The Register article paints a pretty dismal picture of this directive:
However, this directive fails to distinguish between commercial counterfeiting, and inadvertent individual copyright infringement. This means a 12-year old P2P file sharer, or someone photocopying pages from a library text book at university, is seen as identical to a large scale piracy operation filtering money into organised crime.
[…] As it stands, this directive grants some very scary powers to rights holders. Consider the Anton Piller orders: these enable rights holders to hire private police to raid a suspect’s home.
This was previously restricted to very rare, large commercial infringers. The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) points out that now, anyone who infringes copyright – even unwittingly – may have his or her “assets seized, bank account frozen and home invaded”.
The bill creates a new “Right of Information” that allows rights holders to obtain personal information on P2P file sharers. An ISP’s servers can be seized and destroyed with no hearing if one of their customers is alleged to have infringed a copyright.
It fails to define the term ‘intellectual property rights’, so interpretation will vary hugely from country to country when/if the directive becomes law, undermining one of the main objectives of the legislation: harmonising EU law.