It's the old discussion on how far Safe harbor and common carrier principles should go. Today however, there are many contradicting exceptions, where for example an ISP is seen as liable if their users infringes copyright or breaks any defamation laws, but not spam, scams or network viruses. ISPs also modify and change traffic (Traffic Shaping, DNS hijacking), but are not yet seen as liable when that modification goes wrong and breaks stuff (Traffic Shaping) or puts users at an increased security risk (DNS hijacking). Case in point, the game League of Legends had a large portion of the Swedish gamers cut off for about 2-3 months because of a broken Traffic Shaping rule, which meant that a large portion of users didn't get the service they bought, and Riot Games lost revenue.<p>Sure, the Pirate Party is testing the boundaries in this discussion, either "winning" points for principle if they get ignored or winning media attention if they get sued. But I for one welcome a more detailed look on safe harbor and how liable ISPs should be. If ISPs are forced to be responsible for anything bad going through their network (copyright infringement and spam/scams alike), maybe they will put some more cash into lobbying against being liable.
I'm really amazed it's still up. Especially as we've heard about the likes of newzbin and nzbmatrix shutting up shop in the last few weeks.<p>My only problem with the whole thing is that there's still no service, which many people would gladly pay a subscription for, that can replace them.<p>Come on content industry, give us a decent streaming or download service that releases tv and movies to the world at the same time they're released to the US, and much of this would go away.