"P2p users are not criminals" says UK minister

 From a debate in the UK parliament on 10 Feb 2004:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=direct+enforc+intellectu+properti+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040210/halltext/40210h05.htm#40210h05_spnew3


Stephen Timms, Government minister at the Department of Trade and
Industry concluded his reply closing the debate by saying:

"All content industries, including media interests, are concerned about
illegal use of their material online. We are committed to effective
enforcement of intellectual property rights and have taken several steps
on that in recent years, including as part of the UK implementation of
the copyright directive to which I referred improving the structure for
enforcing rights. The protection given by intellectual property rights
is an important part of the framework to encourage innovation and wealth
creation, but rights that cannot be enforced are of no value.

"Enforcement of rights must be pursued differently, depending on the
circumstances. Lumping together commercial piracy on the one hand and
private copying on the other is unlikely to be helpful in the longer
term. Private downloading of material that has been put on the internet
illegally is an infringement of rights, but it does not constitute a
criminal offence. Efforts to increase the understanding of and respect
for intellectual property rights, particularly copyright, is not helped
by branding illegal downloaders as pirates. We must educate consumers
about the downside of sharing copyright works over the internet, but we
must not accuse them all of being criminals".


The MP Tom Brake, who raised the topic had originally intended to
concentrate just on one constituent's case, who allegedly had had a
format for a TV program rejected and then seen it used.  But as soon as
it became clear he was going to raise an intellectual property issue in
the house,

"...though I have held many debates in Westminster Hall over the past
seven years on a whole range of constituency issues -— local train
services, local hospital provision, and so on —- no issue has ever seen 
me receive as many approaches from different organisations as this one. 
The issue is clearly of interest to the media, so one would expect them 
to pick up on it and contact hon. Members seeking to raise it in
Parliament. However, intellectual property rights are also a hot topic
for the industry as a whole, which is why I have been contacted".

"... One of the organisations that contacted me prior to the debate was
the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy. It is quite concerned
about the negotiations of the draft EU copyright enforcement directive,
about which I knew nothing until about 12 hours ago. It is particularly
concerned that the directive will leave UK businesses exposed and that
it will impact negatively on their ability to protect intellectual property.

"The alliance has three specific concerns: the proposals will hamper the
ability of UK businesses to take appropriate action against
intermediaries found to be infringing intellectual property rights; the
proposal for intermediaries to be entitled to claim for compensation is
an issue, given that that is already permitted under civil procedure
rules; and the proposal to eliminate a rights holder's ability to seek
double damages from an infringer seems dubious. Its view is that the
penalties for counterfeiting are not currently sufficient and must be
made much tougher, but it is worried that they will not be. Its concerns
are exacerbated by the 12 accession states, which may not have the same
regard for intellectual property rights as the existing EU members. I
would appreciate either a written or a verbal response to those concerns".


=======================================================================

Parliamentary Questions tabled for British Music Rights.

The British Music Rights (BMR) organisation also appears to have started
lobbying furiously.  While I was in Strasbourg, I saw a copy of a letter
they had sent to the UK government and the major players, furiously
denouncing the latest changes in the draft directive text, and now here
are four parliamentary questions submitted for Monday 23 February:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=direct+enforc+intellectu+properti+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm200304/cmordbk2/40223o01.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match

223
	Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen): To ask the Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry, what the Government's policy is on Article 10 of the
draft EU Enforcement Directive.
(155941)

224
	Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen): To ask the Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry, what assessment she has made of the protection of
intellectual property rights afforded by the draft EU Enforcement
Directive to UK businesses.
(155942)

225
	Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen): To ask the Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry, what reasons underlie the Government's decision to
seek amendments to Articles 10 and 15 of the draft EU Enforcement Directive.
(155943)

226
	Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen): To ask the Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry, what representations the Government is making to
other EU member states to ensure that the draft EU Enforcement Directive
offers the best possible degree of protection to UK businesses.


Janet Anderson MP is secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Music
Group, which receives "administrative assistance (provision of
secretariat, provision of documents and information, membership
management, event organisation)" from the British Phonographic Industry
(BPI) and British Music Rights (BMR).

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm/cmparty/memi286.htm

She was previously minister of state for tourism, film and broadcasting.
http://council.blackburnworld.com/council/mps_and_meps/janet_anderson.htm

The changes to Articles 10 and 15 remove intermediaries (ie Libraries,
ISPs) from the list of those on whom injunctions must be servable.


Note that it's quite likely that Mrs Anderson has only heard one side of
the argument, and so may have no idea of the difficulties that what BMR
is calling for might cause.  Somebody from ISPA perhaps should talk to
her, before Monday 23rd.