"[...] 3.1. The Committee supports the objective pursued and endorses the principle of horizontal harmonisation of measures to combat piracy and counterfeiting, which is on the rise in both third countries and Member States, and is damaging to the legitimate interests of consumers, companies and individual authors; as Community law currently stands, the Committee considers the form of a horizontal directive, as proposed, to be appropriate. It would however make a number of comments and suggestions regarding the text referred to it for an opinion.
3.2. The Committee would like to see a draft directive which clearly proposes measures to protect bona fide consumers and, more generally, consumer education and information measures on IP-LAP rights, focusing especially on young people.
3.3. In the digital and Internet field, the EESC urges that no backing be given to measures, even in guideline form, which would affect the legitimate rights or privacy of consumers and users, would impose an excessive burden on internet-access providers, or could even drive those publishers who offer alternative solutions — especially open source software and formats (which can be freely used and reproduced) or private copying software and hardware - off the market.
3.4. IP-LAP rights, which confer exclusive rights upon holders, amount to temporary, legally constituted monopolies; they are only allowed for specified periods of time, and without prejudice to the greater public interest, are not unlimited and must not hamper the free dissemination and transfer of theoretical and scientific knowledge and technologies, such as those relating to Internet, on which a competitive knowledge based economy depends - and which does not yet exist in Europe.
3.5. The above comments by the Committee are in keeping with the TRIPS objectives (Article 7) and their underlying principles (Article 8(2)) (1): these should be included in the recitals of the directive, since the possible penalties cannot be entirely dissociated from substantive law, and possible abuses of IP-LAP rights by right holders must not be overlooked.
3.6. Where counterfeit products which put users or their property at risk are concerned, specific sanctions with sufficient deterrent effect must be provided, together with adequate compensation in the event of accidents involving injury or damage. Market withdrawal, confiscation and destruction measures, at the infringer’s cost, are absolutely necessary in such cases. Consumers and consumer organisations must enjoy adequate means under law to seek compensation for losses incurred and to punish infringers.
3.7. Lastly, the EESC calls upon the Commission to commit itself to in-depth independent sectoral studies employing a transparent methodology. These should seek in particular to encourage convergent legislation and a global strategy for developing closer judicial, police and customs cooperation, including studies and regular reports and other appropriate initiatives. The purpose would be to effectively combat pirating and counterfeiting from the manufacturing stage onwards, primarily targeting criminal networks together with those who habitually trade in pirated or counterfeited tangible or intangible goods. The Committee also calls upon the Member States to give urgent consideration to all opportunities for cooperation between themselves and with the Community to this end.
[...]
5.5. It would be better for companies in the sector to concentrate their innovative efforts on viable commercial models in the digital communications age in order to harness a huge potential market, rather than viewing all consumers as potential pirates or seeking perpetual unearned income by taxing blank media or imposing disabling technical restrictions on reading tools or media. Many viable software manufacturers market their products on-line at reasonable prices. The first Internet pay-distribution companies in the music sector show that a market which respects the rights of music publishers and artists can still be created and developed. [...]"
Hence, the EESC clearly seems to be worried that the Directive might be somewhat excessive with regard to certain aspects of the subject-matter under scrutiny.
Opinion of the 
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) on the