Here we have a set of rules that are basically unenforceable.
“That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material.”
If you’re a connectivity provider you can’t effectively monitor all the traffic going through your network and still provide high quality service. The ISPs that have the most effective monitoring will provide the poorest service and lose customers to those ISPs that have less effective monitoring.
If you’re a hosting company it’s a similar problem. The servers on that network have an enormous amount of deep content that can’t easily be discovered through probing and can’t be discovered when going over an encrypted channel. Hosting companies charge for bandwidth. Are they going to charge their customers for bandwidth used while the hosting company is looking for copyrighted material?
“That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability.”
And that will stop them from going to another ISP? Preferably one that doesn’t shut of their own customers (and lose business) so readily?
“Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)”
Because it’s worked so well thus far.
Stuff like this is great. It wastes taxpayer time and dollars. The product serves to put pressure on the filesharers and make them better at what they do. I’d like to see some kind of evidence that DMCA has reduced copyright violation. I’m willing to bet that it’s gone up since DMCA was created.
If this goes through and we see that it does nothing to stop “the problem” can we finally agree that we as a society don’t have time for bullshit like this?