If you believed what you read in the papers as opposed to what is actually contained in the above response you could be forgiven for thinking that the proposals were intended to destroy copyright and were authored by some swivel eyed marxists who believe property is theft. Looking at the report this does not appear to be the case. Interestingly the response calls for evidence based decision making and comments that in this area there is "near total lack of evidence......combined with an overabundance of effective lobbying".
To stress the importance of IP the response highlights the fact that UK firms invest more in IP / intagibles (£137bn) than in tangible assets (£104bn). As a proud owner of a Brennan JB7 I can confirm that I buy CDs and then rip them on to the harddrive; technically an infringement. However I have purchased the product and should be free to listen myself in any way I wish. Addressing this anomaly and broadening the exceptions to copyright in this respect is correct. What is clearly not correct is me publishing the ripped file for others to enjoy (and perhaps making some money out of it) and thereby destroying the value chain for authors and publishers. Not a difficult distinction to grasp.
Where this is being done on an industrial scale the ISP's have their part to play however much they might lobby against it. Newsbin2 made this clear and hopefully any legislative changes will also.
KLipcorp will be providing a dataset to the DCMS as we have been actively monitoring this area and our data shows that commercial level piracy is rampant and supported, perhaps unknowingly, by blue chip advertisers.