Gallo resolutions comparison

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,