Differences between revisions 17 and 19 (spanning 2 versions)
Revision 17 as of 2006-08-26 20:13:47
Size: 2084
Editor: AnteWessels
Revision 19 as of 2006-08-27 11:53:21
Size: 2099
Editor: AnteWessels
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
------ [[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/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/backdoor Backdoor]] ------
Line 5: Line 4:

==== Fact sheet ====

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/backdoor Backdoor

Legal means already available

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
  • criminal law must be precise and may not contain open concepts, the legality principle ("lex certa" and "lex scripta") is violated
  • the directive harmonises the enforcement of substantive law that is not harmonised
  • carefully balanced national procedural law systems are distorted
  • 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
  • the proposal is not essential, the Community lacks competence

factsheet (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:40 by localhost)