Based on what's written in the article, this looks like another case of an "intellectual property rightsholder" placing the financial burden of enforcing strict

Based on what's written in the article, this looks like another case of an "intellectual property rightsholder" placing the financial burden of enforcing strict copy protection on a third party. This is similar in action to the infamous COICA and PROTECT-IP acts in the US. It's wrong on a bunch of counts, but primarily it puts liability for some act on the wrong group of people.