Almost all things can be used legally or illegally, whether it’s electricity, gasoline, water, hammers, nails, guns, knives, or even bandwidth on the interwebs. The maker or provider of a product or service has never been responsible for what a consumer does with what they pay for. If a consumer commits a crime with a product or service, it has always been up to the victim or the state to press charges against the victim, that’s just how it works. You’re supposing a scenario where the ISP takes the place of the judge & the RIAA takes the place of the jury. Surely you understand what you’re saying? Any sort of reprimand handed out by the ISP has to be voluntary, or else the court is delegating it’s responsibility to biased private parties. Can’t you see that’s a big deal?

At least that’s how I understand it.

when the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the EU Electronic Commerce Directive were drawn up, legislators were concerned to offer safe harbours restricting the responsibilities of ISPs who acted as a “mere conduit”. This was a different era: only a few hundred thousand illegal files could be accessed from websites. There was no inkling at that time of the enormous explosion of P2P piracy that was to follow

If the ISP’s wont educate the consumers and warn them of illegal file sharing, then the government will.

The time is near and is already being talked about. The internet is about to change!

It’s not GE’s responsibility to police what people do with their electricity. If someone is caught cutting the tags off a mattress with an electric saw powered by GE electricity, it’s not GE’s responsibility to cut the power. They don’t monitor what people do with their electricity, they just provide the electricity. If someone is caught doing something against the law, it’s up to the victim or the state to prosecute that individual according to the law. That’s just how things work. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

Furthermore, this all relies on labels’ requests. Someone is ACCUSED of sharing files, & then a second accusation means the termination of a service the user is paying for. Where’s the due process in that? Cutting the courts out of the equation is unconstitutional. If said consumer is found to be guilty, then by all means have their service discontinued. But we can’t abandon the idea of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” just because the music industry has been dragging it’s feet for 8 years.