It’s quite funny really, they are spending a fortune on something that will get cracked inside of 2 days.

ISPs (at least in the US) are NOT required to cooperate with you, your organization, or similar organizations UNLESS you bring them specific, credible evidence of a specific copyright violation. ISPs are specifically exempt from being held accountable for their customer’s behavior on line. It is not the ISPs job to be the copyright police for you. It’s unlikely they currently have staff trained in the nuances of copyright law, nor is it likely they wish to invest in the training required to raise the skill level sufficiently. Care to chip in to pay for that?

Contrary to what you might believe, and what you are trying to convince politicians to believe, not every file that is shared on filesharing networks is a copyright violation. The entire class of files known as ‘fonts’ have been declared by the US Copyright Office to be ineligible for copyright on the basis that no one can copyright the alphabet or any portion of it. The font names can be trademarked, but the actual typefaces are public domain.

How is anyone from an ISP, or from the IFPI, or the RIAA, or your lackies at MediaSentry, et al going to know if the file ‘yyj327x.rar’ is going to decompress into .mp3 files of the current #1 album or .mp4 files of someone’s poodle acting like a nutball? Even if the file in question turns out to be Dark Side of the Moon, who is to determine conclusively that it’s infringement? If I own said album, I’m entitled to create a copy of it for backup and archival purposes. Furthermore, I get to decide how to create the backup copy, not you or your cartel brethern.

And please, don’t whip out your copy of the Grokster decision and start beating some ISP CEO about the head with it. Grokster was about products. “Use our PRODUCT to connect to your favorite filesharing network. See OUR partners’ ads. Receive OUR spam, etc.” ISPs are providing purely a service. For the most part, they don’t care what kind of computer you have, what web browser you use, what type or size of monitor you have, or if you type 170 words a minute or barely get by with one finger.

Yes, Mr. Kennedy, it’s very easy for an ISP to determine if someone has not paid their bill and terminate their service. Paying a bill is a discrete and deterministic activity. Either accounts payable has gotten $32.47 from Mr. User or they have not. They don’t need to snoop on his activities on line to determine this. The logic contained in your assertion is a classic fallacy known as “affirming the consequence”, whereby the consequence is being true erroneously implies the antecedant must also be true, when in fact if the consequence is true, it matters not what the antecedant is. (There is a related fallacy called “denying the antecedant.” See: http://www.wwco.com/religion/believe/believe_02.html for a summary of these types of fallacies.)

What if instead of spending your time attempting to coerce and threaten ISPs into eradicating filesharing (including the legitimate kind,) you invested that time in developing, testing, and deploying a workable new business model for digital content distribution over a very Wide Area Network with little in the way of centralized control? Wouldn’t that feel more constructive and productive than just paying lawyers to file lawsuits that have a tendency to explode (Chan, Nelson, et al) in very messy and embarrassing ways?

–TurboGeek

Of course this will never work and shows the ignorance of the media cartels. Are they going to be asking the mail to check the contents of every envelope, or the phone companies to check the contents of every call?

This is just the usual noise from the cartels with no substance and displaying their ridiculous “spoilt child” stance.

1) Why is the IFPI’s archaic business model failure an ISP concern? Are the people who look after the roads responsible for making Fords sell better? (Not a shot at Ford, just an example).

2) It’s like telling GM ” you can reposes cars from people who don’t pay their financing, so you should you reposes cars from people who speed”

3) Copy rights are an agreement between the people and creators/artists to allow the public access to works, but also allow the creator/artist get income so they can continue to do what they do. So government, as the peoples representative, should do what it’s suppose to do; act in the best interest of the people. That would be allowing copy right for LIMITED time, i.e. until the cost of creation + reasonable amount where recovered, not to help some multinational corp. rake in the cash.

4) Funny that as intermediate companies that screwed over both the creators/artists and the consumer, for years, they are turning to other intermediate companies (MS, Apple, any DRM company). I mean they must see what is coming: The ‘new’ intermediate companies who own and control the ‘new’ means of distribution, will do to the ‘old’ middle men what the ‘old’ middle men did to the creators/ artists and consumers. They will be the ‘new’ middle men and in turn screw the ‘old’ middle men, the creators/artists and the consumers.

What a nice situation: no more legal competition for the record companies.