this is the proposal (and you can be sure that the rightholders will lobby against it)
"The regulator has also detailed who will pay for the policing, appeals, and letters. Essentially, rightsholders will pay the most—they'll bear all the costs incurred by Ofcom, the majority of the costs from the appeals body, and 75 percent of the money spent by the ISP.
Rightsholders will get a discount for reporting in bulk, though. If a copyright holder sends 70,000 reports a month they'll pay £17 ($26.50) for each report. If they send 175,000, the reports will only cost £7.20 ($11.24) each.
Ofcom will now open a month-long consultation period, which closes on July 26, 2012. Subject to further review by the European Commission, the revised code will then be laid in Parliament around the end of 2012
In fact this means that rightholders will have to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in each campaign and that they will have to be sure that it will have a financial effect (which isn't the case untill now, people have moved forward to new services or have moved back to copying offline material or each other disks).
Laying the financial cost with the rightholders means also that they will eventually get their money back through court (which may take years) and even if they win they will have to be sure that the convicted people will have the resources to pay it and without a popular backslash that will eventually cost them even more money and goodwill).
Let's make the count, say that you send 1000 reports to people who have downloaded illegally your film. This will cost you 17.000 pounds or around 20.000 Euro's. (this scheme will mean that the policy will be mostly used against highprofile downloaders). Without the legal costs they will have to get at least 20.000 Euro's out of court and take that they can eventually get successfully 100 people to court about this and take that each courtcase cost them take 20.000 euro's (if they standardize everything as much as possible), this means they will have to convince each time a judge to convict the person of courtcosts 20.000 euro plus 2000 euro mailingcosts + the copyright loss (mostly calculated in the thousands instead of hundreds) so take 30.000 Euro.
Imagine now a kid of 15 who is on the downloadlist and his mother didn't know and the father is out of work and the kid has problems at school and the baby is sick and you expect a judge to convict this family for tens of thousands of euro's because he downloaded some films ? What happened to alternative punishment ?
What this scheme is saying to the sector in fact is 'go after the illegal businesses and the hosters'
Take for example a junior clerk you pay 2000 euro a month to send DMCA letters based upon results that some software delivers every day and in which the DMCA contact addresses are already incorporated. Let's say he takes down 10 important downloadfiles for your film every day which otherwise would have been downloaded tens of thousands times (we are speaking about 2500 to 3000 links a month). In the meantime users looking for these illegal files get frustrated and end up paying for it at your own VOD service or some online VOD service that pays you, if it is not too expensive. Ideally it should be incorporated by the ISP as a new service (surely for older films that you don't see on tv anymore).
Sounds more efficient to me - and less PR problems.