Dear Members of Congress, We, Members of the European Parliament, civil society organizations and businesses would like

to draw your attention to the extra territorial effects of current intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement acts being proposed in the US Congress. The two houses are expected to vote on the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The European Parliament, in its joint motion for a resolution on the EU-US Summit of 28 November 2011, objects the proposed legislation by stating: "Stresses the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names;" Several Members of Congress as well as the business and civil society community have spoken out against the proposed legislation. We would like to thank them for that and join their objections for the following reasons. Even though the two proposed acts are different, their aim, scope and effect is more or less the same and we will treat them together in this letter. We are concerned that SOPA and PROTECT IP will be detrimental to internet freedom, internet as a driver for economic growth and for fundamental rights, not only in the EU, but globally. The legitimate aim is to halt infringements of intellectual property rights online. However, since the internet is used for nearly every aspect of citizens' lives, business activity or government regulation, the effects of these acts will lead to enormous collateral damage. The acts suggest blocking of websites by court order or in the Domain Name System (DNS), a worldwide resource and essential component for the functionality of the internet. Not only the infringing part of a website would be blocked, but a whole domain would be made inaccessible, thereby violating the freedom of expression. Further, by blocking at the DNS level, these websites would be made inaccessible far beyond US jurisdiction, as the websites would be inaccessible world wide. The definitions in the two acts in question are too vague to target only websites which enable infringement on a large scale. The acts jeopardize many positive activities and may overwrite laws on online services, safe harbour (or 'intermediary liability'). Companies should not be held liable for what consumers use a service or product for. Is the owner of a street responsible for an accident on its pavement, or should be hold the individual responsible for speeding accountable? By maintaining vague definitions in these far-reaching acts, companies are faced with an increased risk for liability. This will have an adverse effect on investment, as the risk for entrepreneurs increases beyond levels which stimulate innovation. Companies wishing to offer online services will be forced to monitor all communication on their platforms and filter anything which could possibly be an

infringement of IPR. The methods of monitoring would almost certainly challenge people's fundamental rights. Considering the world wide character if the internet, European companies will be forced to adhere to US standards to prevent DNS blocking. Article 15 of the European E-Commerce Directive prohibits obligations for the general monitoring of their services. The European Court of Justice has recently ruled in the Scarlet/SABAM case that monitoring and filtering of communication online is a breach of fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom of communication and freedom of information and should not be applied to halt infringements of IPR. Finally, blocking of websites, by DNS or otherwise, severely undermines America's credibility in the global information society. Diplomatic efforts for a free and open internet will be rendered useless, since repressive regimes will be free to install filters or block websites which enable or facilitate information exchanges deemed illegal in their jurisdiction. We have already seen several examples of governments misusing filters aimed at halting IPR infringements. It would allow China to justify its Great Firewall, and Iran to legitimize its Halal internet. Concluding, SOPA and PROTECT IP will create tensions across the Atlantic in a time where we need to work more closely together. We ask you to vote against SOPA and PROTECT IP and to work with us on effective laws, which enable a fair remuneration of artists and creators online, without violating fundamental rights or fragmenting the free and open internet as we know it. We also believe in close cooperation in promoting internet freedom world wide, in line with our foreign policy objectives. Yours sincerely, 1. Marietje Schaake