|
Size: 7138
Comment:
|
← Revision 54 as of 2009-05-30 23:30:39 ⇥
Size: 4661
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
| 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/download|Downloading]]] ------ |
|
| Line 3: | Line 8: |
| === Why you should fight IPRED 2 === | The second IPR Enforcement Directive == Why you should fight IPRED 2 == |
| Line 7: | Line 14: |
| See the [http://www.ipred.org/MainPage#preview introduction], the [http://www.ipred.org/analysis analysis], the [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2060510En FFII analysis], [http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.9/ipcriminal EDRI] and [http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSF Europe]. | See the [[http://www.ipred.org/MainPage#preview|introduction]] and the links there. |
| Line 11: | Line 20: |
| === To do === The directive has to be rejected. See also our [[http://analysis|analysis]] See [[http://action.ffii.org/ipred2|FFII]] Take action: [[http://www.copycrime.org|www.copycrime.org]] |
|
| Line 13: | Line 31: |
| Spread the word that with this directive decent people can be treated as organised criminals. | Spread the word: |
| Line 15: | Line 33: |
| * the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and other infringements of "intellectual property" rights * It is superfluous, to combat piracy the legal means are already installed |
* decent people can be treated as organised criminals * the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights * contestable and weak rights gain great threat potential * desired freedom to act in the market is inhibited * it is superfluous, to combat piracy the legal means are already installed |
| Line 18: | Line 39: |
For more, follow the links above. |
|
| Line 21: | Line 44: |
| To effectively fight the directive, it is important to understand it is a pawn in a power struggle. It is the first time the European Community makes a directive without the member states having a veto. A recent European Court of Justice judgment (C-176/03) opened this possibility. In this case 11 of the then 15 member states supported the Council point of view that the Community can not make criminal measures directives without the member states having a veto. They lost. Needless to say, the Commission and European Parliament like this, the Council and member states don't. | To effectively fight the directive, it is important to understand it is a pawn in a power struggle. It is the first time the European Community makes a directive containing criminal measures without the member states having a veto. A recent European Court of Justice judgment (C-176/03) opened this possibility. In this case 11 of the then 15 member states supported the Council point of view that the Community can not make criminal measures directives without the member states having a veto. They lost. Needless to say, the Commission and European Parliament like this, the Council and member states don't. |
| Line 25: | Line 48: |
| The first time the Commission uses its competence, it does so in a bold way. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En Commission exceeds it competence] with this directive. The Parliament sent a letter to commissionar Frattini, and informed all national parliaments in the Union to rally support for its position. [http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw English] version, [http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fy66g2qw French] version | The first time the Commission uses its competence, it does so in a bold way. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the [[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En|Commission exceeds it competence]] with this directive. The Parliament sent a letter to commissionar Frattini, and informed all national parliaments in the Union to rally support for its position. [[http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw|English]] version, [[http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fy66g2qw|French]] version |
| Line 27: | Line 50: |
| In our opinion, the competence question has to be explored fully. The Council and member states should take this directive to the European Court of Justice. | In our opinion, the competence question has to be explored fully. If not rejected, member states should take this directive to the European Court of Justice. |
| Line 29: | Line 52: |
| If you are living in the EU, inform the members of your parliament about this. Ask for their position. | If you are living in the EU, inform the members of your parliament about this. Ask for their position. (See also [[http://www.ipred.org/backdoor|Backdoor]]) |
| Line 31: | Line 54: |
| === Departments of Foreign Affairs === | === Departments of Legal Affairs === |
| Line 33: | Line 56: |
| You can ask you minister of Foreign Affairs on his or her position. See below for a letter you may like to send. | [[http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/91212.pdf|European Council October 5 and 6]] France, Spain and Portugal are most pro the directive. |
| Line 37: | Line 62: |
| In the European Parliament on the other hand, many arguments may fall on deaf ears. Many may like to make a directive with criminal measures finally now. Yet, treating decent people as organised criminals may go to far. | |
| Line 39: | Line 63: |
| The present proposal for the directive runs a pretty high chance to die in the hands of the European Court of Justice, it is just too outrageous. The European Parliament may realise that applying the subsidiarity principles very strictly may make the chance the directive survives a European Court of Justice case bigger. During the European Parliament hearing in Januari 2006 Professor of Law Reto M. Hilty, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for IP, made clear the subsidiarity requirements. (Even then, it is doubtful whether the commuity has the competence to make this directive at all.) Members of the European Parliament may like to be more strict than the Commission. |
[[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert.do?language=en&redirection|European Parliament contact information]] |
| Line 44: | Line 66: |
| === A possible letter to the minister of Foreign Affairs === | ==== Note ==== |
| Line 46: | Line 68: |
| [opening] In case C-176/03, the ECJ decided the Community, under strict conditions, has the competence to make codecision directives containing criminal measures. The first codecision directive containing criminal measures is 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', 2005/0127 (COD). [1] * the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and other infringements of "intellectual property" rights * with this directive decent people can be treated as organised criminals * it is superfluous, to combat piracy the legal means are already installed * what is actually needed is better coordination between countries * the proposal has an open end: all existing and future "IP-rights" are covered, it is a carte blanche This directive has raised concerns whether the Commission exceeds its competence. Professor in Law Reto M. Hilty (Max Planck Institute for IP) did this during a hearing in the EP. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the Commission exceeds its competence. [2] The issue was also raised during a a Council Working Party discussion. [3] In case C-176/03 our country supported the Council against the Commission. Now the Commission made its first codecision directive containing criminal measures, we assume our country follows this case closely to see whether the Commission exceeds its competence. We would kindly like to ask you your opinion on the criminal measures IPR enforcement directive, 2005/0127 (COD). Would you agree the competence question has to be explored fully, that the Council and member states should take this directive to the European Court of Justice? [closing] [1] http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf [2] http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/vg7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw [3] http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08319.en06.pdf ==== The third paragraph reverse to case C-176/03. It is only true if your country is one the 11 member states listed here below. If not "We assume our country follows this case closely to see whether the Commission exceeds its competence. " is enough. |
The 11 member states supporting the Council in case C-176/03: |
| Line 116: | Line 102: |
--------------------- = Let's roll! = |
Introduction] Analysis] How To] Fact sheet] Downloading]
Fight IPRED 2 effectively How To
The second IPR Enforcement Directive
Why you should fight IPRED 2
With this directive decent people can be treated as organised criminals.
See the introduction and the links there.
Fight the directive
To do
The directive has to be rejected. See also our analysis
See FFII
Take action: www.copycrime.org
Spread the word
Spread the word:
- decent people can be treated as organised criminals
- the directive does not make any distinction between piracy and ambiguous infringements of "intellectual property" rights
- contestable and weak rights gain great threat 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
For more, follow the links above.
Pawn in a power struggle
To effectively fight the directive, it is important to understand it is a pawn in a power struggle. It is the first time the European Community makes a directive containing criminal measures without the member states having a veto. A recent European Court of Justice judgment (C-176/03) opened this possibility. In this case 11 of the then 15 member states supported the Council point of view that the Community can not make criminal measures directives without the member states having a veto. They lost. Needless to say, the Commission and European Parliament like this, the Council and member states don't.
National parliaments
The first time the Commission uses its competence, it does so in a bold way. The Dutch Parliament unanimously concluded the Commission exceeds it competence with this directive. The Parliament sent a letter to commissionar Frattini, and informed all national parliaments in the Union to rally support for its position. English version, French version
In our opinion, the competence question has to be explored fully. If not rejected, member states should take this directive to the European Court of Justice.
If you are living in the EU, inform the members of your parliament about this. Ask for their position. (See also Backdoor)
Departments of Legal Affairs
European Council October 5 and 6
France, Spain and Portugal are most pro the directive.
European Parliament
European Parliament contact information
Note
The 11 member states supporting the Council in case C-176/03:
Kingdom of Denmark, represented by J. Molde, acting as Agent,
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by W.‑D. Plessing and A. Dittrich, acting as Agents,
Hellenic Republic, represented by E.‑M. Mamouna and M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Kingdom of Spain, represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues, F. Alabrune and E. Puisais, acting as Agents,
Ireland, represented by D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, and P. Gallagher, E. Fitzsimons SC and E. Regan BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and C. Wissels, acting as Agents,
Portuguese Republic, represented by L. Fernandes and A. Fraga Pires, acting as Agents,
Republic of Finland, represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Kruse, K. Wistrand and A. Falk, acting as Agents,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by C. Jackson, acting as Agent, and R. Plender QC,