aka, why sue them, when you can get the ISP to cancel their internet.
I think the difference (my opinion here) is that cutting off someone's internet service, when they show a persistent refusal to comply with laws relating to their use of that internet service, is a reasonable and appropriate response, unlike suing them for thousands a song and pushing them into out-of-court settlements that are grossly out of keeping with their crime. I don't like the RIAA for their witch hunt mentality. I have no problem with combating piracy. I
pay for music, and that means that I'm paying for pirates' music too.
As for the ISPs, they
are under pressure to combat piracy overall, lest they risk the chance of becoming more exposed to liability should they be seen by the government as permissive with respect to it. Also there is a notable subset of pirates who use a
lot of bandwidth. Eliminating them or metering them provides better bandwidth and satisfaction for the rest of the customers -- the ISPs were doing that even without the RIAA.
Finally, the ISPs may have an opportunity to start selling "high risk" internet service to refractory users at elevated prices with special limitations, like is done with car insurance. Okay, now that one's me being cynical.
But as wrong as what the RIAA has
been doing is, I still think this is a huge step in the right direction.
