Difference between revisions of "Gallo resolutions comparison"

From La Quadrature du Net
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|rowspan="3"| '''Criminal sanctions'''
 
|rowspan="3"| '''Criminal sanctions'''
 
| The recital mentions the IPRED 2, which was dropped while being debated at the EU Parliament. One of the main reasons for its rejection is that '''Criminal sanctions are a costly and most often irrelevant way to deal with IPR infringements.''' Many law practitioners and scholars argue that criminal law is badly suited for IP law, since the illegality of a given situation is often open for interpretation, such as in the case of patent litigation . In view of such uncertainty, criminal law places too much risk on both producers and users of informational goods, thus '''chilling innovation and undermining fundamental rights''' such as freedom of expression.
 
| The recital mentions the IPRED 2, which was dropped while being debated at the EU Parliament. One of the main reasons for its rejection is that '''Criminal sanctions are a costly and most often irrelevant way to deal with IPR infringements.''' Many law practitioners and scholars argue that criminal law is badly suited for IP law, since the illegality of a given situation is often open for interpretation, such as in the case of patent litigation . In view of such uncertainty, criminal law places too much risk on both producers and users of informational goods, thus '''chilling innovation and undermining fundamental rights''' such as freedom of expression.
| having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2007 on the amended '''proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights'''
+
| having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2007 on the amended '''proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights'''
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
Line 26: Line 26:
 
|  
 
|  
 
|-
 
|-
| ''' '''
+
| ''' Impact of file-sharing on cultural industries '''
|  
+
| Contrarily to what is asserted by both the Gallo report and the ALDE resolution, there is no clear scientific indication that the development of legal services suffers from file-sharing. A number of other factors have been mentioned, such as the hassles of copyright licensing for online services (which is an issue addressed by the Digital Agenda and mentioned by the alternative resolution). • It should also be stressed that a growing number of independent studies - including from the OECD, IPSOS, the Canadian Department of Industry and other academic as well as governmental sources - show a neutral or positive economic impact of file-sharing on the creative sector
|  
+
| 13. whereas the creative sector should continue to develop models enabling access to creative content online which offer improved and cost-effective choices to consumers, including access to unlimited subscription services; '''whereas the development of these legal services is inhibited by the growth of unlawfully uploaded content online,'''
|  
+
| H, whereas the creative industry should continue to develop models, enabling access to creative content online which offer improved and cost-effective choices to consumers, including access to unlimited subscription services; whereas the development of these legal services is inhibited by the growth of unlawfully uploaded content online.
|  
+
| K, whereas the creative sector should continue developing models enabling access to creative content on-line which offer improved and cost-effective choices to consumers, including access to unlimited subscription services; '''whereas the development of these legal services is inhibited by the territoriality of copyright licenses,'''
 
|-
 
|-
| ''' '''
+
| ''' Impact of file-sharing on jobs '''
|  
+
| Mid-March, a “study” by TERA consultants was sent to MEPs in order to "demonstrate" that file-sharing will result in impressive job losses in the European Union . As usual, the methodology was highly debatable, and the Social Science Research Council - which is undergoing a major study on piracy - was quick to publish a document debunking the study's findings . According to the SSRC, even if one admits that some sectors in the industry suffer losses directly because of file-sharing, the TERA study overlooks the fact that the money not spent on, say, CDs and DVDs is simply transferred to other activities and sectors, which potentially better contribute to EU economic and social wealth.
|  
+
| 26. Stresses that the '''enormous growth of unauthorised file sharing of copyrighted works and recorded performances is an increasing problem for the European economy''' in terms of job opportunities and revenues for the industry as well as for government
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|-
 
|-
| '''  '''
+
| rowspan="2" | ''' Extra-legislative enforcement of online IPR '''
|
+
| rowspan="2" |The Commission's communication proposed “ taking advantage of possible alternatives to court proceedings for settling disputes”. These “non-legislative”, extra-judicial measures are praised by both the Gallo and ALDE resolution. Given the dialogue that has taken place between the industry and the Commission, and given the pressure put by rights holders on Internet Service Providers to “cooperate” in their war against file-sharing, we can infer that these measure woul consist in: - the implementation of '''blocking and filtering practices''' by ISPs, in order to disable the exchange of copyrighted works through the network. - the implementation of targeted '''Internet access restrictions''' such as three strikes policies or bandwidth capping.
|  
+
 
|  
+
| 1. Welcomes the communication of 11 September 2009 from the Commission concerning '''additional non-legislative measures'''; regrets however that the communication does not deal with the matter of completing the legislative framework by introducing a set of measures to combat intellectual property right infringements in an effective manner;
|  
+
| 1. Welcomes the communication of 1 September 2009 from the Commission concerning '''additional non-legislative measures'''; regrets however that the communication does not deal with the legislative framework by combating intellectual property right infringements;
 +
| 1. Welcomes the progress made in the EU in harmonising the fight against counterfeiting; encourages the Commission to step up its efforts in areas that are sensitive in terms of health and safety, including that of medicinal products, foodstuffs, cosmetics, spare parts for vehicles and technical and electrical equipment;
 
|-
 
|-
| ''' '''
+
| 25. Agrees with the Commission that '''additional non-legislative measures''' such as discussions on possible improvements to the digital market in Europe through voluntary harmonisation of procedures and standards amongst stakeholders can be useful to improve the application of IPRs, particularly measures arising from in-depth dialogue among stakeholders
|  
+
| 18. Agrees with the Commission that '''additional non-legislative measures are useful to improve the enforcement of IPR''', particularly measures arising from in-depth dialogue among all those active in the sector on potential opportunities for innovation offered by new business models or other solutions that guarantee fair, effective remuneration to all right holders, cultural diversity and respect for fundaments rights; while stressing that the growth of unauthorised file sharing of copyrighted works and recorded performances is an increasing problem for the European economy in terms of job opportunities and revenues for the industry as well as for government; and for these reasons we request an EU solution;
|  
+
| 26. Warns against non-legislative measures regarding the application of IPR, as they may lead to the circumvention of legal safeguards, including those concerning data protection and privacy;
|
 
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
| '''  '''
 
|
 
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  
 
|  

Revision as of 15:03, 17 September 2010

The table below compares the 2 versions of Gallo report resolution.

Category Comments Gallo ALDE S&D - Green
Criminal sanctions The recital mentions the IPRED 2, which was dropped while being debated at the EU Parliament. One of the main reasons for its rejection is that Criminal sanctions are a costly and most often irrelevant way to deal with IPR infringements. Many law practitioners and scholars argue that criminal law is badly suited for IP law, since the illegality of a given situation is often open for interpretation, such as in the case of patent litigation . In view of such uncertainty, criminal law places too much risk on both producers and users of informational goods, thus chilling innovation and undermining fundamental rights such as freedom of expression. having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2007 on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights
With this language, the Gallo report suggests criminal sanctions should be adopted in the EU, dismissing the arguments raised against IPRED 2.. It is all the more dangerous given that the EU approach to IPR enforcement – as resulting of the 2004 IPRED directive – is already strongly criticized and has not been assessed. • It also specifically calls for the adoption of measures regarding online IPR infringements, which it says is not sufficiently addressed by EU law. 15. whereas, with the exception of legislation on penalties under the criminal law, a Community legal framework already exists with regard to the phenomenon of counterfeiting and piracy of physical goods, but whereas lacunae persist with regard to online IPR infringements,
Again, the Gallo resolution suggests that criminal sanctions need to be harmonized at the EU level without ever giving a proper justification for why this is needed, when there is currently an obvious lack of sound evidence and data regarding the phenomenon of IPR. 13. Does not share the Commission’s view that the principal body of laws with respect to IPR enforcement is already in place; points out in this respect that negotiations on the directive on criminal sanctions have not been successfully concluded;
Legal status of file-sharing This seems to be a false assertion: Uploading is illegal only to the extent that EU law itself does not provide any ad hoc exception for non-profit sharing of cultural works. International law does not say anything against "file-sharing”. Moreover the international instrument for exceptions and limitations – the Three Step test of the Berne convention – would allow for the creation of collective or legal licenses aimed at legalising file-sharing while funding creation. 12. whereas the unauthorised uploading of copyrighted material to the Internet is a clear infringement of intellectual property rights and is prohibited by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) treaties on copyright (WCT) and performances and phonograms (WPPT), to which the European Union is a contracting party, G, whereas the unauthorised uploading of copyrighted material to the Internet is a clear infringement of intellectual rights and is prohibited by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) treaties on copyright (WCT) and performances and phonograms (WPPT), to which the European Union is a contracting party,
Impact of file-sharing on cultural industries Contrarily to what is asserted by both the Gallo report and the ALDE resolution, there is no clear scientific indication that the development of legal services suffers from file-sharing. A number of other factors have been mentioned, such as the hassles of copyright licensing for online services (which is an issue addressed by the Digital Agenda and mentioned by the alternative resolution). • It should also be stressed that a growing number of independent studies - including from the OECD, IPSOS, the Canadian Department of Industry and other academic as well as governmental sources - show a neutral or positive economic impact of file-sharing on the creative sector 13. whereas the creative sector should continue to develop models enabling access to creative content online which offer improved and cost-effective choices to consumers, including access to unlimited subscription services; whereas the development of these legal services is inhibited by the growth of unlawfully uploaded content online, H, whereas the creative industry should continue to develop models, enabling access to creative content online which offer improved and cost-effective choices to consumers, including access to unlimited subscription services; whereas the development of these legal services is inhibited by the growth of unlawfully uploaded content online. K, whereas the creative sector should continue developing models enabling access to creative content on-line which offer improved and cost-effective choices to consumers, including access to unlimited subscription services; whereas the development of these legal services is inhibited by the territoriality of copyright licenses,
Impact of file-sharing on jobs Mid-March, a “study” by TERA consultants was sent to MEPs in order to "demonstrate" that file-sharing will result in impressive job losses in the European Union . As usual, the methodology was highly debatable, and the Social Science Research Council - which is undergoing a major study on piracy - was quick to publish a document debunking the study's findings . According to the SSRC, even if one admits that some sectors in the industry suffer losses directly because of file-sharing, the TERA study overlooks the fact that the money not spent on, say, CDs and DVDs is simply transferred to other activities and sectors, which potentially better contribute to EU economic and social wealth. 26. Stresses that the enormous growth of unauthorised file sharing of copyrighted works and recorded performances is an increasing problem for the European economy in terms of job opportunities and revenues for the industry as well as for government
Extra-legislative enforcement of online IPR The Commission's communication proposed “ taking advantage of possible alternatives to court proceedings for settling disputes”. These “non-legislative”, extra-judicial measures are praised by both the Gallo and ALDE resolution. Given the dialogue that has taken place between the industry and the Commission, and given the pressure put by rights holders on Internet Service Providers to “cooperate” in their war against file-sharing, we can infer that these measure woul consist in: - the implementation of blocking and filtering practices by ISPs, in order to disable the exchange of copyrighted works through the network. - the implementation of targeted Internet access restrictions such as three strikes policies or bandwidth capping. 1. Welcomes the communication of 11 September 2009 from the Commission concerning additional non-legislative measures; regrets however that the communication does not deal with the matter of completing the legislative framework by introducing a set of measures to combat intellectual property right infringements in an effective manner; 1. Welcomes the communication of 1 September 2009 from the Commission concerning additional non-legislative measures; regrets however that the communication does not deal with the legislative framework by combating intellectual property right infringements; 1. Welcomes the progress made in the EU in harmonising the fight against counterfeiting; encourages the Commission to step up its efforts in areas that are sensitive in terms of health and safety, including that of medicinal products, foodstuffs, cosmetics, spare parts for vehicles and technical and electrical equipment;
25. Agrees with the Commission that additional non-legislative measures such as discussions on possible improvements to the digital market in Europe through voluntary harmonisation of procedures and standards amongst stakeholders can be useful to improve the application of IPRs, particularly measures arising from in-depth dialogue among stakeholders 18. Agrees with the Commission that additional non-legislative measures are useful to improve the enforcement of IPR, particularly measures arising from in-depth dialogue among all those active in the sector on potential opportunities for innovation offered by new business models or other solutions that guarantee fair, effective remuneration to all right holders, cultural diversity and respect for fundaments rights; while stressing that the growth of unauthorised file sharing of copyrighted works and recorded performances is an increasing problem for the European economy in terms of job opportunities and revenues for the industry as well as for government; and for these reasons we request an EU solution; 26. Warns against non-legislative measures regarding the application of IPR, as they may lead to the circumvention of legal safeguards, including those concerning data protection and privacy;