Despite the obvious conflict of interest, a parliament member married to the CEO of Vivendi proposes a severe crack down on file-sharers.
A firm date and time for the vote hasn’t been established but, it will most likely take place on the 19th or 20th of January in Brussels.
In an article on the German tech site “Heise Online,” titled “European Union delegates want to criminalize all copyright offenses,” it points out how some very powerful entertainment industry-associated members of the EU Parliament have submitted proposals for increasing the enforcement of intellectual proprty rights.
It notes that Janelly Fourtou, wife of the chairman of the board of the French medium conglomerate Vivendi, and suffering from an obvious conflict of interest, wants to see P2P and file-sharing of copyrighted works treated as a “heavy criminal offense.”
When one takes a look at the actual agenda for the upcoming European Parliament meeting, the proposals on both sides of the copyright aisle, consumer rights and industry rights alike, are pretty interesting.
The Socialist Democrat parliament member Edith Mastenbroeck urges criminal copyright infringement laws to be limited to be limited to cases in which a file-sharers “… intentionally committed trademark law injuries and pirated clearly defined commercial extents.” She would also like to the protection of non-commercial file exchanges among individuals but, it’s chances for consideration are pretty much nil.
She forwards this proposal:
1. Member States shall ensure that the intentional infringement of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale is treated as a criminal offence.
1a. Member States shall ensure that intentional copyright infringements are treated as criminal offences, if the following elements are fulfilled cumulatively:
(a) commercial activity with a view to earning a financial profit;(b) the aim of causing significant direct financial loss for the rightholder; and
(c) deliberate and conscious infringement of the copyright involved.
1b. Member States shall ensure that intentional trademark infringements are treated as criminal offences, if the following elements are fulfilled cumulatively:(a) use of a sign which is identical with the trademark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered;
(b) commercial activity with a view to earning a financial profit;
(c) the aim of causing significant direct financial loss for the rightholder; and
(d) deliberate and conscious infringement of the trademark involved.
I’m starting to like her more and more. There should definitely be a distinction between those who swap songs with people just to listen to the music, and those who swap to burn CDs and such for sale.
So far, criminal regulations regarding universal enforcement of intellectual property rights does not apparently exist in the European Union, and also what exactly constitutes criminal copyright infringement is as yet also undefined.
For their part, they propose a definition of what types of copyright infringement that should be considered a criminal offends as follows:
Member States shall ensure that copyright infringements are treated as criminal offences, if the following elements are fulfilled cumulatively:
(a) emulation in an unmodified fashion of protected material;
(b) commercial activity with a view to earning a profit;
(c) significant direct loss caused to the rightholder; and
(d) intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis) with regard to the existence of the infringed right.
Jean-Rene Fourtou and Nicole Fontaine, cosponsors of this legislative push, want to see firm and stringent criminal penalties and fines enacted.
One of the more interesting to note is that that they could most likely seize and destroy your home PC if used to trade files illegally.
Article 4, paragraph 2, point (a)
81) destruction of the goods, including materials or equipment used for infringing an intellectual property right
They also propose specific fines and penalties if you are determined to have committed “criminal copyright” infringement” as defined above.
It reads:
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, when committed by natural persons or legal entities, the offences referred to in Article 3 are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. These penalties shall include criminal and non criminal fines:
(a) to a maximum of at least $300,000 EUR or cases other than the most serious cases, and able to go to five times the profit made by the counterfeiter;
(b) to a maximum of at least $600,000 EUR for cases referred to in paragraph 1, and able to go to ten times the profit made by the counterfeiter;
Now what the penalties and fines will be for trading music or movies on P2P or file-sharing networks isn’t laid out specifically but, from the looks of it it won’t be cheap.
Hopefully they’ll take Mastenbroeck’s suggestions and consider the financial motives of the file-sharer, in that was it offered for free or obtained for personal use, or were either done for profit?
READ THE COMPLETE LIST OF TABLED AMENDMENTS FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
RELATED NEWS AND “HOW TO” GUIDES:
Swedes Love P2P
German Music Industry to target 1000 P2P users a month in 2007
RIAA sues AllofMP3 for $1.65 trillion
Is 2007 the year the CD died?
Should Al Gore put “An Inconvenient Truth” up on BitTorrent?
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
uTorrent – A Beginner’s guide to BitTorrent downloading
Tons of Your Favorite Movies On-Demand for FREE!
Watch The Simpsons, The Office, Jackass, South Park, Lost, X-Men, and More On-Demand For Free
TVU, Free P2P Cable TV
TIOTI – Tape It Off The Internet takes BitTorrent TV viewing 2.0
SOULXTC: “walkin’ the streets of P2P”
Related Posts
- Oz Criminal Copyright Research
- European Proposal – Get ISPs to Fight Copyright Infringement
- Holland says No to IP criminal plan
- Music Pirate Found Guilty of Criminal Copyright Infringement
- AllOfMP3.com facing criminal copyright infringement
Loading ...
Proves something like them or not guns keep the goverment from pulling nazi tactics like that here.
” file-sharing of copyrighted works treated as a “heavy criminal offense.” What does a copyright protect? Information. So they want to criminalize the sharing of information. Criminalize the sharing of information and you have Hitler’s new world order on a scale never before seen.
May I ask a question or two? Perhaps those who are making their new law proposals should look at how some major business conducts their business? There may be a conflict? For example Europe which has has surplus in agricultural supplies over the years at times held up the kind of ethanol development we have seen in the US where local farmers can? For example what would happen in Europe if all farmers had the right to say to grow 10-20 % percent of something that they could sell to support local energy needs? Wo, hold on some would say perhaps ? That would that put a dent in the big fuel companies that like to take it out of our pocket all the time along with some in government? Mmm? (C) Or how perhaps some in the European telecom business held up CDMA development in Europe and then some did they not bring it too us in some form as a supposed new technology? (C) Now why was CDMA ever held up by some? (C) Questions for those some of those who make the laws but for whose benefit?