Mark17

January 28, 2010 at 2:31pm

Since torrents are used for "illegal" activity we should block torrent traffic. Using that logic, that means that we should also make it illegal to drive cars. As we all know, a criminal's number one form of transportation is a motorized vehicle. Cars are used for trafficking drugs and used to transport stolen goods. So yes, lets ban driving vehicles. While we are at it, lets also ban running. When a criminal steals something they usually run to get away from the cops. So that means anyone that is running is a criminal. Sorry, no more olympics, baseball, soccer, or any other sport that requires you to run. And last, we should ban the use of phones since criminals use phones for illegal activities like selling drugs and talking about how they are going to kill their family. This all makes perfect sense, right?

linkmaster6

January 28, 2010 at 6:32am

If their real concern was high priority traffic getting bogged down by p2p connections all they really have to do is set p2p traffic at a low priority.

To hell with the RIAA, Copyrights, and DRM

Gailim

January 27, 2010 at 10:28pm

how can you block an entire internet protocol? are they retarded? I admit the majority of BT is probably for illicit stuff but there thousands of companies that use if for legitimate file distrobution. many Linux distro's do, as well as WOW's patch delivery service, and the list goes on.

if they throttle BT then Blizzard (amoung others) will probably drag them into court for hampering thier business

Neufeldt2002

January 27, 2010 at 8:57pm

Let's say they pass this draft, and let's say ISP's become required to block bittorrent protocols, all they are doing is making it so another protocol, one that is harder to stop, gets created. Pretty Dumb if you ask me, but that seems to be the case for politicians and the like.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

I wanted a signature, but all I got was this ________

Cache

January 27, 2010 at 8:33pm

And what happens when--as in many cases--only one or two internet operators in a service area decide to both block it?  While the government may like to create a law that excludes part of the internet based on the notion that it must be used solely for illegal activities, would the courts look so favorably on this?  I think while ISP's may win in the short term should this bill pass, it will be gutted by the courts and potentially open the way for even less 'management' then they are permitted now.

I would also be very curious to see how BitTorrent is legally defined, mostly because politicos often make terrible definitions.