The burden of proof lies with the blocking campaigners

When new demands are made for Swedish internet service providers to be forced to block websites such as The Pirate Bay and Swefilmer, it is easy to get the impression that it is only about the rights holders' right to protection against pirates. This is wrong. In fact, it is completely wrong.

It is also about what power and responsibility an internet service provider (ISP) should have over communication between internet users. Which, regardless of what you think about illegal file sharing, is a bigger and more important social issue than the ability to stop pirate sites.

As society becomes more dependent on IT, it is gratifying to see that issues relating to central digital infrastructure and other technological conditions have moved from the specialized press to the mainstream media. When, for example, society-critical IT-dependent businesses are wide open to attack through negligence, when the conditions for freedom of information and the dissemination of culture are threatened by restrictions, it is now reported with great impact in our largest media.

For those who have not reflected on it, it is worth recalling that the internet is the main driver of economic growth, freedom of expression and information, and individual participation in society today. At its core, the system is built on trust and has a fairly complex governance model. In short, the long line of networks that carry traffic around the world are dumb, i.e. the network does not interfere with what data is or how it is transported from a to b. This is commonly referred to as the principle of net neutrality - and it is the most fundamental success factor for the development and spread of the internet. By comparison, consider how customs inspections at every intersection would affect the use of the road network.

Making ISPs responsible for what their customers do, or what information they access, creates an undesirable incentive for them to interfere to a greater extent in how and with whom their customers communicate and what information they pass on. Neither ISPs nor their customers want this, as it risks undermining trust in the relationship between service provider and customer. As a side effect, it also contributes to a more closed and less valuable internet.

Instead, those who want to reduce the impact of piracy should do two things.

Firstly - go for the pirate sites' ad-based payment streams. If they don't get money, the sites can't be run.

Second, develop good, legal offers. It works. Even when you have to compete with free. Ask Spotify, which has so far distributed more than two billion USD to rights holders. As a bonus, they also suffer less from piracy than other rights holders.

But what about blocking? The question no one has asked the blocking zealots is - does it work? Is there support in research and past experience? Does it, relative to other measures (see above), make any difference over time? The answer to that question is that the rights holders who are now suing Bredbandsbolaget, and all the media companies that have supported them, owe us internet users.

So far, there has been dead silence on that front...