If in the carriage of content, the issue has come up....
By the way, there are already provisions now that, again, don't allow ISPs and other Internet service ecosystem participants to take advantage of safe harbour if there's a court order that says something is infringing and they're ignoring it. Then it's pretty clear that if they are participating, they shouldn't be.
However, in a situation where there's no legal determination to say to somebody, “I think they're knowingly doing this and now I'm going to block their traffic”, that's putting a common carrier in the role of a judge of what should be carried down its pipes. That's why I'm saying that's a very.... If I were an ISP, I would tend to be conservative, and if the penalty is very large—let's say I'm opening myself up to very high statutory damages—I may be more tempted to take the risk of having the party sue me for getting it wrong, because it's a smaller amount of damages than to have to pay the large statutory damages, particularly for recurring offences, where every day is considered a new offence or whatever. I may now start meddling in that traffic because I'm worried about my liability.
We don't want common carriers to be in that situation.