They aren't interested in efficient filtering. Laws such as these are only selectively applied and are meant to give them leverage in negotiations and take-down requests ... after a treaty such as this one gets implemented, a content distributer will not think twice about complying with a DMCA takedown request. And such services will end up paying licensing fees even if all the hosted content is legit, simply because of the risk associated.

Well, of course. But we end up with such laws because the politicians don't have the technical knowhow do understand the full implications and the lobbyists don't really care as long as it's in their advantage.

This has the whiff of a law architected by the lobbyists. The politicians, as you put it, "don't really care as long as it's in their advantage."

The pre-meditation is particularly worrisome.

By increasing ISP liability they're trying to make the business of an ISP inherently risky and unprofitable unless they purchase content licenses.

So it's effectively a transfer of wealth from anyone who handles online content to the MPAA/RIAA.

Why would the cost matter if the result is only that the entrenched big boys solidify their position thereby?