The European Parliament has voted to pass the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED2), designed to criminalize people for intellectual property breaches. Many opposed to the legislation say that it is dangerously unclear and that it has passed almost unchanged. However, the bill has at least been narrowed to exclude P2P file sharers, according to Italian MEP, Umberto Guidoni.
"Unfortunately, we were not successful in rejecting this directive, but at least we managed to secure some limitations that protect the private not for profit use of P2P and file sharing." Guidoni said. The directive now passes to the Council of the European Union, where ministers from member states will consider how to apply the directive in each state.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) spokesman Danny O'Brien said that the directive has passed without many amendments opponents requested and leaves consumers at risk for heavy criminal penalties. "We'd be satisfied if the scope of the directive stuck to the examples that the commission give as to its effect, which is copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting (which is the definition for criminal sanctions in TRIPS)," he said.
He continued: "Anything more than that isn't harmonizing, it's ratcheting up and broadening the scope of what is classed as criminal acts in the EU." Guidoni claims that the directive lacks economic and social analysis and the basic requirements of criminal law: clear definitions of scope and crime and confuses piracy and commercial infringements. This leaves the possibility that major parts of European industry and "ordinary people" can be treated as criminals.
A serious IP crime could result in a maximum sentence of at least four years in prison and a €300,000 fine, though a "serious" offense would be those involving organized crime or posing a risk to health or security. A €100,000 is proposed for other offenders.
Source:
The Register
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) spokesman Danny O'Brien said that the directive has passed without many amendments opponents requested and leaves consumers at risk for heavy criminal penalties. "We'd be satisfied if the scope of the directive stuck to the examples that the commission give as to its effect, which is copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting (which is the definition for criminal sanctions in TRIPS)," he said.
He continued: "Anything more than that isn't harmonizing, it's ratcheting up and broadening the scope of what is classed as criminal acts in the EU." Guidoni claims that the directive lacks economic and social analysis and the basic requirements of criminal law: clear definitions of scope and crime and confuses piracy and commercial infringements. This leaves the possibility that major parts of European industry and "ordinary people" can be treated as criminals.
A serious IP crime could result in a maximum sentence of at least four years in prison and a €300,000 fine, though a "serious" offense would be those involving organized crime or posing a risk to health or security. A €100,000 is proposed for other offenders.
Source:
The Register
