![\"pshield-fix1-s\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/pshield-fix1-s.png\")
As rightsholders in the live sports sector continue to face unprecedented levels of online piracy, Italy decided that an extraordinary challenge could only be tackled with an extraordinary response.<\/p>\nAs rightsholders in the live sports sector continue to face unprecedented levels of online piracy, Italy decided that an extraordinary challenge could only be tackled with an extraordinary response.<\/p>\n
The \u2018Piracy Shield\u2019 blocking notification system has attracted significant criticism, although the legal and regulatory frameworks that support it, built on a theory that faster, heavier blocking will eventually solve the problem, are the real drivers behind the ongoing controversy. <\/p>\n
Fundamental issues and legal amendments, including draft proposals published earlier this year, prompted the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) to voice its concerns<\/a> at the EU Commission, highlighting significant risks<\/a> to the principles of freedom of enterprise and expression.<\/p>\n After several months of engagement, last month the CCIA urged<\/a> the European Commission to carry out an immediate review to establish compatibility of the existing system and Italy\u2019s draft proposals with EU law requirements.<\/p>\n Site-blocking within 30 minutes, limited transparency, lack of recourse for those wrongfully blocked, and new proposals potentially at odds with the Digital Services Act, could have serious consequences for the wider EU, CCIA warned. <\/p>\n In a letter dated June 13, 2025, Roberto Viola \u2013 the European Commission\u2019s Director General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology \u2013 addresses Italy\u2019s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Antonio Tajani, who is also the country\u2019s Deputy Prime Minister.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Commission welcomes the efforts made by the Italian authorities in the fight against online piracy, which remains a serious concern for the creative and sports sectors across the EU,\u201d Viola begins.<\/p>\n The Italian draft \u2018reflects the objectives\u2019 of the recommendations<\/a> published by the Commission in 2023, which the letter suggests is another plus.<\/p>\n Turning to more problematic areas, Articles 8, 8-bis, 9-bis and 10<\/em> in the Italian draft are intended to meet the requirements of Article 9 of the Digital Services Act. The Commission says they fail to do so, including by falling short of \u201cthe linguistic requirements\u201d set out in Article 9(2)(c).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n However, as highlighted in the CCIA\u2019s recent submission, the Commission also notes the following;<\/p>\n \u201c[T]he DSA does not provide a legal basis for the issuing of orders by national administrative or judicial authorities, nor does it regulate the enforcement of such orders.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The Commission adds that it \u201cwould like to remind the Italian authorities of the procedures and conditions set out in Article 9\u2033 and invites them to \u201cclarify these aspects in the final text of the notified draft.\u201d<\/p>\n Since site-blocking measures amount to a denial of service, restrictions should be sufficient to end or limit infringement, while taking care not to encroach on the fundamental rights of third parties. The importance of maintaining the right balance is stressed by the EC.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Commission would also like to emphasize that the effective tackling of illegal content must also take into due account the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU,\u201d the letter continues, with the following excerpt from the DSA offered as guidance;<\/p>\n [I]n that regard, the national judicial or administrative authority, which might be a law enforcement authority, issuing the order should balance the objective that the order seeks to achieve, in accordance with the legal basis enabling its issuance, with the rights and legitimate interests of all third parties that may be affected by the order, in particular their fundamental rights under the Charter.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Balancing the rights of various parties isn\u2019t always straightforward. However, some aspects of Piracy Shield give the impression that the rights of third parties are given less than equal weight.<\/p>\n With 30 minute takedowns championed as essential in the fight against live sports piracy, victims of over-blocking blunders face a wait of up to 10 days before telecoms regulator AGCOM assesses the validity of their complaint.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Commission notes that there do not seem to be other measures available to the addressee of [a blocking order] to help prevent eventual erroneous or excessive blocking of content,\u201d the letter notes. <\/p>\n \u201cFurthermore, [..] the technical specifications of the Piracy Shield envisage unblocking procedures limited to 24 hours from reporting in the event of an error. This limitation to 24 hours does not seem, in principle, to respond to any justified need and could lead to persisting erroneous blockings not being resolved.<\/p>\n \u201cIn this respect, the Commission would like to invites the Italian authorities to ensure that the Piracy Shield operates with sufficient controls and safeguards to avoid overblocking and negative impact on information which is not illegal content.\u201d<\/p>\n Another \u2018feature\u2019 of Piracy Shield\u2019s operations is the clarity and latitude afforded to those granted the authority to carry out blocking, versus safeguarding procedures that may receive an occasional mention but lack legal substance due to their absence from legislation. <\/p>\n The Commission welcomes details on safeguarding provided by Italian authorities and appears to see benefits in the measures being committed to more formally.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Commission therefore invite the Italian authorities to consider whether such elements could also be included in the final text. This is for example the case of the Addendum annexed to the Operating Manual of the Piracy Shield platform according to which, authorized persons are required to provide a technical report describing the methodology for obtaining evidence on the predominantly illegal nature of domain name or IP address requested to be blocked,\u201d the letter suggests.<\/p>\n \u201cAnother example is the requirement for flaggers to observe the utmost diligence when submitting applications for blocking and collecting the relevant evidence and to consult the Authority in advance in cases of doubt with regard to the prevalence of illegal activities.\u201d<\/p>\n While rightsholders generally believe that site-blocking measures are effective, it is just as common for intermediaries to argue that the opposite is true. A previous CCIA submission notes that blocking is easily circumvented, does not remove any infringing content from the internet, and may ultimately \u201cserve to obscure\u201d rather than address the root causes of piracy. <\/p>\n In short, targeting intermediaries isn\u2019t the only option available, a point with which the Commission appears to agree.<\/p>\n \u201c[T]he Commission notes that Recital 27 of the DSA clarifies that the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on the responsibilities of providers of intermediary services online,\u201d the letter concludes.<\/p>\n The EC\u2019s letter to Antonio Tajani, Minister of Foreign Affairs, is available here<\/a> (pdf)<\/em><\/p>\n ____________________________________________<\/p>\n Excerpt from Recital 27:<\/strong> Whilst the rules on liability of providers of intermediary services set out in this Regulation concentrate on the exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services, it is important to recall that, despite the generally important role played by such providers, the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on their liability and responsibilities. Where possible, third parties affected by illegal content transmitted or stored online should attempt to resolve conflicts relating to such content without involving the providers of intermediary services in question.<\/em><\/small><\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nEuropean Commission Responds to Concerns<\/h2>\n
Digital Services Act<\/h2>\n
![\"article-9\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/article-9.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nCharter of Fundamental Rights<\/h2>\n
\n
Blocking in 30 Mins, Blocking Blunders Assessed in 10 Days<\/h2>\n
Commit to Safeguards \u2013 In Writing<\/h2>\n
Pressure on Intermediaries<\/h2>\n