With a legal provision that came into force on 8 August 2023, the Communications Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) is invested with new powers in order to combat, in a more effective and timely manner, all online piracy actions involving unauthorized transmissions of online streaming events.
The legislation introduced the concept of Piracy Shield, the AGCOM platform to combat pirated streaming. In the past we have had the opportunity to present how it works in detail, also focusing on lights and shadows. Specifically, telecommunications providers must take action to block IP addresses of the systems used to disseminate materials protected by copyright (essentially football matches and sporting events in general), when this occurs without any authorization.
Rights holders (for example television networks and streaming platforms that disseminate content) can access the Piracy Shield platform to report crimes and obtain almost instant blocking of “pirate flows” (within 30 minutes).
The initiative supported by AGCOM therefore represents a clear “change of pace” compared to the past because on the one hand it increases the responsibility of the providers who not only must take action to promptly block unauthorized streaming but are required to verify that the “censorship” actions do not impact legitimate customers, for example those who – without their knowledge – share the same public IP address with “digital pirates”.
Tug of war between AGCOM and Assoprovider on Piracy Shield
Assoprovider is an association that brings together some of the main medium-small Internet service providers (ISPs). Founded in 1999, Assoprovider plays a significant role in the sector, contributing with a series of activities aimed at the promotion and management of online communications.
The association had asked AGCOM to provide the access to documents of the Piracy Shield platform. Specifically, Assoprovider observed that some of the inhibitions arranged through the platform, seemed to have also involved subjects completely unrelated to audiovisual piracy activities.
As we mentioned previously, in fact, these “side effects” can be quite frequent because situations in which multiple websites, attributable to different entities, are hosted on machines that respond to the same public IP address are extremely common. In another article we saw how to find out who owns a domain and which other sites are hosted on the server. Let’s take the same service for example proxy Cloudflare: An incalculable number of websites often respond to the same public IP address, whether IPv4 or IPv6.
Assoprovider’s request transmitted to AGCOM
By fundamentally contesting the functioning of Piracy Shield, Assoprovider had urged AGCOM to share the list of “access inhibition measures“, implemented through the platform. This, as explained previously, is precisely on the basis of the fact that the “censorship actions” ordered by those entitled have often penalized even subjects who had nothing to do with the piracy activities, causing damage to their legitimate interests and their business. .
Assoprovider explains that its request was rejected by AGCOM just as completely similar requests made by other citizens involved were also rejected, completely without blame, “in the indiscriminate blocks implemented by the platform“.
AGCOM fines Assoprovider for obstructing supervisory activities
In its brief comment, Assoprovider claims to have actively participated in the working table established by the Authority on the subject of fight against illegal activities as long as she was allowed. He also asked AGCOM for explanations as to why it had to provide the list of Europen providers at a certain point. In detailing her point of view, Assoprovider observes that “these data are already in the possession of AGCOM, which is the manager of the public register of communication operators (ROC) and which knows, as stated in its defense briefs before the Lazio TAR, the identification data of all network operators and communication services“.
Taking a stand against the Piracy Shield platform from the beginning, presenting a appeal to the TAR, subsequently rejected, Assoprovider describes the anti-piracy system adopted as a solution that is causing much discussion and puts its foot down. Although it does not expressly cite the AGCOM resolution with which the Authority decided to sanction Assoprovider, the organization – also through its president Giovanbattista Frontera – makes it known that it will continue to fight in all available legal and jurisdictional venues. The objective would be to affirm constitutional rights and the recognition of citizens’ right to a fair defense.
AGCOM’s decision towards Assoprovider, in detail
Although the news of the fine against Assoprovider only came to light in the last few hours, with a simple search on the AGCOM website we ascertained that the sanctioning measure dates back to 19 March 2024.
According to AGCOM, Assoprovider has not provided any well-founded reasons to justify thefailure to communicate of the list of members, which other similar associations publish on their website. Furthermore, “contrary to what was observed by Assoprovider, the databases available to the Authority (Public Register of Communication Operators and list of subjects requesting general authorization for the supply and electronic communication services at MIMIT) do not provide any elements in order to the operators’ membership in the Associations“, we read in the Authority’s resolution.
AGCOM harshly criticizes Assoprovider’s behavior, describing it as particularly serious conduct: “the Authority’s knowledge of the list of Assoprovider members constituted an essential requirement for the effective functioning of the platform, as clarified during the work of the technical table“.
Downstream of the disputed violation, the Authority thus decided to impose a fine of 1,032 euros on Assoprovider, also warning the association from continuing with its behavior up to now. The dispute can however be challenged and disputed before the TAR of Lazio within 60 days.
Opening image credit: iStock.com – weiyi zhu