A bunch of folks have been sending over Rick Falkvinge's plea for ISPs to start refusing service to any company or organization that seeks to have them block access to others
. This is, of course, in the wake of the Newzbin2 ruling
"Any party forcing any of our kin anywhere in the world through a court of law to filter or censor any third part, or otherwise interfere with their communications, or threatening to use such force, directly or through an agent or membership alliance, and for whatever reason, shall have its identity and its business kicked off the net on all ports and all services. In transit, and at the end of the line. They shall be denied service and they shall be denied presence. For they who would deny communication to another, deserve no better for themselves."
It's quite a manifesto, and I certainly understand the sentiment behind it, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea for two key reasons. First, it's unlikely that any ISP will actually agree to this. Especially these days, when ISPs themselves think that they need to get beyond being "dumb pipes" and want to be in the content business themselves, too many of them no longer realize that they should be focusing on what's best for consumers. Second, and more importantly, I'm just not convinced that escalating a war stance is really that effective. I know it feels good, and many people here likely support this idea. But all it really does is continue to put the pro-copyright folks on the defensive and allows them to portray themselves as victims, rather than aggressors. I realize that some still view it as quaint, but I still believe that eventually the firms in these industries will come around to recognizing that it's in their own
best interests to embrace what the technology allows, and cutting them off from the internet won't bring them any further down that path... but instead would likely make them dig in harder on their original position.