violated
- carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted
- the proposal is not essential, the Community lacks competence