The ISP's should in no way be held accountable for someone elses actions. If you do the crime, you do the time, not the ISP. This is just stupid.

I am not anti-pirating by the way, It's just that I don't believe someone else should pay for someone elses illegal actions.

This is not good...

This would be the same as a family suing a car manufacture and a beer company cause a drunk driver killed one or more family members in a car crash caused by the drunk driver.

Enjoy your cigarettes and victory gin for those who support this.

it's not about what's right, it's about what's easy. ISP's are much easier to bully into solving the piracy issues then it is for the government. This shows you how the music and movie industry can lobby governments into doing their bidding.

The responsibility of the ISP should be similar to that of a landlord. If you weren't aware of your tenant's illegal activities, you shouldn't be liable for them. If you know some your tenants are doing that kind of thing, evict them.
The party accusing the subscriber should have to prove the subscriber behaved illegally, but if they are also planning to hold the ISP liable, they should have to prove that the ISP blatantly ignored the activities the subscriber.

oh this isn't good...

so when is Google going to come up with their own "internet"???

help!!!!!

I'm not sure what to comment on since this story seems incomplete. So how would ACTA affect ISP's responsibility to police downloads? Marcus, I am not one of your bashers, but this story is so important and you managed to write a a list of countries who are involved and countries which are not and the rest is left to my imagination. Unless your intention was for me to navigate over to PCWORLD and find out the full story there? Hmm...

Marcus, I'm sorry, f. me sideways, I missed the key paragraph... I am ashamed, and obviously semi-blind, sorry, visually impaired.

It's actually WAR!!!

Users will download something wrong on Internet (could be by mistake a virus or something).. and few days after Police will be at your door and you'll have no idea why.

I feel like... this is just stupid... They aren't able to check and stop the internet content, imagine for users...

I should sue gouvernment for not make Internet safe?!?

Mine's already doing it.

Why didn't they sue the cd and dvd companies back when people SOLD illegally copied material?
Stupid.

So telecoms can be held accountable for the small percentage of users who pirate, but they can't be held accountable for complying with Patriot Act wiretapping and other unconscionable privacy and rights violations?

Sweet! I can sue the Federal/State/County regulators for every car that cut me off on the road! Great Job regulators!

I hate posting repeatedly on the same story, but I have to respond to this. A landlord owns the property, whereas the internet is not owned - but you and I pay to get access to it. Legally speaking, there is distinction between those two things. The ISP job is to provide its customers with a service, and that service boils down to enabling me to connect to whatever content I desire to reach. In this case, why aren't the police retifying a law which states that the ISP is held responsible for one of their custmoers' child porn download, or bomb building instruction downloads? Come on, let's think clearly here.

thats what im thinking how stupid

Once again the politicians and officials a like show their utter lack of knowledge and understanding. Cold War and Industrial ways of policing and/or just plain doing things are rapidly fading away. The world changes yet they do not.

Absolutely ridiculous and a waste of time and tax payer money.

They can pass the law but it will never stand up to legislative scrutiny.

It's articles like this that actually make me happy I am a card carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA.

My bad. What I had in mind was illegal activities from a subscriber managing a web site hosted by the ISP. That's where my metaphor made sense.

With the wider case of someone accessing the Internet through an ISP and doing something that is illegal, the ISP should not be more liable for the subscriber's illegal activities than a company managing a toll road would be if a bank robber drove on their roads after a heist: They can't know what's in that robber's trunk. All they see is the car clearing the toll booth (hell, they can weigh it if they want, but that's the extent of their power).

Is that a better metaphor for you?

ISPs don't have the technology to do this level of policing. If copyrighted content is compressed or encrypted how on earth will they be able to tell what it is? They may suspect you are donwloading that new movie, but that's it...

Slashdot has a little better coverage on this issue:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/1 [...] d-Very-Bad

Americans need to keep in mind, Congress is the only authority in signing treaties. Which means the people and ISPs will have a chance to openly oppose it before the USA joins or ignores it.

Yeah, because people shouldn’t be responsible for misspelled words the manufacturers of the pencil (or word processor programmers) should be. That just feels right to me inside and makes sense in my head.

*wipe* *flush* Sounds like the Bill of Rights is being attacked once again.

This will never go through. It's just stupid. It's like blaming the workers that pave the road for ppl driving drunk on it.

So the big cats have finally woken up to the fact they can't sue Joe Average for $1.4 billion for downloading a poor cam of a movie he'd never pay to see in the theater.

Now to take it to the next level in the hope of an unjustified payday...

Remind me why I'm even buying movies again? True, it's only when they're $12 for three and I can find some I like in the local grocery store but still.

I want the telco execs fined every time a telemarketer calls me.
I'm on the no-call list, why should their exemption stand?

They can set up block lists, listen in on calls to see what the nature of the calls are, and allow or deny call attempts.

Is it that much different?

Holding the ISPs accountable for the actions of their subscribers is going to create a precedent where computer manufacturers could be held accountable or even automobile manufacturers held responsible for deaths caused in auto accidents. To me it just seems that the RIAA and MPAA and their lawyers are displeased with the meager sums their are able to get in judgments in lawsuits therefore they are going after bigger fish with deeper pockets, which in turn will be passed onto everyone in higher fees for internet access to cover the costs ISPs must account for in lawsuit insurance.

So somewhere in the near future if I make a threatening phone call, will Sprint be liable? This is so stupid it is hard to even digest. I know we aren't talking telephones here but why stop at internet traffic? Lets turn stupid into stupid supreme!

The idea is not surprising, personally I think the ultimate solution is a change to copyright laws. In my opinion someone who pirates a movie around or prior to its release in cinemas can be legitimately prosecuted, but a year or two later when the movie has been aired on free to air TV? I think at that point it is wrong to distinguish between people using their VCRs and people downloading.

Of course the idea of suing ISPs is flawed, if they legislate that then they will copy the business model of the UK magazine Private Eye...they will make sure their company is only worth £1 - the media can sue all they like!

Useless, especially if it won't affect countries where piracy is most rampant. I mean really, someone in Russia will have it on the internet and then all it takes is for someone else to to put it on a darknet that is not easy to monitor. Not only that, but what's gonna happen to places with free wifi? Is it the fault of Carl's Jr. if some kid goes in there with a laptop and downloads a bunch of crap while they eat their six dollar burger? That's just screwing things up for the rest of us. Down with this bill. Email your congressmen and Senators and tell them to shred this thing.