Hi Mel,
If this was what the directive was about, I would agree with you! The original Commission proposal for IPRED 1 was targeted at commercial piracy and counterfeiting, fake handbags, that sort of thing. The Parliament widened the scope of the directive to include *all* infringements, including minor and unintentional infringements.
As a "compromise", criminal sanctions were removed. The commercial counterfeiters must have been laughing. But everyone knew that introducing criminal sanctions under the co-decision legislative procedure was dodgy and would probably be thrown out by the ECJ (there's case law on this). So the dossier was handed to Justice and Home Affairs to introduce criminal sanctions in the "correct" way. That's the new proposal aka IPRED 2.
So now we have the worst of both worlds. Criminal sanctions for all infringements (it's a bit more nuanced, but that's the general picture).
Here's the text: Proposal for a directive and framework decision COM(2005)276(12.07.2005) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en0...
Here's what IFSO said about IPRED 1: http://www.ifso.ie/projects/ipre.html
What does the proposed Directive mean?
* Individual users of peer-to-peer software would face sanctions. * The reverse engineering of software products in order to produce competing, compatible products would be subject to sanctions. This would greatly affect the free software movement and the growing use of open source software. * Competition and legitimate trade would be stifled by making it impossible for small companies to produce goods compatible with products such as Sony PlayStation or Microsoft Windows without paying a licence fee. It would have severe implications for choice, competition and the monopoly position of the dominant players. * ISPs could face limitless injunctions, equipment seizures and requests for damages. They could also be ordered to disclose customer names, block content or undertake surveillance. * Intermediaries, such as universities, would be required to police their networks as they could be held liable for content distributed over their networks. * Book readers for the blind could become illegal because they circumvent copy protection by changing the format.
Teresa
- First off, we all want to see the back of counterfeit or dangerous products.
- Secondly, if subversive or criminal groups are profiting from this, they need
to be deterred.
- Thirdly, theft of property of any kind is wrong. *** See below ***
- FOSS coding is not theft, or criminal, or a health and safety issue!
If someone has a URL for what's proposed, please post it. I wanted to say this much before educating myself properly, because our target audience are equally unversed.
Mel