with imprisonment, rather than a civil suit alone. The Parliament has, in subsequent reading, excluded patents from the scope of the Directive. Consumers The Directive applies to willful, commercial or intentional violations of trademark or copyright laws. An amendment that would have limited the directive to commercial activity done with the intent to earn a profit was rejected. Instead, consumers will be criminally liable if their behavior is not for personal and not for profits purposes and was done for the purpose of obtaining an economic advantage. Criticism According to some, IPRED2 does not seem to be a particularly well drafted Directive. The number of amendments passed and adopted in subsequent readings is unusual, as is evident from the drafting process. The definitions, usually contained in the preamble or the beginning articles, were missing until subsequent readings. Originally about commercial piracy and counterfeit goods only, in its present form it includes any violation of Intellectual Property rights. The criticism voiced by EFF, FFII, Law Society of England and Wales, the Dutch Parliament, and others includes: The original proposal did not explain the terms it was using. The definitions section (Article 1) was only added in the subsequent readings. The scope of the Directive is too wide (Article 2). The draft directive still applies to a broader range of intellectual property infringements than commercial piracy and counterfeiting. As a result, it is far broader than the current international standard for criminal IP enforcement — the 1994 TRIPs agreement. Patents have recently been taken out of the scope but many other IP rights have not. Some of the latter are poorly suited to criminal regulation (such as database rights or conditional access to pay TV regimes). The inclusion of aiding, abetting or inciting (Article 3) puts businesses at unnecessary risk of criminal liability. The sanctions provisions (Article 4) has been hastily put together and contains draconian measures poorly suited to intellectual property infringements. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out that criminal law is poorly suited for regulation of intellectual property law and that IPRED2 presents a risk to industry and innovation. According to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), it is impossible not to violate software patents, and the IPRED 2 directive threatens most of Europe's software developers with imprisonment. In July 2006, the Dutch parliament wrote a letter to EU Commissioner Frattini with a thorough legal analysis of