Comment Not quite right... (Score 4, Informative) 375
1) But late amendments added to the law limited who intellectual property owners could take action against and what penalties they could apply. The amendments the parliament refers to are actually a compromise reached between parliament and the council of ministers (representatives of EU national governments) earlier in the process. The amendment says, in the preamble (not the main body of the text) that some (not all) of the harshest sanctions, such as freezing bank accounts, should only apply to 'commercial' violations. However, this is very broadly defined as a violation that gives someone an 'economic advantage', which could be applied to, say, someone who downloads a song off the Internet for free. For more information see this story.
2) This legislation, which originally had DMCA-like provisions The provisions banning circumventions of copy-protection technology were passed in the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, and according to a recent study, EU member nations are implementing these sanctions in full, without including protections to researchers and business competition, which they are allowed to do. See this story.
3) with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement This is accurate: these surprise raids are known as Anton Pillar orders, and in civil cases, they allow companies themselves to carry out the raids, hopefully overseen by their solicitors to make sure they keep within the rules of the order. More information on these orders here. In criminal cases, which are the only kind in which most countries allow Anton Pillar orders, the raids are carried out by police. In the UK the raids are allowed in civil IP cases, but only for large-scale piracy or counterfeiting. The new IP directive could make these raids available for any civil IP case. The recent raids on Sharman Networks and others in Australia were authorised by Anton Pillar orders.
It is true that the directive must still be interpreted by member states and implemented in their national laws, and this could represent an opportunity for the directive's harsher aspects to be limited. But it will now be a matter of making this happen in 25 different member countries (post-enlargement of EU) rather than on a Europe-wide level. Additionally, the experience of implementation of the EUCD (see above) suggests that member states won't automatically limit bizarre and repressive directives, no matter how controversial they are.
This is partly because, when they're debating laws like this at a national level, they tend to talk to the parties directly affected -- in this case, people like the BSA and the IFPI (Euro-RIAA); ordinary citizens have to work harder to be included in the process.
Matt Broersma, ZDNet UK
