Seeks to target P2P services considered to be "predominantly infringing" and sites like The Pirate Bay that "refuse to cooperate with (copy)right holders."Copyright holders and lobbying organizations seem to be ceaseless these days in their efforts to get ISPs on board in their quest for total global content domination. They have been particularly busy in the UK and France with calls for outright banishment from the internet of repeated copyright infringing individuals. Now comes word that the IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, is outlining a specific strategy to be undertaken by ISPs and it isn't pretty. It claims that ISPs are not "sufficiently forthcoming in Europe," and that they could do more to address piracy on their networks, with music in particular. Of odd concern is that it wants ISPs to help it handle "...websites located in...rogue jurisdictions where no effective enforcement mechanisms are available." In other words, the IFPI wants ISPs to begin blocking sites like The Pirate Bay. In short, the IFPI lays out what it calls "...three technical options available to ISPs to control infringing traffic." 1. CONTENT FILTERING
2. P2P PROTOCOL FILTERING
3. WEBSITE FILTERING
Aside from the obvious technical infeasibility of the 3-part plan to end piracy as we know it, the strategy is filled with so many holes that it's hard to believe that they even bothered writing it down. I mean content filtering is just a ridiculous notion. Watermarks, fingerprints, or any other type of identifying information can always be removed or cloaked to prevent detection. With P2P protocol blocking they stand to face an uphill legal battle fighting popular file-sharing services like BitTorrent which have established legal outlets like BitTorrent Inc. and Vuze among others. Blocking access to "infringing online locations," The Pirate Bay being the presumed high profile target here, is also completely ridiculous. If a site like The Pirate Bay is able to operate legally in Sweden then why should it be cut off from the rest of the world simply because it's not legal there? More importantly, who will get to decide what sites do or do not get blocked? The courts? ISPs themselves? Or will it be the IFPI? My guess is it will be the latter in the guise of "piracy experts" making the proposal all the more disturbing. But, the biggest obstacle lies with the customers themselves. Only file-sharers really require a 1MB/s connection speed, and only file-sharers are willing to pay for the most expensive subscriber packages. When it comes down to it, web surfing and YouTube won't justify customers shelling out what they do now, meaning ISPs may as well kiss future profits and network upgrades goodbye. Looking for more stuff to watch or download?
|
|
|
And that is the bottom line...money!
and if isp's would do that then thyey be just like c******t and violate the users privacy. (we can do anything as long as we dont sell it)
is my opinion though
I think either way they're fucked.....history up until now proves it.
Thats not entirely true. People that play online games would need fast speed; as do some home businesses. But if ISPs do crackdown like this, its true that many people will most likely go back to dial-up (No need for a fast connection to surf most web pages or check e-mail) or the lowest broadband tier (For those that like content heavy webpages like Youtube or Newgrounds). Either way their profits are going to take a dive (and woe to those that recently invested in upgrading their network).