End of days was [[email protected]: [ffii] EU Commission proposes to criminalise European software industry]
Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]> Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:00:36 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.freenet.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Anyone in Europe, please write to your MEPs, or I'll have to move to the USA when this gets implemented! "Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences." It then goes on to outline a range of penalties from imprisonment to winding up of businesses, bans on commercial activity, denial of future state aid etc. Given that "commercial scale" is not defined, it can be assumed to mean "depriving someone of potential income". And "intentional" does not necessarily mean that the person is aware of the software patents he is infringing (for example); it could be interpreted to mean that they are simply writing software intentionally. It goes on to require that rightsholders can be involved in criminal investigations, and that the police are required to investigate even if they don't receive a complaint from the rightsholder. This would criminalize filesharing by the back door. It would also criminalize software development in general by forcing every software developer (apart from the really large companies who have patent thickets) to on demand fight all the trivial software patents their software infringes on. The effect of this would be the 'judicial winding up' of the European software industry. Worse even than that, the task of eliminating all software SMEs would be given to the police, who generally speaking don't care about such matters. They would have to set up dedicated agencies for this, whose task is largely to eliminate honest businessmen trying to make an honest living, drive down employment, and generally undermine a large part of the economy. This would discredit criminal law and the police, and make major IP owners effectively a part of the criminal process. The Commission's justifications for the legislation have very little to do with its actual effect: copyright infringement (piracy) and trademark infringement (counterfeiting) are already criminal matters. Selling unlicensed drugs/toys/tools are also criminal matters. The 'health and safety' angle is simply a smokescreen. Finally, yes it would criminalize my work on Freenet. Freenet is an anonymous filesharing system designed to resist censorship. It is intended to provide freedom of speech in despotic regimes where the internet is filtered and monitored. It is however developed in the West for obvious reasons. Since it is designed to resist censorship, it will inevitably be used for violating intellectual property rights. This is aiding and abetting, and possibly inciting, certainly on a commercial scale, and probably 'intentional' by the reasoning above. Given this nonsense, and given the recent moves towards internet censorship at a national level [1], it seems that Freenet will be needed, and will be illegal, in the west in the next few years! I am happy to pass on the torch when this occurs, to those who will have to develop and use it without the benefit of operating in the light - being able to employ developers, have public beta tests etc. And I will have to go find a new career. Because I'm not going to work for the parasites who were behind the whole software patents mess, who will be the only IT players to survive the latest round! [1] Italy requires ISPs to block access to a proscribed list of gambling websites. The situation in the UK is more subversive: The government has a target that all UK ISPs will block Cleanfeed's list of child porn sites by the end of 2007. This means they are no longer common carriers, since this is not a legally binding obligation and since the IWF is a private company. This further means that ISPs will be liable to block any and all illegal websites - including those which are illegal because of libel, copyright infringement, and so on. Sites such as xenu.org, which while they are in the clear public interest are visited by few of the ISP's customers and therefore will not be defended in an expensive legal battle by the ISP - and which have been the subject of threatening letters and sometimes litigation on many occasions in the past. I have written to my MP about this and expect a reply from the junior minister at some point. ----- Forwarded message from Jonas Maebe <[email protected]> ----- From: Jonas Maebe <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: [ffii] EU Commission proposes to criminalise European software industry PRESS RELEASE -- [ Europe / Economy / ICT ] ========================================================================= EU Commission proposes to criminalise European software industry ========================================================================= Brussels, 12 May 2005. The Commission's recently relaunched "Enforcement Directive" (IPRED2, 2005/0127 (COD)) proposal aims to criminalise all intentional and commercial IP infringements in order to "combat organised crime" and to "protect national economies and governments". This however results in the Commission exceeding its competence and is criminalising many EU businesses with unjustified and ill-conceived measures. A company may infringe on a patent if it thinks the patent would not stand up in court. This is common business practice, in particular in the software industry where most patents are granted on insufficient legal grounds. And while Commission is seeking to criminalise this practice, the US is reconsidering its "treble damages" policy in such cases precisely because of widespread abuse. Jonas Maebe, FFII board member, comments: "Does the Commission really intend to criminalise Europe's entire software industry? Can it name even one computer program which does not infringe on a single patent granted by the European Patent Office? It seems they want to replace the Lisbon goals with an Alcatraz program." "The EU-Commission proposed means which divert law enforcement resources and which are not well suited to combat organised crime" adds Andr? Rebentisch, FFII WIPO representative. "Appropriate definitions for counterfeiting and copyright piracy are already available in other EU regulations, but here the Commission prefers rather vague terminology which puts our knowledge economy at risk." Ante Wessels, FFII analyst, notes: "In only 10 of the EU's 25 member states patent infringement is a crime today. Does this lead to distortion in trade, does it give the countries in which it is not a crime a competitive advantage? Nobody has ever claimed such a thing. Therefore there is no legal ground for including patent infringement in this directive. There are 10 more IP rights for which this question has to be answered." Pieter Hintjens, FFII President, concludes: "We're very concerned when we see IP enforcement being idolized like this, regardless of the consequences. There is a huge and vital debate about whether we need patents at all in the software industry. This law ignores that debate and seeks to enforce those patents, labeling businessmen as common criminals, terrorists, or mafiosi." A full analysis is available at http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2060510En ========================================================================= Background information ========================================================================= * Patent infringements currently constitute a criminal offence in 10 of the 25 member states. In the Netherlands the government previously already proposed to take patent infringements out of criminal law, exactly because in practice criminal provisions are generally unsuited and unused for handling such issues. * The proposal stresses that law enforcement bodies should start investigations at their own initiative, i.e. without a complaint from right holders. Law enforcement officials however are often unaware, and rightly so, about private or even public licensing agreements. See e.g. a UK Trading Standards official having a hard time believing that companies can legally resell the freely distributable Firefox web browser: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2051196,00.html * Apart from patents, many other rights are subsumed under "IP" where the line between infringement and non-infringement is very blurry. See e.g. the Da Vinci Code case (copyright), or Microsoft vs MikeRoweSoft (trademarks). Criminal law however requires very clear boundaries. Not being able to know beforehand whether one commits a criminal offence or not is unacceptable both morally and in terms of justice and human rights. * In case of infringement, the right holder is usually interested in compensation (civil law), not punishment (criminal law). Criminal law must be reserved for criminals, otherwise it risks to lose all authority, effectiveness and respect. * Criminal law enforcement is paid for by the public. As Dutch Minister of Justice Donner said: "[Commissioner] Frattini mentioned counterfeiting a Ferrari, but isn't that Ferrari's business?". The directive also received a lot of attention in the Netherlands because this is the first time Brussels interferes with criminal measures without member states having a veto. For more information, see: http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En * Both the Dutch Minister of Justice, and Professor in Law Reto M. Hilty (Max Planck Institute for IP) have noted that the only ground for this directive proposal can be that it solves a distortion in trade between member states. There are no known indications that this indeed is the case. For more comments by Professor Hilty on this directive, see: http://www.ipred.org/Hilty ========================================================================= Links ========================================================================= * Full analysis of the text: "IPRED2: European Community goes criminal" http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2060510En * EDRI/FIPR take on the new proposal: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.9/ipcriminal * Directive text: English: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf French: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/fr/06/st08/st08866.fr06.pdf German: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/de/06/st08/st08866.de06.pdf * Permanent link to this press release http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2Pr060512En ========================================================================= Contact Information ========================================================================= Jonas Maebe FFII Board Member [email protected] (Dutch/English) Ante Wessels FFII analyst +31-6-100 99 063 [email protected] (Dutch/English) Benjamin Henrion FFII Brussels +32-2-414 84 03 [email protected] (French/English) ========================================================================= About the FFII -- http://www.ffii.org ========================================================================= The FFII is a not-for-profit association registered in twenty European countries, dedicated to the development of information goods for the public benefit, based on copyright, free competition, open standards. More than 850 members, 3,500 companies and 100,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing. _______________________________________________ FFII Press Releases. (un)subscribe via http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/news, or contact [email protected] for more information. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Matthew J Toseland - toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [email protected] Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFEon10OHFIJVywduQRApW2AJsGkhccxM8U4Xjz+vh/DIvm4D6IVwCXXd4l iDymxT0kwVBFUjYeA3uxPA== =R3b3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----