European Parliament Split on Piracy; Compromise Likely
A European Parliament panel delayed action on a hotly debated EC proposal to criminalize intellectual property (IP) infringements, in part to find compromise on 150 plus amendments, a Legal Affairs (JURI) committee spokesman said Fri. Set for this week, a debate and vote on a measure (known as IPRED2) to add criminal prosecutory muscle to ensure EU enforcement of IP rights won’t be aired until Feb. 26-27, he said. Many amendments are technical and easily merged, but discord on some key provisions is pronounced. Even so, he said, the report likely will be adopted.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The EC proposal covers all IPR, including copyright, trademark and patents. It would require EU nations to treat as crimes all intentional commercial-scale infringement, as well as attempting, aiding or inciting such activities. It provides for penalties ranging from confiscation of goods to steep fines to jail time of at least 4 years.
Lawmakers are split on key provisions, including how to define IPR. JURI official reporter Nicola Zingaretti said the proposed definition is too broad, urging that patents be excluded. The committee seems to back that position, its spokesman told us. Other MEPs want the directive to cover only copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting; still others, only copyright, he said. Some want to include other IPR, such as rights related to copyright, database rights, geographical indications and others.
Another bone of contention is how to define commercial infringement. Some lawmakers want to set conditions that trigger criminal prosecution. Some want all counterfeiting and piracy deemed criminal offenses. Others, including Janelly Fourtou, wife of Vivendi Universal Chmn. Jean-Rene Fourtou, introduced amendments calling for all intentional infringements to be criminalized, whether for-profit or not.
Some MEPs favor excluding copying for personal use from the directive. But Dutch Liberal MEP Toine Manders is said to want the directive to cover private copying, including Internet downloads. An amendment of his would make any purchase of infringing goods a case of IPR “fencing.”
“Penalties, of course, are the core of the debate,” as are powers of confiscation, the JURI spokesman said. Today’s IPRED2 resulted from a Sept. 2005 European Court of Justice ruling the EC read to mean that, while criminal laws in police and judicial matters are within govts.’, not EC, purview, the Commission is free to adopt laws relating to criminal matters when it has jurisdiction, such as in IPR. MEPs disputing that interpretation offered amendments to reject the directive entirely, the spokesman.
Amid so many amendments, Zingaretti seeks common ground, the spokesman said. Compromises are likely to emerge before the vote, he said.
IPRED2 has drawn fire from digital rights activists, free software advocates and others. When the proposal emerged in 2005, BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organization, warned that it would boost IP protection “to an unprecedented and undesirable level” and perhaps cast consumers as criminals.