Slashdot Mirror
EU IP Enforcement Directive Criticized
wiredog writes "A commentary at ZDNet UK concerning the proposed EU IP Enforcement Directive describes it as being as bad as, or possibly worse than, the American DMCA. Some snippets: 'You want to change the tyres on your 2006 model Ford Prefect? Anything other than genuine Ford tyres -- with the genuine Ford ID chip -- will disable your car. In the brave new world of the Directive, singing ... in public with your hat on the floor would be a crime,... You can imagine how much the police are going to enjoy having to cope with that.' It closes with the observation that "intellectual property is verging on thought crime."" Civil liberties groups have sent a letter to EU urging that the proposal be rejected.
Will this Directive mean that young people using file swapping software via their PCs will be held liable for IPR infringement?
The proposed Directive would not introduce tougher sanctions against individuals downloading the odd track for non-commercial purposes, though it would not stop Member State authorities from introducing and applying tougher laws.
The scope of this proposal covers infringements carried out for commercial purposes or which cause significant harm to the rightholder.
File swapping may be considered a copyright infringement depending on the national law in question.
This proposal only covers illegal acts, where authorisation has not been given by the rightholder or where the appropriate remuneration has not been paid for the use of that piece of intellectual property.
Exchanging illegal content over the internet is an illegal act, or an infringement of copyright if it relates to music files.
Although considerable injury to rightholders can be caused by an individual via his/her computer linked to the internet, it is not in the interest of rightholders to spend a lot of time and money in litigation to catch offenders who are simply sharing a few files with a handful of friends.
The proposed Directive aims to strike a fair balance between the interests of rightholders and legitimate users of intellectual property on the one hand and the wider opportunities the internet offers to consumers on the other, by focusing on commercial infringements or those which most damage rightholders' interests. It is not aimed at allowing the prosecution of large numbers of individuals using peer to peer (P2P) networks for casual file swapping.
For criminal sanctions to apply, the infringement must be 'serious'. An infringement is considered 'serious' if carried out intentionally and for commercial purposes.
Although the Directive also includes references to proportionality, i.e. for the punishment to fit the crime, it is up to national judges to decide on sentencing on a case by case basis.
The RIAA will come in the nii-iiight!
You do realize that the character was named after the car, right?
Why?
New Euro law could make criminals of us all
Umm, nope. From the EU site:
The proposed Directive deals with the enforcement of intellectual property rights and so it does not deal directly with the substance of IPRs (i.e. to what extent intellectual property is protected in law). That is already covered by an existing EU legal framework.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
August 11, 2003
RE: International Coalition Urges Rejection of European Union's Proposed IP Enforcement Directive
Dear EU JURI Committee Members:
We are an international coalition of civil liberties groups and consumer rights campaigns concerned about the impact on civil liberties, innovation, and competition posed by the European Union's proposed IP Enforcement Directive. The proposal threatens to restrict the free flow of goods and permit giant US companies to limit consumer choice and impose price controls in the Single Market. The proposed Enforcement Directive's scope is overbroad, encompassing any industrial property right, and it creates a legal regime that favors foreign intellectual property owners while ignoring the traditional due process rights of intellectual property defendants in Europe. We urge the Commission to reject the current proposal in favor of measures that provide for the enforcement of intellectual property rights and that also protect the consumer rights of Europeans and promote competition among European businesses.
One of the IP Enforcement proposal's most invasive provisions, Article 9, creates a "Right of Information" that grants intellectual property owners broad subpoena powers to obtain personal information about European citizens. Besides violating consumer privacy rights, this provision unreasonably burdens universities, Internet service providers, and other innocent third-party intermediaries who must respond to massive numbers of subpoenas and turn in customers for prosecution.
Similarly broad subpoena powers found in the controversial US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) are consistently abused by the Recording Industry Association of America to obtain personal information on thousands of users of file-sharing software. We urge the Commission to reject Article 9's "Right of Information" in favor of less burdensome enforcement provisions that respect the privacy rights of European citizens.
We are also particularly troubled by Article 21 of the proposed IP Enforcement Directive, which forbids using, making, importing, and distributing "illegal technical devices" that can circumvent technologies designed to protect any industrial property right. Disregarding the fact that many unauthorized uses of intellectual property are perfectly lawful, Article 21 erodes the public's fair use (fair dealing) and freedom of expression rights by outlawing all technologies, including software, that are capable of bypassing technical restrictions.
Also similar to the US DMCA, the EU IP Enforcement proposal's ban on circumvention devices is so broad that it permits intellectual property owners to extend their monopoly into separate markets, such as players, readers and other interoperable devices. Article 21's ban on technical devices is ripe for abuse by intellectual property owners to prevent competition and stifle innovation in the market for goods and adjacent devices. Article 21 is a misguided attempt to outlaw a broad category of legitimate technologies and should be reformed to protect consumer rights and promote competition policy.
Because of the many threats to Europeans' civil liberties, innovation, and competition posed by the proposed EU IP Enforcement Directive, we respectfully request the rejection of its overbroad provisions at the EUROPARL Committee on Legal Affairs and Internal Market hearing on September 11, 2003 in Brussels.
Cordially,
Associacao Nacional para o Software Livre
(National Association for Free Software - ANSOL) ~ Portugal
http://www.ansol.org/ansol.en.html
Association Electronique Libre (ASBL/NGO AEL) ~ Belgium, Luxemburg
http://www.ael.be/
Association Francophone des Utilisateurs de Linux et des Logiciels Libres
(French speaking Linux and Libre Software Users' Association AFUL) ~ France
http://www.aful.org/
Association pour la Promotion et la Recherche en Informatique Libre
(Association for Promotion and Research in Libre Computing -
It's a European-only model.
The joke (to the British audience) was that he incorrectly determined which species was in charge, and thus, in his attempts to blend in as much as possible, named himself for a car.
Yes, Ford Prefect
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The Ford Prefect was produced in the U.K. from 1938 to 1959.
Since you're a 23 year old American, and I don't think any of these cars were ever imported, it's not surprising that you haven't seen or heard of one.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
yawn.... have you read 1984? if ford decides to modify their tires in the above prescribed way... what does that have to do with the government watching you? I dont see how the government is involved here. You could make the weak argument that what ford is doing is anti-competitive, but you still have the option to buy a different brand of car, dont you? If you dont like ford's scheme here, dont buy it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government or 1984.
Unfortunately, the joke of Ford Prefect's name was lost on most Americans, myself included. I didn't even know the car existed until I read the obituary for Douglas Adams, and my dad (an Englishman old enough to remember the Prefect) mentioned the car.
Wikipedia has a pretty good entry covering both the car and Adams' choice of the name for his character.
Very succinctly put. I like to refer to a passage from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" which says essentially the same thing, with more words:
It blows me away that she wrote this half a century ago, and it's becoming more and more relevant. RFID tags for all!I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Wrong. You need to read the Directive.
Article 21 prevents the use of devices that enable goods to be passed off as authentic *to the consumer*. If you make Ford-compatible tyres that are clearly labelled as being made by you then you are not in breach of the Directive. Even if your tyres fool my car into thinking they are made by Ford (and so the car starts), they are not fooling the consumer and hence are not in breach.
The DMCA is quite different and much wider: it criminalises all copy-circumvention technology