What did he hope to achieve by this? Did he seriously think more people would vote Tory because they knew Tories were "Tough on copyright infringement". I know a lot of people myself included to whom this is a reason NOT to vote Tory (and it's not like we need many more of those as it is).

Hyperbole much?

Or just his Tory underpinnings showing through?

Looks like the recording companys have made another purchase.

Possibly they have offered to finance his Tory goverment concept album

Oh no! Somebody please call the waaaaaaaaambulance! "We're too rubbish to police our content, or come up with a viable business model in a changing world, so we should force somebody else to pay for, set up and maintain something which is not their job"... sounds good

If the movie and music industry bosses didn't some off as such a bunch of spoilt brats whose favourite toy has just been broken, maybe people would actually care more about this topic

When Tony Blair won against John Major, he did it by agreeing with everything Major said, but super-sizing it.

John Major "I will cut taxes and raise spending"

Tony Blair "I will halve taxes and double spending"

That worked, and so in all the elections after that, the Tories tried the same trick, agreeing but promising more of whatever Labour were promising.

So when people wanted a change of direction, there was nobody to vote for. Only Dumb Labour and Dumber Tories.

So now we have a bunch of Labour MPs spouting mindless rubbish.

Labour: "I will ban theRegister.co.uk because they advocate biting it! Biting is sexual abuse.".

Tory: "No that's not enough, theRegister needs to be locked up and the key thrown away. Biting can never be tolerated, even hand biting is like having gay butt sex with toddlers, I see no difference between the two!"

Of course they're just being dumb and dumber and the least electable is the Tories.

So if I get run over by a car on my way home tonight, I should go and sue the manufacturer of the car then Mr Cameron?

between the recording companies and British Leyland. Desperately seeking government intervention to prop up inefficient business models.

And why is Cameron supporting an industry renowned for its class A drug users? Or is that a silly question?

What a terrible PR move. It's hardly difficult to skew it into "The Tories will stop you from downloading music".

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this policy, the Tories are going to lose a lot of friends over this... a large proportion of those he's recently managed to persuade that he's green, not blue, in fact.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

"So if I get run over by a car on my way home tonight, I should go and sue the manufacturer of the car then Mr Cameron?"

No, no. Don't sue the car manufacturer. Sue the road builder.

We all know that it's the responsibility of the road builders to enforce driving laws. Make the roads narrower and full of potholes so that you can't drive too fast. Remove all roads near pubs. And build phone jammers into the road surface.

The utter lack of understanding displayed by Cameron in regards to this issue has just cost him my vote..... What a moron

Whilst I can see what Cammers is saying with regard to the content of music, he was already on dangerous ground with that but to compare copyright infringement with these other things is complete bollocks.

The stupid tory toff can go and f*ck himself, don't know who I'm going to vote for now but it won't be him, even when he backs down from it in a couple of weeks. In one statement, he's just shown his true colours in a whole range of areas in my opinion.

What a tit.

ISP's do not have to examine the contents of customer's data packet s in order to perform their normal contractual responsibilities to transfer internet data over their networks- they merely have to deliver the packets.

Identifying P2P would involve the examination of the contents of customer's data packets. This would consitute unlawful interception of communications under Section 1(b) the Regulation of Investigatory powers Act 2000 - in plain language, a wire tap.

Not even the police have powers to perform wiretaps en masse. Yet.

Thank goodness for someone who can clearly see through all the vested interests and spin to get right to the core of the problem

Its very similar to how I dealt with my junk mail problem, force the postman to eat any junk mail he pushes through my letterbox

> No, no. Don't sue the car manufacturer. Sue the road builder.

Not the cleverest of analogies. Road accidents and deaths have reduced fairly steadily in recent years exactly because the direction from the government to the local authorities has been to design the road system so that people are less likely to kill themselves, even if the traffic clogs up, rather than keep both the traffic and the fatalities flowing. So your analogy rather supports Cameron, not the ISPs.

"The stupid tory toff can go and f*ck himself"

Is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge sack of potatoes!

Whenever I see people use "toff" I can't help but think jealously has something to do with it. Who do you think you are? The whippet owning, black pudding eating, pigeon breeding, working class hero?

The ghost of Sir Oswald Mosely has reappeared in the guise of David Cameron!

Road accidents and deaths have reduced only in Government figures - but Hospital A&E statistics show that exactly the opposite has happened, they have increased. Making roads harder to negotiate puts more vulnerable road users (i.e. cyclists, motorcyclists etc.) in greater danger. But road policy is all about Cars as if they're the only thing that transits the highways.

Back on topic - the day we make ISPs police the Internet's content will be a very dark one indeed. But, as others have already said, Cameron has spouted off without thinking it through. Not only would such a precedent be undemocratic (unless it is in his election manifesto), but likely illegal in both UK and EU law as it is directly akin to wire tapping.

The solution to illegal P2P music sharing is not in the totalitarian direction the BFPI and others would drag us into.

In a effort to show how family friendly they are, the ISPs have shot themselves in the foot by blocking kiddie pr0n images. Once its obviously technically possible, they'll be compelled to block everything else. Lets face it, if you can rate-limit P2P traffic then you can block it as well.

Why do people, even here in comments, insist there is 'a solution' to P2P music/file sharing? There is not. If CDs were a pound a pop it would still go on - and any attempt to block/disrupt file sharing will just drive further innovation.

Everyone wants to put a stop to the evils of peer to peer file sharing and copyright violation, there's no doubt about that. He's sure going to win the Music Industry Mafia vote there. Unfortunately there are more of the rest of us than there are of them, and most of them are in the US; don't think he's quite mastered the whole democracy / populism thing yet.

I also read today he thinks Cannabis should be reclassified Class B because he thinks it may be responsible for an 'epidemic of mental health problems' in the UK. Again, that's just what the voters are clamouring for - well spotted, that man! He's really got his finger on the pulse. So far, assuming he's smoked a lot of it, he's the only evidence I've seen so far of a link between Cannabis and insanity...

This makes me happy. For a while there, I was seriously thinking about switching my vote to Tory. (Because of their policy on ID cards, in case you were wondering). Luckily, it didn't take long for them to do something monumentally stupid, and so it's back to the good ol' unelectable LibDems for me! woo!

Block this, block that, who decides; just phone 0888 PAYLOTS and tell us what you think should be blocked - you decide.

First there's obvious stuff to block - kiddie pr0n, etc. No problems there. Then there's copyright infringement - stealing food from the mouths of performers (that's the record industry that is!). Then what; block alternative thoughts, i.e. anything that the "Sun" and "News of the World" doesn't like?

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." - Martin Niemoeller

Cameron is a dangerous twat who will do and say anything for power.

"We all know that it's the responsibility of the road builders to enforce driving laws. Make the roads narrower and full of potholes so that you can't drive too fast. Remove all roads near pubs. And build phone jammers into the road surface."

Buckinghamshire is part way through this plan already. They're far ahead on the pot-hole plan (who needs maintenance when you can perform the occasional patch-job to hide the evidence after a fatal accident?)

The general excess of paperwork, levies rates and additional taxes have all but killed the pub industry (except for the chain pub, but we all want chain pubs, not independents don't we) - this neatly saves the problem of moving roads - probably because it's not considered "proper" to build roads with pot holes in them to start with.

As for phone jammers - well, I'm sure would be introduced except it would interfere with the plan to fit cameras into cat's eyes to surrepticiously check for speading - because we all know that it's speeding alone that kills, not the idiots overtaking round blind corners, those generally not looking where they're going, those not having a clue that a roundabout is called such because you go round it, not straight across, those too busy gabbing to passengers, those tailgating 5' behind other drivers, texting or chatting phones (hah, what ban?), or drunk/under influence of drugs type of driver... definitely speeding is the main culprit. Tends to catch those who are law abiding, with tax, insurance, dvla registered cars, not the others...

Is this man a moron?, or just a control freak facist?

I so want to vote Tory because this NuLabour government are incompetent unlike any other in history, but this!!??

This just another checkmark on my list of reasons NOT to vote Tory!!

Let's see...

the Post Office, 'cause people buy DVDs and CDs from overseas and get them shipped to them, making the various local music/movie companies mad.

The telephone company, for not regulating the late-night nuisance/abussive phone calls and not back-track them immediately.

Heck, anyone in the transport industry... I'm sure they're involved in some "carrousel" scam at *some* point in time. Doesn't matter if they knew it or not, they should have properly inspected they goods they ship.

No-one would even think of allowing the above... and yet, they are proposing the same concepts for ISPs...

For those Tory's who think that Cameron is an ignoramus, for all the reasons that people above have stated and for all those people who do not know who to vote for.

May I suggest you take a look at the UKIP. Given their attitude to ID cards, smoking, illicit drug use, direct democracy and just about everything else, I suspect they might have a similarly adult attitude to the internet!

I wonder if Cammers would be quite so happy with the idea of Royal Mail reading all his letters before they delivered them. Y'know, just to check make sure they don't contain anything immoral.

If checking traffic is to be the order of the day, then I can think of a lot more worthy things to check for than P2P traffic. After all, P2P is still a civil matter (for the moment). Surely, by definition, criminal matters should take precedent. It's hard to argue that P2P is more important than say terrorist-cell communications and criminal activity. If the principle holds, shouldn't Cameron be encouraging ISPs to screen all traffic for potentially illegal content? No? Or does it only apply when powerful lobby groups' pocketbooks are effected?

And if ISPs and the public at large DO accept the principle of screening P2P traffic, screening all traffic for illegal content is just a short step further. Then it'll be immoral content. Then it'll be anything the government don't like.

What an ignorant feckwit ...

But what is really alarming, like NuLabour, folk are really going to vote for this buffoon ...

Thank you for making my voting decision easy ... Cameron, you're an idiot !!

"In a effort to show how family friendly they are, the ISPs have shot themselves in the foot by blocking kiddie pr0n images. Once its obviously technically possible, they'll be compelled to block everything else. Lets face it, if you can rate-limit P2P traffic then you can block it as well."

A very good point - though I've no problem with the limited Cleanfeed system. Even if it didn't exist, the massive filtering systems currently in use in China, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere do demonstrate that it is possible to monitor and block what traffic passes on a network.

Of course it's also possible to subvert these measures through using proxy servers and anonymiser services etc - however if unlawful P2P traffic was blocked then many ordinary users might well be put off enough so they no longer bother downloading illegit music and video.

Only some would put the effort in to get round the restrictions - and the more effort a user has to put in to getting over the hurdles, the less they can argue they didn't realise they were breaking the rules (and the underground nature of this all might well further put off some who would otherwise be technically proficient enough to get past the blocking).

I'm not arguing in favour of the record companies, nor promoting DRM - just pointing out that as network technologies develop, blocking P2P etc may well be considered more and more feasible. This issue is far from dead - in fact perhaps Cameron has fired the opening volleys in the next stage of this battle.

Don't forget that the UK government and politicians will be particularly sensitive to the concerns of intellectual property owners in the 'creative industry' (record, television and film companies) as the sector makes up a significant chunk of our exports.