We’re waiting on the EU’s decision on March 9 ¹. See also 2004-03-06 Urheberrecht for a German letter.
Top 8 Reasons to Reject the EU IP Rights Enforcement Directive:
1. The directive’s scope is much too wide: it should be limited to intentional commercial infringements only. Certain types of intellectual property rights such as patents should be excluded in their entirety from the scope of the directive.
2. The directive lacks balance and proportionality since average consumers face the same treatment as major commercial counterfeiters for minor infringements with no commercial impact.
3. The proposal provides no definition for “intellectual property rights”, although the directive applies to all types of intellectual property. Since EU Member States define “intellectual property rights” differently, it is unclear which rights actually apply.
4. The directive permits Hollywood attorneys to hire private police forces to invade the homes of alleged infringers. Known as Anton Piller orders, these measures were previously only available in extremely rare cases in the UK against large commercial infringers. But the directive permits rightsholders to carry out these private raids against citizens throughout the EU for minor infringements that involve no financial motivation or benefit at all.
5. Mareva injunctions, which permit rightsholders to freeze the bank accounts and other assets of alleged infringers before a court hearing, become EU law under this proposal.
6. The directive creates a new “Right of Information” that allows rightsholders to obtain personal information on users of Peer-2-Peer (P2P) file-sharing software. Similar broad subpoena powers created under the controversial US Digital Millennium Copyright Act have been abused by the recording industry to obtain personal information on thousands of consumers in the US.
7. An Internet Service Provider’s (ISP’s) servers and equipment can be seized and destroyed without any hearing for the allegedly infringing activity of their customers.
8. Directives of this importance must undergo adequate debate and consideration by the entire EU and not be rushed through on a “First Reading.” This proposal should properly be sent into a “Second Reading” where its controversial provisions can be publicly considered.
#Copyright