Hmm. So if neither AOL nor Freenet themselves monitor traffic (which I'm inclined to believe), then that means the mere accusation by a third party (some representatives of the music industry) with evidence created by them (since no one can verify whether their log file excerpts have any connection to reality) is sufficient to threaten a user with contract termination? That the music industry has a very strange relationship with its rights is well known - they like to adopt a "shoot first, ask questions later" behavior. But the fact that providers are now complying out of excessive deference is already concerning. Where are consumer rights in all this? This simply opens the door wide to arbitrariness. And that the self-proclaimed internet experts of the music industry would have scruples about simply blanketly accusing file-sharing users, well, no one will believe that, will they? There's also the question of how they actually want to prove anything. Most file-sharing networks work in such a way that the actual transfers (and only these are potentially rights violations) take place between file-sharing users themselves - that is, from host to host. Other computers in the system normally don't notice anything. So someone must be putting data on the network that is subject to foreign copyright, and wait until the transfer takes place. In Germany, I believe that falls under "incitement to commit a crime" - and whether a provider should then cancel a user's contract on such a basis, I do find questionable. Not that file-sharing networks particularly interest me - but the whole procedure stinks to high heaven. It's the same nonsense as the incitement to copyright infringement that a Munich aristocrat pulled off years ago.
At heise online news there's the original article.