National carriers have no obligation to data packets, regardless of origin or destination. Go ask China. I'm not saying discrimination is the right thing to do, but sovereignty of national laws means that localities have a right to mangle imported or exported data however they wish.
Except this isn't about nations "mangling" packets. It's about enforcing copyright laws accross borders.
"How the internet works" is purely a function of how national authorities wish it to work for those in their nation.
Only if they want to break the internet in some measure. Generally, I don't see any real interference of note with how the internet works.
Routing behavior is not guaranteed to comply only to client or server directions anywhere, even in the U.S.. See, e.g., AT&T rerouting data to secret data-collecting servers belonging to the NSA inside the U.S.
Except you're quoting exceptions, not generalities. None of that is necessary to transmit packets between the client and server. This is something completely different.
Since you're in the U.S., call in such a threat to someplace where the U.S. doesn't have specific telecommunications treaties in place, say, Mauritius, and let me know when you've been prosecuted on U.S. soil.
I see that statement completely non-sequoter to my example. My example showed how rediculous it would have been to prosecute the message-carrier instead of the perpetrator.
By your own definition, packet shaping looks at port and protocol information in a packet. Thus, the ISP is not 'oblivious' to the data in the packets that passes over its lines as I asserted, no?
I don't like battles of semantics. by 'Data' I obviously meant that which would constitute copyrighted material. ISPs simply have no idea of the true content of what's going accross the network. All they read is what's necessary to route the information. They know the IP address that's requesting the packet and it's destination. They know it's port of transmission and destination and a few other things pertaining to handshaking and transmission. The internet wasn't designed to care what's contained in a packet.
And this, my friend, is entirely the point. Why should IMSLP, operating in Canada, be beholden to copyright restrictions in place in Europe? Imagine the possibility of someone in Toronto being levied a $180,000 Euro fine for delivering another Canadian citizen a music score that is clearly in the public domain in Canada, because some ISP in between happens to route part of their traffic through Ireland because it's cheaper. Is that fine justified in any way?
absolutely no argument.
Great. Consider that many of us here on the IMSLP forums consider UE's claims equally wrong. I assume, then, that you're on IMSLP's side, and are perhaps suggesting that Universal Edition should be going after copyright infringers in the territories covered by their copyright instead of after IMSLP?
Not a lawyer, but I see a lot of difficulty in UE prevailing legally. Morally I think they're in the wrong. I appriciate that they're trying to protect their copyright interest, but given the fact that they know their copyright has enjoyed protection at the internationally agreed duration in Canada, and how heavy-handed they persued this according to the C&D letters, i am a bit dissapointed in their handling of this situation. Given that they knew all of this and decided to lawyer-up instead of applying restraint and amiably negotiating first is upsetting. It's corporate bullying through lawyers.