Those members living in the EU might want to review these amendments (PDF) to the Second Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED2) 2005/0127 (COD) that have been produced by a coalition of groups representing librarians, consumers and innovators. The main thrust of the coalition’s amendments would:
- LIMIT the scope of IPRED2 to true criminal enterprises, involving copyright piracy and trademark violations done on a commercial scale, with malice and the intention of earning a profit from the enterprise, rather than criminalizing all intellectual property infringement as the current directive does;
- AVOID creating an unprecedented scope of secondary liability for Internet intermediaries, ICTs, software vendors and a range of legitimate business activity, by removing the words “aiding or abetting and inciting” from Article 3.
- PROVIDE LEGAL CERTAINTY by adopting precise and appropriate definitions of “on a commercial scale” and “intentional infringement” in Article 2 as commercial activity done with the intent to earn a profit directly attributable to the infringing activity.
If you agree with them you should write your MEPs and ask them to support these amendments. ASAP as they will be voting on the 24th April!
One area that concerns me is how many P2P technologies might come under the heading of ‘intermediaries’ and might be inhibited because of fears of secondary liability.
Another article covering this issue from ArsTechnica:
“The other issue is that the law also criminalizes “aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements,” and this language is ambiguous enough to worry plenty of watchdog groups. We reported last month that ISPs are concerned that they could be liable for “abetting” infringement by allowing users to run P2P applications or access web sites like AllofMP3.com. The terms could be construed in a wide variety of ways, and content holders will surely push for the broadest possible interpretation.”
Also they report that some amendments have been made:
“Fortunately, the bill was amended by JURI, the powerful European Parliament legal committee, during proceedings last month, and many of the objections put forward by these groups have already been addressed. For instance, the bill now would exclude “acts carried out by private users for personal and not for profits purposes” and fair use exceptions to national laws are required. The phrase “in the context of counterfeiting and piracy” was even included in Article 1 of the bill, as the Law Society hoped.”