The Court of Rome has issued an interesting , stating that a hosting provider is liable only if he has “not promptly complied with the order of the judicial or administrative authority aimed at preventing access to illegal information, or where he is aware of the illicit nature of the contents of a service he provides access to, and he has failed to inform the competent authority”.

The Court has dismissed an application made by RTI/Mediaset against Choopa, an US company which offers several services including a video-sharing platform.

RTI’s summons asked for "the immediate removal and the access disabling of all content reproducing - in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by any method of transmission - sequences of images of the TV programs "Squadra Antimafia 3 Palermo Oggi" and "RIS Roma 2” as well as prohibiting “the continuation of the infringement of all RTI’s IP rights”.

According to the decision, a formal notice sent by the rights-owners - RTI in this case – must include "detailed and specific instructions in order to remove the videos and the related web pages". In other words, rights-owners are expected to report the list of the URLs of the infringing web-pages as well as any other technical instructions which can be useful for blocking or removing their own content. 
Furthermore, the Court of Rome reminded of an important principle, repeatedly betrayed and forgotten by the Italian courts in the recent past, stating that judges are not entitled to order ISPs to “exercise a preventive control over any and all content [published by third parties] on the web-sites that are hosted on their servers”.

Thus, ISPs providing hosting services can not be requested by the courts to prevent publication of similar content to those originally reported because such a measure would be a general monitoring obligation, prohibited by article 15 of the e-commerce directive.

The post The Court Of Rome On Hosting Liability appeared first on IPOsgoode.

According to a recent by a French journalist, , the French authority on the regulation of electronic and postal communications, is considering whether Skype should be outlawed.

At first, the issue was that Skype had not complied with legislative provisions on number portability and on emergency calls. But, ultimately, Skype is causing legal concern because the conversations (vocal or chat) cannot be wiretapped by police and other public authorities.

The problem is not new. Recently, Raffaele Cantone, one of the most active anti-Mafia judges, has that Italian criminal organizations started using Skype many years ago, long before investigators were aware of the existence of VoIP systems. Cantone also noted that the system used by Skype is “practically invulnerable”.

Concerns about criminality are not solely a French affair.

On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that these internet facilities have played an important role in the current riots in northern Africa. Skype has been widely used to coordinate the protests and, in some instances, ISPs have been required to block access to Skype (for instance, in Libya). This clearly shows that media are neutral: in the French and Italian cases, it is a way to get around wiretapping, thus aiding illegal activities; in the latter case, it is an instrument of democracy.

This problem probably deserves a more complex analysis. However the elementary question is this: is Skype good or bad? Are we really sure that the means is the source of the evil and not the way in which it is used?

Internet is a mass medium and nothing else. It is not ontologically legal or illegal. It is not democracy, but a means to help the development of democracy. The problem of VoIP operations must be analyzed from different perspectives, considering different and probably not immediately apparent aspects.

Firstly, what is the significance, in France, of telephone companies lobbying on the demonization of VoIP systems? It does not mean, obviously, that the issue of Skype and, in general, VoIP operators can be solved by just a legal requirement; but the advantages to telephone operators from the banishment of VoIP systems are clear. We are probably facing a clash of business models; a clash between the old economy (represented by telephone operators) and the new economy (represented by VoIP operators).

The second aspect that should be taken into account is the legal foundation of VoIP companies. Skype has its legal seat in Luxembourg. This means that the taxes it pays on incomes are not paid to the Italian or French governments, but to the Luxembourgish one.

Remember that, in 2010, the French Parliament passed an act requiring on-line gambling operators to have a .fr domain name and to be established in France. In theory, this act was aimed at controlling the gambling market and preventing the external interference of criminal organizations. Commentators argued that the real goals were to forbid transnational betting and to oblige the companies to pay their taxes in France.

In the final analysis, the question is this: are we really sure that issue of national security, i.e. the inability to wiretap Skype communications, is the main problem?

The post ARCEP, Skype and National Security in France appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On October 25, the Italian Data Protection Commissioner issued an interesting on Google Street View. Following a similar decision by the Data Protection Authority, the Italian Authority – after having received several complaints by citizens – has imposed several obligations on the Big G.

First of all, Google cars will have to be clearly marked by means of visible stickers or signs to unambiguously signify that pictures are being taken by Street View. Italian law does not require a specific or written consent by people snapped in the streets or in other public places (such as stadiums, cafes, restaurants, etc.). This means that Google is not expected to collect explicit consents from every individual photographed by Google cars.

However, locations – towns or single areas of large cities – which are scheduled to be visited by Google cars must be published at least three days in advance and this notice must also be broadcast via a local radio and published on the local news section of at least two newspapers.

The decision also held that the Italian Data Protection Code (DPC – Legislative Decree No. 196 of 2003) can be applied to this case, as long as data are collected though equipment located in the Italian territory (pursuant to Article 5 of the DPC). For these reasons, Google will have to appoint a representative established in Italy with a view to application of the Italian legislation on processing personal data.

The post Italian Data Protection Authority Decision on Google Street View appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Industrial Production Committee of the Italian Parliament has finally approved a draft bill which enforces use of a ‘made in Italy’ label on every product belonging to the textile, wear, footwear and leather industrial sectors. The principal purpose of the law is to guarantee the origin of the products, making clear which goods have been produced in Italy and which ones abroad.

The new law also introduces the notion of ‘product predominantly manufactured in Italy’. In fact, the ‘made in Italy’ label will be granted exclusively when at least two phases of the manufacturing process have been carried in Italy. According to this regulation, Italian companies have to display the country of origin on products made overseas. The law will come into force in six months, in order to notify the text of the law to the European Commission and to avoid proceedings for infraction.

The post Made in Italy Act appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The French Constitutional Court held that the "Creation and Internet" law - the law promoted by the Olivennes Commission and strictly supported by the President Sarkozy - is unconstitutional.

This Act - whose complete name is "Loi favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur Internet" - had instituted a special authority which was empowered to monitor copyright infringements committed by internet users.

The institution formed by the law (HADOPI: Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Œuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet - High Authority of Diffusion of the Art Works and Protection of the Rights on Internet) was entitled to use a special enforcement method in order to combat copyright violations. This method was based on the so-called "three-strikes" procedure. The HADOPI, once informed by a copyright holder of a potential violation, was expected to send an e-mail to the internet user, as identified by his IP (internet protocol address). After this notification, the user would be invited to install a filter on his PC and be monitored by his internet service provider. The second step would be introduced by a certified e-mail, after accusation of repeated offences or of failure to comply with the provisions set out in the first e-mail.

The third phase involved HADOPI's power to request ISPs to suspend internet connections for infringing users for 2 months to 1 year.

It is remarkable that the French law did not provide a judicial recourse for the first 2 steps of the procedure, but only for the last one (which however couldn't be stopped during the trial).�� After its approval, the Act has been strongly criticized by scholars, by consumer associations, as well as by the European Parliament.

The Constitutional Court considered the law unconstitutional for the following reasons:

a) article 11 of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen of 1789 protects freedom of speech and recognizes it as a fundamental right; access to an internet connection can be considered a human right, as an expression of the freedom of speech;

b) only a judge - or rather a judicial decision - can order the disconnection of users, not a non-judicial authority;

c) French law is based on the presumption of innocence. On the contrary, users are punished with disconnection based only on whether copyright holders assume that they could be liable;

d) the Act provides a procedure which violates data protection law and users' personal rights.

The post The HADOPI law held unconstitutional by the French Constitutional Court appeared first on IPOsgoode.