![\"piracyshield-2\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/piracyshield-2.png\")
There hasn\u2019t been much to report on the Piracy Shield front in recent weeks. After Napoli walked away with the title back in May, the Serie A season began winding down ahead of preparations to do it all over again in August.<\/p>\nThere hasn\u2019t been much to report on the Piracy Shield front in recent weeks. After Napoli walked away with the title back in May, the Serie A season began winding down ahead of preparations to do it all over again in August.<\/p>\n
Unlike Serie A\u2019s football players, Piracy Shield didn\u2019t immediately disappear on a luxury vacation. Records show hundreds of fully qualified domains being blocked every two or three days until the second week of July, aiming to protect other live sports continuing through the summer. <\/p>\n
Briefly listing just one domain per blocking ticket, semi-normal service was soon resumed when hundreds of domains and IP addresses were blocked to protect last weekend\u2019s broadcast of the Hungarian Grand Prix.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"PS-Tickets\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/PS-Tickets.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nBlocking will likely return to normal levels when the new Serie A season starts in August, but legal amendments adopted by AGCOM last week are likely to further increase Piracy Shield\u2019s workload moving forward. Of course, that\u2019s on the assumption that pirates don\u2019t exhaust the dwindling supply of IPv4 addresses first.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s been understood for some time that Italy\u2019s live blocking system would expand to protect a wider range of content. As regulator AGCOM noted in its most recent annual report<\/a>, as much was written into Italian law.<\/p>\n \u201cAs known, in fact, Law No. 93\/23 further expanded the scope of the Authority\u2019s action by strengthening its functions for a more effective and timely countering of piracy actions online with reference to all events broadcast live on the network,\u201d AGCOM wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cTo this end, the Authority will proceed, after public consultation, with the necessary amendments to the Regulations [\u2026] and with the technical activities of updating and implementing the live blocking platform (Piracy Shield) functionality to achieve the objectives set by the law.\u201d<\/p>\n During a meeting on July 30, legislative amendments that among other things expand the availability of dynamic injunctions to rightsholders of all live events, were put to the vote. Despite notable opposition, the amendments were adopted by AGCOM.<\/p>\n \u201cWith these measures, it will be possible to disable access to illegally disseminated content, during the first thirty minutes of the transmission of live content and premieres of cinematographic and audiovisual works or entertainment programs, as well as similar audio works,\u201d AGCOM confirmed.<\/p>\n The usual methods of blocking \u2013 interference with DNS resolution for domain names and routing\/blocking of network traffic for IP addresses \u2013 are familiar and set to continue. Other aspects of the amendments (Omnibus Decree\/October 2024) are much more controversial and are set to come into play for the first time.<\/p>\n \u2022 Widened scope:<\/strong> VPN services<\/a> and publicly available DNS providers are required to deploy blocking measures consistent with those already in place at ISPs. The requirement to block within 30 minutes applies regardless of a providers\u2019 location or residence. <\/p>\n \u2022 Obligations for Indirect Providers:<\/strong> Information Society Service<\/em> providers (ISS)* involved in any capacity in enabling access to an infringing site or service, are required to block access in response to orders from AGCOM, including those reported via Piracy Shield, within 30 minutes. <\/p>\n \u2022 Technological Measures:<\/strong> Even when online search engines and Information Society Service* providers are not involved in enabling access to infringing sites and services, notifications to disable access must be executed using \u201call necessary technical measures\u201d within 30 minutes.<\/p>\n \u2022 As amended by the Ominibus Decree<\/strong>, the law clarifies that all recipients of disabling orders must use the Piracy Shield platform<\/a> to ensure timely and effective action.<\/p>\n AGCOM\u2019s definition of an ISS includes \u201cmere conduit and hosting service providers, as well as caching service providers\u2026..VPN service providers and publicly available DNS service providers, as well as search engine operators.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n * EU Directive 2015\/1535<\/a> describes an Information Society Service (ISS) as a <\/em>service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services.<\/em><\/small><\/p>\n Sanctions for non-compliance with AGCOM blocking orders still have no direct equivalent when rightsholders use Piracy Shield to block non-infringing IP addresses. AGCOM\u2019s statement indirectly addresses this criticism, by confirming that it still<\/em> takes overblocking seriously. <\/p>\n \u201c[Reporters of infringing content] are still required to report on the Piracy Shield platform with the utmost diligence and rigor and to avoid reporting assets that present a high risk of overblocking. In the event of non-compliance with the requirements and conditions governing the operation of the Piracy Shield platform, the Authority will suspend accreditation to the same,\u201d AGCOM notes.<\/p>\n As far as the law goes, nothing has changed. Service providers and other intermediaries can be penalized for not tackling infringement to the required standard, whereas penalties for blocking an innocent party are at AGCOM\u2019s discretion.<\/p>\n General concerns over Piracy Shield have been aired since its launch, but a January 2025 appeal<\/a> by the Computer & Communications Industry Association to the European Commission ensured that concerns were also heard in Brussels.<\/p>\n The CCIA, which represents global tech firms including Amazon, Cloudflare and Google, later asked the European Commission to issue a detailed opinion to ensure Piracy Shield\u2019s compatibility with EU law<\/a>. <\/p>\n The EC\u2019s response highlighted several concerns<\/a> and strongly suggested that work needed to be done. Meanwhile, a lone voice inside AGCOM itself continues to oppose the platform.<\/p>\n AGCOM Commissioner Elisa Giomi was appointed to the board of the regulator in September 2020 but despite the passing of time, a chasm remains between Giomi\u2019s position on Piracy Shield and that of her colleagues. In addition to numerous transparency failings, Giomi believes that the public resources consumed by the project are disproportionate, with any benefit returned to a small group of interested parties. <\/p>\n For more than two years and at every stage, Giomi says she has voted against Piracy Shield, despite \u201cthe often virulent reactions of colleagues.\u201d The Commissioner\u2019s position clearly hasn\u2019t changed much since she went public last November<\/a>; during the vote last week, Giomi voted against adopting the amendments.<\/p>\n With a new sanctioning procedure on the horizon, \u201cfor infringements of copyright and related rights by Audiovisual Media Service Providers,\u201d increasing regulation led to the definition of an Audiovisual Media Service Provider being expanded recently. <\/p>\n If a user of YouTube or any social media platform reaches 500,000 followers, or their videos average one million monthly views, they can be personally categorized as an Audiovisual Media Service Provider, and therefore subject to AGCOM regulation.<\/p>\n Commissioner Giomi voted against adoption of this influencer-focused measure but, once again, appears to have been outnumbered. She\u2019s making her opinions<\/a> known on LinkedIn.<\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nControversial Amendments<\/h2>\n
Early Warning For Rightsholders<\/h2>\n
Voices of Opposition<\/h2>\n
Lone Voice Inside AGCOM<\/h2>\n