Yet another secret treaty, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP))

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You've repeated your assertion that blocking doesn't work.

Yes. That's because it doesn't work. No matter what technology an ISP uses to prevent one of its users from accessing content that someone else couldn't be bothered getting a court order to prove is illegal, that technology is trivial to circumvent.

I did read it the first time but if your only solution is forcing ip holders to individually sue every law breaker...

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. If a copyright holder has a problem with someone's behaviour, they can use due process to deal with them. The idea that they are "forced to sue" is like claiming that police are "forced to arrest" criminals.

...(without even providing them the information to do so)...

Nobody said anything about not providing information. If a court asks an ISP for information relating to a civil or criminal case, the ISP will provide it.

...then clearly I can refute that your solution does not work either and further a combination of both deterrents is clearly better than one or the other unless you can provide an alternative that would make both of them redundant?

You're wilfully missing the point. Asking me to come up with a solution to the problem of people stealing copyrighted material - when I'm neither the owner nor the thief - is ignoring the fact that I'm not a party to the alleged infringement.

Asking ISPs to put measures in place to prevent their networks being used for copyright infringement is like asking car manufacturers to implement countermeasures to prevent their products being used as getaway cars in bank robberies. The car manufacturer isn't a party to the robbery; the ISP isn't a party to the infringement.

That's the case in a lot of markets. The cost of hardware is one example that doesn't scale linearly with the number of customers an ISP has. Once this becomes law it will simply be a cost of doing business that every ISP has to deal with.

Imagine you were explaining to your local corner shop that they were going to have to invest several hundred thousand euros in a new security system. This security system won't benefit them in any way; it's designed solely to protect the products of one of their suppliers. Not only that, but it won't work anyway. You explain to this small retailer that it's perfectly fair to ask them to spend this huge sum, because Tesco will have to spend the same amount, so it's just a cost of doing business. When they complain, you demand that they come up with a better way of protecting their supplier's products.

I'm not demanding that the movie studios fork out money to avoid my legal bills. I'm at a loss as to why I should have to fork out money so they can avoid theirs.

How exactly do you plan to have "IP holders" pay for the cost of ISPs blocking illegal sites? That sounds less practical than the current plan.

It's not my problem. It's theirs. They're trying to make it my problem, and you seem to think it's perfectly fair for them to do so.

Maybe they should make it your problem instead of mine. Would that be fair?

Given that you don;t believe blocking will work and you agree individually sueing lawbreakers is impractical how would you approach this problem? I'm all ears.

I'd make PC manufacturers pay for it. After all, they're making the computers that are used to download illicit content.

</sarcasm>