IFPI wants ISPs to filter P2P traffic

IFPI wants ISPs to filter P2P traffic
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has approached EU parliament with recommendations on how to "develop cooperations with ISPs", something that it hopes will lead to P2P filtering and blocked access to torrent sites such The Pirate Bay.

Basically, the IFPI had this in mind; ISPs should use acoustic fingerprinting-based filtering to block any unauthorized music transfers. This would, in effect, filter traffic through P2P apps such as Limewire. ISPs would also be asked to block any BitTorrent traffic.



"It is (...) possible for ISPs to block their customers' access to specific P2P services that are known to be predominantly infringing and that have refused to implement steps to prevent infringement, while not affecting regular services such as web and email."

Finally, ISPs should block all access to "infringing websites" that "refuse to cooperate" with the industry. A few of the sites quoted were Allofmp3.com and The Pirate Bay, a site the IFPI calls "an infamous infringing service locaded in Sweden".

Although this has yet to go anywhere, the EFF is already up in arms calling ISP filtering "an ill-considered and damaging quick fix."

Source:
P2PBLOG

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 26 Dec 2007 17:53
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 13 comments

  • nonoitall

    Quote:"It is (...) possible for ISPs to block their customers' access to specific P2P services that are known to be predominantly infringing and that have refused to implement steps to prevent infringement, while not affecting regular services such as web and email."This statement alone shows how out-of-the-loop the IFPI really is.

    27.12.2007 00:59 #1

  • eiamhere

    "refuse to cooperate"

    What more need be said. Still urging for more power to abuse than they already do.

    27.12.2007 03:45 #2

  • tester22

    Damn the following to HELL: IFPI, RIAA, BPI, MPAA, etc.

    I live in the U.S., Land of Lincoln (Illinois) to be specific and I say DAMN the U.S. for trying to police the activities of every other frakkin' country in the world. What crap. Blame it on Bush, whom I really really really really really F'en HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Can you say "FREE ADVERTISING"??

    Although it doesn't apply quite as much to the movie side as it does to the music.

    27.12.2007 11:55 #3

  • emugamer

    And with sites like TPB doubling it's peers, that's just more people ISP's are going to alienate and possibly lose. If they want people to stop using these sites, they should work harder to take the sites down with government aid. Not infringe on peoples rights. How about the legal uses for bittorrent? And infringing on the rights of those legit businesses that plan on using bittorrent to legally provide media? Since TPB is still up and growing, apparantley it has not been declared an illegal site. So why shouldn't a person be able to visit a legal site? Soon every country will be like China, filtering what we view. Take care of the legality of these sites first, before attacking the customer.

    27.12.2007 11:58 #4

  • P51ride

    tester22,

    Blame Bill Clinton for the DMCA. He signed it in to law. The entertainment industry needs to learn that the audience wants to be in control of their entertainment. This means that open format video and music must be used. The music industry is learning this lesson about 12 years after the fact by offering DRM free MP3 tracks. Lets hope that the movie and television industry will get the message soon and stop using the ridiculous DRM schemes that prevent watching TV shows or movies on any platform we want

    27.12.2007 14:22 #5

  • jacsac

    If I had any stake in bittorrent I would be getting my lawyers ready to sue for huge amounts of money. Blocking a legitimately used business software is equivalent to banning the manufacturing of knifes because they have been used in murders. Maybe they should just make it illegal to use your computer for anything other than buying products from government approved websites. It takes some real balls to think they can control peoples' freedom in the name of profit.

    27.12.2007 23:41 #6

  • 7thsinger

    Originally posted by jacsac: If I had any stake in bittorrent I would be getting my lawyers ready to sue for huge amounts of money. Blocking a legitimately used business software is equivalent to banning the manufacturing of knifes because they have been used in murders. Maybe they should just make it illegal to use your computer for anything other than buying products from government approved websites. It takes some real balls to think they can control peoples' freedom in the name of profit.Very nicely put jacsac

    As sad as this is, i cannot say i'm suprised.

    27.12.2007 23:49 #7

  • joe777

    Only 1 way to stop filesharing of any kind.
    Shut down the internet.
    Long live the Hydra

    28.12.2007 19:11 #8

  • borhan9

    All the isp's needs to do is give access to their users to programs that block ip addresses and then its up to the user to use them or not.

    29.12.2007 17:54 #9

  • zonedout

    p2p with data encryption will sink that accoustic fingerprinting filtering bullshit.

    31.12.2007 04:28 #10

  • Mez

    What they really need is a Bobby 24-7 in every house hold checking for piracy! Who cares about the cost! It is for freedom of the RIAA and to put a few more Euros in the lawyers pockets! If you grease the politicians well enough they will pass any law no matter how stupid it is.

    31.12.2007 16:45 #11

  • phobet

    They speak of it as "cooperation", when in reality it will be the ISPs, and their clientèle that will absorb the cost of this group activity. The real kicker here is that they want the ISPs to block access to those websites that "refuse to cooperate". The words "refused to cooperate" could be interpreted in many creative and "censorific" ways. If a site publishes an article denouncing the policies and procedures of the IFPI, they could be deemed an entity that "refuses to cooperate", and thus have access to them curtailed. This is scary to think about, as the mandate of the IFPI can change, along with it the different ways a website can "refuse to cooperate", without even realizing it. It can be used to silence critics if the IFPI, and force sites to "tow the line", in as far as the IFPI is concerned.

    1.5.2008 12:58 #12

  • Mez

    I don't know where IFPI has been. ISPs are hungry for band width so they can put HiDef TV channels on their old antiquated networks. They are hammering P2P legal or not.

    1.5.2008 16:44 #13

© 2024 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud