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?
New P2P Study Says that 20% of Europeans are File-Sharers
France to Ban Illegal File-Sharers From the Internet?
UK Govt Wants ISPs to Crack Down on Illegal File-Sharing
TVLinks Alternatives for Free TV Shows & Movies
Tips on how to not get busted for file-sharing
3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!
3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
uTorrent – A Beginner’s guide to BitTorrent downloading
News Tip? Comment? Suggestion? [email protected]
I've been interested in P2P since the early, high-flying days of Napster and KaZaA. I believe that analog copyright laws are ill-suited to the digital age, and that art and culture shouldn't be subject to the whims of international entertainment industry conglomerates. Twitter | Google Plus
Related Stories
- Australia Continues Plan to Have ISPs Filter ‘Inappropriate’ Content
- Limewire: ‘Congress Should Make ISPs Filter Copyrighted Content’
- RIAA to FCC: ISPs Need to Filter Content
- IFPI Want ISP’s to filter out P2P sites without court order
- RIAA Wants Anti-Virus Software to Filter Pirated Content?
They aren't going to point that out and they'll downplay that if anyone brings it up by throwing the wierder shiet that is also on TPB to overshadow that point no matter how legitimate it is.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like