Friday, October 20, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

ISPs Launch Legal Challenge Against Italy's New Pirate IPTV Blocking Law
Andy Maxwell, 20 Oct 08:41 AM

Pirate FireIn response to constant claims by Italy's multi-billion euro football and broadcasting sectors, that pirate IPTV services were "killing football" and there was no time to waste, this summer Italian lawmakers delivered.

Mandatory ISP blockades, set to take pirate streams offline within 30 minutes, were just one part of an overall package designed to turn the tables on piracy services and, if necessary, punish the Italian citizens who subscribe to them.

After being passed mid-July, the legislation received telecoms regulator AGCOM's approval just two weeks later. On August 8, 2023, the new law went live.

The new 'Piracy Shield' blocking system did not; according to the authorities, it simply wasn't ready. The system didn't go live in September either and thus far there's been no sign of it in October, or any updates indicating even a tentative launch date.

Meanwhile, work is pressing ahead to determine whether the law has a sound legal basis. The law authorizes preemptive blocking and since the aim is for that to take place within 30 minutes, and probably much sooner, blocking targets have no opportunity to mount an appeal and ISPs have no choice but to implement the blocks.

Warnings Fail to Prevent The Inevitable

Back in April, months before the law came into force, Assoprovider, a trade group that represents the interests of small to medium-sized ISPs, sent a memorandum to the authorities detailing its concerns over the proposals.

President of Assoprovider, Giovanni Zorzoni, feared the proposed blocking system would introduce a single susceptible 'point of failure' with the potential to undermine national infrastructure. The 'Mega-Firewall' of Italy could also expose ISPs to liability, while end users would ultimately pick up the bill.

After the proposals became law, Assoprovider raised the alarm again, warning that round-the-clock coverage to protect the interests of football clubs and broadcasters could cost an ISP 200,000 to 300,000 euros per year.

No problem for the multinationals, of course, but for small ISPs turning over 500,000 euros in a whole year, the costs could prove devastating. Claims that IPTV piracy costs Italy 10,000 jobs were countered by an Assoprovider estimate that the law could disappear 2,000 businesses in the ISP sector.

With those warnings having had little effect, Assoprovider has now launched a legal challenge in the Italian courts; part of that entails obtaining certain documents penned by the European Commission.

Technical Regulations and the European Commission

At the end of July, telecoms regulator AGCOM amended its regulation with Resolution 189/23 (pdf). On page four of that document, AGCOM states that pursuant to EU Directive 2015/1535/EU, a notification dated March 22, 2023, was filed with the European Commission.

The aim of Directive 2015/1535/EU (pdf) is to prevent the introduction of new technical barriers to trade. It requires member states to supply the European Commission (and other EU members) with details of planned technical regulations at the drafting stage.

A further reference to the same directive appears on page 10 of the AGCOM resolution; it states that in April 2023, the European Commission filed requests with Italy's Ministry of Business, seeking clarification on unspecified issues relating to the proposed technical regulations. AGCOM notes that after responding before the deadline, no further communication was received from the European Commission, so that was taken as a green light to press ahead.

No Public Access to European Commission Responses

After hearing of Assoprovider's legal challenge we discovered that searches of the Commission's vast library of documents were unlikely to surface its responses to notifications under 2015/1535/EU.

Fulvio Sarzana, a lawyer acting for Assoprovider in this matter, informs TorrentFreak that citizens in general are not granted access to the Commission's responses. Details are shared with individual member states, but organizations like Assoprovider have no access, even when they have a direct interest in the information.

Legal Challenge Banks an Early Victory

As part of the Assoprovider legal challenge filed at the Court of Rome, which targets the regulations issued in July 2023 and their implementation by AGCOM, Assoprovider requested access to the Commission's responses.

"[Assoprovider] already raised the issue ten years ago, when the anti-piracy provisions were issued for the first time: but the EU Commission denied us access to the documents on the assumption that they were non-visible documents," Sarzana explains.

"For this reason it is essential to see whether the AGCOM Regulation has been questioned by the EU Commission. We know the details of the anti-piracy regulation but we don't know if, following the Commission's findings, the rule has been modified, since a law in Italy was also changed."

This week Assoprovider landed an early win when the Lazio Regional Administrative Court granted the organization's request and ordered AGCOM to hand over the documents.

"[T]he Communications Regulatory Authority shall arrange for the filing of the documentary findings – it is repeated, as analytically identified – within the period of 60 (sixty) days from the notification, or, if earlier, from the administrative communication of this ordinance," the court's order reads.

So what revelations might the documents contain?

"[T]he anti-piracy provisions could be contrary to the Commission's observations, as well as, in our opinion, violating the principles of the right of defense established by the EU and the safe harbor rules established by the Digital Services ACT," Sarzana concludes.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Kiwi Farms' Copyright Battle Could Spell Bad News for DMCA Transparency
Ernesto Van der Sar, 19 Oct 09:08 PM

kiwiKiwi Farms is an online forum with a reputation for mocking and harassing people, actions that have been linked to several tragic deaths.

In response to the barrage of negative news, several third-party providers including DreamHost, DDoS-Guard and Cloudflare have all banned the site.

These voluntary curation actions are just the tip of the iceberg. Behind the scenes, many other services refused to work with the controversial site. Hurricane Electric, a Tier 1 Internet backbone provider, reportedly refused to pass on the site's traffic across the Internet.

It's no surprise that companies want to distance themselves from the highly controversial forum. However, it's a slippery slope when backbone providers start to censor speech on their own accord. Ideally, such restrictive measures should be backed by a court order.

None of the cases referenced above went before a court but Kiwi Farms and its founder Joshua Moon were sued for copyright infringement. A person who was systematically targeted through Kiwi Farms took the site and Moon to court three years ago.

Greer Sues Kiwi Farms

The copyright infringement claims were filed by Russell Greer, who was targeted by Kiwi Farms users when he sued Taylor Swift years ago. Greer wrote a book about his experiences and later recorded a song too. These copyrighted works eventually made their way back to Kiwi Farms, where pirated copies were shared by site users.

In response, Greer issued takedown notices to have his works removed from the site, but to no avail. Kiwi Farms' Joshua Moon refused to remove the content and published the DMCA notices on the site, openly mocking the author.

greer dmca

These actions prompted Greer to file a complaint at a federal court in Utah, accusing Moon of contributory copyright infringement. The complaint alleged that Kiwi Farms users infringed Greer's copyrights, that Moon was aware of this, and that he knowingly permitted these infringing activities.

Contributory Infringement Claim Fails

In a decision issued in 2021, a district court agreed that Kiwi Farms' operator was aware of the infringing activities. However, to establish contributory liability, a defendant must "induce, cause, or materially contribute" to the activity. The court found no evidence of that and dismissed the claim.

The district court sympathized with Greer, noting that "it sounds like people on Kiwi Farms have said vile things about him and made his life miserable," but concluded that his copyright liability claims fell short.

Greer wasn't pleased with the outcome and appealed the ruling. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concluded that the contributory copyright claims are indeed sufficient, so the case will now return to the lower court.

The reasoning behind the court's conclusion is interesting. For starters, the court of appeal agreed with the lower court that simply refusing to comply with a takedown notice isn't sufficient to establish contributory copyright infringement.

"We discern no error in the district court's explanation that contributory liability requires more than merely 'permitting' the infringing material to remain on the website," the decision reads.

Court of Appeal Views Publishing as Encouragement

In this case, however, the court of appeals believes that by publishing and mocking the DMCA takedown notice in public, Kiwi Farms' operator effectively 'encouraged' the site's users to continue their copyright infringing activities.

"Mr. Greer sent repeated requests to Mr. Moon, identifying the materials on which he held the copyright, as well as where and how his rights were being infringed. Mr. Moon not only expressly refused to remove the materials, he mockingly posted the correspondence to Kiwi Farms," the court notes.

"Under the circumstances, this is not the passive behavior of one 'merely permitting' infringing material to remain on his site. Rather, we conclude a reasonable inference from the facts alleged is that the reposting of the takedown notice, combined with the refusal to take down the infringing material, amounted to encouragement of Kiwi Farms users' direct copyright infringement."

not passive

Put differently, site operators are not liable for copyright infringement when they refuse to take action following a takedown notice. However, when they publish that same notice online, they can incur liability.

'What a Mess'

Summarizing pages-long rulings strewn with legal nuances isn't straightforward, but in this case the court's findings are puzzling to legal experts too. Law professor Eric Goldman points out several issues, including a mix-up of legal doctrines and how the court's conclusions have the potential to negatively affect takedown notice transparency.

"[T]he court seems to be saying that Moon's inaction was OK, but Moon's inaction + posting the takedown notice is not OK. What?" Goldman writes.

"This suggests that all contributors to Lumen have exacerbated their legal risk by providing greater transparency into the shadowy world of copyright takedown notices. That cannot be the right legal standard, and I am reasonably confident no other court would reach that conclusion. Oy, what a mess."

Indeed, the district court ruling was great news for online services, as it confirmed that they can't be held liable for refusing to act on a DMCA takedown notice. However, if posting that same notice publicly makes them liable, we might see less transparency going forward.

Of course, there are plenty of nuances to this case. Kiwi Farms' operator didn't automatically publish the takedown notice; Moon specifically selected this particular DMCA notice and openly mocked it. That 'active' choice may be seen as a crucial distinction.

The court of appeals ruling means that the matter will now revert to the district court for further consideration. Given the unique characteristics of the decision and its potential impact, legal experts will be following it closely.

remanded

—–

A copy of the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

270x90-blue

Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: