There are some other interesting questions as well: Who's going to pay for the technology to do this? (A proposed 50:50 split, but, on the implementation side, or just the per-letter costs?) It seems rather hung-on on the concept of 'letters' - would some form of electronic communication suffice - what about those Internet connections (for example, PAYT usage), for which no subscriber identifying information is held? Hopefully, this is not a backdoor to mandatory subscriber registration... The determination as to who evaluates the proof is still up in the air - ideally, there will be a quasi-judicial body doing this, and handling the appeals... but who's going to have to pay for this? Building on the point about the lack of redress for inappropriate claims (c.f. the perjury provisions of the Copyright Act in the US, as introduced by the DMCA, which do not exist under English / European copyright laws), where is the counterbalance to this - the obligation on rightsholders to make their content available in more attractive forms. Copyright should represent the minimum level of incentive required to encourage someone to innovate; do these extra rights, albeit disguised as streamlined enforcement, not need careful consideration in the overall picture of IPR and society? Is this aimed at traffic, or at hosting? All the talk has been of traffic, but, the main problem is those who are hosting files for distribution, e.g. via a network using BitTorrent. If hosting is within scope, then, does this mean an end to the need to seek injunctions, have a court review evidence etc. for any claimed IP infringement etc.? If I, as a small-time software developer, have my rights infringed by a third party, who is distributing my software without complying with the terms of the GNU GPL 2.0, my chosen licence, do I get the power of this new body, or is it only for major record labels etc.? Or just for "traffic" infringements?