|
Size: 2632
Comment:
|
Size: 4623
Comment:
|
| 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/downloading 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] Note most action at the moment is going on at the [http://action.ffii.org/ipred2 FFII] |
|
| Line 13: | Line 31: |
| Get out the word that with this directive decent people can be treated as organised criminals. | 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. |
| Line 17: | 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 21: | 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. | 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 23: | 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 25: | 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 27: | Line 54: |
| === Departments of Foreign Affairs === | === Departments of Legal Affairs === |
| Line 29: | 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 33: | 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 35: | 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 bigger. | [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert.do?language=en&redirection 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, --------------------- = Let's roll! = |
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/downloading 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 [http://www.ipred.org/MainPage#preview introduction] and the links there.
Fight the directive
To do
The directive has to be rejected. See also our [http://analysis analysis]
Note most action at the moment is going on at the [http://action.ffii.org/ipred2 FFII]
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 [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
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 [http://www.ipred.org/backdoor Backdoor])
Departments of Legal Affairs
[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.
European Parliament
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert.do?language=en&redirection 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,