EDRI-member FIPR (the Foundation for Information Policy Research) has published a strong analysis of the proposed new EU intellectual property enforcement directive. According to FIPR, the proposed new directive is pushed by the UK Presidency, but will undermine basic freedoms. It will force all EU member states to criminalise incitement to infringe patents or copyrights. The directive is promoted by big drug companies and the music industry.

FIPR writes: "If passed, the police will have more powers against copyright infringers than they have against terrorists. At present, the EU cannot freeze assets if a suspected terrorist financier is a European citizen. Yet the Government wants to empower IP lawyers to seize the assets of EU citizens accused of aiding and abetting infringement -- such as the parents of children who might have downloaded music files."

On 1 August 2005 the Irish Minister for Trade and Commerce, Mr. Michael Ahern, announced a package of new IP legislation to be presented to parliament before the end of the year. Ireland needs to bring the public lending right and the artists' resale right into conformity with EU legislation and will simultaneously implement the new EU Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice. The enforcement directive (2004/48/EC) has to be implemented before the end of April 2006.

On the website of the ministry, the Minister acknowledges that the new implementation of the EU Rental and Lending Directive is caused by the Commission proceedings against Ireland in the European Court of Justice. Ireland exempted all public libraries from a remuneration scheme for lending, "referring to our small lending pool, the expected modest benefits for authors in relation to collection costs, and our long-standing efforts to encourage greater use of public libraries."

On 27 January 2005 the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled on old case; the existence of the website napster.no, which Norwegian internet users could use in 2001 to find music files (not more than 170 in practice) on the Napster file-sharing system. The owner of the site is found guilty of accessory copyright infringement, for having contributed to make the copyright protected music files available to the public.

The Court states that it is beyond doubt that making a web-address known on a website does not constitute a 'making available to the public', regardless of whether or not the link refers to a web-address containing legally or illegally published material. Whether a web-address is expressed on the Internet or in a newspaper is immaterial.

If linking were to be considered as the 'making available to the public', the Court writes, every link, be it to legally or illegally published copyright protected material would require prior authorisation from the rightholder. This was exactly what the music industry claimed. But the court said this was too complicated a reasoning and therefore decided to only look at accessory liability.

The Spanish government has issued a press release announcing a new draft Intellectual Property law. The law aims to adopt the existing copyright and intellectual property rights to the context of IT and implement the European Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC).

The main changes are:

1. The right to "interactive disposition" which regulates the way authors offer their works on the Internet. 2. Libraries can present their contents in telematic media as long as they remain within a closed intranet. 3. Quotes of both text and audiovisual material are allowed as long as its main use is teaching/ research. It is legal to quote press and journals as long as there are no economic benefits from such quotes. If the quote serves a commercial purpose, previous authorisation from the owner is necessary.

While the Irish High Court set a precedent on 9 July by ordering two ISPs to hand-over the name and address data of 17 file-sharers, a few days later a Dutch judge forbade the hand-over of contact details of 41 customers. In both cases the music industry used the services of the US-based company MediaSentry.

The Irish High Court allowed for the demand from the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) on behalf of record majors. The ruling is not available online yet, but the Irish Times reports the judge "noted an undertaking by the record companies that the information would be used only for the purpose of seeking redress for alleged infringement of the copyright of sound recordings and granted the order on that basis." The Irish Times also reports that the judge was not impressed by BT's policy to immediately forward any complaints to their customers, with a demand to desist any future activity. Such a policy couldn't 'deprive the plaintiffs of their entitlement to seek damages'. It is expected that IRMA will now write to the 17 individuals accusing the recipient of illegally sharing music using the internet, seeking damages of up to 6.000 euro from each person for breaching copyright law and threatening legal action against anyone who refuses to pay.

On 12 July 2005 the European Commission launched a new proposal for a directive and framework decision on the penal enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Commission proposes to penalise any infringements. According to Franco Frattini, the Commissioner for Justice, "the new measures proposed by the Commission form the criminal law front to the fight against counterfeiting and piracy in Europe." Though officially aimed against criminal organisations, the proposed measures applies to all types of infringements of intellectual property rights. "All intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements are treated as criminal offences."

Member states must at least punish such offences with four years' imprisonment "if the offence involves a criminal organisation or if it jeopardises public health and safety." The applicable fine must be at least EUR 100.000 to EUR 300.000 for cases involving criminal organisations or posing a risk to public health and safety. The proposal allows Member States to apply tougher penalties.

The Second Inter-sessional Intergovernmental Meeting on a Development Agenda took place in the WIPO Headquarters in Geneva from 20 to 22 June 2005. EDRI was represented this time by Ville Oksanen. He got two chances to address the meeting. EDRI stressed the importance of the creation of the independent WIPO Evaluation and Research Office as described in item Five based on the proposal by the Friends of the Development.

Oksanen said: "We strongly believe that all decision making should be based on the best scientific knowledge available. Only a totally independent unit, which uses the best practices of the science, can produce results which can be trusted by all stakeholders."

The meeting itself was a dissappointment. Instead of substantial discussion, the developed countries did their best to sidetrack the

The US Supreme Court has handed down a slashing verdict for the makers of peer to peer software. In the case of MGM versus Grokster and StreamCast the judges find the software producers liable for copyright infringements committed by users of the software. The court uses three arguments for this theory of extended liability.

First of all, the CEOs clearly "marketed themselves as Napster alternatives" and "took active steps to encourage infringement". Secondly, they didn't make any effort to prevent the sharing of copyrighted files. And thirdly, they gain a profit from selling advertising space. "Since the extent of the software's use determines the gain to the distributors, the commercial sense of their enterprise turn on high-volume use, which the record shows is infringing."