I'm personally against this. I disagree with the whole premise, to say nothing of the Big Brother-esk powers contained within it.
I buy lots of music. Often times, I'll download something to see if I like it, then I'll buy it if I do. I'll also go see the band live, from which they make far more money. The only people really loosing out from the downloading business are the record companies, not the bands. Small bands gain potential exposure beyond their wildest dreams, while larger bands will not be impoverished by any supposed loss of income. This is all about the rich and powerful trying to protect their wealth and power.
At the end of the day some people are out to get whatever they can for free, but you can't legislate for this. Some people will download music for free rather than paying for it but you can't legislate for it.
The whole bill is an exercise in power by those afraid to loose their huge salaries and perks.
A key comparison is how bands react - most small bands are grateful for the exposure. It's only the larger ones who complain. At a recent Blaze Bayley gig he was talking about this and how people should buy the CD rather than download it. I downloaded it because I couldn't get it in time for the gig. I bought it too - and I'm glad coz not only are lyrics in there and artwork but a wonderful essay on each song and stuff about the album and all that. well worth it.
But I have the income to buy stuff now, which is dependent on my having a job which is what makes the KEY difference