I must say, the commentary is very poor. It's one thing being opposed to the proposed laws, but much of the opposition seems to be based in what is said about

I must say, the commentary is very poor. It's one thing being opposed to the proposed laws, but much of the opposition seems to be based in what is said about it rather than the proposed changes themselves. You've quoted that damages are "up to right holders, not a judge". But the draft explicitly says it will be up to the judge to consider, and that they may consider anything put in front of them. The commentary flatly contradicts the proposed wording. Much of the other text that is criticised is also quite standard in global law. For example, it's surprising that the passage about 'imminent' infringement is called out. Would the same criticism apply to stopping other crimes before they are committed, if they are known to be imminent? Courts the world over provide injunctions against this sort of thing. It's not new. In fact – and again contrary to the commentary – the real purpose of that paragraph is that it provides a heavy evidential burden against potential copyright suits and requires payment in advance just in case those suits are abused and that results in damage to the defendant. Much of the proposed text actually works to the benefit of the 'infringer' rather than to the detriment.