[Tech] E' la Gestapo? No: il Parlamento Europeo

Davvero una bella Europa, quella che sta nascendo. Molto libera e democratica, soprattutto, molto rispettosa dei diritti dei suoi cittadini:

European Parliament has approved a controversial directive which could criminalise innocent end users for accidental infringements of intellectual property.



The European Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive allows Hollywood and recording industry enforcers to prosecute consumers for minor and non commercial infringements of intellectual property rights.



And ISPs will be forced to disclose info about their customers to the recording industry for civil prosecution of P2P file sharing.



The directive also allows private citizens' houses to be raided, bank accounts to be frozen, and assets to be seized without a court approving the move.



Robin Gross, executive director of the civil liberties organisation IP Justice, said that traditional civil liberties, fairness, balance and proportionality have "been thrown to the wind in the over zealous rush to pass this dangerous directive".



And IP Justice reported that French Conservative MP Janelly Fourtour will directly profit from the new law which it claims she "rushed through the parliament". Her family owns Vivendi Universal, IP Justice said.



A set of amendments was not debated, and the European Council is set to ratify the directive on 11th March. Member states have 24 months to get with the directive.

Ecco otto motivi per essere contro la direttiva europea (dal sito dell'organizzazione per le libertà civili IP Justice):

Top 8 Reasons to Reject the EU IP Rights Enforcement Directive:



1. The directive’s scope is much too wide: it should be limited to intentional commercial infringements only. Certain types of intellectual property rights such as patents should be excluded in their entirety from the scope of the directive.



2. The directive lacks balance and proportionality since average consumers face the same treatment as major commercial counterfeiters for minor infringements with no commercial impact.



3. The proposal provides no definition for "intellectual property rights", although the directive applies to all types of intellectual property. Since EU Member States define "intellectual property rights" differently, it is unclear which rights actually apply.



4. The directive permits Hollywood attorneys to hire private police forces to invade the homes of alleged infringers. Known as Anton Piller orders, these measures were previously only available in extremely rare cases in the UK against large commercial infringers. But the directive permits rightsholders to carry out these private raids against citizens throughout the EU for minor infringements that involve no financial motivation or benefit at all.



5. Mareva injunctions, which permit rightsholders to freeze the bank accounts and other assets of alleged infringers before a court hearing, become EU law under this proposal.



6. The directive creates a new "Right of Information" that allows rightsholders to obtain personal information on users of Peer-2-Peer (P2P) file-sharing software. Similar broad subpoena powers created under the controversial US Digital Millennium Copyright Act have been abused by the recording industry to obtain personal information on thousands of consumers in the US.



7. Internet Service Providers' (ISPs) servers and equipment can be seized and destroyed without any notice or court hearing for the allegedly infringing activity of their customers.



8. Directives of this importance must undergo adequate debate and consideration by the entire EU and not be rushed through on a "First Reading." This proposal should properly be sent into a "Second Reading" where its controversial provisions can be publicly considered.

Links:

• articolo su The Inquirer;
• testo della direttiva (in inglese);
• media release su IP Justice;
• sito IP Justice