Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering is Not a Viable Solution for US ISPs
Originally published: July 22, 2009
Last updated: July 22, 2009 - 9:41pm
Copyright filtering, the latest proposed "magic bullet" solution from the major music and movie studios and industry trade groups, poses a number of dangers to Internet users, legitimate businesses and US federal government initiatives to increase the speed, affordability and utilization of broadband Internet services. This whitepaper presents a number of reasons why the use of copyright filters should not be allowed, encouraged or mandated on US Internet Service Provider (ISP) networks. Among them: 1) Copyright filters are both underinclusive and overinclusive. 2) Copyright filter processing will add latency. 3) The implementation of copyright filters will result in a technological armsrace. 4) Copyright filters do not make economic sense. 5) Copyright filters will discourage investment in the Internet economy. 6) Copyright filters will harm free speech. 7) Copyright filters could undermine the safe harbor provisions that shield ISPs from liability. 8) Copyright filtering could violate the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act.
- Close Reading: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009
- When It Comes to Net Neutrality, the Future of Filtering Is Up for Debate
- President Obama: Tech in schools 'not a magic bullet'
- If you Believe in Broadband, free IPTV
- Internet filtering, parental controls remain ISP challenge, opportunity
- 'Controlled Serendipity' Liberates the Web
- Stephen King Says No to E-Book, to Scare Up Business
- Who's Running the Show -- the FCC or Hollywood Execs?
- Addressing the Wireless Capacity Crunch
- HR 3458 Internet Freedom Preservation Act
- Government contests offer different way to find solutions for problems
- FCC Commissioner Tate wants DRM, ISP filtering, new job
- Copyright Policy Should Encourage Innovation
- Open Networks Would Benefit Rural Consumers
- YouTube Should Not Be Required To Use Software Filters, Public Knowledge Tells Court