MEF CEO Dario Betti explores the Italian telecom regulator launched its Piracy Shield tool, an automated system intended to combat the piracy of paid for content in Italy.
Italian telecom regulator launched its Piracy Shield tool in February 2024 to combat the illegal streaming of live events, particularly football matches. This automated system was the response to a new anti-piracy law passed in July 2023. The tool allows rightsholders to demand the blocking of websites suspected of copyright infringement. The platform’s implementation represents a significant step in Italy’s fight against online piracy, but it has been met with both praise and criticism. Here we explore some of the successes and controversies surrounding the Piracy Shield, and consider if Italy is tracing a successful path to all.
Initial Success and Rapid Blocking Mechanism
The Piracy Shield boasts an impressive track record. Since the start of the football season, it has blocked over 1,000 online domains and more than 500 IP addresses associated with illegal streaming. In its early days, the platform demonstrated its rapid blocking capabilities, effectively disrupting the illegal broadcasting of Serie A football matches. Within 30 minutes of receiving reports from rights holders like sports leagues, AGCOM, Italy’s regulatory agency, blocked 65 DNS and 8 IP addresses. This swift action is mandated by Italian law, requiring ISPs to block reported sites within 30 minutes of notification. Users attempting to access these blocked sites are redirected to an AGCOM landing page informing them of the reason for the block.
The Piracy Shield’s automated nature, a key aspect of its design, was recently highlighted by Giacomo Lasorella, the president of AGCOM, as its critical success factor. He stated that the platform, in its simplicity, has not malfunctioned, and any issues arose from errors in reporting rather than technical flaws. This automated process, combined with the participation of ISPs serving over 80% of the Italian online market, showcases the system’s comprehensive reach and potential for effectively tackling piracy.
Concerns Regarding Over-blocking and Transparency
However, Piracy Shield has also drawn criticism, particularly regarding over-blocking and lack of transparency. Critics argue that the 30-minute blocking rule, while intended for rapid action, is flawed due to the complexity of the internet. The process of blocking websites is not straightforward, especially with the prevalence of shared IP addresses.
The Piracy Shield’s automated nature, a key aspect of its design, was recently highlighted by Giacomo Lasorella, the president of AGCOM, as its critical success factor. He stated that the platform, in its simplicity, has not malfunctioned, and any issues arose from errors in reporting rather than technical flaws.”
The Piracy Shield’s reliance on blocking IP addresses and DNS raises concerns. Shared IP addresses are common, and blocking an entire IP address because one website hosted on it is involved in piracy unfairly affects other legitimate websites sharing the same address. This is comparable to shutting down an entire shopping mall because one shop sells counterfeit goods. This over-blocking not only infringes on the rights to freedom of information and expression but also harms legitimate businesses that rely on these websites. Cases of over-blocking, such as the blocking of Cloudflare’s IP address in Italy and Austria, highlight the potential for collateral damage.
Google Drive was also mistakenly blocked by the Piracy Shield on 19th October 2024 as a result of an error made by the sports streaming service DAZN, which had been accredited to use the Piracy Shield platform. Google Drive was restored the same day. The incident with Google Drive prompted AGCOM to issue a warning to DAZN to be more careful about the blocking requests it submits. But the incident has also emboldened critics of the Piracy Shield, including the ISP association ASSOprovider, who are calling for a full review of the system.
The automated nature of the Piracy Shield also contributes to a lack of transparency. The absence of third-party checks and balances raises concerns about the accuracy of IP address blocking and the potential for abuse by rightsholders. The lack of transparency extends to the legal basis for blocking orders, the duration of blocks, and the availability of redress mechanisms for those wrongly affected. Critics argue that this lack of transparency, coupled with the rapid blocking mechanism, leaves little room for due process and recourse.
Agcom internal debate
Elisa Giomi, a member of the AGCOM board, has publicly criticised the Piracy Shield. Giomi believes that the Piracy Shield platform should have been suspended. Giomi was appointed to the board in 2020 and has a strong background in the field, having authored over 70 publications. Her criticism comes after AGCOM resisted calls to suspend the Piracy Shield in the wake of the platform mistakenly blocking Google Drive. Giomi’s criticism is notable because it suggests that there is not unanimous support for the Piracy Shield within AGCOM itself.
She argues that while the fight against piracy is crucial, but in its current form, the Piracy Shield fails to achieve its objective and creates unsustainable risks for companies and users. She has distanced herself from the initiative since its inception and has voted against it at every stage. Giomi acknowledges that the platform has blocked over 25,000 domains and 7,000 IP addresses since its launch. However, she emphasises that it has also generated controversy and chaos.
Giomi believes that the donation of the Piracy Shield platform to AGCOM by the Lega Calcio (Italy’s top football league) is ambiguous because the Lega Calcio is also one of the few entities authorised to report alleged copyright infringement.
Giomi lists several issues with the Piracy Shield:
- AGCOM’s decision to adopt the platform was made hastily.
- There is a lack of transparency in the awarding of external consultancies.
- There has been no willingness to evaluate alternative solutions.
- Remedies to problems that have arisen have been “uncertain and delayed”.
- Sensitive information about ongoing proceedings has often been disseminated, despite the need for confidentiality.
Giomi voted in favour of a formal warning to DAZN because the platform’s malfunction does not justify incorrect reports.
Effectiveness and Circumvention
The effectiveness of the Piracy Shield in curbing piracy is a subject of debate. While initial successes are notable, concerns exist about the system’s long-term sustainability. Bad actors can easily circumvent blocking systems by changing IP addresses and subdomains. This dynamic nature of the internet, coupled with the prevalence of alternative methods for accessing pirated content, such as Telegram, poses a challenge to the Piracy Shield’s effectiveness.
Critics argue that focusing solely on blocking websites does not address the root cause of piracy. Targeting hosts and distributors of pirated content should be prioritized, rather than placing the burden on ISPs to block content for local users. Additionally, the Piracy Shield’s focus on supply-side blocking might be insufficient. Addressing the demand for pirated content through measures such as promoting legal and affordable alternatives could prove more effective in the long run.
Calls for Review and Reform
The controversies surrounding the Piracy Shield have led to calls for its review and reform. Critics advocate for a more nuanced approach that prioritizes transparency, due process, and the protection of legitimate online activities. The focus should shift from blocking entire websites to targeting specific infringing content, ensuring that actions are proportionate and do not result in collateral damage.
Recommendations for improvement include:
- Involving stakeholders: Consulting experts in internet infrastructure, digital rights, and content moderation could help refine the Piracy Shield’s mechanisms and mitigate unintended consequences.
- Strengthening transparency: Publishing clearer guidance/ legal basis for blocking, allowing for third-party audits, and providing clear redress mechanisms would enhance accountability and trust in the system.
- Shifting focus to demand-side measures: Exploring strategies to reduce the demand for pirated content, such as promoting affordable legal alternatives and public awareness campaigns, could prove more sustainable in the long run.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance Between Copyright Protection and User Rights
The Piracy Shield represents Italy’s commitment to combating online piracy. However, the system’s implementation has revealed shortcomings that require careful consideration. While the rapid blocking mechanism and initial successes are noteworthy, concerns persist regarding over-blocking, lack of transparency, and the potential for abuse. Moving forward, striking a balance between copyright protection and safeguarding user rights is crucial.
Reforming the Piracy Shield to incorporate greater transparency, due process, and targeted blocking mechanisms would address many of the criticisms levelled against it. Additionally, complementing the system with demand-side measures could prove more effective in curbing piracy in the long run. Ultimately, the goal should be to create a robust and fair system that protects intellectual property rights without unduly infringing on the rights of internet users and legitimate businesses.
