The copyfight is heating up in Europe as the Parliament considers a raft of new protections for intellectual property. The Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement (IPRE) directive is supposed to target commercial infringement, but it's broad enough to cover the average, noncommercial or unwitting infringer. Why should you care? Because it gives copyright holders - not the world's most conservative statutory interpreters - more power to do bad things in Europe than any other place in the world. Here's a taste (some of which is taken from EFF's detailed analysis):

“Anton Piller” orders allow plaintiffs (copyright holders, in this case) to search and seize property at an alleged infringer’s premises (Article 8). They also cover third-parties like ISPs, web hosts and others who may have no knowledge of infringement. Remember those Aussie executives whose houses were raided in an attempt to find dirt on Kazaa?

“Mareva injunctions” allow the courts to freeze the bank accounts and seize the assets of an alleged infringer. Rights-holders can also obtain an order requiring banks and other intermediaries to communicate or provide access to an alleged infringer’s financial and commercial documents. (Article 10(2))

Rights-holders can obtain an order requiring the disclosure of the name, address and other information about an alleged infringer from any person in the distribution chain of an alleged infringing product or service. (Article 9) A similar approach was rejected by a U.S. court in the Verizon case.

This is bad mojo. A coalition of US/EU NGOs is fighting the directive in the EU Parliament, but they're also organizing a protest rally. Check it out if you're near Strasbourg, France on March 8!
.:link:. | Thanks, Andrew!