[Ecommerce] Re: IP Directive off the European parliament agenda

[Philippe Aigrain]

Some additional state-of-play info and analysis on the IP enforcement direc=
tive:

- It is now planned for vote in the Parliament in the first March plenary s=
ession (8-10 March 2004).
- The meaning of the manoeuvering between Council and Parliament is that th=
e promoters of a "strong" version of this text know that the only chance of=
 getting it through is to have it adopted before a real open public debate =
on it develops. So they are trying to have it adopted at first reading, whi=
ch implies Council and Parliament agreeing on the same amendments.

Some context:
1) The text creates an arsenal of extreme civil sanctions, whose main part =
applies accross the board to all types of IP titles from patents to copyrig=
hts, including trademarks, designs, etc., and to any type of alleged infrin=
gement. The original proposal from the Commission proposed also upwards har=
monisation of penal sanctions, but due to competence of National Member Sta=
tes on penal issues, the present draft report from Ms. Fourtou only indirec=
tly refer to penal sanctions. On the contrary the Commission proposal appli=
ed only to infringement of a for-profit nature OR causing serious harm to r=
ight holders (the OR was bad enough). Ms. Fourtou has removed the whole res=
triction, and if her report is adopted, the text will apply to non-for-prof=
it, minor, and even non-intentional infringements, leaving it to judges to =
use proportionality in these cases. This turns the text into a mass destruc=
tion weapon against peer to peer networks users and their technology provid=
ers for instance.

2) The critics (for instance myself) are horrified by a text that would hav=
e such consequences as:
- Making it possible for a drug manufacturer to allege patent infringement =
against a generic drug manufacturer, turn it completely off business (putti=
ng all its assets on hold, closing its offices, forbidding any commercial a=
ctivity to it, destroying all its products and holding its machinery, etc).=
 The insurance deposit of guarantee against a possible later decision that =
there was no infringement in reality would be based on the damage to the al=
leged infringer, and not the benefit to the patented drug manufacturer. In =
another domain, wouldn't it be nice for the Microsofts of this world to imm=
ediately close down free software ventures for the cost of their net worth =
...
- Incriminate P2P users and create a judicial lottery on the level of sanct=
ions that can apply to them, while at the same time make sure that technolo=
gy and service suppliers will go under for good, even when the tools and se=
rvices they supply are legitimate.
- Subject a European Percy Shmeiser to such an arsenal of measures  that ch=
ances that there will anybody left to make a good faith case is extremely l=
ow.
and,
- Seriously endanger the efficiency of measures against organised crime usa=
ge of counterfeiting and piracy of physical goods (including DVDs and CDs),=
 which was the - legitimate - objective of the original text a few years ag=
o (before a hijacking similar to what occurred for the S2395 bill in the US=
).
This is only a very partial catalog (see also privacy disasters)

3) The situation in the legislative process is particularly dangerous due t=
o the co=EFncidence between Ms. Fourtou being rapporteur in Parliament, Ire=
land holding the Presidency, and the whole Parliament thinking only about t=
he coming election of June 2004. Ms. Fourtou is Vivendi-Universal President=
 and CEO's wife. While everybody acknowledges that she has autonomous think=
ing on the subject, one can only wonder at her not having reserve on this t=
ext. The wonder turns into stupefaction when one remembers the key part she=
 took in the Parliament debates on directive 98/44 on patentability of biot=
ech inventions ... when her husband was CEO of Rhone-Poulenc (later merged =
into Aventis).
Unfortunately, Ireland also has some high vested interests on IP subjects d=
ue to its agressive fiscal dumping policy on income from licences, that has=
 turned the country into a tax heaven for all the industries that abusively=
 (according to me and some others) profit from patents or monopolies based =
on copyright.

Regards,

Philippe Aigrain

---------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:13:35 -0500
From: Manon Ress <manon.ress@cptech.org>
To: ecommerce <ecommerce@lists.essential.org>
Subject: [Ecommerce] IP Directive off the European parliament agenda

Thanks to Cedric Laurant for this message:

http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe/1?204&OIDN=3D1507135&-tt=3D


Date: 10/02/2004 08:00
*Intellectual property directive taken off Parliament's agenda*
*In short:*
In order to buy the Irish Presidency more time to secure a majority
within a divided Council, the Parliament has decided to withdraw the
intellectual property directive from its 9 February plenary agenda.


*Brief news:*
The controversial intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement
directive has been withdrawn from the Parliament's 9 February plenary
agenda because of fears that the Council might reject it, EU sources
told EurActiv.

The proposed directive, which was initially designed to prevent piracy
and counterfeiting in the EU, had attracted much criticism from consumer
organisations, telecoms operators and Internet service providers. They
claimed the directive would force them into endless legal proceedings
with rights-holders, generally coming from the music and film industry,
who are eager to limit downloads from the Internet.

With European competitiveness on top of its agenda, the Irish Presidency
is anxious to strike a deal on the IPR directive before its term ends on
1 July 2004. But the Council is reportedly divided over some key aspects
of the directive such as its scope and the criminal sanctions that are
to be imposed to infringers of IP rights.
In order to make sure a majority of Member States will support the
directive within the Council of Ministers, the presidency has pressed
for the Parliament to postpone its adoption and will seek a mandate from
the Council (COREPER) on Wednesday 11 February to start negotiating with
Parliament. It hopes an agreement can be found quickly so to that the
competitiveness Council can vote on it on 11 March, two weeks ahead of
the Spring summit.
*Links:* Time-saving overview:

*   LinksDossier:_ IPR - Intellectual Property Rights_ (fully updated
with the current proposal, background, main issues and positions from
industry, NGO's and think tanks)

Official documents:

*      EUR-Lex:_ Proposal for a Directive on measures and procedures to
ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights, COM(2003)0046_
[_FR_] [_DE_] (30 January 2003)
*      Parliament:_ Report on measures and procedures to ensure the
enforcement of intellectual property rights_ [_FR_] [_DE_], Janelly
FOURTOU, (5 December 2003)

/*EU Actors'*/ positions:

*     International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI):_ EU
Enforcement Directive falls far short of providing urgently needed tools
to tackle piracy_ (30 January 2003)
*   BEUC (European Consumers' Organisation):_ Usually consumers are not
criminal!_ [_FR_] (Press release, 26 November 2003)

Press articles:_ InfoWorld_


--

Cedric Laurant - Policy Counsel
Electronic Privacy Information Center
1718 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009  -  U.S.A.
Tel: +1 (202) 483-1140 (x114)
Fax: +1 (202) 483-1248
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
epic.org - privacy.org - thepublicvoice.org
gilc.org  - observingsurveillance.org