SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.

Advertisement


Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

WHO Should Have The Evidence? Ben Goldacre Refutes WHO Director’s Claim

“Bad Science” adversary and journalist, Dr Ben Goldacre, this week challenged WHO Director of Ethics and Social Determinants of Health, Dr Rüdiger Krech, on his understanding of published evidence.





Latest Comments
  • As it happens, I own and create "intellectual prop... »
  • So long term planning of the UN Development Decade... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    European Parliament Rejects Proposal to Make ISPs Shut Off Suspected Pirates

    Published on 10 April 2008 @ 6:19 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Dugie Standeford for Intellectual Property Watch
    The European Parliament on Thursday urged governments not to authorise shut-off of internet access in cases of suspected copyright piracy. The subject of the vote, an own-initiative report on promoting European cultural industries by French Socialist Parliament Member (MEP) Guy Bono, has stirred up a hornet’s nest of debate over the liability of internet service providers for online infringement.

    Although not binding, the action could hamper European Union and national efforts to adopt France’s “three-strikes” solution to the problem, said Philippe Aigrain of “Squaring the Net,” a French grass-roots organisation that monitors government attempts to regulate aspects of the Internet.

    [Editor's Note: The report was adopted (see 'cultural industries') by 586 votes in favour to 36 against, with amendments. They voted 314 to 297 on amendment 22 to request member states not to authorise shut-off as part of the graduated response to fight copyright violations, according to sources.]

    Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the report, which calls for the European Commission to “rethink the critical issue of intellectual property from the cultural and economic point of view and to invite all those active in the sector, involving notably telecom operators and Internet service providers, to join forces and seek solutions that are equitable to large and small stakeholders…” The report also notes that “criminalising consumers who are not seeking to make a profit is not the right solution to combat digital piracy.”

    In January, the Culture and Education Committee killed amendments urging internet service providers (ISPs) to fight piracy by enforcing the terms and conditions of their service agreements or cutting off subscribers who refuse to stop infringing, and requiring service providers to filter, block or otherwise help counter copyright pirates.

    But the question of whether ISPs should shoulder more responsibility for protecting copyright continues to simmer. Last year, French ISPs agreed to try filtering infringing files (IPW, European Policy, 27 November 2007) and French President Nicolas Sarkozy is pushing a “graduated response” – dubbed “three-strikes” – mechanism by which ISPs would first notify suspected pirates to stop and then terminate service if they do not. Information Society and Media Commissioner Viviane Reding has broached the idea of a similar approach at EU level.

    Following the culture committee vote, Swedish Conservative MEP Christofer Fjellner and former French Socialist Prime Minister Michel Rocard offered language urging the Commission and member states to avoid enacting laws that clash with civil liberties and rules of proportionality, such as the interruption of internet access. Civil liberties organisations strongly supported the text; the French government said restricting or temporarily suspending internet access should be available as a way to deal with illegal downloaders if it respects democratic principles.

    Is Three-Strikes Out?

    Lawmakers approved the amendment Thursday. Some wanted a split vote separating the general principles from the explicit rejection of interruption of Internet access, Aigrain said. The strategy backfired when both parts of the amendment passed, he said. The message from MEPs was that they “knew what it was about and decided on this basis to reject the principle itself of the three-strikes approach,” he said.

    Many of the report’s recommendations stress the need to protect intellectual property as a driver of growth in the creative sector, said Frances Moore, IFPI (International Federation for the Phonographic Industry) executive vice president.

    “However, one badly drafted, rushed-through amendment” was adopted which contradicts the rest of the text, Moore said. If the aim of the report is to protect creative content, including online, “we should be looking at all options available in the fight against copyright theft,” she said. Instead, she added, the amendment discards some options without even a proper debate.

    The vote is a strong signal in France’s direction, Squaring the Net said. During debate on his report Wednesday, Bono criticised “certain member states whose repressive measures are dictated by industries” that are incapable of changing their economic model to meet the changes of the information society. Cutting off internet access is “quite out of proportion” to the objective of copyright protection, Bono said, and will have grave repercussions in a society where access is an imperative right of social inclusion.

    The vote could also force Reding to rethink her approach, Aigrain said. Including the three-step regime in her upcoming cultural strategy communication would “require an extraordinary contempt for the Parliament,” he said. Under normal circumstances, that concept is now dead at EU level, he said.

    Lawmakers clearly rejected graduated response as a solution to internet piracy, said Erik Josefsson, Electronic Frontier Foundation European affairs coordinator. Other solutions are in the pipeline, including voluntary licensing and new business models for remuneration of content owners, he said. There is a great deal of creativity everywhere but with the major rights-holders associations, Josefsson said.

    The graduated response approach, said Monique Goyens, director general of the European Consumers’ Organisation, “goes against some of consumers’ fundamental rights,” notably the right of an accused to a fair trial.

    Dugie Standeford may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Robert says:

      I totally disagree. In my opinion they should not rejected it. They make a MISTAKE.
      http://www.EuropeWord.com


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.224.75.101