The Pros And Cons Of Prosecuting
In both cases the Commission received strong support from industry lobbying groups and business associations, which represented a number of powerful key players in the respective fields. However, business interests did not unanimously support the Commission's proposals in either case. Major firms from the European telecommunications industry opposed the Enforcement Directive, and a large number of mostly small and medium enterprises (SMEs) opposed the Software Patents Directive. Civil society and consumer interest groups mobilized against the directives in both cases. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), national politicians, and scientific experts can be found in both the proponents' and opponents' camps in both conflicts. Despite the
…show more content…
And, to be precise, it is not a true re-framing, as it only objects to the severe penalties that would be attached to the prosecution of copyright and patent infringement. The foundation of the proponents' argument, that counterfeiting and product piracy entail high costs for companies and for entire economies, is a matter of empirical fact and therefore could not itself be refuted. One way to answer it would have been to argue that money spent prosecuting copyright infringers would make fewer resources available for prosecuting truly dangerous criminals. Instead of starting with the proponents' interpretation and re-framing it, however, the directive's opponents concentrated on constructing their own counter-frame, which focused on consumer and civil rights (used in 20.8 per cent of the claims). Unfortunately for them, these rights-based arguments were less successful than the piracy and counterfeiting frame used by the directive's proponents. As mentioned before, ETNO, the business association representing the telecommunication industry, did not appear as a public claims maker, preventing their main argument that IPRED I would impose high costs on internet providers from entering the public discourse about the directive. Nor did the arguments made by the automotive parts and generic medicines manufacturers play any role in the debate. The only frame that was exclusively used by opponents of the directive was the democratic procedures frame, which was mainly used by MEPs criticizing the selection of the
And, to be precise, it is not a true re-framing, as it only objects to the severe penalties that would be attached to the prosecution of copyright and patent infringement. The foundation of the proponents' argument, that counterfeiting and product piracy entail high costs for companies and for entire economies, is a matter of empirical fact and therefore could not itself be refuted. One way to answer it would have been to argue that money spent prosecuting copyright infringers would make fewer resources available for prosecuting truly dangerous criminals. Instead of starting with the proponents' interpretation and re-framing it, however, the directive's opponents concentrated on constructing their own counter-frame, which focused on consumer and civil rights (used in 20.8 per cent of the claims). Unfortunately for them, these rights-based arguments were less successful than the piracy and counterfeiting frame used by the directive's proponents. As mentioned before, ETNO, the business association representing the telecommunication industry, did not appear as a public claims maker, preventing their main argument that IPRED I would impose high costs on internet providers from entering the public discourse about the directive. Nor did the arguments made by the automotive parts and generic medicines manufacturers play any role in the debate. The only frame that was exclusively used by opponents of the directive was the democratic procedures frame, which was mainly used by MEPs criticizing the selection of the