EU Passes Nasty IP Law

FireBreathingDog writes "This BBC report details a new European Union law that 'allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.'" Like any bit of controversial legislation, it can change massively just before being voted upon. This legislation, which originally had DMCA-like provisions (protections for technical protection measures on copyrighted works), seems to have lost them prior to passage. (I'm sure they'll be back in some new piece of legislation.) However, it does make "regular" copyright enforcement much more aggressive in the EU, with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement. More information: IP Justice, FFII, FFII background.

Comments

How do they decide which companies can do it?

[MrRTFM]

from the article: But late amendments added to the law limited who intellectual property owners could take action against and what penalties they could apply.
This would be just great if companies like SCO get to have this power. The average politition may not realise what their new 'core business' consists of, and give them the keys to the IP city. In 16 months time will it be a common sight to see 'SCOrm Troopers' busting through windows of offices and razing them?

It's bad enough with the government departments doing this, but profit based companies? Shit, this is scary stuff

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[nacturation]

Here's Section 8 of the FFII legislation:

Article 8
Measures for protecting evidence

1. Member States shall ensure that even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits of the case the competent judicial authorities may, on application by a party who has presented reasonably available evidence to support his claims that his intellectual property right has been infringed or is about to be infringed, order prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement, subject to the protection of confidential information. Such measures may include the detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or the physical seizure of the infringing goods, and, in appropriate cases, the materials and implements used in the production and/or distribution of these goods and the documents relating thereto. These measures shall be taken, if necessary without the other party having been heard, in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holder, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.

Where evidence-protection measures have been adopted without the other party having been heard, the affected parties shall be given notice immediately after the execution of the measures at the latest. A review, including a right to be heard, shall take place upon request of
the affected parties with a view to deciding, within a reasonable period after the notification of the measures, whether the measures shall be modified, revoked or confirmed.

2. Member States shall ensure that the evidence-protection measures may be subject to the applicant's lodging of an adequate security or equivalent assurance intended to ensure compensation for any prejudice suffered by the defendant as provided for in paragraph 4.

3. Member States shall ensure that the evidence-protection measures shall be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect upon request by the defendant, without prejudice to the damages which may be claimed, if the applicant has not instituted legal proceedings
leading to a decision on the merits of the case before the competent judicial authority within a reasonable period, to be determined by the judicial authority ordering the measures when the law of a Member State so permits or, in the absence of such determination, within a period not to exceed 20working days or 31calendar days, whichever is the longer.

4. Where the evidence-protection measures have been revoked, or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of any intellectual property right, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the applicant, upon request of the defendant, to provide the defendant with appropriate compensation for any injury caused by these measures.

5. Member States may take measures to protect witnesses' identity.

So from paragraph 1, it seems as though the applicant (the one wishing to do a raid, for example) will need to demonstrate to "competent judicial authorities" that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed. Additionally, as per paragraphs 2 and 4, applicants will also need to provide assurance that, in the event the defendent is found not to be infringing, compensation for injury caused by whatever actions taken is provided.

Basically, SCO could use something like this, but it better have some significant cash on hand to reimburse any raided companies for downtime and losses incurred. Not quite as draconian as the summary would have you believe. But then, posting controversial summaries is Slashdot's hallmark. :)

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[zangdesign]

The first time a corporation busts through my window will be the last time that individual stormtrooper breathes on his/her own. I'm not a violent person by any means, but turning over law enforcement functions to private companies is not right and I won't tolerate it.

You want to arrest me? Fine, send the regular police. No problem there. Federal agents even.

Private corporations? Never.

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Krach42]

*knock knock knock*

Who's there?

Goons... Hired goons.

personal legislation

[Vega043]

The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal.

Nice to see that you can pass pas EU legislation by marrying the right person.

Use the law against itself

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

"During the debates, the directive was widened to cover any infringement of intellectual property.

The directive allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen."

Time to get some obscure patents or copyrighted material, let it find its way into commercial and government use, and then use the law to raid the business and government offices and seize their assets.

Re:Highlights

[absolut_kurant]

["Before the vote, critics said the law was flawed as it applied the same penalties to both professional counterfeiters and consumers." But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home."]

This is NOT TRUE, just a spin! Only 3 parts of the directive are limited to "commercial scale", i.e. freezing of bank accounts, getting bank information and trying to get background information on the copying organization. So the stormtroopers can still your house.

This is the final straw!

[Cooper_007]

I'm moving to America!

Oh wait...

Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -

Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.!

[OldManAndTheC]

Lucky for me I live in that bastion of individual freedom: the U.S. of A.!

Hang on, someone is knocking at the door...

Re:*Companies*!?!

[Sumocide]

Let me quote from the directive, Article 8:

1. Member States shall ensure that [..] the competent judicial authorities may [..] order prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement [..]

That's all. Nowhere is mentioned who shall take the measures. But since raids by companies would be unconstitutional in all member states the 'raid by companies' bit was pulled out of the editor's ass.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[cherokee158]

I know exactly what it feels like. I am a practicing illustrator, and copyright is my bread and butter. Until computers transformed anyone with a copy of Photoshop into an "artist" and anyone with an HTML editor a "publisher", your could not exist as a professional without a firm understanding of copyright law. There were few abuses as a result. Since the revolution, theft of images is commonplace. However, as a fledgling illustrator with little to lose but my pride, I braved the web early and learned a lot about intellectual property and business. I learned:

1) Most people are decent and generally ask permission before reproducing my graphics
2) Many people are ignorant of copyright law altogether, but they are not the ones you need worry about
3) Contracts don't mean dink unless you can afford a good attorney
4) The best protection from those who steal intellectual property is your intellect itself. That is, I feel secure that I will survive as an artist even if one of my pieces is reproduced illegally. I can, after all, always make create more work. So I am not militant about copyright enforcement. Trespasses are rare, and do as much to promote my work as they diminish it.
The crooks, on the other hand, need to keep stealing to survive. Those with the most interest in copyright are the non-creators, whose only substinence is their parasitical relationship with creative people. They deal in commodities, exploiting the works of others, and without copyright protection they have no product at all.
Copyright is useful to an artist in the sense that it can permit us to make enough money to do our work full-time. A copyright is actually a bundle of rights, which can be parcelled out to various publishers for far more money than any one publisher is likely to pay. But copyright laws that are two restrictive can also hamper creativity and induce laziness. Personally, I'd love to see the stupid Sonny Bono act (the name says it all) repealed. There is no value in copyrights that last for decades...not to their creators, anyway.
Has it happened to me? Yes, and the law offered me no protection at all. Justice in this country goes to the highest bidder.

Like most parasites, though, I think those who would exploit the creativity of others will soon learn that a good parasite does not suck it's host dry and survive. Already, the RIAA is feeling the backlash of consumers fed up with manufactured music and strongarm tactics. Local animation houses have learned that if Americans can't get quality animation here, they will import it. (Animators are a very exploited breed of artist, who traditionally work long hours for low wages.) Disney is biting at it's own wounds after unwisely deciding that they had no use for traditional artists anymore (Pixar hired most of them...guess whose laughing now?). I think the MPAA and the endless guilds in Hollywood will soon learn that the Independents are numerous, talented and fully capable of distributing their own films, thankyou.

So, how does it feel? It feels lousy, but not nearly as bad signing those rights away to some exploitive corporation who may never get around to cutting you a check anyway.

Screw copyright. Only criminals need rules for morality spelled out on paper.

Not true

[NigelJohnstone]

"will need to demonstrate ....that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed"

Not true, this was one of the things I didn't like. Its worded loosely here:

", in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm right holder, OR where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed"

Note the 'OR', its enough to show that a delay is likely to cause irreparable harm. They don't have to show there is a risk of evidence being destroyed.