9/10 for the Register's final IPRED round-up

Following yesterday's letter from the Euro-Labour party's linux hacking 
press officer, The Register's Lucy Sherriff assesses how the dust settles:
	http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36227.html

She misses one key point I think, when she writes that:

> The most widely-used illustration of the huge scope of the directive is that it does not rule out prosecution of individual file-sharers.
> 
> Amendment 59, the so-called “compromise†clause, states that the most powerful tools in the Directive (Articles 7(2), 9(1) and 10(1a)) need only be applied to acts “committed on a commercial scaleâ€. So far, so good, but it goes on: “This is without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to apply these measures also in respect of other acts."

But the most scary weapon in the directive as regards home consumers are 
the prospect of a widened scope for Anton Piller orders (article 8), to 
which this clause (Recital 13a) does not apply.

Apart from that, though, it's a pretty solid review, and concludes 
rousingly:

> This Directive is about more than software and music: it is about every kind of counterfeiting, right through to whiskies and textiles. Fake goods aren’t just a rip-off, they can be dangerous too.
> 
> But in refusing (or neglecting) to clarify the scope and method of implementation of this Directive, the European Parliament has left it wide open to abuse. Laws that are open to such obvious abuse are bad laws, however good the intentions behind them.

All best,

    James.