Richard Budworth, a London-based barrister of 11 Old Square and recently-appointed Deputy Editor of the Lawtext series the Information Technology Law Reports, has provided the IPKat with the following guest blog:
The draft Directive on Intellectual Property Enforcement, which will be voted on next Tuesday, proposes tough sanctions against copyright infringers, particularly criminal gangs, who pirate DVDs or unlicensed software. This is admirable but there is concern that the almighty wrath of this ruthless directive will descend on the teenager innocently swapping her Britney ringtones (see The Times, Technobabble, 2 March 2004). Her home will be raided, searched, and assets frozen. This will be the norm across Europe wherever 'piracy' is alleged.
Article 2 (1) however limits the infringement to that which is carried out for 'commercial purposes or causes significant harm to the right holder'. Article 3 refers to an obligation on Member States to provide for 'proportionate measures and procedures' for enforcing IP rights. Under Article 4 the penalties must also be proportionate. Article 8 allows for pre-trial descriptive or physical seizure only if there is a demonstrable risk that the evidence may be destroyed.
These might be of some comfort to the teenage file-swapper.
Britney ringtones here but no longer here
Frozen assets here, here and here
The draft Directive on Intellectual Property Enforcement, which will be voted on next Tuesday, proposes tough sanctions against copyright infringers, particularly criminal gangs, who pirate DVDs or unlicensed software. This is admirable but there is concern that the almighty wrath of this ruthless directive will descend on the teenager innocently swapping her Britney ringtones (see The Times, Technobabble, 2 March 2004). Her home will be raided, searched, and assets frozen. This will be the norm across Europe wherever 'piracy' is alleged.
Article 2 (1) however limits the infringement to that which is carried out for 'commercial purposes or causes significant harm to the right holder'. Article 3 refers to an obligation on Member States to provide for 'proportionate measures and procedures' for enforcing IP rights. Under Article 4 the penalties must also be proportionate. Article 8 allows for pre-trial descriptive or physical seizure only if there is a demonstrable risk that the evidence may be destroyed.
These might be of some comfort to the teenage file-swapper.
Britney ringtones here but no longer here
Frozen assets here, here and here
FEAR MISPLACED
![FEAR MISPLACED]()
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Friday, March 05, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html