Originally Posted by Black Magix
That's why most don't even go near that hill, much less look over it to see how far down the drop is.. However (I can't read the article) if they were filtering ANYTHING of their incoming traffic then it's considered and thereby ALL incoming traffic is considered filtered. Put short: if my ISP said, "We're not allowing any traffic on port 666 (Doom 1 for those that didn't know) incoming to our isp." Anything I do from that point on is considered the fault of the isp...
Real world example: Several universities have actually lost lawsuits on this kind of thing for the internet they offered to their dormitories. Now the student got all sorts of a crap storm raging their way but the university was held at fault.
Indiscriminately blocking traffic on certain ports or protocols is one thing. If the block port 666, everything on that port gets blocked regardless of whether it's Doom 1 or a folding client. If they block everything on the UDP protocol, everything gets blocked regardless of whether it's bittorrent or anything else.
It's also very cheap and easy for the ISP's to do that.
But what the rights holders want is to block only their content (or disconnect the people sharing it), regardless of what port or protocol. That means scanning every single packet of data on every port of every protocol for matching content, determining that it isn't a person making a backup to an off-site backup facility, isn't obtaining a copy of something they already legitimately own, isn't covered by fair usage and is definitely an infringement by the person who holds the account, rather than a neighbour who has connected to the network.
In this particular case, it's even more absurd. The rightsholders simply send a list of IP addresses to iiNet and expect them to send warning letters or suspend the accounts. No evidence, methodology or anything else convincing at all. It would be the responsibility of the accused to actually find out why.
Here's a similar (hypothetical) situation:
A photographer stands at the side of a busy road and photographs a number of cars driving along. He then sends a list of registration/license plates to the department of transport (or whoever owns the roads) and demands that they send speeding tickets or revoke their licenses for speeding.
Once the drivers have received warnings/been suspended, it is their responsibility to find out why, and what evidence was submitted.
A snapshot of the vehicle does not show any evidence of speed, it's just a snapshot of a single moment.
That's pretty much exactly what's happening. Wouldn't you then agree that the department of transport shouldn't send out warnings or issue suspensions until the accusers can provide substantial evidence?