> this would achieve for copyright owners, but at the expense of the ISP, the suspension or disconnection by their ISP of subscribers from the internet, a remedy which would not be available to the copyright owners were they themselves to sue the subscriber
Isn't the whole aim of the court-case to bypass the courts so the copyright owners don't have to bother suing?
And they still haven't fixed the issue of "we had a gaming lan party at my house - who knows whose machine was hosting the torrents, or even whose account on the host the torrents were running under?" The rigor of law is there for a very good reason. This is not the same as saying you lent your car to someone and they ran a speed trap. There are plenty of reasons why you may not know what software is on your network, even a small home one.
Sorry, but that is the wrong way to do things. Commercial contract agreements are not a substitute for (criminal?) law. What happens to bundled services? Do they cut off your phone too? Foxtel as well? Who picks up the cost of the differential, given that nothing has been proved in court? Is this a cheap way to get out of a contract lock-in?
The whole attempt was a bucket of fail. Not just fail in execution, but fail in concept. It is not the way the law should work.