View Single Post
Old 25th November 2011
  #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
Court says ISPs can't be forced to monitor illegal downloads

interesting

personally I don't think ISPs should be the police here , they are just a carrier like the phone or mail company. At the end of the day its the individuals choice what to do with their internet feed , if they choose to do illegal activities that's the LEOs domain.

dont know about this bit though:

"European consumer organisation BEUC said the ruling should get authorities and companies thinking about a fairer way to provide easily accessible legal digital content for consumers."

"The online marketplace has proven fertile ground, consumers spend billions of euro each year," said Monique Goyens, BEUC's director-general. "Trying to criminalise individual consumers for file-sharing is just singing into the wind."

While they are correct about the difficulty in enforcement , more consumer options will still have little effect on file sharing. more consumer options would be great though. flat rate subscription service perhaps?
That's the first I've heard of any attempt to force ISPs to actually block illegal downloads.

In fact, AFAIK such an attempt is not only silly but impossible. How do you determine what is an illegal download?

You can't do it by protocol, as every protocol used by pirates is also in use for legal purposes and piracy is not restricted to any one protocol. You can't do it by content analysis because even in cases where analysis is possible it takes too long to do on a large scale - and in many cases analysis isn't possible such as multi-sourced downloads or downloads of files with multiple levels of archiving and encryption.

My guess is that this refers to a wrong-headed attempt to block or throttle Bittorrent traffic or some similar idiocy.

Note that this issue is totally separate from the issue of blocking infringing websites and from the issue of ISPs cutting service to violators who have been caught engaging in illegal activity, both of which are after the fact enforcement. This appears to be an ill advised attempt at proactive, before the fact regulation.