Jag vet inte riktigt om det dokument jag har som enligt OpenOffice är skapat den 27 oktober 2008 är samma dokument som ligger i näringsutskottets kassaskåp. Däremot är likheten med innehållet i IPRED2 slående. Jag är inte heller säker på om begreppet materials and implements (se nedan) i dokumentet kan tolkas som nån slags mediaspelare. Om man lusläser artikeln i SvD tycker jag det verkar som att Peter Power lagt ett förslag om att ta bort den skrivningen. Det verkar också troligt att det är det ändringsförslaget Michael Geist säger är “för tidigt att säga om det kommer att accepteras”. Det går alltså åt rätt håll, men visst vore det skönt om vi kunde reda ut det i ett vanligt remissförfarande? Att hålla på med kassaskåp känns lite… tröstlöst?
Chapter Two
Legal Framework For Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
Section 3: Criminal Enforcement
Article 2.14: Trademark Counterfeiting and Copyright or Related Rights Piracy
1. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale. Willful copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale includes:
(a) significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain; and
(b) willful copyright or related rights infringements for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
2. Further to paragraph 1, each Party shall provide:
(a) penalties that include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement, consistent with a policy of removing the monetary incentive of the infringer;
(b) that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the seizure of suspected counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods, any related materials and implements used in the commission of the alleged offense, any documentary evidence relevant to the alleged offense, and any assets derived from or obtained, directly or indirectly, through the infringing activity. Each Party shall provide that such orders need not individually identify the items that are subject to seizure, so long as they fall within specified categories in the relevant order.
(c) that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the forfeiture of the assets derived from or obtained, directly or indirectly, through the infringing activity; and
(d) that its judicial or other competent authorities shall order:
(i) the forfeiture and destruction of all counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods; and
(ii) the forfeiture and destruction of materials and implements that have been used in the creation of counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods.
Each Party shall further provide that forfeiture or destruction under this subparagraph shall occur without compensation of any kind to the defendant.
- ‹ föregående
- 10 of 10
Orginalpost: Erik Josefsson: ACTA är IPRED3 – inte ett handelsavtal!
Related posts:
