A new study has found that blocking access to torrent and linking sites results in the opposite effect. Instead of driving people towards legal websites and services, many of the blocked sites simply move to other domain names where they enjoy a significant and sustained boost in traffic.
Ernesto for TorrentFreak
Fulvio Sarzana
International Festival of Journalism, 16th of April 2015. Perugia.
Tutorial for journalists.
What to do ( and write ) if you receive a request for cancellation or adjustment based on the right to be forgotten or copyright.
By Me and Bruno Saetta, Blogger and Lawyer.
Here more informations
http://www.journalismfestival.com/programme/2015/freedom-of-expression-2.0-how-to-defend-oneself-against-libel-claims
Italy has provided Friday March 13 his contribution to the definition of European Digital Strategy.
The Government's position on the digital single market was sent to the European Commission's DG Connect. The 6-page document is divided into seven sections.
The document covers various aspects,including the broadband connection, the so-called Internet of thing, the digital school, the strengthening of the European Security Agency (ENISA ). The most critical point , however, is that of the Copyright , in which Italy appears to assume a position of rearguard.
This is the first of the 7 points.
1. Digital market and investments: improving interoperability, fostering e-commerce, harmonizing fiscal policies
A strategic objective of the Union should be to support programmes for infrastructural investments that ensure interoperability of systems and technologies and the development of e-commerce potential, which represents a new frontier for businesses, especially SMEs.
In order to do this, there should be an intervention that provides tools aimed at fostering the creation and establishment of European businesses, overcoming national constraints and optimizing both the infrastructure and the operational methods (inter alia the activities of shipping and delivery). It is crucial to draw a harmonised regulatory framework for the establishment and online registration of companies, also across borders.
We also need to fully harmonise the rules on consumers protection, products guarantee, as well as on taxation, i.e. aligning VAT rates of digital products to the rates of their material correspondents, such as in the case of e-books.
On this regard, for example, the EU should focus on the harmonisation of the platform for VAT payment so as to facilitate access of SMEs to the market.
Fulvio Sarzana
Bruno Saetta
lawyer
Fulvio Sarzana
lawyer
By Bruno Saetta and Fulvio Sarzana, lawyers and bloggers.
This seminar will address the state of European legislation and national laws on intellectual property, the reform under discussion in the European Parliament, and the impact of these rules on freedom of expression, user-generated content and social curation.
http://www.journalismfestival.com/programme/2015/copyright-and-freedom-of-expression-online.-in-remembrance-of-lost-liberty
On 11 of February 2015, Italian Constitutional Court starting to review the landmark case regarding the constitutionality of the Italian Communication Authority’s (‘AGCOM’) Regulation on Online Copyright Enforcement.
Consumer’s and small business associations ( Altroconsumo, Movimento di difesa del Cittadino, Assoprovider and Assintel) filed action against this Regulation for violation of civil and fundamental rights ( freedom of expression and to be informed and economic initiative), protected by the Italian Constitution, before the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio and then before Constitutional Court.
Associations was assisted before Constitutional Court by Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at University of Rome and Writer Alfonso Celotto http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Celotto, by Former Honorary President of Italian Supreme Court ( Corte di Cassazione) Carlo Sarzana di S.Ippolito, and by Lawyer Fulvio Sarzana di S.Ippolito.
The Regulation, which entered into force on April 1, 2014, empowered AGCOM to enforce online copyright infringement.
The regulation implementing Legislative Decree No 70 of 2003, which transposed in Italy Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, does not contain any ‘implementing procedure’, as must be established by the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority (AGCOM).
Agcom granted hiself the enforcement power without any previous Parliamentary debate.
Under the Regulation, AGCOM may order access and hosting providers to block access to websites hosting infringing materials or remove allegedly infringing contents after a very short administrative procedure without any previous Judicial review.
Administrative Court poses the question of the constitutionality of Articles 5(1), 14(3), 15(2), and 16(3), Legislative Decree 70/2003 (which transposed in Italy Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce) and Article 32bis(3), Legislative Decree 177/2005, on the basis of which the AGCOM Regulation was adopted,
Court streesed that:
” Those provisions may infringe on (a) the principles of “statutory reserve” and judicial protection provided in defense of freedom of expression and economic initiative, as well as (b) the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality in the exercise of legislative discretion and (c) the principle of the natural judge, because of the lack of legal guarantees and judicial safeguards for the exercise of freedom of expression online, at least equivalent to those laid down for the press.
Administrative Court noted that:
“ The “double track,” administrative and judicial, provided for by the European Directives that AGCOM referred to [as a legal basis to enact the “Regulation”], should be construed by taking into consideration the necessity that the limitations to access the Internet in order to protect copyright should be balanced with other rights protected by European law, such as the principle of proportionality. However, those limitations should be subject to a preliminary judicial review. In any event, it should be considered that the implementation of those Directives in the Italian legal system cannot undermine the protection provided by our Constitution to other potentially conflicting fundamental rights.”
Indeed, AGCOM is allowed to order, through a fast-track procedure which does not give all parties a full hearing, that any content that allegedly infringes copyright be removed from public electronic areas.
Recently, AGCOM has issued an increasing number of orders to online newspapers, Forums, Blogs, to remove content.
The latest concerns the website Gay.it, point of reference of italian LGBT Community, which had to remove an article containing a ‘selfie’ (inspired by actress Tilda Swinton) of an Italian photojournalist, holding a rainbow flag, on Red Square in Moscow.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+P-2014-006995+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
Fulvio Sarzana
Explore the future of copyright in a digital environment!
Learn the Proposal of EU Parliament Rapporteurs on implementation of INFOSOC and IPRED Directive!
Know the Modified Exceptions and limitations to copyright in order to achieve a balance of interest!
Learn the future of private copiyng in EU digital single market!
Should Internet Service providers be Copyright Cops?
This conference aims to provide public with an in-depth analysis of how recent developments in the EU copyright framework .
The CJEU’s interpretation of key concepts concerning audiovisual, music and press activities will be presented and the adaptation of EU copyright law to online media technologies will be discussed.
copyleft – Locandina the Conference Program at the European Parliament ( Bruxelles) the 3rd of March 2015, on the “new legislation on Intellectual Property in the digital single market” .
Fulvio SarzanaANNEX 1
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group EFDD – MoVimento 5 stelle
presents:
Tuesday, 3rd March 2015, from 9:30 to 13:00 a.m.
at the European Parliament (Altiero Spinelli Building – First floor – Room 1E2)
A Conference on:
Towards a new legislation on Intellectual Property in the digital single market.
Proposal for a new framework under INFOSOC and IPRED directives.
Programme:
9:00 Arrival and Registration
9:30 Welcome Speech: Isabella Adinolfi, MEP, Italy, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group – MoVimento 5 stelle, Committee on Culture and Education (Rapporteur for CULT Committee on the Implementation of InfoSoc Directive)
Chair: Fulvio Sarzana di S.Ippolito, Lawyer. Sarzana & Partners Law Firm, Rome, Italy
9:45 – 10.05 Towards a Single European Copyright Title? A Conceptual Framework
Marco Ricolfi, Professor of Commercial law University of Turin, Nexa Center for internet and society, Turin, Italy
10:05 – 10:25 New Copyright and the Public Domain
Julia Reda, MEP, Germany, Greens/European Free Alliance Group – Pirate Party, Committee on Legal Affairs (Rapporteur for JURI Committee on the Implementation of InfoSoc Directive)
10:25 – 10:45 Digital Copyright Levies: Balancing the Authors’ rights with Consumers’ interests
Agustin Reyna, Senior Legal Officer and is leading BEUC’s Digital Team, Brussels, Belgium ANNEX 1
10:45 – 11:05 A new legal framework for limitations and exceptions to copyright
Giuseppe Mazziotti, Professor of Intellectual property Law at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
11:05 – 11:25 Linking, Embedding & Framing, is that a copyright Infringement?
Marco Scialdone, Lecturer, European University of Rome, Italy
11:25 – 11:45 Balancing the freedom of expression and copyright in the digital Age: A constitutional Approach
Alfonso Celotto, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Rome 3, Italy
11:45 – 12:05 Intellectual Property enforcement in digital age: The Internet Service Provider point of View
Innocenzo Genna, Head of Copyright Committee at EUROISPA (Pan European association of European Internet Services Providers Associations – ISPAs)
12:05 – 12:25 EU-style Fair Use? EU Copyright and the Introduction of an Open Norm
Eleonora Rosati, Lecturer in Intellectual Property (IP) law at the University of Southampton, UK
12:25 – 13:00 Debate & Conclusions:
Isabella Adinolfi, MEP, Italy, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group – MoVimento 5 stelle, Committee on Culture and Education (Rapporteur for CULT Committee on the Implementation of InfoSoc Directive)
Laura Ferrara, MEP, Italy, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group – MoVimento 5 stelle, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs & Committee on Legal Affairs
Dario Tamburrano, MEP, Italy, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group – MoVimento 5 stelle, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Julia Reda, MEP, Germany, Greens/European Free Alliance Group – Pirate Party, Committee on Legal Affairs (Rapporteur for JURI Committee on the Implementation of InfoSoc Directive) ANNEX 1
The conference is free upon registration: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Copyright_03_03_15
For info email: isabella.adinolfi-office@europarl.europa.eu
Languages IT-EN-FR / The Conference will be webstreamed
A cocktail will be provided after the Conference
Fulvio Sarzana
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group EFDD –
presents:
Tuesday, 3rd March 2015, from 9:30 to 13:00 a.m.
at the European Parliament (Altiero Spinelli Building – First floor – Room 1E2)
An International Conference on:
Towards a new legislation on Intellectual Property in the digital single market.
Proposal for a new framework under INFOSOC and IPRED directives.
Programme:
9:00 Arrival and Registration
9:30 Welcome Speech: Isabella Adinolfi, MEP, Italy, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group – , Committee on Culture and Education (Rapporteur for CULT Committee on the Implementation of InfoSoc Directive)
Chair: Fulvio Sarzana di S.Ippolito, Lawyer. Sarzana & Partners Law Firm, Rome, Italy
9:45 – 10.05 Towards a Single European Copyright Title? A Conceptual Framework
Marco Ricolfi, Professor of Commercial law University of Turin, Nexa Center for internet and society, Turin, Italy
10:05 – 10:25 New Copyright and the Public Domain
Julia Reda, MEP, Germany, Greens/European Free Alliance Group – Pirate Party, Committee on Legal Affairs (Rapporteur for JURI Committee on the Implementation of InfoSoc Directive)
10:25 – 10:45 Digital Copyright Levies: Balancing the Authors’ rights with Consumers’ interests
Agustin Reyna, Senior Legal Officer and is leading BEUC’s Digital Team, Brussels, Belgium
10:45 – 11:05 A new legal framework for limitations and exceptions to copyright
Giuseppe Mazziotti, Professor of Intellectual property Law at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
11:05 – 11:25 Linking, Embedding & Framing, is that a copyright Infringement?
Marco Scialdone, Lecturer, European University of Rome, Italy
11:25 – 11:45 Balancing the freedom of expression and copyright in the digital Age: A constitutional Approach
Alfonso Celotto, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Rome 3, Italy
11:45 – 12:05 Intellectual Property enforcement in digital age: The Internet Service Provider point of View
Innocenzo Genna, Head of Copyright Committee at EUROISPA (Pan European association of European Internet Services Providers Associations – ISPAs)
12:05 – 12:25 EU-style Fair Use? EU Copyright and the Introduction of an Open Norm
Eleonora Rosati, Lecturer in Intellectual Property (IP) law at the University of Southampton, UK
12:25 – 13:00 Debate & Conclusions:
Isabella Adinolfi, MEP, Italy, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group – MoVimento 5 stelle, Committee on Culture and Education (Rapporteur for CULT Committee on the Implementation of InfoSoc Directive)
Laura Ferrara, MEP, Italy, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group – MoVimento 5 stelle, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs & Committee on Legal Affairs
Dario Tamburrano, MEP, Italy, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group – MoVimento 5 stelle, Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Julia Reda, MEP, Germany, Greens/European Free Alliance Group , Committee on Legal Affairs (Rapporteur for JURI Committee on the Implementation of InfoSoc Directive)
The conference is free upon registration: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Copyright_03_03_15
Languages IT-EN-FR
A cocktail will be provided after the Conference
Fulvio Sarzana
Finland is the latest EU member state to scrap levies on digital devices, following similar moves in Spain and the UK. The Finnish Parliament on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to replace a levies system that has existed since 1984 with the creation of a government fund designed to compensate artists for private copying of content such as music and movies.
Glyn Moody for Techdirt
Fulvio Sarzana
Rome, 16/12/2014.
In a dramatic move, the preliminary investigations by the Judge of Rome, on the order of the Public Prosecutor of Rome, under request from Italian financial regulator Consob has directed Italian ISPs to block numerous binary options cites from appearing in Italy .
Italian financial police ( cd Guardia di Finanza) is performing now the Order of Blocking.
Fulvio Sarzana
ITPRESState ofPlay
The Italian Government will present its final proposal on Net Neutrality and Roaming the Council of Ministers of Telecommunications on 27 November.
This the last document prepared by the Italian Presidency and circulated among the delegates of the countries of the Council, (21 November )
Italian Government confirms its intention to remove Net Neutrality and affirms (not clear whether speaking as chairman or by recording the positions of the Council), the specialized services are not regulated but not prohibited
The theme of the specialized services had been precisely defined by the text released in April by the European Parliament to avoid uncertainties on discrimination of traffic and the potential conflict with the free internet.
The Italian proposal also with regard to roaming proposes to postpone the end of 2016 the entry into force of the so-called ‘roam like at home’ (RLAH).
The document would seem to benefit the big mobile operators, to the detriment of the operators of more modest size and consumers.
Among the proposals, indeed very unorthodox, the Italian Government ask to the Council an exploratory mandate to negotiate future scenarios with the Commission and the European Parliament.
Fulvio Sarzana
Italian Government says to EU Partners “Net neutrality ?, No thanks.”
The Italian government, current President of the European Council, surprisingly trying to “bury” the Net neutrality .
The evidence is contained in two confidential documents in English (respectively 26 and 10 pages), who were brought by the Italian Presidency of the European Council to the delegates of the other countries on November 14th .
The text, that left surprised most of the participants in the Working Group, seems to move toward the desiderata of Europe’s large telecoms operators.
Let’s start by saying that the Italian government announces its European partners that the word Net neutrality, in his view, should not be used.
The Italian Presidency proposes in the second of two documents the Removal of the definitions of “net neutrality” and “specialised services”.
Mr Renzi Government thinks that, instead of a definition of net neutrality there could be a reference to the objective of net neutrality, e.g. in a recital, which would resolve the concerns that the definition might be at variance with the specific provisions.
It ‘s really strange that a concept so important to be eliminated.
Words are important, some might say, and if we do not adopt clear definitions, what can be considered white could become black and vice versa.
The surprises do not end there because the Italian Presidency offers its partners the possibility to use the Traffic management measures to block, slow down, alter, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes in these scenarios:
a) implement a legislative provision or an order by a court or other public authority vested with relevant enforcement powers under national law;
b) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications, where required to give effect to Article 13 of Directive 2002/58/EC;
c) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via the network, and the end-users’ terminals;
d) prevent imminent network congestion or mitigate its effects if application-agnostic measures would not be efficient and provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally;
e) ensure high-quality transmission of voice communications, including to the emergency services, or
f) meet its obligations under a contract with an end-user to deliver a service requiring a specific level of quality to that end-user.
For the first time since the presentation of the digital single market proposal, a Gouvernment proposes the blocking of internet traffic by administrative body (which in Italy is AGCOM ) and not by a judge.
No one before the Italian Government had proposed this solution, pregnant with important consequences on the rights of defense of citizens from potential abuses of administrative power.
The net neutrality, in the words of the Italian Government, is effectively put down to the water, to be replaced by the Rules can overwhelm the principles of free access, sharing and equal access to network resources.
Fulvio Sarzana
Techdirt has been following for a while the saga of Italy giving its Authority for Communications Guarantees (AGCOM), which regulates broadcasting and telecommunications, wide-ranging new powers to police online copyright infringement too. That culminated in the first instances of Web sites being blocked without any kind of judicial review earlier this year. Since then, there has been an important development as civil organizations and Internet companies have mounted a legal challenge to the new regulations. One of the lawyers involved in these actions, Fulvio Sarzana, explains what happened:
On 26 September 2014, The Italian regional administrative tribunal referred the question regarding the constitutionality of the administrative enforcement procedures foreseen by a new regulation on online copyright infringement to the Italian Constitutional Court.
Here’s why:
the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio required the Constitutional Court to issued its judgment, since it held that the regulation might be unconstitutional, for violation of the principles of statute and judicial protection in relation to the exercise of freedom of expression and economic initiative, as well as for the violation of criteria of reasonableness and proportionality in the exercise of legislative discretion and of the principle of the court, in relation to the lack of guarantees and legal safeguards for the exercise of freedom of expression on the Internet.
follow on https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141114/08020629140/consumer-organizations-internet-companies-mount-legal-challenge-to-italys-extreme-copyright-enforcement-regulations.shtml
Rome November 14, 2014.
On 26 September 2014, The Italian regional administrative tribunal referred the question regarding the constitutionality of the administrative enforcement procedures foreseen by a new regulation on online copyright infringement to the Italian Constitutional Court.
Consumer’s and small business associations ( Altroconsumo, Movimento di difesa del Cittadino, Assoprovider and Assintel) filed action against this Regulation for violation of civil rights ( freedom of expression and economic initiative) , protected by the Italian Constitution, before the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio.
AGCOM’s ( Italian Telecommunications Authority) President Mr Cardani , said, at the end of october, during a Conference ” Mr. Sarzana, ( The Lawyer www.lidis.it/eng leader of the civil rights groups that have been awarded to discuss the case before the Constitutional Court) won’t be able to drag me personally in court”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJTOR4tyEy8#t=1025 ( Minute n. 17 of video).
In accordance with the actions brought by consumer’s associations against the Regulation, the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio required the Constitutional Court to issued its judgment, since it held that the regulation might be unconstitutional, for violation of the principles of statute and judicial protection in relation to the exercise of freedom of expression and economic initiative, as well as for the violation of criteria of reasonableness and proportionality in the exercise of legislative discretion and of the principle of the court, in relation to the lack of guarantees and legal safeguards for the exercise of freedom of expression on the Internet.
The Consumer associations have in fact warned AGCOM not to continue the crackdown of websites and online content, without the intervention of a judge, sending the case to the State Court of Auditors. https://www.altroconsumo.it/organizzazione/media-e-press/comunicati/2014/diffida-agcom-per-regolamento-tutela-diritto-autore ( in Italian)
Therefore, in October 2014, the President of Agcom, Mr. Angelo Cardani, indicated that Agcom shall proceed “with caution” , addressing only cases “of real urgency”, pending the case in the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court will issue a verdict in the coming months.
Fulvio SarzanaMega and several other file-hosting services are accessible in Italy once again after a negotiated settlement with local law enforcement. Another unnamed site had to appeal its blockade in court but won its case after the court ruled that partial blocking of a specific URL is preferred over site-wide bans.
Last July the Court of Rome ordered all local Internet providers to block 24 websites including Mega.co.nz and Russia’s largest email provider Mail.ru.
The broad anti-piracy measures were requested by small independent Italian movie distributor Eyemoon Pictures. The company complained that the sites in question distributed two films, “The Congress” and “Fruitvale Station,” before they were released in Italian cinemas.
Several sites affected by the blockade decided to appeal the order, and not without success. Fulvio Sarzana, who acts as lawyer for several of the accused sites including Mega, told TorrentFreak that the sites in question can now be accessed again.
The lawyer took up the case with the local Prosecutor, and pointed out that the blockades are overbroad. Instead of blocking access to a single file it makes entire sites unreachable.
In addition, Sarzana noted that the measures are not needed as the file-hosting sites have strict takedown policies in place which allow copyright holders to remove infringing content.
follow on http://torrentfreak.com/court-lifts-overbroad-piracy-blockade-of-mega-and-other-sites-141009/
Regarding the New Copyright Rules by AGCOM ( Italian telecommunications Body)and Ordonnance n 10020/2014 of Administrative Court of Lazio, Referring to Constitutional Court,
Since there are doubts about what the court said i paste here the decision, or the Order of the Court.
Everyone can get an idea
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
The Regional Administrative Court of Lazio
(First Section)
gives the following
ORDER
on the use of general register number 1985, 2014, provided by:
Altroconsumo, Assoprovider – Association of Independent Provider-Confcommercio, Motion Defense of the Citizen, Assintel – Confcommercio, represented and defended by the lawyer. Fulvio Sarzana Of S. Ippolito, with an address at Di Fulvio Sarzana S.Ippolito in Rome, Via Velletri, 10;
versus
Authorities’ To The Guarantees in Communications, represented by law by the State, based in Rome, via the Portuguese, 12;
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
This he part of a judgment that sets out the decision, or ruling – as opposed to the other parts of the decision such as the facts, arguments, grounds and costs.
“23 – Observe the Panel of Judge that the above considerations appear to also be confirmed in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, which in the judgment C 70/10 (Section III, SABAM against SCARLET) expected to be (only) “national courts” in order to instruct intermediaries to take measures “aimed at putting an end to violations of intellectual property rights” (in this sense, judgment of 12 July 2011 in Case C 324/09, L’Oréal and others). Therefore, “the authorities and the national courts must in particular ensure a fair balance between the protection of intellectual property rights, enjoyed by the owners of copyright, and that of free enterprise.”
For this reason, the injunction to create a filter generalized estimate “is likely to prejudice the freedom of information since that system might not be able to adequately distinguish between a lawful content and illegal content.” In fact, “it is undisputed that the question of the lawfulness of a transmission depends on the application of statutory exceptions to copyright which vary from one Member State to another. In addition, in some Member States certain works may fall within the public domain, or may have been put on line for free by their authors. ”
Therefore, even the national court could adopt the injunction that forced the FAI to set up the system of filtering controversial, because it does not comply with “the obligation to ensure a fair balance between, on the one hand, intellectual property rights and, on the ‘another, freedom of enterprise, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive and impart information “.
By the judgment C – 461/10 (Section III, -BONNIER AUDIO AND OTHERS against PERFECT COMMUNICATION AB SWEDEN), the Court of Justice adds that in the transposition, in particular, the Directives 2002/58 and 2004/48, “the United States must take care to rely on an interpretation of those directives which allows a fair balance between the various fundamental rights protected by European Union law “and that” it does not conflict with the above mentioned fundamental rights or with the other general principles of EU law, such as, for example, the principle of proportionality. ”
Moreover, according to the recent judgment of the Court of Justice (Section IV) of 27 March 2014 (C – 314/12 – UPC Telekabel Vien Gmbh against Constantin Film Verleih Gmbh) “fundamental rights recognized by Union law must be interpreted as meaning that does not preclude that it is prohibited (provided) with an injunction issued by a judge, a provider of Internet access to allow its subscribers access to a website that brings in the network protected material without the consent of the holders rights. “It should be, however, that “such an injunction does not specify what measures the access provider must take” and that “it can avoid penalties for violation thimble injunction proving that he took all reasonable steps” and also that “the measures taken do not deprive unnecessarily Internet users the ability to access the information available in a lawful manner. “It should, finally, that “these measures have the effect of preventing, or at least to make it difficult to carry out consultations unauthorized” condition (only the latter) that it is (either) “to the authorities and national courts to determine.”
In the decisions cited the “double track” administrative and judicial review, as provided for by the Community directives mentioned by AGCOM, it seems tempered by the need for restrictions on access to the Internet to protect copyright are weighted with the other rights ensured in the Union law, like the principle of proportionality, which, however, are subject to prior examination by the national court, provided that the transposition of the said Directives in the Italian can not in every case regardless of the protections afforded by the our Constitution potentially conflicting fundamental rights.
24 – In conclusion, the Panel of Judge considers it necessary to refer to the Constitutional Court the following question of the constitutionality, relevant to the definition of the main proceedings, or for the purpose of eventual declaration of unconstitutionality of the contested regulation AGCom with the inscription in appeal and its subsequent cancellation in court, to obtain a preliminary ruling about the possible unconstitutionality of art. 5, paragraph 1, and Articles. 14, 15, paragraph 3, paragraph 2, and 16, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree 9 April 2003, n. 70 *** and paragraph 3 of article. 32 bis of the Consolidated Law of audiovisual media services and radio programs approved by Legislative Decree n. 117 of 2005 as introduced by art. 6 of Legislative Decree n. 44 of 2010 on the basis of which was adopted the contested “Resolution no. 680/13 / CONS of December 12, 2013 “on the” Regulation on the protection of copyright on electronic communications networks and implementation procedures “and ‘” Attachment A “to the said Resolution, for the violation of the principles of reserve legal and judicial protection in relation to the exercise of freedom of expression and to economic initiative, set out in Articles 2, 21, paragraph I, 24 and 41 of the Constitution, as well as for the violation of the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality in ‘exercise of legislative discretion and for the violation of the principle of the court, in relation to the lack of provision for guarantees and legal safeguards for the exercise of freedom of expression on the net at least equivalent to those laid down for the press, with the consequent violation articles 21, paragraphs 2 and following, 24 and 25, paragraph 1, of the Constitution.
P.Q.M.
The Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (First Section), speaking on the appeal , as proposed in the epigraph, and not manifestly unfounded claims relevant to the question of the constitutionality of Article. 5, paragraph 1, and Articles. 14, 15, paragraph 3, paragraph 2, and 16, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree 9 April 2003, n. 70 and paragraph 3 of article. 32 bis of the Law of audiovisual media services and radio programs approved by Legislative Decree n. 117 of 2005 as introduced by art. 6 of Legislative Decree n. 44 of 2010.
The Panel also declare relevant and not manifestly unfounded the question of the constitutionality of those provisions in relation to Articles 21, paragraphs 2 and following, 24 and 25, paragraph 1, of the Constitution.
Does the suspension of the proceedings and order the immediate transfer of the case to the Constitutional Court.
Order that, by the Secretariat of the Chamber, this order is sent to the parties constituted and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, as well as communicated to the Presidents of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
Decided in Rome in the council chamber of the day June 25, 2014 with the intervention of the judiciary:
Raphael Sestini, President FF, extenders
Anna Bottiglieri, Councillor
Roberta Cicchese, Councillor
NOTE ** Directive 2000/31/EC concerning certain legal issues relating to
information society services with particular regard to electronic
commerce in the EU internal market, has been implemented in Italy
by Legislative decree n. 70/2003, which has properly introduced the
relevant European provisions in the Italian system;
Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Italian rules are Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the E-commerce Directive
These are The Paragraph of the Italian Constitution mentioned above.
Art. 21
Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any
other form of communication.
The press may not be subjected to any authorisation or censorship.
Seizure may be permitted only by judicial order stating the reason and only
for offences expressly determined by the law on the press or in case of
violation of the obligation to identify the persons responsible for such
offences.
In such cases, when there is absolute urgency and timely intervention of the
Judiciary is not possible, a periodical may be confiscated by the criminal
police, which shall immediately and in no case later than 24 hours refer the
matter to the Judiciary for validation. In default of such validation in the
following 24 hours, the measure shall be revoked and considered null and
void.
The law may introduce general provisions for the disclosure of financial
sources of periodical publications.
Publications, performances, and other exhibits offensive to public morality
shall be prohibited. Measures of preventive and repressive measure against
such violations shall be established by law.
Art. 24
Anyone may bring cases before a court of law in order to protect their rights
under civil and administrative law.
Defense is an inviolable right at every stage and instance of legal proceedings.
The poor are entitled by law to proper means for action or defense in all
courts.
The law shall define the conditions and forms of reparation in case of judicial
errors.
Art. 25
No case may be removed from the court seized with it as established by law.
Cyberlocker Mega.co.nz ( owned by Kimdotcom (ex Megaupload) was seized by Preliminary Investigations Judge of Rome, as well as the giant Russian mail.ru, owned by Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov intimate of President Vladimir Putin.
Record seizure of cyberlocker sites and filehosting by the Prosecutor’s Office of Rome.
The Judge for the Preliminary Investigation of Rome Constantino De Robbio, at the request of the local public prosecutor, ordered on 14 July to the seizure of 25 international portals, most of cyberlocker, for copyright infringment .
The operation was carried out by communications police in Rome.
The title of the crime is Article 171 ter, paragraph 2 of the law on copyright.
The seizure would follow to a report of a small independent Italian distributor who debuted in the market in 2012.
the company has complained about the violation of the copyright in respect of two films not yet released in Italian cinemas
“the congress” and “Fruitvale station.”
It is the second-largest seizure in Italy, but the most important for the names involved in seizure.
Among the targets of the Prosecutor of Rome, we find the name of the cyberlocker Mega, owned by former proprietor of Megaupload, Kimdotcom.
Seized, among others, the portal mail.ru and video.tt
Mail.ru seems to belongs to Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, one of the richest men on earth, intimate of President Vladimir Putin, and that would be the strong man behind the acquisition of the shares of Russian social network Vk.com last April.
Nearly all the portals are the property of the Russian, except for Mega belongs precisely to Kimdotcom.
The operation of the Public Prosecutor of Rome highlights once again the futility of AGCOM regulations on copyright, which entered into force on 31 March last year and that up to now, over 108 reports, produced the result of inhibiting only 5 portals which would be devoted to piracy (2.5% of the instances presented).
Between the portals of object removal requests by Agcom there are newspapers, public portals and also sharing sites for children http://www.chefuturo.it/2014/06/ecco-i-primi-55-colpi-dellagcom-contro-la-pirateria-colpiti-i-sumeri-e-teoria-del-big-bang-no-qualcosa-non-va/
Fulvio Sarzana
AGCOM, Italy’s independent and autonomous Communications Authority -with a putsch- decide on December the 12th to controversially appoint itself – without any further Parliament approval needed – to take on the powers to order the removal of any online content in case of presumed copyright violation.
The “AGCOM”aims at speeding up the procedure for blocking or closing down websites which provide illegal access to copyrighted content.
To this effect, it introduces a procedure whereby a rightsholder, without any charges, can apply to the Administrative Body an allegedly infringing website.
The provision required ISPs to block their subscribers from accessing not only foreign websites accused of infringing the copyrights, exactly like so-called US SOPA ACT, but even the italian Websites.
It will be even different from the controversial Spanish Ley Sinde.
In Spain any removal of infringing content has to be confirmed by the Central Courts of Administrative Jurisdiction (following the procedure regulated in Art. 122 bis para. 2 of the Act on Administrative Jurisdiction) while in Italy The AGCOM will order removal without any kind of judicial review.
ISPs, consumers, libertarians and experts have vigourosly contested AGCOM’s proposal because it could affect freedom of speech as well as business rights.
In particular, they challenge the modality whereby the Italian regulator would supervise and tackle copyright infringements in the Internet by way of orders of removal and blocking.
Various members of the Italian Parliament (including the president of the Chamber Laura Boldrini) have questioned the competence of AGCOM in regulating this matter and observed that only the legislator, not the regulator, should fix limits and guarantees of civil freedoms.
The Foreign Affairs Minister Emma Bonino has also criticized the regulator’s initiative.
While visiting Italy to report on the state of freedom of expression in the country, Frank La Rue, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, expressed his reservations against the new regulatory framework.
La Rue, echoing the words of Italian academics and civil libertarians, noted that “all norms regulating constitutional rights, in particular freedom of expression, should be approved by the Parliament.
President of AGCOM has noted that the opponents to the proposal are either small groups of civil libertarians mistakenly perceiving the new regulation as a threat to civil liberties or accomplices of pirates that “fatten by reaping where other have sown”.
It appears that AGCOM lawmakers didn’t realize how much damage their anti-piracy bills could cause to the Internet and to Internet-related businesses,
The New Italian first party’s leader Matteo Renzi, during his inaugural speech on december the 15th says that to takedown websites for copyright infringement without judicial control sounds “weird”.
Fulvio Sarzana
By Mike Masnick
for www.techdirt.com
A year and a half ago, we thought this plan was dead in the water, but apparently while we weren’t paying attention, a plan moved forward in Italy to take significant copyright enforcement powers out of the courts and, instead, give it to the Italian regulator AGCOM. If you want to see a recipe for a bad idea, this is it.
Regulators are very much subject to regulatory capture, and a regulatory board entirely focused on copyright enforcement will almost certainly be controlled by maximalists who come from industry, rather than those with the public benefit in mind.
…………………
Imagine if the US Copyright Office or the US Patent Office got to determine enforcement of those laws, rather than the courts. It would be a disaster for free expression and innovation — and yet that’s exactly what Italy is seeking to do.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131121/23374025331/italy-attempting-to-have-copyright-enforced-regulators-not-courts.shtl
Fulvio Sarzana
Raffaele Mastrolonardo for ZdNet
Italy’s internet is in turmoil, with the country’s telecoms regulator at the centre of the brouhaha.
A diverse coalition of activists, lawyers and ISPs is protesting against a draft regulation on digital copyright, which the Italian comms watchdog, AgCom, will finalise and approve in the next few weeks.
The regulation, they say, puts internet users’ freedom of expression in jeopardy and imposes an excessive economic burden on ISPs. The coalition has gone as far as to send an open letter to Laura Boldrini, the president of the lower house of parliament — where a few bills on copyright are currently waiting to be discussed — urging the assembly to take the matter into its own hands and suspend the regulation.
In parallel, two Italian MEPs have filed a parliamentary question to the European Commission on the subject, asking the EC to take a stance on the regulation.
The episode is the last in a series of events over the past few years where groups of Italian experts and users have mobilised (successfully, for the most part) against online regulation proposed by parliament or the government.
Alessandra Flora On Euractiv.
“Some experts are worried by a measure that allows the selective removal or disabling of access to illicit content.
According to those experts, it is unwise to remove occasional content posted by bloggers, journalists or common people, such as videos on YouTube and simple links to articles. This way, everyone could be prosecuted, not only criminals. Furthermore, how could AGCOM be able to check millions of links, articles and videos?
Nevertheless, Italian MEPs Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE), Luigi Berlinguer and PatriziaToia (S&D) recenlty presented their questions to the European Commission, asking if the freedom of expression and information, guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are threatened by this measure.
Follow on http://italy.blogactiv.eu/
Fulvio Sarzana
I have learned, with much surprise and concern, about the policy initiated by the Italian Authority for Communication to shut down websites suspected of publishing anything protected by copyright.
That condition is a severe and utterly intolerable attack on freedom of expression, which should be strongly resisted by everyone committed to free and open reporting, interchange, and commentary, the lifeblood of a free society.
Noam Chomsky
http://www.agoravox.it/Dovete-resistere-a-quest.html
Fulvio Sarzana
AGCOM, Italy’s independent and autonomous Communications Authority -with a putsch- is about to decide to controversially appoint itself – without any further Parliament approval needed – to take on the powers to order the removal of any online content in case of presumed copyright violation.
It can black out foreign sites and take down Italian ones within 48 hours.
No further court decision is required for these actions to take effect.
The copyright industry has so obtained, without any parliamentary decision, from Italy’s Communications watchdog, to give itself the power to set up administrative procedures to block access to websites suspected of copyright infringment .
The Regulation provides for the blocking of entire websites, domain names or IP addresses.
The legislation will passed definitively at November.
Before this The European Union has to say yes or not to the new rules.
A decision of European Commission will expected at the beginning of November.
Some provisions of AGCOM’s bill are “draconian”: according to the section 8, n 2, AGCOM will to order to the access providers the disclosure of private information about subscribers and give them to the right holders.
According to section 10, n 2, point d, of the new legislation “inciting, aiding and abetting” copyright infringment , even indirectly”, will permit the complete seizure of Website.
A Campaign has been started by an alliance of organizations including the consumer groups, lawyers, and business.
In recent days they have launched a site to coordinate opposition to the measures.
The Campaigners noted that with this measures several orders for blocking access to blogs, media outlets and portals, moves which risk transforming the ISPs into internet “censors
These measures are both ineffective and deeply inimical to free expression due to the high risks of over-blocking.
They arew also concerned that blocking powers would be entrusted to a regulator rather than the courts.
However, Italian ISPs, associations and companies demonstrate that AGCOM that it does not have the authority to take such action, but the Regulatory Body doesn’t listen the protesters.
Take action with http://sitononraggiungibile.info/?lang=en
Fulvio Sarzana
| Subject: AGCOM — Online copyright infringement | |
| On 25 July 2013 the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority, AGCOM, opened to public consultation the draft regulation on the protection of copyright on electronic communications networks and procedures for the implementation thereof pursuant to Legislative Decree No 70 of 9 April 2003. Annex B of the regulation sets out the powers that the Italian authority intends to grant itself in order to prosecute online copyright infringement.The resolution will in fact enable AGCOM to block — automatically and without any prior requirement to establish guilt, through the obligatory cooperation of Internet Service Providers — access to websites, blogs, online newspapers and other sources of information, including those outside Italian jurisdiction, and/or to remove content from the Internet if it suspects copyright infringement.
Freedom of expression and information, guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are seriously threatened by this measure. — In view of the above, can the Commission, to which the AGCOM regulation in question was notified by the Italian authorities on 2 September 2013 (Notification No 2013/496/I), say whether it intends to take any action, and what form that action will take? What comments does it intend to make pursuant to Article 8(2) of Directive 98/34/EC? — As guardian of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, will it not take action against the Italian authorities to prevent the spread of the effects of this harmful administrative measure, which could put due respect for freedom of expression, as guaranteed by international human rights instruments and in particular by Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, at risk within the European Union? |
|
By Giancarlo Frosio for The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School
The ongoing claims against the Rojadirecta website for linking to streams of sporting events are novel and quite important in defining the rights and responsibilities of intermediaries that host links to possibly infringing content stored elsewhere.
While the U.S. case against Rojadirecta was resolved a few years, ago, litigation continues in Italy.
……………………………………….
The Rojadirecta cases show that Italy is setting up one of the harsher online environments for intermediaries. It often pursues copyright as a criminal case, rather than civil. This, in turn, allows the judicial authority to force Internet Service Providers to inhibit access to the infringing sites, which is a remedy unavailable in civil proceedings.
follow on the The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law school Blog
Summary: Changes to the law in Italy mean the burden of checking wi-fi users’ ID has been lifted from pubs, cafes and shops. Could public networks be about to explode in the country?
by Raffaele Mastrolonardo for zdnet
Fulvio Sarzana
17th May.
At dawn the Roman DA Office and the CNAIPIC[1] kick off operation “Tangodown” against some alleged members of Anonymous Italy: four people end up under house arrest, while six others are searched by police and dozens of computers and IT devices are sequestered by security forces. All those people are charged with the same accusations: criminal conspiracy aimed to damaging IT services, illicit IT communication interruption, abusive access to IT services.
In the following weeks Anonymous’ reaction is not long in coming: a steady stream of attacks first hits the Roman tribunal website, and then the ones belonging to security forces’ unions SIULP and SAP. Finally, they go for the big prize: they put the Ministry of Interior in their sights, whose servers get violated while stolen materials are published on the web.
This would be enough to deny the prosecutors’ official version that, a few hours after the arrests, was already talking about “having decapitated Anonymous’ leadership”.
And yet many other doubts are surrounding police detectives’ conduct: from resorting to anti – terrorism laws towards the activists to charging them with associative crimes that, if confirmed during the trial, could cost the defendants jail terms ranging from three to seven years.
Infoaut decided to read between the lines and interviewed lawyer Fulvio Sarzana, jurist and specialist in information law, that has been focusing on digital technologies and internet for ten years.
IFF – It is not the first time that the Anonymous Italy network gets targeted by security forces. In July 2011 already, the Roman DA office ordered dozens of search warrants against alleged members of the movement, notifying them charges of abusive access, damage to IT systems and public service interruption. Even then the investigators’ action was guided by the DA Perla Lori in coordination with CNAIPIC. Nonetheless there is a big difference between the two investigations: during the Tangodown operation the indicted have been charged for the crime of virtual criminal conspiracy, too. Actually, what does it change?
See more on Freeflow.org
Fulvio Sarzana
By Alex Roe
After the UK Guardian opened the Prism can of worms, others have been asking themselves if their governments have also been covertly snooping on private communications between citizens. One such person is Italian lawyer and internet law specialist Fulvio Sarzana.
In a recent entry on his blog, Sarzana claims that not only does Italy have a Prism equivalent, but that Italy’s Prism is far more insidious than the NSA’s super snooping system.
Curiously, Italy’s government passed Prism-type legislation rather soon after then prime minister Mario Monti returned from a trip to the USA earlier this year.
– See more at:
http://italychronicles.com/italy-prism/
Fulvio SarzanaBy Leo Mirani, Mumbai
Just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing. So far, legality is the main rationale US officials have used to defend the government’s PRISM spying program. It’s all perfectly legal, approved by Congress and the courts. But a more potent argument might be to compare PRISM with the spying programs of other countries. Compared to the data-mining that goes on elsewhere, US intelligence agencies may be relatively constrained.
Start with Canada, which many consider to be a cuddlier, saner version of the US. The Globe and Mail reports today that the Canadian defense minister approved a plan similar to PRISM back in 2005, and renewed it in 2011. Run by the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), a signals intelligence agency similar to the US’s NSA or Britain’s Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ), the program collects metadata from phone and internet communication.
follow on Mirani’s Blog
Fulvio SarzanaBy Kay Wallace for La Repubblica
In the last few days, journalists in the USA and the UK have been getting worked up about individual privacy in the wake of the Prism scandal. At the same time, Italian journalists were arguing that you can sometimes have too much privacy.
The Italian media has been full of the news that the Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) has been eavesdropping on British citizens. After reports that the US National Security Agency (NSA) is using a powerful new technology to keep an eye on millions of individuals’ online activities, collecting information directly from internet servers, it now seems that GCHQ has been using the same technology since June 2010. Interviewed on the BBC, Foreign Secretary William Hague refused to confirm or deny the claims, trotting out the usual justification that governments and security services everywhere use when accused of invading their citizens’ privacy:
“If you are a law-abiding citizen of this country going about your business and personal life, you have nothing to fear about the British state or intelligence agencies listening to the content of your phone calls or anything like that.”
An Italian expert in internet and telecommunications law, Fulvio Sarzana, reacted to the news by claiming that his country has no need for such sophisticated technologies, because a law passed at the beginning of this year by the outgoing Monti government gives Italian intelligence services even greater powers.
In his blog, Saranza writes that the “Directive concerning guidelines for the protection of national cyber security” forces telecommunications operators and internet service providers to allow security services access to their databases for unspecified “security” purposes. It goes even further, forcing those who run airports, dams, energy company and transport services, among others, to do likewise. No court order is required and there is no supervision by the Authority for the Protection of Persona Data.
Follow on La Repubblica
Fulvio SarzanaAs part of a criminal investigation by Italian authorities, 27 file-sharing related sites had their domains blocked by local ISPs last month. Rapidgator, one of the largest cyberlockers on the Internet, was among the targeted sites and chose to appeal the verdict.
This week Rome’s Court of Appeal ruled that the Rapidgator blockade should be lifted as the site’s operators are not responsible for alleged copyright infringements carried out by their users.
Follow on Torrentfreak
Fulvio SarzanaMike Masnick on Techdirt.
In April we wrote about how Italian law enforcement had blocked over two dozen websites after the industry claimed they were responsible for copyright infringement. There was no trial, no adversarial hearing where the sites were able to defend themselves. Just: entertainment industry complains, law enforcement buys the complaints, tells a judge and boom, site gone. One of the cyberlockers blocked in this effort, Rapidgator, challenged this blockade, and it has quickly won a reversal. Rapidgator’s lawyer, Fulvio Sarzana, was kind enough to send us the details, and it appears the court understood why the initial blockade was hugely problematic.
The court overturned the ruling that came out of the investigation, and made a few key points, according to Sarzana. He said that court ruled that cyberlockers are legitimate if they have a notice and takedown system, and that the owner of the site is not liable for infringements done by users (basic secondary liability protections). It also said that the seizure of an entire site goes “against the principles of reasonableness, proportionality and adequacy.”
Unfortunately, the ruling only applies to Rapidgator, since it was the only one who hired a lawyer in Italy and appealed. In response to the ruling Sarzana issued the following statement:
The copyright holders contend that the only way in which they can obtain effective relief to prevent, or at least reduce infringements of their copyrights is by means of an order against ISPs. But this is stupid since the concerns about over-blocking, and ease of circumvention are widely recognized. Blocking through the ISPs is not a silver bullet to stop web copyright infringement. It is, in fact, a way to balkanize the web.
Fulvio SarzanaFollow on Techdirt
The Court of Appeal (“riesame”) of Rome overturn the verdict against Rapidgator ( cyberlocker) Seizure.
Fulvio Sarzana, an italian lawyer of Sarzana and Partners law firm, based in Rome, specialized in internet related matters, has successfully obtained, on behalf of Rapidgator ltd, an important judgement In Italy on Cyberlocker sites and copyright infringment
Cyberlockers are 3rd-party file-sharing services.and are also known as ‘file hosting’ services.
Driven by advertising and subscriptions, these cyberlockers provide password-protected hard drive space online.
The “riesame” ( appeal) Court overturned a verdict of Preliminary investigations Judge of Rome that have seized the Rapidgator site for copyright infringment ( among 26 others).
The Court said “ having regard to Articles 322 and 324 of the (Italian) Criminal Procedure Code, granting the request of appeal, The Court cancel the appealed decree, that precludes the use of the site www.rapidgator.net for the purpose of storage for third parties (even though the payment)”.
The Court therefore declared the legitimacy of cyberlocker, if there is a system of notice and take down.
The Court also ruled that the owner of the portal can not respond to violations committed by the individual user.
The seizure of the entire site then contrasts against the principles of reasonableness, proportionality and adequacy.
The dispute began in december 2012, when an italian small film distributor, (with the assistance to the Italian’s Copyright collecting society, SIAE ) filed an action in the Court of Rome against 27 internet websites, alleging they had authorised the file sharing of a single Movie “a monster from paris” of its users.
Th Judge of Rome ordered to the ISP to block access to 27 web sites ( filesharing providers and cyberlockers) accused of consent illegal file-sharing .
Among others, Uploaded, BitShare, NowVideo, NowDownload, VideoPremium, QueenShare and ClipsHouse.
The now favorable verdict is limited to the cyberlocker Rapidgtor since the other web sites haven’t made happeal
Fulvio sarzana said “I’m pretty happy: the Copyright holders contend that the only way in which they can obtain effective relief to prevent, or at least reduce the infringements of their copyrights is by means of an order against ISPs.
But this is stupid, since the Concerns about over-blocking, and ease of circumvention are widely recognised .
That blocking through the ISPs is not a silver bullet to stop web copyright infringement, but is in fact a way to balkanize the web “
The investigations will continue since the prosecutor has however requested the authorities of the countries where the servers of cyberlocker sites are to release informations of the beneficial owners.
Fulvio SarzanaItalian police arrested four suspected hackers Friday, accusing them of having taken control of the Italian branch of the Anonymous network.
The alleged hackers, aged between 20 and 34, were placed under house arrest near the northern cities of Bologna, Turin and Venice, and in the southern town of Lecce.
Six more people were placed formally under investigation and a total of 10 premises were raided at the conclusion of a two-year police investigation code-named “Tango Down.”
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2039020/police-arrest-anonymous-suspects-in-italy.html
Fulvio SarzanaThe copyright industry has asked Italy’s Communications Authority (AgCom) to give itself the power to set up administrative procedures to block access to websites that facilitate piracy. However, Italian ISPs, associations and companies have sent an open letter to the regulator, saying that it does not have the authority to take such action and that this would be an expensive burden on state finances.
The letter was signed by the following organisations:
ALTROCONSUMO associazione indipendente di consumatori
ASSOPROVIDER (associazione provider indipendenti) –Confcommercio
ASSONET Associazione Nazionale Imprese nel Settore delle Telecomunicazioni e dell’informatica
AIIP, Associazione Italiana Internet Provider
Associazione Articolo21, liberi di…
Free Hardware Foundation Italia
IWA Italy – International Webmasters Association
Linux Club Italia
Stati Generali dell’ Innovazione
Rete dell’Innovazione
APICI, Associazione Piccole Imprese e Consulenti per l’Informatica
Liber Liber (ONLUS)
ASSINTEL- Associazione Nazionale Imprese ICT-Confcommercio
Fondazione AHREF-Bruno Kessler
Fondazione Il secolo della Rete
CNA Comunicazione
CNA Con federazione Nazionale artigianato, piccole e medie imprese Giovani
CGT Circolo dei Giuristi telematici
following on Telecompaper
Fulvio SarzanaEarlier this week in a copyright infringement crackdown initiated by the Italian authorities more than two dozen file-sharing domains were placed on ISP blocklists. One of those domains was Rapidgator, one of the world’s leading cyberlocker sites. Rather than simply rolling over, Rapidgator is now fighting back with with the assistance of an Italian lawyer experienced in handling Internet-related litigation. ISPs are also reportedly filing appeals.
Following a copyright infringement complaint from a small Italian distributor of a cartoon movie and a subsequent investigation by Italy’s Cybercrime Police, on Monday the Public Prosecutor of Rome targeted a total of 27 file-sharing related domains.
The sites, mainly storage and streaming operations, had their domain names blocked at the ISP level and rendered inaccessible in Italy.
While the list includes reasonably well known sites such as Uploaded, BitShare, FreakShare and VideoPremium, it also features one of the largest file-sharing sites on the Internet.
Currently ranked by Alexa as the 312th largest site in the world, Rapidgator is one of the leading file-hosting sites on the Internet and the 10th largest file-sharing site overall. It has also attracted the attention of the USTR as a so-called “notorious market.”
Rapidgator is Itay’s 284th most popular site but the current case has the potential to hurt the site beyond Itay’s borders. The prosecutor has already indicated that the local case could be progressed internationally with an eye on not just domain blocking but full-blown domain seizure.
Given this backdrop it’s unsurprising that Rapidgator has decided to fight back. The site has hired Fulvio Sarzana, a lawyer with the Sarzana and Partners law firm who specializes in Internet and copyright disputes.
In 2011 Sarzana obtained an order to stop a blockade of 493 domain names at the center of a trademark dispute.
“Rapidgator has given me the power of attorney to defend him in this trial in Italy,” Sarzana informs TorrentFreak. “On Wednesday we filed an appeal to the “riesame” (appeal) court of Rome.”
With an appeal now filed, Sarzana says that Rapidgator will gain access to information gathered during the initial investigation which will also reveal how far the process to seize the site’s domain has progressed.
“We will see if the prosecutor has already sent the general request of domain seizure to the international bodies, as he prescribed in the seize decree,” Sanzana explains.
While the 27 sites targeted in the action have a real interest in filing an appeal, there are other parties that are becoming increasingly affected by these type of actions.
Since 2010 Italy’s ISPs have been asked to block dozens of sites, many of them related to file-sharing.
Sarzana says that he is now aware that some ISPs have also filed appeals against the current blocking order.
follow on Torrentfreak
Fulvio SarzanaThe Public Prosecutor of Rome, Italy, has targeted a total of 27 file-sharing related sites, cyberlocker and other linking services.
This is the full list of 27 domains:
clipshouse.com
cyberlocker.ch
ddl-fantasy.org
filmfreestream.org
filmnuovistreaming.com
filmpertutti.tv
flashdrive.it
flashstream.in
freakshare.com
gatestreaming.com
italiafilm2.com
likeupload.net
megaload.it
nowdownload.co
nowvideo.co
panicmovie.altervista.org
queenshare.com
rapidgator.net
robin-film.net
speedvid.tv
streamingworld.forumcommunity.net
uploaded.net
uploadjet.net
videopremium.net
yourlifeupdated.it
A “Monster” from Rome: 27 portals of major file sharing, cyberlocker and bittorrent (including Nowvideo, Nowdownload, Videopremium, Rapidgator, Bitshare, Queenshare, Uploaded, Cyberlocker, Clipshouse) have been seized in Italy, at a request of the Public Prosecutor of Rome.
The Prosecutor asks for the domain to be definitively shut down.
The battle against online file sharing has ramped up.
The Public Prosecutor of Rome, Italy, has launched a large offensive on copyright infringing sites, seizing 27 Web site linking to file sharing, cyberlockers and file hostinginternational sites such as Nowvideo, Nowdownload, Videopremium, Rapidgator, Bitshare, Queenshare, Uploaded, Clipshouse, and more, in the largest operation against filesharing and torrents known in the world since May 26 of 2010, when the US Homeland Security Department seized over 70 domains.
The domains of sites linking to torrent files, in order to downloadillegal copies of music and movie, have been seized this week as ordered by Preliminary investigation Judge of Rome, at the request of the public prosecutor, following an investigation of the Italian cybercrime Police.
Both the DNS addresses of the sites and their domain name have been made inaccessible to Italian users by all Italian ISPs (Internet service providers), in such a way to deprive users of the possibility to access to their files hosted in the sites.
But the operation is not limited to the Italy, as the Public prosecutor asks for seizing the domain associated to the sites, too.
The shutdown affects millions of people, leaving in the dark hundreds of thousands of Italian users who have obviously nothing to do with copyright infringements, having simply purchased via premium systems the possibility to exchange large files.
Italian lawyer Fulvio Sarzana, of Sarzana and partners law firm, specialized in internet related matters and involved in the past in the major copyright disputes, assisting providers and file hosting providers ,has declared “I think that operations like this one could jeopardize freedom of speech, and endanger legitimate web sites, being also a risk for the civil liberties. Copyright cannot be considered as a more essential right than freedom of expression, or a more important matter than a free and open internet.
The order of the seizure of the websites has been given at the request of a small Italian distributor for one single cartoon movie: it is clear that there is not any proportion between the seizure of entire sites (and domains) containing millions of legal files and the potential violation of the copyright of a single movie.”
By Ron Finberg
In a dramatic move, the preliminary investigations by the Judge of Rome, on the order of the Public Prosecutor of Rome, under request from Italian financial regulator Consob has directed Italian ISPs to block numerous binary options cites from appearing in Italy. Banned sites are ipotion.com, tradersmarter.com, bocapital.com, eztrader.com, startoptions.com, and anyoption.com.
According to the reports that were first posted by Italian language news sites late last month, Consob believes that binary options closely could resemble gambling and are the aforementioned firms are not in compliance with Italian financial rules.
Follow on Forexmagnates
Fulvio SarzanaItalian Public Prosecutor Says File-Sharing Site Is ‘Receiving Stolen Goods’
http://www.lidis.it/eng/newsdetail.asp?ID=997
Fulvio Sarzana
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament
“The new copyright law: the European debate, commitments for the next Italian legislature”
Thursday, December 20,
Hall of Flags
European Parliament Information Office in Italy
Via IV Novembre 149, Rome
14h30
Hours: Luigi Berlinguer, MEP PD ( Democratic Party)
14h45-16h30
First round table: The contents
Chair: Matthew Orfini, Head of Democratic Party cultural department
The representatives of the following organizations:
FIMI Italian Music Industry Federation
Altroconsumo, Consumer Association
Google Italy
Deezer Italy
Association of Authors 100
SAISLC CGIL – FISTEL CISL – UIL UILCOM
Italian Association of Phonographic
with the presence of:
Silvia Costa, MEP PD
16h30 – 18h15
Second round table: The rules
Chair: Paolo Gentiloni, MEP Democratic Party
Speakers:
Maurizio Decina, Commissioner NRA (AGCOM)
Manlio Mallia, Deputy General Manager SIAE ( Authors and Editors Association)
Mr. Fulvio Sarzana, Lawyer
Marco Polillo, President Italian Publishers Association
Paul Marzano, President of the Advisory Committee for the Right of Author
Prof. Marco Ricolfi, Nexa, University of Turin
Arturo Di Corinto, La Repubblica journalist
Giuseppe Mazzotti, Digital Forum, Center for European Policy Studies
Vincenzo Vita, Senator PD
18h15 Conclusions: Luigi Berlinguer
Fulvio Sarzana
The Milan public prosecutor has ordered the seizure of assets of the Avaxhome “digital newsstand”, a portal for “sharing” newspapers, books, comics and music DVDs. The claim of receiving stolen goods against the site was validated by the investigating magistrate in Milan after a complaint by Italian publishing group Mondadori in June. The website is based in Russia, and Italian ISPs have now blocked access to the site.
The case of Avaxhome reminiscent in some ways the story Megaupload, specializing in the sharing of movies. It follows the seizure ordered by Spain of another popular newsstand, Kiosk.
“But in addition to the breach of copyright – says the lawyer Fulvio Sarzana, legal of ISP association – for the first time in Italy is pursuing those who publish articles on the web as if they had sold a stolen car.
The danger is that all those who publish articles on Web of others without authorization can be investigated for a crime so serious.
Fulvio SarzanaIt ‘a judgment intended to be debatable that emitted by the seventh section of the Criminal Court of Rome, which tackles the delicate issue of access to websites from the pedophile content, establishing principles somewhat surprising.
The case brought to the attention of the Court Capitoline originated from an investigation by the police of Luxembourg who had reported to Interpol , the world’s largest international police organization, with 190 member countries, the presence of a large number of Italian navigators that would be connected to a pedophile site located abroad.
The identification of Italian navigators had taken place through the connection of computer evidence gathered by the same Interpol.
Among the defendants was an italian manager, defended by Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito, of Sarzana and Partners Law Firm, who had a home broadband internet connection through the wireless system called WI FI.
The Court of Rome, by judgment of 11 June 2012, sent acquitted the man for not having committed the crime, establishing some important principles in the collection and identification of evidence of a crime committed through the Internet.
Among the principles established by the Court of Rome that there is access to a pedophile site may be accidental and not a criminal offense, the nature of child pornography images must be rigorously proven, that a wi-fi connection can also be used by third parties that may have interfered illegally in the computer system of the accused and, above all, that the evidence of the connection to a website acquired from the internet service provider, through the so-called log connection, or evidence of access to a specific website if not acquired and stored in accordance with the law, are unusable.
This profile is bound to have important consequences in all crimes that are done through the internet.
For the first time in Italy in fact a court applies in favor of the accused, the rules of transposition of the Budapest Convention of 2008 on crimes via the Internet, asserting that the failure on the part of the organs investigation of the collection of data Internet connection to the internet service provider, to be able to render useless the evidence gathered.
Fulvio SarzanaThe Italian association of ISPs (Assoprovider) has challenged ( through the Sarzana and Partners Law Firm) a decision by the Italian Appeals Court of Milan to block the Indymedia website, accused of transmitting false information against a multinational company.
According to the ISPs, such measures violate the free circulation of information and block the development of e-commerce. Assoprovider noted that in recent weeks there have been several orders for blocking access to blogs, media outlets and portals, moves which risk transforming the ISPs into internet “censors”.
Fulvio Sarzana
The blocking of access to users Italians adopted through the seizure of the the Italian providers’s IP and DNS, in case of alleged defamation, must be considered excessive in relation to the legal right to be protected.
The seizure of a website should be solely on one or more offensive phrases and only if the sentences haven’t been deleted in the meantime (which in the case had already been made by the owner of the site, as certified by fax sent to the provider by the police post on March 9 the same note).
This was decided by the Court of the Freedom of Belluno, Italy, chaired by the President of the Court Sergio Trentanovi (Judge Antonella Coniglio and Elizabeth Scolozzi) , on March 9.
The site Vajont.info, except one ironic phrase against an Italian Silvio Berlusconi Party Mps, On. Maurizio Paniz, must then return in its entirety on the web.
The Court therefore accepts the claim of the 200 Internet Service Provider of Confcommercio, belonging to the Association “Assoprovider”, proposed by the lawyer Fulvio Sarzana di S.Ippolito, who, immediately protested to the amplitude of the measure imposed by the judge for preliminary investigations of Belluno Sergio Giancotti.
The provider had complained about the serious risks to the constitutional rights of free expression and the right to information related to execution of the measure.
The lawyer had argued the measure in front of the Board chaired by the President of the Court on March 9.
The Court established two principles:
1) The Judge of preliminary investigations would only order the seizure of the alleged defamatory words and not the entire site, arguing that otherwise would place serious risks to the protection of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and press as protected by Article 21 of the italian Constitution.
2) The measure of inhibition to the Italian surfers through the ISP’s DNS and IP covered by the order of execution signed by the prosecutor are too high in order to the good to be protected, in this case the reputation of Hon Maurizio Paniz.
An enourmous error led to two Danish ISPs mistakenly blocking around 8,000 websites, including Google and Facebook, for several hours on the grounds of containing child pornography. Customers of the Siminn ISP who tried to access the affected pages were greeted with the following message:
Fulvio Sarzana“The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police [NITEC], who assist in investigations into crime on the internet, has informed Siminn Denmark A/S, that the internet page which your browser has tried to get in contact with may contain material which could be regarded as child pornography. Upon the request of The National High Tech Crime Center of the Danish National Police, Siminn Denmark A/S has blocked the access to the internet page.”
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced two days ago at the USA Senat, the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2012 (SECURE IT Act).
The bill’s cosponsors include Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Dan Coats (R-IN), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Richard Burr (R-NC).
In a hearing in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs last month, Senator McCain expressed procedural and substantive concerns about the “Cybersecurity Act of 2012,” S. 2105, which was sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV), and he announced his intention to put forward a competing cybersecurity bill
Fulvio SarzanaTrade commissioner Karel De Gucht announced the move on Wednesday, saying he shared protestors’ concerns about freedoms and rights. He said the referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) would cut through the “fog of uncertainty” surrounding the pact.
”I am glad to say that this morning my fellow commissioners have discussed and agreed in general with my proposal to refer the ACTA agreement to the European Court of Justice,” De Gucht said in a statement. “We are planning to ask Europe’s highest court to assess whether ACTA is incompatible — in any way — with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression and information, or data protection and the right to property, in case of intellectual property.”
Fulvio SarzanaThe Judge of the preliminary investigations of Belluno, Italy, on request of local Prosecutor, has ordered the seizure of www.Vajont.info portal, the website that told with pictures and articles, the story of the massacre following the collapse of the dam Vajont of 1963, that claimed the death of 1910 people, for a sentence considered offensive to the reputation of Mr Domenico Scilipoti and Maurizio Paniz, two MPs from the majority of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
On 12 February 2008, while launching the International Year of Planet Earth, UNESCO cited the Vajont Dam tragedy as one of five “cautionary tales”, caused by “the failure of engineers and geologists”
The measure requested by the prosecutor however, has been adopted not only for a page containing the sentence or the whole portal, but also against 226 internet service providers Italians, who were ordered to “restraining the respective users access to the web www.vajont.info, with aliases and domain names present and future, returning to that site, the static IP address that at the time of seizure is associated the said domain name, and any additional static IP address that will be associated in the future (interdiction to address resolution via DNS). “
The European Court of Justice has issued a ruling today in the case SABAM v Netlog NV where it confirms its prior decision in the Scarlet case.
The Court first ruled that the implementation of general filtering systems collides with the prohibition contained in the E-Commerce Directive to Member States to impose a general obligation to monitor on service providers conducting activities of mere conduit, caching and hosting.
On 10 July 2010, the Brussels Court of First Instance denied the penalty payment request and submitted a question for preliminary ruling. The Court of First Instance asked the European Court whether or not a national judge may issue an injunction against a hosting service provider to filter most of the information stored on its servers in order to identify electronic files containing musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work, and subsequently to block the exchange of such files. The injunction that SABAM requested covered all Netlog customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure.
In today’s decision, the Court decided that it is against European law to order such a measure. The generality and broadness of such an injunction is against freedom of communication, privacy rights and freedom to conduct business.
Fulvio SarzanaSpain’s Supreme Court has agreed to consider a complaint brought by a group representing web users against the government’s so-called ‘ley Sinde’ anti-download law that aims to protect copyright material.
The appeal also requested an injunction of the codes, which will be enforced starting March 1.
The Supreme Court gave the government 10 days to address the request. Regardless of the injunction, any move to shut down web pages will eventually be conditioned by the court’s ruling.
Fulvio SarzanaThe Economist on ACTA “That is probably exaggerated: ACTA is intentionally vague (signatories are left to draw up precise rules themselves). But it is potentially draconian. Infringers could be liable for the total loss of potential sales (implying that everyone who buys a pirated product would have bought the real thing). It applies to unintentional use of copyright material. It puts the onus on website owners to ensure they comply with laws across several territories. It has been negotiated secretively and outside established international trade bodies (despite EU criticisms)”.
Fulvio SarzanaPrague – The Czech government will suspend the process of ratification of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Prime Minister Petr Necas (Civic Democrats, ODS) said today, adding the government will still analyse the issue.
Fulvio Sarzanafrom Wikipedia.
Golan v. Holder[1], 565 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case case originally filed in 2001 challenging the constitutionality of the application of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a treaty seeking to equalize copyright protection on an international basis. In the United States, the Act restored copyright status to foreign works previously in the public domain. The two main arguments against the application of the Act in the case were that restoring copyright violates the “limited time” language of the United States Constitution‘s Copyright Clause, and that restoring to copyright works that had passed into the public domain interferes with the peoples’ First Amendment right to use, copy and otherwise exploit the works and to freely express themselves through these works, thus also violating the Constitution’s Copyright Clause.[2]
The US Supreme Court held on January 18, 2012 that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act does not exceed Congress’s authority under the Copyright Clause, and the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court by 6-2, with the opinion written by Justice Ginsburg.[2] The practical effect of the decision is that works that were once free to use, such as Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf, are no longer in the public domain, with the result that if used, are now subject to use only with the permission of the copyright holder, such as in paid licensing rather than without compensation to the copyright holder.[3]
Fulvio SarzanaThe European Union has signed today in Tokyo the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Now the treaty can be formally ratified and adopted into law once it has been cleared by the European Parliament.
The treaty contains also enforcement procedures against digital copyright infringement.
In particular ACTA allow to the rights owners to ask to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) informations about their clients , where the latter has a sufficient claim that the user is breaching their copyright.
Fulvio Sarzana 
The European Union present today a new law safeguarding the Internet users’s ‘right to be forgotten’.
If it is approved, this law will enable users to request the cancellation of personal information from all online Websites, from social networks to any other company’s site.
The proposal is part of a broad review of the European Commission’s 1995 Directive on data protection.
According to the new legal provision, people will be able to impose on companies their right to cancel their personal data from data-banks unless the latter hold a “legitimate” right to continue conserving them.
source: AGI Munich
Fulvio Sarzana
Here, an interesting article on so called Italian SOPA Law, by the mynewsportal.it.
“Our government also, in particular the Honourable Fava Northern League, wanted to present a bill that , Once approved, would go to obscure sites “suspects” have outraged the copyright laws.”
and
In addition to retrace the steps of the U.S. law that aims to consider the law responsible for the violations from time to time also recorded service providers “to make available to the recipient’s tools or services … more, in particular organizational or promotional, or adopt procedures for submitting information is not necessary to perform services covered by this Decree, that are suitable to facilitate or promote the marketing of products or services by the service recipient”.
Fulvio SarzanaThe Commission is closely monitoring developments in our Member States and other countries in the field of intellectual property rights and online piracy, including the current debate in the US Congress on proposed legislation.
It is the Commission’s intention to propose a revised Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement directive i by the end of 2012.
As a principle, theft of property cannot be tolerated.
The European Commission will facilitate licensing of music and other works by establishing a level playing field in the single market for collective management of rights.
Through its revision of the Enforcement Directive, the Commission will ensure that operators that solicit copyright infringements by individuals and derive profit from this are rapidly identified and sanctioned by the courts in the Member States.
On 20 January the new Italian Prime Minister Prof Mario Monti passed a reform (known as “Decreto Liberalizzazioni”.
It seems that that will be a changement in the legal discipline of the Italian Monopolist Collecting Society (SIAE)
According to Article 39(2) of the Decreto Liberalizzazioni:
“To favour the creation of new undertakings aimed at protecting the rights of artists, performers and executors, by enhancing competitive pluralism and allowing for a more economic-oriented management, as well as by favouring the actual involvement and control by rights owners, administration and intermediation activities relating to neighbouring rights, pursuant to the Italian Copyright Act – no matter how these are carried out – are free.”
The Article 180 of the Italian Copyright Act provided for intermediation activities in the field of neighbouring rights be carried out exclusively by SIAE.
It’s not clear, at the moment, what will be about the SIAE Monopoly and if will be an open competion by italian and foreign collecting societies.
UPDATE: The English Translation of the Article 39(2) of the Decreto Liberalizzazioni, in the body of article, was by Eleonora Rosati from her 1709 blog . Sorry for the misunderstending. fs
Fulvio SarzanaSeven individuals and two corporations have been charged in the United States with running an international organized criminal enterprise allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous types of copyrighted works through Megaupload.com and other related sites, generating more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and causing more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright owners, the U.S. Justice Department and FBI announced today.
This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime.
source FBI homepage http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/justice-department-charges-leaders-of-megaupload-with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement
Fulvio SarzanaTwo Dutch cable companies were ordered by a court on Wednesday to block access to the website The Pirate Bay to prevent the illegal downloading of free music, films and games in case brought on behalf of the entertainment industry.
source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/11/us-dutch-internet-ban-idUSTRE80A1AE20120111
Fulvio SarzanaThe European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) sets out on january 10th, his priorities for 2012 in the
area of legislative consultation by publishing his strategic planning document, the Inventory.
Here, the EDPS identifies issues of strategic importance that will form the cornerstones of his
consultation work for 2012, while not neglecting the importance of other legislative
procedures where data protection is concerned.
Fulvio SarzanaAccording to a recent judgement of the European Court of Justice, member states customs authorities would be entitled to act in cases where goods which are in transit on EU territory violate intellectual property rights protected in the European Union. The Court clarifies that for that purpose, it has to be demonstrated that there has been a commercial act directed to European consumers, such as advertising of these products in EU market.
Fulvio SarzanaSpain’s newly elected conservative government has annulled the country’s conterversial ‘Canon Digital’, a tax applied to media content storage devices and supports. After negotiating with the sector, the government will pay rights holders fair compensation for consumers’ private copy rights out of the federal budget. The private copy tax was established in 1987 but was severely criticised by the Spanish and European judiciary.
Fulvio SarzanaApple was fined a total of €900,000 ($1.2m) by the Italian Antitrust Authority in december for failing to properly inform customers of their legal right to two years of warranty service under Italy’s Consumer Code.
The agency says Apple only disclosed its own standard one-year warranty and offered to sell customers AppleCare for the additional year instead of abiding by the law — pretty shady stuff, actually.
This decision is meant to become a ground breaking precedent in the sector as it shows the need for companies acting in the Italian market to localise their terms and conditions and to ensure the maximum level of transparency to consumers on their rights.
Fulvio SarzanaThe Italian government is thinking about how it could restructure its Digital Television frequencies in order to boost public revenue.
DTT frequencies are currently assigned without a fee based on criteria set by Italian telecommunications regulator Agcom and the Industry Ministry.
the Ministry of Economic Development started a so called beauty contest procedure. A commission of experts appointed by the Ministry shall draw a ranking of the applications of the applicant broadcasters (according to higher or lesser compliance to some requirements) and grant the frequencies according to such ranking.
Actually, in the meantime, 4 appeals has been filed before the competent court .
Industry minister Corrado Passera said the current “beauty contest” could be reviewed, but in fact nothing happened since today..
Fulvio Sarzanahttp://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15575254,00.html
Fulvio SarzanaThe Swiss government has, after a parliamentary study, decided to make no change in its copyright laws which means that downloading for personal use will continue to be legal.
Due to this, the investigation concluded there was no need for any change in the copyright legislation.
Fulvio Sarzana
The Italian’s Publisher Giappichelli has published a book on “New trends in computer crimes law” by the University Professors Francesca Ruggieri and Lorenzo Picotti.
Within the text there is an essay entitled “Considerations on the Internet of objects and Cloud Computing” edited by Past President of Italian Supreme Court C. Sarzana di S.Ippolito now Lawyer of Sarzana e Partners Law Firm, that deals with the legal profiles of Cloud Computing on the basis of national legislation and international issue.
Here is available the essay interventosarzanacloud
Fulvio SarzanaNeelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for Digital Agenda, publicly supported changes to the current copyright system in Europe.
In a speech entitled “Who feeds the artist?” at the Forum D’Avignon on Nov. 19th, Kroes criticized the scarcity of revenue that copyright legislation and other areas of law reserve for artists. “Speaking of economic reward: if that is the aim of our current copyright system, we’re failing here”, stated Kroes.
She cited examples of artists in the UK and Germany, the majority of which earn a “paltry payment” often lower than the minimum wage in those countries. She proposed a number of solutions including the use of information and communications technology and Cloud computing to find better ways to distribute creative content and connect artists with their consumers. She also supported adopting improved legislation that would better “feed art, and feed artists.”
Fulvio SarzanaUS authorities have initiated the largest round of domain name seizures yet as part of their continued crackdown on counterfeit and piracy-related websites. With just a few days to go until “Cyber Monday” more than 100 domain names have been taken over by the feds to protect the commercial interests of US companies. The seizures are disputable, as the SOPA bill which aims to specifically legitimize such actions is still pending in Congress.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have resumed “Operation In Our Sites”, the domain name seizing initiative designed to crack down on online piracy and counterfeiting
Such an injunction does not comply with the prohibition on imposing a general monitoring obligation on such a provider, or with the requirement to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the right to intellectual property, and, on the other, the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information
This case has its origin in a dispute between Scarlet Extended SA, an internet service provider, and SABAM, a Belgian management company which is responsible for authorising the use by third parties of the musical works of authors, composers and editors.
In 2004, SABAM established that users of Scarlet’s services were downloading works in SABAM’s catalogue from the internet, without authorisation and without paying royalties, by means of peer-to-peer networks (a transparent method of file sharing which is independent, decentralised and features advanced search and download functions).
Upon application by SABAM, the President of the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of First Instance, Belgium) ordered Scarlet, in its capacity as an internet service provider, on pain of a periodic penalty, to bring those copyright infringements to an end by making it impossible for its customers to send or receive in any way electronic files containing a musical work in SABAM’s repertoire by means of peer-to-peer software.
Scarlet appealed to the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal), claiming that the injunction failed to comply with EU law because it imposed on Scarlet, de facto, a general obligation to monitor communications on its network, something which was incompatible with the Directive on electronic commerce1 and with fundamental rights. In that context, the Cour d’appel asks the Court of Justice whether EU law permits Member States to authorise a national court to order an internet service provider to install, on a general basis, as a preventive measure, exclusively at its expense and for an unlimited period, a system for filtering all electronic communications in order to identify illegal file downloads.
In its judgment delivered today, the Court points out, first of all, that holders of intellectual-property rights may apply for an injunction against intermediaries, such as internet service providers, whose services are being used by a third party to infringe their rights. The rules for the operation of injunctions are a matter for national law. However, those national rules must respect the limitations arising from European Union law, such as, in particular, the prohibition laid down in the E-Commerce Directive on electronic commerce under which national authorities must not adopt measures which would require an internet service provider to carry out general monitoring of the information that it transmits on its network.
In this regard, the Court finds that the injunction in question would require Scarlet to actively monitor all the data relating to each of its customers in order to prevent any infringement of intellectual-property rights. It follows that the injunction would impose general monitoring, something which is incompatible with the E-Commerce Directive. Moreover, such an injunction would not respect the applicable fundamental rights.
It is true that the protection of the right to intellectual property is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. There is, however, nothing whatsoever in the wording of the Charter or in the Court’s case-law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected.
In the present case, the injunction requiring the installation of a filtering system involves monitoring, in the interests of copyright holders, all electronic communications made through the network of the internet service provider concerned. That monitoring, moreover, is not limited in time. Such an injunction would thus result in a serious infringement of Scarlet’s freedom to conduct its business as it would require Scarlet to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense.
What is more, the effects of the injunction would not be limited to Scarlet, as the filtering system would also be liable to infringe the fundamental rights of its customers, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their right to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. It is common ground, first, that the injunction would involve a systematic analysis of all content and the collection and identification of users’ IP addresses from which unlawful content on the network is sent. Those addresses are protected personal data. Secondly, the injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications.
Consequently, the Court finds that, in adopting the injunction requiring Scarlet to install such a filtering system, the national court would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the right to receive or impart information, on the other.
Accordingly, the Court’s reply is that EU law precludes an injunction made against an internet service provider requiring it to install a system for filtering all electronic communications passing via its services which applies indiscriminately to all its customers, as a preventive measure, exclusively at its expense, and for an unlimited period.
Fulvio Sarzana
Some days ago the Italian police division tasked with handling cybercrime cases has announced it has shut down several file-sharing websites.
The sites, with more than 136.000 sibscribers, which were connected by ownership, according to Financial Guard”, Guardia di Finanza (GdF) that is a department under Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance and actually part of the Italian Armed Forces offered links to torrents and files hosted and indexed more than 31,000 items with including movies, music, TV show, games and software.
The court’s restraining order was also directed to access and DNS providers to point the seized web sites since the websites servers was outside italy.
The action was held with assistance from FPM (Federation Against Music Piracy), AESVI (Italian Entertainment Software Publishers Association) and movie anti-piracy group FAPAV, complaints were filed against three alleged leaders of the websites along with the seizure of computer equipment.
Today, Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito, of Sarzana e Partners Law Firm, a boutique law firm specialized in Information technology and telecommunications law, who is one of the leader of the freedom of speech and expression mouvement www.sitononraggiungibile.it and won the so called copyright leading case Moncler vs AIIP and Assoprovider ( Italian Association of Internet service provider ) announced had decided to defend the Network Owners, making appeal to the so called Freedom Court ( Tribunale del Riesame) of Salerno.
Fulvio SarzanaSubject: Notification 2011/403/I
Sir,
“Where a legitimate entity believes that a certain content violates the author’s rights and1. The Italian authorities are invited to explain the scope of the notion of “legitimate entity” that[…]“? Could the Italian authorities explaindeclaration“, which is referred to both in Annex I (notice form) and Annex II. Could“Where the content to which the warning relates has been uploaded by third parties, the entity to1. Could the Italian authorities explain whether the obligation to notify the uploader pursuant to“The entity to which the counter notice is forwarded, where possible, shall notify the warning1. Could the Italian authorities explain what the extension of obligation laid down in this articleInvestigation states that:“The notice of commencement of the investigatory proceeding contains a summary of the facts,The time period of 48 hours (not even 2 working days) to make written statements of defenceMeasures for entities located in Italy states that:“The collective body may order the managers of sites whose domain names are registered by anThe Commission would like the Italian authorities to clarify why they use the criterion of theAuthority measures for subjects located overseas states:“The collective body, in relation to the managers of sites whose domain names are registered by5a) Order the site managers to comply with the Copyright LawCould the Italian authorities clarify whether the order of measures that the collective body may[…],“)?
Fulvio Sarzana
Rome, 8th November 2011.
Italian Appeal Court: it’s illegal to block, through the Internet access service providers, the Websites containing the term suspected of violating a trademark within their domain names or that offers content that seems to be infringes the rights of the trademark owner.
The Moncler Group, that is on of the major Italian clothing group headquartered in Milan, owns other brands such as Henry Cotton’s, Marina Yachting as well as Coast Weber&Ahaus, and holds a license for 18CRR81 Cerruti, was defeated by two Italian Internet Service Provider Association, AIIP ( that belongs to Confindustria, the Italian employers’ federation) and ASSOPROVIDER ( belonging to Confcommercio The Italian General Confederation of Enterprises, Professional Occupations and Self-employment is the largest enterprise-representative in Italy, with more than 770,000 members from the trade, tourist, service and transportation sectors), in Italian historic Court ruling.
The Entreprises Confederations, assisted from Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito , Senior Partner of Sarzana e Partners Law Firm, a law firm based in Rome, specialized in Internet related and telecommunicaions matters, have successfully obtained an order, from The Criminal Court of Padua, to stop the block of 493 Internet Websites which containing the term “Moncler” within their domain names or that offers content that seems to be infringes the rights of the Moncler trademark owner .
Padua Court has said that, without serious evidence under the Italian Criminal Code, an ISP (Internet service provider), that give internet acces to end-users, cannot be forced to block or filter intellectual property-infringing files at the behest of intellectual property rights holders.
The Story:
On September 29, the Italian Court of Padua ordered 493 websites to shut down as a consequence of an action brought by Moncler.
The plaintiff applied for a seizure and claimed that the websites were in breach of Section 474 and 517 of the Italian Criminal Code, which provide for penalties for whoever trades goods or services under false marks or in violation of trademarks.
Thus, the Court ordered to shut down all the websites containing the term “Moncler” within their domain names.
In an appeal held November 2th three judges decided to reverse the decision of Judge of first instance ( GIP) .
IT’s the first time that an Italian Court recognize the right of providers associations to defend the freedom of the of Internet users in Court.
Here the PDF with the Court Ruling riesame-sequestro-moncler
Fulvio Sarzana
In Strasbourg on October 27, 2011, the European Parliament voted through a new EU directive to remove child porn websites.
The new provisions include better protection measures such as the removal of child porn websites; more effective prosecution of criminals; and special support for victims. The key elements in the fight against child abuse are the harmonisation of criminal offences and penalties, and better preventive measures.
This directive also introduces important new measures against child pornography and abuse, for example to prevent online grooming and child sex tourism. It is now up to each individual Member State, including Ireland, to transpose and implement the rules that have been adopted today as effectively and quickly as possible, and fully demonstrate their commitment to protecting children from abuse.
Fulvio SarzanaThe EU Court of Justice in a ruling of 25 October 2011 in Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, regarding two cases of defamation on line has ruled with a statement that appears to conflict with the recent online defamation guidelines of the Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation).
In particular, the Court stated:
“In case of an alleged breach of personal rights by means of content put online on a website, the person that the complainant has the right to bring an action for compensation for all damage caused, or in the courts Member State of the location of the person who issued such content, or the courts of the Member State where it has its center of interest. In lieu of an action for compensation for all damage caused, this person may also bring an action before the courts of each Member State on whose territory the information networking is accessible or it has been. These are only competent to hear the damage caused on the territory of the Member State of the court. ”
In practice, those who feel defamed on the internet can go directly to the courts of the State of residence of herself or resident to request a complete rest of the damage throughout the EU.
If, however, will refer the individual judges of the various Member States, each will be solely responsible for any damage caused inside his country.
The Italian Court of Cassation in the united section by order No. 21661 of October 13, 2009 ruled as applicable in case of injury to the honor and reputation through the internet (even if in a case of national character) is that exclusively of residence or domicile of the injured and not of the injurer, to avoid that the injured can choose the most convenient court.
Fulvio SarzanaThe sentence of an Italian court to seize, before the criminal trial, 500 websites for trademark infringement is discussing in Italy
The measure of seizure of websites is arranged on 29 September by the preliminary investigations judge of the Court of Padua Lara Fortuna, at the request of the prosecutor at the Tribunal Paola De Franceschi.
The GIP of Padua has arranged for the first time in our country the seizure of 493 websites, some amateur and registered abroad, for trademark infringement, at the request of the multinational Moncler.
The measure was not limited, as has happened in the past, to ask the national providers to prevent access to a single site, but placed directly obscuration of hundreds of websites, some amateur, recalling the the brand name of the multinational company which owns the clothing brand Moncler.
Many of these sites were not active or does not make any sales, simply call in the name of the word “Moncler”.
The judge ordered the sequestration and the darkening of the sites for the offenses in the state and the market introduction of products with false signs referred to ‘Article 474 of the Penal Code, as well as for the offense of Sale of industrial products with misleading signs of in Art. 517 of the Penal Code.
The fact is new for several reasons:
It ‘the first time that Italy is placed in a seizure of websites of this nature for trade mark infringements.
Most of the sites covered by the measure lies with foreign providers, of course, could make the decision only in the presence of acts of international letters rogatory.
Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito, a lawyer expert in criminal law and legal informatics Assoprovider ISP Association of Confcommercio ( an association of small-medium business company) , which has been involved in the proceedings as many other national providers, expressed concerns about the measure.
“The judge’s ruling at the Court of Padua appears abnormal.
Not only does the number of sites which requires the blackout seems frankly absurd, but also the ability to run a measure of this kind from the technical point of view is difficult to achieve for those who know the Internet. ”
Despite the fact the Supreme Court has allowed the seizure of a site (in the famous case of Pirate Bay, but very different from those for crimes for which you are making or breaking the law on copyright), it must be said that that case (already discussed in itself), the GIP of Bergamo had ordered not the ‘”obscuring direct” of websites but the’ unable to access the site through DNS blocking for Italian citizens, according to an argumentative process that had already given place in hot controversy doctrine.
In the case treated by the GIP of Padua seems that the simple domain name associated with the site seized, was regarded as such evidence to bring forth the offense counterfeiters.
It is therefore indeed a true “seizure” of domain names, “disguised” by inhibiting access for Italian users.
The request came to the Italian providers, moreover, in order to active research of hundreds of websites to obscure contrasts against the basic principle according to which the provider can not be considered in all respects the sheriffs of the net. ”
The Court statement is likely to seriously impact on sales made through e-commerce portals such as Ebay, which could be considered liable for criminal offences together with those who sell counterfeit goods held on the internet, and seeing so closed pages of listings through the instrument of the seizure .
Fulvio Sarzanahe Italian government is working on an anti-piracy law that has the possibility to ban Internet users from access subsequent to an alleged infringement.
ISPs will be needed to make use of filters in opposition to services that infringe copyright, patents or trademark under terms of the draft law. In July, the recommended changed to Italy’s e-commerce directive had been drafted by members of parliament belonging to the Il Popolo della Libertà (PdL) party of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi.
All of the citizens might get disconnected from the Internet in case a provider has been notified of a claimed copyright, patent or rather trademark infringement on the Web.
ISPs is going to have to blacklist all of those citizens who are just being suspected of infringements, in addition providers may well be compelled to install filters in order to sniff out trademark, copyright or patent abuse, he further stated. Also, ISPs which don’t comply with the filter requirement have the possibility of being held liable under civil laws.
At this time, the draft is present with a parliamentary committee for its initial check.
Fulvio Sarzana
Italian’s AGCOM President, Corrado Calabrò ,continues to say that the “Resolution Killer Internet” have received consensus in the international arena.
He said in the annual report at the Italian parliament and reiterated during the meeting that took place with myself and the other promoters of the campaigne www.sitononraggiungibile.it
Yet it seems to us that this support, beyond those having vested interests, including within international institutions that appear impartial but they are not, there is quite the opposite.
The free voices writing in English instead, (ie journalists, jurists, commentators, technicians) as those that I present in these pages are very critical to the resolution.
http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/romani-decree-agcom-and-ip-enforcement-in-italy/
http://tech-news-buzz.blogspot.com/2011/01/by-copyright-complaint-against-web-all.html
http://gadget.blogcommon.com/copyright-all-web-censorship-against-the-acting-agcom
http://www.toonaripost.com/2011/07/freedom-of-the-web-at-risk-in-italy-copyright-to-hide-censorship/
http://blog.debiase.com/2011/07/agcom-anti-piracy-enforcement.html
http://www.experientia.com/blog/help-us-say-no-to-italian-internet-censorship/
Fulvio Sarzana
The “White Paper on copyright and protection of fundamental rights on the Internet “: 125 pages of International Studies, independent research, 500 References, fifteen authors from the world of journalism, business, academic research, the professions, the consumerism coordinated by the jurist Fulvio Sarzana di S.Ippolito.
Tuesday June 14 p.v. from 13 to 14 p.m. at the Press conference room of the Italian Chamber of Deputies in Rome (the Mission Street entrance 4) will be held the press conference presenting the “White Paper on copyright and protection of fundamental rights on the Internet” sponsored by the Consumers Associations and digital freedom Association ADICONSUM, AGORADIGITALE, Altroconsumo, Assonet-Confesercenti ASSOPROVIDER-Confcommercio, and by Law Firm Sarzana and Partners.
The press conference will take place immediately after the presentation to Parliament the Annual Report of the President of the Italian Communications Authority, to be held in the morning at 11 am at the hall of Lupa.
At The press conference will be also Sen. Vincenzo Vita , Cultural Heritage Commission Vice-President of Parliament, the Commissioner of Italian Communications Authority Nicola D’Angelo and the Member of parliament Marco Beltrandi.
The white paper is coordinated by the lawyer Fulvio Sarzana, will be available at the press conference and signed by fifteen authors from the world of journalism, business, academic research, the professions, the consumerism, among which indicate Scialdone Marco, Paolo Brini, Luca Nicotra, Marco Pierani, Mauro Vergari, Stefano Quintarelli, Luca Annunziata, Gaia Botta, Mauro Alovisio, Dino Bortolotto, Giovan Battista Frontera, Giulia Aranguena de la Paz, Research Center for Legal Informatics Turin, Fabrizio Gizzi, and addresses the issue of copyright from the point of view hitherto unexplored, under international studies never made known to the Italian public about copyright and freedom of expression, independent research, data in support of fundamental rights on the Internet, legal and social experiences of cohabitation between the protection of copyright and freedom of expression , and also analyzes the recent initiatives of the Italian Authority for the Communications regarding copyright.
All the newspapers (and journalists) involved in planning the request for accreditation settled within 17 hours of June 13 by posting the names (and any equipment) at info@agoradigitale.org.
Fulvio Sarzana
May 5th, 2011 – Milan
NH Hotel Fiera. 16:30 p.m. Since 2002, the leading tradeshow dedicated to M2M world
Since 2002, M2M Forum is the leading Italian tradeshow dedicated to the world of communication between machines.
The synergy between Telecommunication and Information Technology finds new strenght in M2M world.
The increase of wireless technologies’ use and the evolution of the machine to machine’s modules reinforce and favour the meeting between the industrial automation world and the mobile economy’s one.
At 16,30 p.m. will be a conference on “The synergy between Telecommunication and Information Technology and privacy” .
I will be a participant at the round table.
The participation to M2M Forum 2011 is free after registration.
Fulvio SarzanaThe Suggest feature in the Google search is defamatory, if approached as a person in words which may undermine the professionalism and dignity. This was established by the Milan Court, upholding an appeal by a citizen who felt defamed by the words that Google Suggest automatically associated with his name.
The court dismissed the complaint and the company’s California-based company has imposed to eliminate quell’accostamento, charging the costs of litigation. Remarkable story, because it feeds the notion that the algorithms are not neutral, and makes the search engines be liable to web content indexed.
follow on http://tech-news-buzz.blogspot.com/2011/04/defamatory-google-held-responsible.html
Fulvio SarzanaThe case is now known.
Google has been recognized by the Court of Milan responsible by virtue of the potential harm of honor and reputation as a businessman who was pulled in automatically search the words “scam” and “fraud”.
But what are the similarities and differences between the Yahoo case of Rome, which held bank a few days ago, and tips on what Google’s automatic in the case of Milan?
There are some similarities and many differences.
The similarity is more explicit condemnation in the supervision of a civilian search engine, did not quite usual.
But more important I think the differences are.
First, the conduct and violated the rules: if it was yahoo violation of copyright and responsibility for “linking” of the search engine, whereas in “Google” Milan is the honor and reputation damage using the system for automatic suggestion, in fact potentially criminal.
Yet while it appears unjustifiable in my opinion in an “uncritical” the application to the search engine rules on caching provider, does not appear feasible as a liability in the case of links pointing to a general breach of copyright made by all links “unofficial” because this would have an impact “devastating” freedom of information online and on the free circulation of content, unlike the case in which Google, even if using an automatic algorithm, directly involving the meaning of a crime to a specific person by determining the actual “death” of that digital subject without that liability is established in court.
Everything just “hearsay”, which in this case would be represented by the negative comments of users on the network.
Now the person in question could be a “mafia” or a “loan shark” but also a person who is hated by someone else for reasons of personal animosity and that someone may have “flooded” the network of negative comments about that person without the facts have been tested and it has not been able to defend himself the same man.
Here, Google does not just refer to a link that infringes the copyright, which would shelter from the vicarious liability, but would directly responsible, although with automated software, the attribution of specific facts to a person determined, among other things, risking being accused of slander.
In the case of Milan, inter alia, contrary to what many commentators have written that it was slander since it is attributed to the gentleman in question criminal acts and not a simple defamation.
In that case I do not think we should or we can talk about the responsibility of Google as caching or hosting provider but, rather, a direct responsibility as the subject suggests that the search string, not to “disturb” dangerously (for the future of Google, and all of us) the concept of liability of intermediaries.
The cases Yahoo and Google have also from this point of view of a possible common denominator.
The reasons for which, however, the judges begin to feel responsible for the search engines probably lies in the fact that the same engines (unwittingly or an incorrect calculation) is unfortunately indirectly because of this drift “authoritarian” by virtue of the defenses made by the same or in advance in the conditions of use of services, or in the same judgments.
As for example when Google does get into the issues that are presented in Italy, for protection of their subsidiaries and to prove that Google respects the same rules in force in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the mechanism of the notice and take down, however, is placed in the uncomfortable position of one who forced the judges to believe that some form of selection and cancellation may be done.
This prompts the judges to recognize that also exists in our system the warning mechanism and content’s cancellation typical of the DMCA’s “notice and take down” that in fact in the european context doesn’t exist.
This “calculation” on the contrary will push more and more italian judges to recognize a liability for Google and other search engines.
And this is confirmed by both the Yahoo case of Rome by the case of Milan, where a substantial part has been carried out by the conviction of the judge, is clearly from what has been said in court that Google (or Yahoo in the case of Rome) could then delete the contents, and as is apparent from what he said (according to the judge) Microsoft owner of the search engine Bing
Rather than sentences (better than orders) so I think we can talk about history in these cases an error in the evaluation of search engines as situated in relation to multiplication of proceedings against them
Fulvio Sarzana
www.fulviosarzana.it
Studio Legale Roma Sarzana & Associati
Wednesday 30 and Thursday, March 31 will be possible by connecting directly to www.fulviosarzana.it (via the video above) or Sarzana law Firm www.lidis.it , to the conference web on net neutrality and copyright and cyber terrorism, which will be held at Fiera di Roma in Rome during events SMAU 2011-EXPOCOMM.
Among the speakers include: Giuseppe Chiaravalloti, Vice President privacy Italian’s Privacy Authority, Roberto Napoli, Commissioner of the Communications Authority , Fulvio Sarzana, Lawyer, one of the promoters of the “www.sitononraggiungibile.it for the protection of the rights and digital freedom , Marco Pierani, head of institutional relations of Altroconsumo ( Consumer Association) , Augusto Preta, coordinator of the White Paper on digital content for the Italian Communications Authority, Federico Flaviano, Director of Consumer Protection, AGCOM, the Prefect Antonio Apruzzese, Head of Postal and Communications Police , Mr. Rita Forsi, ISCOM Director General – Institute of Communications and Information Technology, the, Cons. Fausto Basile, Deputy Chief Legislative Office, Ministry for Public Administration and Innovation.
See you on the internet at 14:30 on Wednesday 30 and Thursday at 14 and 30 of 31
Fulvio Sarzana
NCI Transport, Energy electricity networks are secure from cyber attacks?
What would happen if it will be a computer attack to automated systems, transport management, electricity networks, aqueducts?
And what would happen in case of attack computer systems for the management of nuclear power stations, if the same were brought to fruition in Italy after a computer virus knocked out a few months ago one of the most important Iranian nuclear power plants?
We discuss cyber security, cyber terrorism and protection of critical national infrastructure and much more in the Conference to be held at Fiera di Roma March 30, 2011 at 14:30 in sala Libano as part of the exhibition Smau Rome EXPOCOMM 2011.
Among the other speakers of Prefect Antonio Apruzzese, Director of Postal and Communications Police, Mr.. Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito, Mr. Rita Forsi ISCOM Director General – Institute of Communications and Information Technology, the, Cons. Fausto Basile, Deputy Chief Legislative Office, Ministry for Public Administration and Innovation.
The conference is free.
To Register: http://www.smau.it/roma11/schedules/cybersecurity-for-business-and-government/
Fulvio Sarzana 
More than 31 000 people on the net in less than 24 hours sign, by the Transnational Association Avaaz.org appeal, the request for a moratorium on new regulations on copyright of the italian’s Authority for Communications proposed by the associations of www.sitononraggiungibile.it “and send the text of the protest to AGCOM.
Avaaz.org The international organization, apolitical and non-partisan and totally independent, working in campaigns overall protection of civil rights such as asking the UN imposition of the no fly zone to Libya and has over 7 million subscribers in around the world, decided yesterday 21 March 2011 to support the campaign against the repressive measures against websites suspected of infringing the copyright in the approval by the Italian Authority for Communications. In less than 24 hours more than 31 000 citizens from around the world have decided to support the protest groups www.sitononraggiungibile.it through the website of the Association Avaaz “AGCOM: Do not censor the Internet” by subscribing for its appeal http: www.avaaz.org/it/it_internet_bavaglio?fp.
The campaign, which began about a month and a half from the Associations Adiconsum, Digital Agora, Altroconsumo, Assoprovider-Confcommercio, Confesercenti-Assonet, Sarzana law firm, and has already produced motions, proposals and questions to Italian Parliament and has already collected while the individual membership of 4500 netizens.
At the same time the text of the protest was sent on behalf of 31 000 signatories to the attention of the components of the Authority for Communications.
Within the e-mail sent by the signatories to Avaaz are explained, with reference to this site www.sitononraggiungibile.it the reasons the initiative.
For more information www.sitononraggiungibile.it
Fulvio Sarzana
Giuseppe Chiaravalloti, Vice President italian’s privacy Authority, Roberto Napoli, Commissioner of the Italian Communications Authority , Fulvio Sarzana, one of the promoters of the “www.sitononraggiungibile.it for the protection of digital rights and freedoms, Marco Pierani, responsible relationships institutional of Altroconsumo ( Consumers Association) , Augusto Preta, coordinator of the White Paper on digital content for the Communications Authority, Federico Flaviano, Director of Consumer Protection, Agcom, are just some of the speakers at the roundtable to be held in Rome on March 31 related to the recent consultations launched by the Italian Communications Authority on Copyright and telecommunications networks, net neutrality, and peer to peer and that will confront the views of companies, institutions and organizations on the “hot topics “regulation of the Network.
The day was organized as part of the event EXPOCOMM and Smau Rome Italy which will take place on days 30 and 31 March.
The round table, totally free, will begin at 2:30 p.m. in Room Turkey – SC4 Fiera di Roma in Rome.
Here how to register at the event
http://www.smau.it/roma11/schedules/sessione-plenaria-di-chiusura-sviluppo-di-internet-e-tutela-dellutente-un-obiettivo-comune-da- share-of-institutions-and-operators-customers /
Fulvio Sarzana
In the Italian’s Authority for Communications consultation on the subject of copyright, which saw the presentation of more than 50 documents in response to public consultation, the news agency reports of flying a note to the Communications Authority to the effect that there would be was a meeting in recent days between the President of the Communications Authority Calabrò and president of the American film producer (MPAA), Bob Pisano.
The same note makes reference to expressions of appreciation by the American administration of the legislation on inhibition of Italian citizens in the process of introduction by AGCOM.
The note is taken up by various press organs that seem to “bind” the U.S. government sources at the same president of the MPAA said he was awakened as the feeling that the measures of inhibition are appreciated AGCOM “even” by the U.S..
But at least the same note appears unique because it is not easy to understand what the source of direct or indirect importance of institutions that have expressed appreciation.
What are these sources? In the person of whom? From where come? And in what way the statements of these sources?.
While the “U.S. government sources” who remain anonymous, however, are not identified and not identified so as not to identify as many “foreign ministry sources” have reported that these statements, the same note after accurately identifies the caller of these President Calabrò days of AGCOM in the person of Bob Pisano, the President of the MPAA, or as stated above, the Association of producers, as evidenced also by the same note, gathers the seven major, or course, the multinationals involved in the repression of any form of a suspected breach of copyright, generating balanced judge to doubt that the measures of repression and inhibition is instead the same Motion Pictures of America, or an association of owners of copyright.
In the note that was issued by the Authority, which is engaged in a decision-making process in which the same need to take a role of impartiality with respect to the dispute does not, however, and no reference to different positions antithetical to those of holders of copyright does not give any account of the concerns of a constitutional nature also expressed in Parliament, nor give any account of meeting (which does appear not to have been) made by the Chairman of the Authority or by the same components of ‘ Authorities with the groups or entities who have taken positions to protect the rights of freedom of individuals in the digital environment.
It seems that at this point, the decision-making process which must lead to the Authority for the Communications Authority to issue a decision on copyright and computer networks it seeks not to reconcile all the right requirements, has begun auspiciously.
Fulvio Sarzana
As is now known at the end of 2010, the Council of Ministers approved the legislative decree transposing into our legislation the European Directive 6 / 200 8, which requires the beginning of this year, the full liberalization of the postal market.
Right now some commentators, then obviously supported by a report conducted by the Antitrust Authority of Parliament, had placed some doubt on the real scope of the liberalization and, especially on the role and functions of the subject controller, as impartial and independent, the European standard requires us.
The doubt, rather than decreasing, increased.
In particular, the Istituto Bruno Leoni, an independent “think thank” institute ihttp://www.brunoleoni.it/nextpage.aspx?codice=10078 noted in a briefing paper published a few days ago that the rule of transposition contains five problems of no small moment: 1. the continued monopoly of judicial and recommended for notification, 2. the designation of the Italian Post Office as the universal service provider for 15 years, 3. The size, the method of calculation of its cost and financing of universal service, 4. the allocation of postal regulatory functions rather than an independent government agency, 5. the requirement for operators of postal services to meet the working conditions provided by collective bargaining work of reference.
Now, especially being assigned to a government agency with staff from the Ministry of Economic Development (Communications) rather than an independent Authority appears to be a solution rather illogical, as already mentioned above.
According to some newspapers, however, the doubts would come also to the technicians of the Presidency of the Republic that would be carefully studying the proposal from the Government and the Authority’s findings http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/cronaca-italia/liberalizzare-poste-decreto-ue- quirinale-752998 /
The response of the competent parliamentary committees for the moment seems favorable to the executive with the only limit (a bit ‘unstable though) the binding nomination of the board of directors of the Agency by the competent committees of the House and Senate. http://archivio-radiocor.ilsole24ore.com/articolo-901583/poste-parere-camera-nomine/
According to the Minister of Communications, however this would be a choice “” The EU directive requires a process of liberalization with an authority or an independent agency. I think it’s premature a new authority that could preside over the rules in this area. The Post Office is a great wealth of the country, liberalization is in place in many countries, but also the universal service is an asset. So the specificity of Italy obliges us to take decisions. “
http://notizie.virgilio.it/notizie/economia/2011/2_febbraio/08/poste_romani_agenzia_sufficiente_a_chiusura_infrazione_ue, 28240262.html
Frankly I still do not understand the reasons of liberalization adopted in this form, even by adopting the formula “liberalization without privatization”, which should explain the reasons for this imperfect liberalization and privilege attributes in this way the operator “incumbent” and that, given by a Minister who should be a workhorse of the liberal, I feel really “out of tune.”
Fulvio Sarzana
Rome – 16 February, 2011
8. Wide of criminal lawyer Fulvio Sarzana di Sant’Ippolito in his office
9. SOUNDBITE: (Italian) Fulvio Sarzana di Sant’Ippolito, criminal lawyer:
“The composition of the jury is an ordinary one. We have three women. Three women judges who are called to judge on the so-called Ruby case.”
10. Close-up of lawyer’s gown
11. SOUNDBITE: (Italian) Fulvio Sarzana di Sant’Ippolito, criminal lawyer:
“In our judicial system, the mixed jury with judges and ordinary citizens are used only for several specific crimes, such as murder or kidnapping, that are very serious crimes.”
12. Close-up of hands
SOUNDBITE: (Italian) Fulvio Sarzana di Sant’Ippolito, criminal lawyer:
“For the Milan case (Berlusconi’s trial) there is also a specific software called Giada, that automatically assigns judges to specific cases. The rules to assign the judges are previously decided. This means that the choice of those judges is completely accidental.”
Fulvio Sarzana
It ‘s came into force on December 15, 2010 October 26, 2010 Italian Legislative Decree No 198, entitled “Implementation of Directive 2008/63/CE on competition in markets for telecommunications terminal equipment.” which reaffirms the need to have specific ministerial authorizations to carry out “network user” to be connected to public network.
The rule had given rise to doubts and concerns on the occasion of the presentation by the Italian Government, at the end of October last year, but he was then heard nothing.
Well the rule, without any change to the text adopted by the government in late October of 2010 came into force in fact, in mid-December by publication in the Official Gazette 280 of 30 November.
The rule has been commented on in recent days by the main users of the law, the licensed contractors, through an article in the major Italian financial daily newspaper “Il sole 24 ore” http://www.b2b24.ilsole24ore.com/articoli/0, _ART_139208 1254.24, 00 . html with the significant title of “The fines for the wi-fi” DIY: Assotel approves the new decree. ”
The journalist Massimiliano Cassinelli interview Gaetano Montingelli, “voice” of the Association ASSOTEL providing authoritative firsthand some of the interpretations of the standard.
According Montingelli the rule, which had done so much talk about the need to provide an installer authorized by the Ministry of Communications (now Economic Development) for a single router, you should not apply to a single device (which would be a router domestic) according to the fact that even under the old rules, now repealed, provided for exceptions related to the individual apparatus.
In truth the new rule does not make reference to the number of devices but with a different concept or to “cases where, due to the simplicity ‘constructive and functional terminal equipment and related systems of connection, users can make their own to activity ‘referred to in paragraph 1 “.
The specifications of the equipment (and the scope of this last paragraph) will be given by a decree of the Minister of Economic Development to be issued within twelve months after the entry into force of Legislative Decree 198/2010.
There remain some doubts at this point: the first is under the byline of “competition in the markets for telecommunications terminal equipment.”
It is not clear how it can develop competition in a rule which, although well-meant, introduces fines of up to 150 000 € for those not authorized by the Italian Ministry of Economic Development (remember that this is the transposition of a European directive on relies on the premise that telecommunications between the concept of free movement of services within the EU).
The second is the wi fi.
Installers in fact are a model as a model of the wi fi installation of equipment that falls within the “dark” of the new law with fines of up to 150 000 €.
In a context of generalized “enthusiasm” for the liberalization of the burden of identification for users wi fi we risk creating a further constraint to the spread of wi fi (which again seems to contrast with the title of the standard “competition in the markets for equipment telecommunications terminal equipment “) and you will therefore make it quite clear in the decree implementing the scope of the rule and its extension to wi-fi devices to prevent the onset of the inevitable disputes.
ASSOTEL the course is good to remember the professionalism employed by tele installers and the need to preserve the investments already made and to be made, even if the reference to a “behavior change” already in place in the operators, mentioned by Montingelli, under entry into force of the new fines, and the delineation of a scenario in which companies “run” to ask permission (with the rise of bureaucracy and economic dependents thereof) may seem somewhat at odds with the function driving competition and market liberalization is expected to have a rule of this kind.
Fulvio Sarzana
**** Courtesy of
Latest hot technology news
Italy is coming to an automated system and directed to seize foreign sites of any kind: from Wikileaks to foreign newspapers online, from blogs to videos. E ‘contention that a campaign will start this afternoon, signed by many associations and sent in the form of an open letter to Parliament. In the viewfinder there is a AGCOM (Authority for Communications) Copyright and now in public consultation.
Takes shape and then an alarm that was already in the air: that the resolution could become a tool of censorship of overseas websites. I am convinced the members of the campaign, with initiatives and commercials on various media: Adiconsum, Agora Digital Marco Cappato (Radicals), Altroconsumo, Assonet-Confesercenti Assoprovider-Confcommercio, Sarzana & Partners Law Firm.
A website will allow anyone to join the campaign and track developments. The letter speaks of the birth of a risk that “a pervasive system of control and censorship.” And denounced as “unconstitutional” the resolution. Which is now in public consultation and which in less than a month the same Agcom – having heard the advice – will make a decision.
“The reason for this alarm is discovered between the lines of AGCOM,” said Fulvio Sarzana, lawyer of the internet and one of the promoters of the campaign. “We read that Agcom reserves the right to confiscate (ie to prevent access to Italian users) sites predominantly devoted to the infringement of copyright or whose servers are located abroad.
As is evident, with the conjunction” or “open a world. ” “Anything related to copyright and abroad email may end up in the crosshairs of the Authority, which would decide the seizure independently, without passing by the court. It ‘s a thing unheard of in democratic countries. And it is unconstitutional,” Sarzana adds.
“Indeed it is stated that the intent of the Authority shall act in this attachment system should be automatic.” What could happen? “YouTube, which has servers in Ireland, Italy becomes unreachable for a single video pirate,” Sarzana says for example, that copyright protection could also be the pretext to seize or blog sites with objectionable content to someone.
“In the trap could happen Wikileaks. Whatever anyone says that one of those confidential documents in breach of copyright would be seized and the entire site. When the server is abroad, in fact, you can not hit a single file or offending pages. ” Of course, members of the Authority stressed that the resolution only serves to protect the copyright.
“But no matter what they say verbally, but what it says. And what is written gives the means to censor websites and content places abroad, “says Sarzana.” To avoid that this occurs in a silent way, we appeal to the Communications Authority to maintain a moratorium on new rules on copyright, “the letter reads.” We fear that the tasks that rely upon the regulatory authority Guarantor assume unmanageable dimensions by the Authority and will soon be followed by a congestion probably approaching or mere discretion.
” The petitioners request, finally, that both Parliament and not the Authority, to give birth to a new law on copyright. “In this way you will get the result to give back to Parliament on the role of interlocutor with civil society, and respect the principle of separation of state powers.
“A request to the Authority the unprecedented task of making a law on copyright was the Roman decree (by Paolo Romani, current Minister of Economic Development). it was a forcing but also knows the Agcom fact that in this context has precisely the Parliament and asked the government to deal with a revision of the laws on copyright.
How to say because we do have it imposed a decree, but we also know well that this should be the responsibility of other institutions.
On December 17th, the Italian communications authority, Agcom (Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni), under the powers assigned to it by the Romani Law, announced new measures to be used against sites hosting materials that infringe copyright.
What is Agcom?
Agcom was established by the Maccanico law in 1997 as an agency somewhat independent of the government; of its eight members four are selected by the Parliament and the other four by the Senate.
The authority is charged with overseeing infrastructure and competition in the communications sector, and even-handedness in broadcasting.
Marketing Enforcement Strategies
Subsequent to Agcom’s announcement of the new measures, the ‘anti-piracy’ organization FAPAV (Federazione Anti-Pirateria Audiovisiva) held an event in Rome in mid-January to present the Italian aspects of a study commissioned on the detrimental effect of copyright infringement on employment in Europe, produced by Tera Consultants under commission by BASCAP and the International Chamber of Commerce.
As usual improbably large figures were thrown around (billions of euros and 22,000 jobs lost!) with no reference made to the provision of the underlying ‘raw data’ by the IFPI (music industry lobby) and FIMI (their Italian satellite) and a marketing company, IPSOS.
No discussion of methodology either, perhaps advisedly so, as the Social Sciences Research Council (who are conducting similar investigations) had publicly criticised it when the report was initially published in March 2010.
Not that any of the journalists reporting the event seemed to care: as usual they reproduced faithfully what they were told.
FAPAV had invited Nicolas Saydoux, head of French trade group and antipiracy lobby ALPA, to entertain the audience with a fairytale: how a strategy combining 3 strikes legislation and an increased range of legal products on the market had succeeded in reducing piracy levels by 85% – in less than six months!
New Measures
Obviously FAPAV would like to see similar measures taken against users in Italy but for now they will have to make do with Agcom’S proposals, namely a system whereby copyright owners can complain to sites hosting their materials or linking to other sites which do, and request the material’s removal.
Where no action is taken within 48 hours, the complaint is passed to Agcom, who, after examination of the offending material, will demand its removal.
In the absence of compliance removal can be imposed directly from the Authority.
To deal with sites based outside of Italy, it is proposed having checked that infringing content was available, Agcom could order providers to ban the IP or DNS so as to prevent access.
What is really interesting about all this is that Agcom’s powers would not require any judicial order.
There is no judge involved.
Attentive readers will be struck by the similarity to the first version of Hadopi in France.
Undoubtedly the positive feelings of FAPAV towards this scheme are driven by the same rationale that was behind Hadopi 1: accelerate the process of shutting down the alleged infringer by recourse to administrative rather than judicial mechanisms.
Or to put it more simply, eliminate due process.
Transparency? Nah…
Amazingly for such a controversial system it is not being created by parliament, but rather through an administrative order on the part of Agcom, under the terms set out by the Romani decree.
The proposed order was released in December and is subject to two months ‘public consultation’ prior to being enacted.
A campaign has been started by an alliance of organizations including the consumer groups ADICONSUM and ALTROCONSUMO , lawyers as Sarzana & Partners Law Firm, business Association as ASSOPROVIDER and ASSONET and Association for the freedom of netizens as AGORA’ DIGITALE.
In recent days they have launched a site to coordinate opposition to the measures.*
*Thanks to Alan Toner, intellectual property and communications researcher, New York University, fellow at the Information Law Institute and the Engelberg Center on Law and Innovation, New York University.
Fulvio SarzanaADICONSUM, and ALTROCONSUMO, two of the largest associations of Italian consumers, ASSOPROVIDER-Confcommercio, ASSONET-Confesercenti, two of the most important associations of small-medium businesses companies, AGORA ‘DIGITALE, Association for Freedom of Netizens , and Sarzana & Partners Law Firm, against automatic deletion of sites on the Internet by the Italian Authority for Communications
From 3 March the Italian’s Authority for Communications may remove content at its discretion and sites on the Internet without going through a court and without which the Parliament was never consulted.
Hundreds of websites, information sources, online magazines, simple blog may be subject to censorship by the mere suspicion of having breached in any way the copyright.
Disappear from the internet thousands of videos, photos and documents uploaded by users in sharing networks.
The sites also from abroad, from online magazines to private sites, suspected of possessing even a single file that infringes the copyright, will be inhibited to Italian users who will be a page that says “site unreachable” without know why.
To say no to this complaint and to ask Parliament, the only legitimate body to decide on fundamental rights of individuals to take action, will take place an information campaign called www.sitononraggiungibile.it ( i.e. Site not found in italian) promoted among others by ADICONSUM, Altroconsumo, ASSOPROVIDER-Confcommercio, Assonet-Confesercenti, AGORA ‘Digital, which will allow all citizens to sign a petition addressed to the Parliament to stop the approval of new rules by the Authority for Communications..
This is the text of open letter to Parliament.
To The Member of Italian Parliament
To The Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM)
Appeal for a suspension on new Italian Internet rules, since an Italian Parliament decision on copyright and constitutional rights balance will take place.
Dear sirs,
Imagine that one day, entire sections of your library will not be accessible anymore.
None will write you which specific books and why they were removed, but you only get an advice informing you that someone, somewhere, for some reason, reported that books in that section violate someone rights
Do you think this will not happen in a modern western Democracy?
Without a digital network copyright regulation, providing a balance between different interests in society, as an instrument of emancipation for content producers, this scenario will become soon a pervasive system of control and censorship . in Italy
In fact, with December 2010 668/2010 Italian Communications Regulatory Authority Resolution (without any previous Parliament debate) this Authority introduces a consultation on a text that aims to establish a mechanism which allows to completely inhibit the accessibility of sites located outside the Italian territory and to remove content suspected infringing the copyright in an automatic way , and without reference to any Judiciary Court requirement .
Italy will be the first western Country to have a regulation that can prevent citizen Internet contents access without any previous Italian Parliament debate on copyright and digital rights.
The “library” sections interested to this ‘Internet access denied’ could include foreign portals suspected of copyright infringment, most common systems to access information necessary for free software and public domain openly licensed documents exchange.
The individual “books” removed include articles from journals, government and privatedatabase, confidential documents and usefull facts that public might not know otherwise, home videos and photos with music uploaded in sharing platforms, blog individual pages containing even a single file in violation of copyright.
To avoid t this will occur in the general silence, we ask the >Italian Communications Authority to suspend any kind of new copyright regulation .
No new rules should be adopted until an Italian Parliament wide debate, opened to citizens to define a new balance between copyright and constitutional rights.
We ask this because we know which could be the effects of a regulation introduced without a proper assessment of its impact , and how far these effects could be from an unreliable forecast.
We also substain it’s dangerous that any Authority regulates matters that the Italian Constitution entrusts the legislative and judiciary powers, matters have longly been debated by Parliaments in other countries, or finally, as is often the case with Internet regulation, matters that have seen a ‘ self-regulation process’ within the perimeters that the traditional laws allow.
We ask all Italian political parties representatives that Parliament returns to be the place of a debate involving all Internet actors, eventually involving international skilled people.
This way it will be obtained the result to give back to the Italian Parliament its interlocution role with civil society, and to re-establish the respect of the Separation of Powers in Italy.
Signed
ADICONSUM,
ALTROCONSUMO,
ASSOPROVIDER-Confcommercio,
ASSONET-Confesercenti,
AGORA’ DIGITALE,
STUDIO LEGALE SARZANA
Fulvio Sarzana
Detention without a license (or licenses expired) commercial software due to Microsoft and other U.S. multinational BIG software (in this case and distributed hundreds of software installed on more than one hundred computer) does not constitute the crime of illegal duplication or detention file without a license, even if the computers are found in devices to circumvent technology that can run the software without a license, those who are called in slang crack. Major defeat of U.S. multinationals that Microsoft had a civil party in criminal proceedings before the Court of Rome asking for damages for hundreds of thousands of euro and the Business Software Alliance (BSA the association of the multinational software) that was provided to Military of the financial police personnel for the technical assessment of the violation and the assessment of the cost of individual software that had been imposed at the same entrepreneur administrative penalty 284mila €.
This was established by a court in Rome, section V, Dr. Laura D’Alessandro, Judgement of 15 November 2010, having completed a business owner, defended by the lawyer Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito, who had been found in possession of 270 softwares all the well known commercial software houses, including Microsoft itself, but also Adobe, Macromedia, Symantec, are not licensed, distributed over 103 computers including servers on which were placed in sharing the benefit of all employees of the companies from circumventing technological methods. The softwares were used in training, so in a non-commercial by a company that was recognized as a research laboratory accredited by the Ministry of University and Scientific Research. Among the courses offered, some are just the education law in the field of industrial property. The company had cooperated in the past with the same Microsoft. Also applying the principles already established by the Supreme Court in reference to the non-obligation to affix the SIAE stamp on the media, the Court held that without evidence of duplication of software by the contractor and without proof of actual use on individual machines to circumvent technological devices on the corporate server could not be an offense of illegal duplication of software or possession of software does not have a license and has sent the contractor complied with the formula as possible, the fact that there is.
Fulvio SarzanaThe Italian Authority for Communications announced with great publicity in the media presentation of a white paper on digital content will be January 26, 2011 in its Rome headquarters.
The White Paper, available on the Authority’s website devotes 16 pages to the issue of copyright in digital networks.
The section on copyright is subject to the real surprises.
The first surprise.
Although it has been approved by the Board of the Authority on December 17 last, a resolution containing the features of skills in the field of copyright on electronic communications and is still being consulted initiated by the Authority that, As is well known mechanisms introduces very “invasive” delete content deemed capable of infringing copyright, and despite the White Paper also explicitly addresses the Italian situation there is not even a line on the same act of AGCOM, almost a month and a half since the launch of the consultation.
Nothing at all.
Why is that?
Forgetfulness?
Not to mention the general public that the Authority was approved by the Council a resolution that is able to “jump” the mechanics of Parliamentary debate on the reform of existing institutions?
In short, the Authority on December 17 introduces a system of de facto elimination of the content and inhibition of access of users to Italian and foreign websites and makes no mention of a month and a half after speaking of herself in the section on the right of ‘copyright in the digital environment in the White Paper on digital content?
Second surprise.
In analyzing the experiences of other countries AGCOM expressly mention all the foreign initiatives in the field of copyright in the digital environment, and, in particular the regulatory initiatives already undertaken in the United States under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, those in the making of Britain under the Digital Economy Act, the submission of the draft law “sustainable economy” under discussion in Spain, the establishment of the HADOPI in France, which took place with state law, the bill concerning the reform of the Brazilian law Copyright.
Well all the rules of these countries, some of which actually suggest scenarios for resolving disputes about the content in digital networks are also innovative, as is obvious and easy to analyze state laws, or will be adopted in the context of a parliamentary debate, after on balance carefully the instances of all stakeholders in the process and having carefully considered the introduction of mechanisms of inhibition or deletion can affect the fundamental rights of internet access to all Italian citizens.
All except one.
The Italian Bill, which does not exist and has never been presented to parliament and that the current state is replaced by a resolution of an administrative authority, albeit qualified, that she forgot to have it approved a month and a half later, before and beyond any control by the Parliament.
Fulvio SarzanaOn January 3, 2011 was published by the Italian Communications Authority in the Official Gazette the Resolution 668/2010, which aims to regulate the powers of the Authority in the field of copyright in the context of electronic communications.
The resolution passed on December 17 by the Council of the Authority and published on 22 December on the Authority’s website (actually December 24th ed) was opened for public consultation for a period of 60 days.
Among the provisions to be discussed there are some, specifically those provided for in Chapter 3.5 of the same resolution, which raise serious concerns regarding constitutionally protected rights, by virtue of the exercise of powers “summaries” direct and indirect inhibitory and removal of Internet content suspected of violating copyright, especially with regard to content from abroad.
The entire process outlined by the inhibition of section 3.5 of Annex B to the measure, is “going beyond” the scope of the Authority highlighting a possible conflict of powers between branches of the state.
Such a conflict would occur between the Authority for the Communications, by virtue of the institution by the authorities of administrative penalties and unhappy he reaches the point of cancellation of Internet content and the court is criminal under the powers attributes to it by the Constitution.
2 The Authority shall, without having the powers, the ordinary courts in assessing a criminal act, in the preparation of proceedings of the baked image of impartiality.
A first problem concerns the powers attribuitisi “motu proprio” in a matter for the Authority pertaining to the criminal court. The conduct sanctioned by the procedure outlined in Article 3.5 of the resolution approved by the Council by the December 17, that is the release of files on the network protected by copyright, are already required by law as a crime, it is in fact the case introduced into the Act on Copyright Law 43/2005, otherwise known as Decree Urbani.
And in particular of the case provided for in point-to-a, Article 171, first paragraph, of Law April 22, 1941, No 633, which states: “Except as provided by art. 171-bis and Article 171-ter shall be punished by a fine of € 51 to € 2065 anyone, without having the right, for any purpose and in any form, “a-bis) shall make available to the public by entering into a system of computer networks through connections of any kind, an intellectual work protected, or part thereof; “.
And in the case provided for in Article 171 ter of the same standard for those who exercise the above activities for profit.
How do you remember those rules, including thousands of controversy (and warmly welcomed by the associations for the protection of copyright) had introduced the criminal responsibility of those who charge content on the network without having the permission of the owner.
Paradoxically, those rules now seem a sort of “guarantee” for those who upload files on the network without the permission of the owner of intellectual property rights to get a fair trial and not a “summary” attribution of responsibility by AGCOM.
Under these rules into the grid of any files covered by copyright in order for free (or profit), is an offense and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the criminal court which will determine, according to the forms and guarantees provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, the conduct of the man believed to have entered works on the Internet.
The Authority “pretends” instead of ignoring this rule stated in paragraph 3.5.1 of the resolution “without prejudice, in fact, the brutal repression, including the criminal law, the exploitation for profit of intellectual property, to preserve Exclusive of the prosecution, the legislature sought to introduce alternative mechanisms for prevention and response to illicit, but must be based on reasonable and proportionate means, against those who can use (even for purely private purposes), without having the right, works creative. ”
Contrary to what the whole “atecnicmente” Authority there is no division of jurisdiction between the Authority and the criminal court that is based on entering the network of files by way of profit or free of charge and that this is due to ‘AGCOM a power to intervene in matters of criminal law copyright.
In both cases, both in the case where the file is made available on any platform like youtube by a private individual, as well as the same is put on the internet for profit is always the criminal courts have to ascertain the fact- crime and the criminal court to be able to judge whether the sanctions and possibly have an injunction of any kind.
The ordinary Courts, not the Authority for Communications Safeguards.
3 The powers of intervention of the copyright law does not allow AGCOM to act on its own: the Article 182 bis and 182 ter of Law 633/1942.
In order to establish their “alleged” powers of sanction, the Authority for the Communications claims to have received under Article 182 bis of the law on copyright law to establish, suppress (and obviously) inhibit the conduct of those who places the files suspected of violating copyright in the computer network.
In particular, section 2.1 of the consultation document, the Authority said the Authority considers that fall within its supervisory activities under Article. 182 bis of copyright violations committed by the activities of broadcasters, as well as through the networks of telecommunication operators, and that it was competing for the actions of protection of copyright on the contents entered in the electronic communications networks (tv, internet and telecommunication networks). ”
But authority goes far beyond these alleged supervisory skills to become the “engine” of a judicial proceeding “parallel” that takes place without any procedural guarantees and without any judicial review, which clearly could be violating the rights of defense of the citizen and same principles of separation of powers that form the basis of our rule of law.
All powers to AGCOM Article 182 bis of the law on copyright, as well as for those already provided by the Urbani Decree, in fact, including the powers independently interpreted by the same authority, in fact, provide the necessary recourse to the judiciary for the possible detection of crime, with no possibility of any discretion regarding admissibility in relation to these crimes and no possibility of establishing a mechanism “parallel” to assign responsibility to that already exercised by the judge.
This is in accordance to what their usage by the Authority for the guarantees found in their “alleged” inhibitory power.
Article 182 bis, in fact, in highlighting a joint supervisory power between SIAE and Agcom regarding copyright provides a possible surveillance activities, however, must follow the strict principles clarified by the same law:
1) If inspectors of the Authority or of the SIAE may experience violations of law have to do with article 182-ter, or “The inspectors, in the event of a finding of violation of law, draw up the minutes, to be forwarded immediately the judicial police for the completion of the acts provided for in Articles 347 and following of the Code of Criminal Procedure ”
2) in the cases referred to in that Article 182 bis, paragraph 3, the same standard adopted by the authority to establish their inhibitory power expected to perform a supervisory (ie before any possibility of detection of any crime which the judge) the same access as SIAE inspectors AGCOM and at the broadcasters, the supervision must be approved by the court.
So the authorities under the same rules:
a) It has no power to establish pipelines for release of files on the network, the power that it is rather the judicial police, who must report, in case you consider to be the reference of the commission of a crime, the prosecutor
b) it has no power of exercising powers or inhibitors of cancellation (the “selective removal”) that are (in case) reserved by law exclusively, to criminal court
Fulvio SarzanaSome commentators, including Massimo Melica, http://www.massimomelica.net/riflessioni/1037/wi-fi-decreto-pisanu-abolizione/ believe, based on a lack of express provision by the legislature, that the decree milleproproghe may not have been expressly repealed by the rules of retail employees Pisanu, and in particular the provisions of the Decree of the Ministry of the Interior August 16, 2005 (and, I might add, Circular No. 557/2005 of the Ministry of Interior http://www .civile.it / internet / visual.php? num = 73205
).
Since the decree milleproproghe expressly repealed the last two paragraphs of Article 7 of Law 155/2005, the contents of which are now very well known, what happens to the employees under standards Detail repealed, including the decree of the Ministry of ‘ Internal mentioned in the repealed rule?
Remain in force or be repealed too?
Indeed, the legislature has not expressly repealed regulations also detail yet the express repeal is not the only form of repeal of a rule.
Article 15 of the Preleggi, structured as “The laws are not repealed by subsequent laws that express statement to the legislature, or incompatibility between the new and the previous provisions or because the new law regulates the whole matter already regulated by law before ., “outlines three distinct cases of repeal.
1) If the rule is repealed in whole or in part, by a subsequent law with specific reference to the above rule is known as “express repeal.”
And ‘certainly is the case of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 7 of the Pisanu Law.
2) When the repeal arises from the previous standards with those issued later speaks of “implied repeal”.
It would in this case, the subsequent rules including the Interior Ministry Decree of 16 August 2005 and the Circular of the Ministry of the Interior 557/2005
3) Finally, when a new law governing whole matter already regulated, giving it a new systematic logical and legal, the previous rules are repealed. In the latter case we speak of “implied repeal”.
If you do not want to favor the repeal would be implied is the case in which the Ministry of the Interior, as seems to have prefigured the Minister Maroni, plans to introduce new rules (replacements to be deleted paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 7 ) to safeguard the needs of the investigation, already supported by the national anti-Mafia prosecutor.
I incline, however, in reference to the rules of the Ministry of the Interior for the implied repeal, because if not, we would be facing a paradoxical situations including the one for which the managers of the internet point would in fact all the obligations identification and monitoring of existing activities provided for in Article 2 of the Ministerial Decree of 16 August 2005.
As is well known that states:
“Monitoring of the activities’
1. The subjects in art. 1 take the necessary measures to store and maintain data on the date and time of the transmission and the type of service used, matched uniquely to the terminal used by the user, excluding non-content communications.
2. The same subjects take the necessary measures so that ‘the recorded data are kept, in a manner’ that ensures their durability ‘and non-accessibility’ by unauthorized persons, for the time indicated in paragraph 1 of art. 7 of Decree-Law of 27 July 2005, no 144, converted with amendments into law July 31, 2005, No 155, provided that the traffic data stored beyond the limits specified. 132, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Legislative Decree 30 June 2003, No 196, may be used solely for the purpose ‘of that decree-law. ”
Among other things the same item in the second paragraph attributes to the internet point (and I would give up to 2011 today by virtue of the extension made by the decree of one thousand extensions) the obligations to retain data that the provider, as discussed in a comprehensive manner by Elvira Berlingieri http://www.apogeonline.com/webzine/2011/01/07/addio-pisanu-che-cosa-cambia-ora-per-il-wifi.
I doubt very much that way, unless all the hurry to get the repeal and to comply with his word, was not “little” thought by the respective legislative offices that have set up the rules repealed or that there is something ‘but we do not know.
A widely circulated newspaper reports the news that in the discussion on 22 December in the Italian Council of Ministers for preliminary examination of the Decree referred to as “Implementation of Directive 2008/6/EC, amending Directive 97/67/EC concerning the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services “, that the legislative decree which transpose the European directive on the liberalization of postal services, Minister for Economic Development would have made an unusual proposal.
Minister for Economic Development, decided to “depart” below the European declaring themselves to be the externalization of services regulation and supervision of the competition of liberalized services to Independent Administrative Authorities not attributing this role to the Authority for the communications, which logically seems to be the most suitable body to carry out their duties.
The Minister would have instead proposed the establishment of a new agency which borrows its staff from the offices of the Ministry so far have taken the matter in the inheritance left to the Ministry of Communications under the former system of monopolies.
However, the question of why there should be established a new agency with new staff due to the presence of the structure’s analysis, which appears ready to play its role, but above all it seems safe to place a question that is not the head referred to above.
Why the Minister has left “shine” on February 2010, a possible competence for the Authority for guarantees in communications in the field of copyright that, historically and currently, has nothing to do with the regulatory activities of competition in the telecommunications sector, and which gave rise to the issue ( on Christmas eve) of resolution 668/2010, which threatens to completely distort the role of exposing both the itself to criticism and wants to deprive performers of today instead of “right” skills in terms of regulation and competition in sectors being liberalized, as requested by the EU directives on liberalization?
Fulvio Sarzana
A reissue of the dialer in “salsa child pornography”, or programs installed without the user that redirect them to foreign telecommunication connections and pay that marked the early years of implementation of the Internet – to be understood that it was based Navigation on dial-up and adsl-seems to have been the basis of a police post called “Venice Carnival”.
According to the press in fact a criminal organization based in the countries of Eastern Europe had created a simple but very effective way to find clients on the Internet by installing involuntary over a thousand sites a software that redirects users to another site, where there were pictures and videos of child pornography. http://www.julienews.it/notizia/cyber-scienza-e-gossip/pedofilia-on-line-la-polizia-postale-pulisce-centinaia-di-siti/63016_cyber-scienza-e-gossip_5_1.html
The system would be based on the sending of spam emails.
The story leads to several thoughts:
The first and most obvious observation is that you do not understand how in a highly interconnected and controlled by computer and easy to find among other things required by law, under the rules of the italian privacy code that has the obligation to adopt security measures such as today’s site managers were completely unaware of what was happening, as if the story had been directed towards computer “zombies” left abandoned maybe an American university.
As is well known, the use of outdated server by criminal organizations, is one of the preferred tools for committing crimes on the Internet hoping to “get away”.
The second point concerns the use of filtering child pornography sites required by italian law 38/2006 and subsequent amendments and additions, which included a filtering system operated by the IP provider on the recommendation of the National Center for tackling child pornography created at Ministry of the Interior, to avoid Italian users access to such sites.
Since the filtering system is updated daily by the National Center and sent to the provider on the same day it is natural to wonder why, once regarded as established paedopornography the nature of the site in question, it has just stuck to the page content paedopornography source, such as rule is, instead of allowing access for individual users to the page with the risk of facing a situation difficult to resolve the possibility of legislation such as the one who was taken to a page without knowing anything, since apparently found that to be ignorant were both operators of infected servers and users who were redirected from the page.
All this of course if the press information, which appear, however, very confusing from the point of view of law is correct.
A last aspect appears to be extremely interesting in the story told by the press, the identification of users who have had access to the page would take place through the registration of IP data, permitted (and even) required by the legislation on the retention of traffic data by some service providers available to the police and the judiciary.
However the page filtered by ISPs on the orders of the National Centre for the fight against child pornography that appears to those who go on child porn sites presumptively (by chance or less is an assessment which must of course be made by the court) and that has been reported (even if improperly in the incident that gave rise to “Venice Carnival”) by the press http://tg24.sky.it/tg24/cronaca/2011/01/08/pedofilia_pedopornografia_black_list_polizia_postale_maurizio_ciucci
_adescamento_on_line.html appears, however, the message “No data on your IP address to help identify you or any other track will be recorded. ”
One wonders at this point if the data is indeed what happens in those facts as narrated by the press in recent days.
Fulvio Sarzana
The year draws to a close and in these last hours, we follow the news the publication of measures already widely discussed previously in traditional newspaper columns and on the Net
Alessandro Longo tells us is published in the Official Journal of Law Decree Milleproroghe it contains, is now certain, the repeal of the last two paragraphs of Article 7 of Decree-called Pisanu ( but that decree is not the Act).
We now verify the parliamentary process and the possible changes that will be made to accommodate the needs of investigation on several occasions expressed by members of the Institutions.
Guido Scorza instead, reports the publication on the website AGCOM’s Regulation on web TV, which does not contain details new compared to what we already knew.
In terms of Regulation AGCOM copyright is not records however, beyond statements of principle as the Associations of the holders of copyright to rejoice the unexpected and surprising success, the publication in the Official Journal of the relevant regulation, or at least it has not signed found no trace.
Good start to 2011!
Fulvio SarzanaSarzana & Partners Full-Service Law Firm: Administrative, Corporate, Commercial, Business & Finance, Criminal
Sarzana & Partners, located in downtown Rome, Italy, is a Law Firm providing sophisticated counsel in diverse areas of law.
Sarzana & Partners is a boutique law firm representing businesses and individuals in all aspects of civil and commercial litigation, business transactions and international law.
Our clients include domestic and international corporations, financial institutions, private individuals and entrepreneurs, foreign governments and public officials.
The law firm has correspondent and co-counsel law offices throughout North America, Europe and the Far and Middle East.
It was finally published on the website of the Authority for the Communications pending resolution on the copyright in the electronic communications networks.
Resolution No. 668/2010 essentially confirms the expectations provided by the journalist Alessandro Longo day before the unanimous approval of the document, on December 17 last year.
From the date of publication in the Official Journal, which is not yet known, shall be effective 60 days to provide comments to the same authority.
As I have already noted above the process of inhibition of Italian and foreign sites deemed guilty of offenses relating to the potential copyright is very delicate.
Waiting to investigate individual aspects of the resolution and the consultation process I can only wish all readers of the blog the best season’s greetings.
