Italian Public Prosecutor Says File-Sharing Site Is 'Receiving Stolen Goods'

from the copying-is-not-theft dept

Sites that share unauthorized copies of various kinds of digital files are hardly news, and neither are attempts to shut them down. But a recent case in Italy breaks fresh ground here:

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.

Since the site is based in Russia, seizing its assets might prove tricky. But what makes this decision important is the fact that the public prosecutor in Milan has gone beyond finding that the site infringes on copyright, and deemed it to be "receiving stolen goods" -- a far more serious charge.

As Fulvio Sarzana, the author of the blog post quoted above and lawyer for the Italian ISP association, explains (original in Italian):

"This seizure is a serious problem because for the first time in Italy and in the world putting copies of articles on the Web is considered to be receiving stolen property and not only infringement of copyright." According to the lawyer, "the risk is that from now on anyone whoever puts copies of articles on the Web will see their site closed and be on the receiving end of a charge that equates this case to that of a car thief."

Sarzana says that the Italian ISP association will appeal, so it's not certain that this dangerous equivalence will stand. But it's a worrying prospect that copyright infringement might be routinely equated to theft in this way, since the two are completely different for reasons that have been discussed many times here on Techdirt.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, italy, stolen goods

Italian Scientists Convicted Of Manslaughter, Sentenced To 6 Years In Jail, Over Earthquake They Failed To Predict Properly

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about some Italian seismologists who were being tried for manslaughter after a risk assessment they wrote up, in which they concluded that a series of small earthquakes along a faultline wasn't that serious, and the risk of a big earthquake was not that high. About a week later, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck, destroying a bunch of buildings and killing over 300 people. Admittedly, one government official exaggerated what the report said, claiming that there was no danger -- but government officials have a way of taking a nuanced claim and turning it into a crazy absolute. Either way, because of all of this, the seismologists and the government official were charged with manslaughter -- especially after it was claimed that some people stayed inside during the quake, believing the recent reporting about there being no risk.

Because of that, they've now been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in jail. This is despite the fact that the report quite clearly said that "earthquakes were unpredictable, and that building codes in the area needed to be adjusted to provide better seismic safety."

The conviction is tremendously troubling -- and the scientific community is quite rightly up in arms about it. Even more bizarre is that the judge didn't seem to care too much about the concerns everyone was raising. From John Timer's report:

The prosecution had attracted widespread condemnation from the scientific community, with one petition on behalf of the seismologists attracting over 5,000 signatures. But, shockingly, the judge in the case took only a few hours to deliver the verdict, and handed down sentences that were two years longer than those requested by the prosecutor.

It seems like a fairly extreme theory of negligence that would lead one to decide that a "too tame" seismology report was negligent and resulted in manslaughter. And, of course, the chilling effects of such a ruling will be tremendous. Who will be willing to provide such a report in the future? And, if anyone does, won't they now err on the side of "we're all going to die!!" even if the evidence doesn't support that? It's not surprising that people want to spread blame around when there are tragic deaths, but sometimes it goes way, way too far.

Filed Under: earthquakes, italy, manslaughter, predictions

Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Last December, we wrote about a report put out by the Swiss executive branch noting that, based on their research, it appeared that unauthorized file sharing was not a big deal, showing that consumers were still spending just as much on entertainment, and that much of it was going directly to artists, rather than to middlemen. In other words, it was a market shift, not a big law enforcement problem. At the time, we wondered if Switzerland had just bought itself a place on the USTR's "Special 301 list" that the administration uses each year to shame countries that Hollywood doesn't like.

That list doesn't come out for a bit, but there's another, similar list, put out by the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus (yeah) that has added Switzerland to its "bad countries" list along with China, Russia and Ukraine. Italy also joined Switzerland as a "first-timer" on the list -- despite rulings that required ISPs to block access to various file sharing sites. The issue in Italy? I'd guess that a story we had earlier this year has something to do with it. After some political fighting, the government there basically decided to just stop regulating copyright issues online. There's also an upcoming fight about new copyright proposals coming in Italy, and this seems like a preemptive strike for some of Hollywood's favorite Congressional Reps and Senators to pressure Italy into approving bad laws that Hollywood likes.

Meanwhile, both Spain and Canada -- who passed legislation very much at the behest of American interests -- were removed from the evil part of the list and switched to "in transition." The message is not particularly subtle: do not, at any cost, question Hollywood's planned copyright laws, or the US government will shame you as a haven for pirates, no matter how bogus that claim really is. Hopefully governments in Switzerland and Italy resist such obvious lobbying on behalf of special interests and pay attention to reality in those markets.

Filed Under: congress, congressional anti-piracy caucus, copyright, italy, switzerland, watchlist

Italian Gov't Gives Up Trying To Regulate Copyright Online

from the why-bother dept

Apparently there's been a years-long effort in Italy to give the Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM) some regulatory authority to enforce copyrights online. And apparently there has been some fighting over this (mostly over AGCOM's competence in this field). However, according to The 1709 Blog, it appears that AGCOM is now giving up its goal of regulating copyright online:

Although AGCOM has showed its ability to reconcile the various rights and interests involved in copyright, it will not go ahead with its copyright regulation. This is because Italian Government has not yet adopted the proviso needed to clarify the nature and extension of AGCOM's competence to this end. Therefore, until this happens, AGCOM will not feel obliged to adopt its "well-balanced" regulation.

This, of course, does not mean that there is no online copyright in Italy. Just that it's not being regulated by AGCOM for the time being. Considering just how badly pretty much every attempt to regulate copyright has gone recently, perhaps this is a good thing.

Filed Under: agcom, italy

Italian 'Blog Killer' Law Rises From the Grave

from the zombie-apocalypse dept

As if Italians didn't have enough problems, it seems that their government is trying to sneak through a proposal supposedly designed to provide those who are libelled online with an automatic recourse, which activists thought they had managed to kill off five months ago. Here's the plan:

In order to protect people from online defamation, this law states that each webmaster of whatever website must rectify within 48 hours (even if you’re a private blogger who just left for the weekend!) any page on the website itself, if somebody just tells him or her (how?) that they consider themselves wronged by that page. No discussion or reply allowed, no judge needed, and the fine for not "rectifying" within 2 days is 12K Euros [about $15,000].

The newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano gives an example of just how absurd that might be in practice (original in Italian):

A site writes about an arrest; the person arrested in prison could perhaps get his lawyer to say that it is not true that he has been arrested, and the Web site would be obliged to print this correction (without comment), or face a big fine.

Although it would be nice to think that such an absurdity would be thrown out once again by the Italian politicians, that's by no means certain, not least because the ACTA technique is being employed here:

As it too often happens in Italy with similar small but surely unpopular norms, it is "hidden" as a sub-section of a wider law proposal on an unrelated issue, in this case wiretapping.

Let's hope Italian bloggers spread the word about this shabby trick -- while they still can.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: blogs, italy, libel

Pfizer Dinged For Antitrust Activities In Trying To Block Generic Drug Competition In Italy

from the ah,-patents dept

Italy only established patents for pharmaceuticals in 1978. Prior to that, it had a thriving pharmaceutical business with a ton of companies. The country was a net exporter of drugs. While many of the firms there did focus on making generics, there was significant drug discovery and R&D happening in Italy at the time as well. However, due in large part to pressure from the big international pharmaceutical firms, Italy eventually established patent protection for drugs as well. Following that, there was massive consolidation in the Italian pharmaceutical market. The country went from being a leader to just another player, and the big international pharma companies took over and to this day dominate the Italian market.

That's a bit of interesting background for the fact that the Italian antitrust authority recently found drug giant Pfizer guilty of abusing antitrust law in the country to try to delay or block competition from generic drugs. According to the report linked here, Pfizer was specifically called out on two points:

1. the artificial extension of the Xalatan patent in Italy by means of: a) the application of a divisional patent; b) the validation of the divisional patent in Italy; c) the application for an SPC in Italy; d) the application for pediatric extension; and

2. the start of litigations aimed at discouraging or increasing the costs for the marketing of latanoprost generic products in Italy.

Pfizer is expected to appeal, and the blog post linked here (from law firm DLA Piper) suggests that it has a decent chance of having the original ruling reversed. But, really, that's quite a change in just a few decades. From being a leader in the market -- often by building on the ability to produce generics -- to one where cheaper generics (which help keep people healthy in a more affordable way) are aggressively blocked from the market by activities of giant multinational pharma companies.

Filed Under: antitrust, italy, pharmaceutical
Companies: pfizer

Access To Italian Wikipedia Blocked In Protest Of Wiretapping Bill In Italy [Updated]

from the who-needs-encyclopedias-anyway? dept

If you go to the Italian version of Wikipedia, you will not find a gateway to 847,000 articles in that language, but (at the time of writing, at least) an unusual letter to the reader:

the Italian language Wikipedia may be no longer able to continue providing the service that over the years was useful to you, and that you expected to have right now. As things stand, the page you want still exists and is only hidden, but the risk is that soon we will be forced to actually delete it.

This action has been taken by the Italian Wikipedia editors to draw attention to an Italian bill that is being discussed by the Italian Parliament at the moment:

Today, unfortunately, the very pillars on which Wikipedia has been built - neutrality, freedom, and verifiability of its contents - are likely to be heavily compromised by paragraph 29 of a law proposal, also known as "DDL intercettazioni" (Wiretapping Act).

This proposal, which the Italian Parliament is currently debating, provides, among other things, a requirement to all websites to publish, within 48 hours of the request and without any comment, a correction of any content that the applicant deems detrimental to his/her image.

Unfortunately, the law does not require an evaluation of the claim by an impartial third judge - the opinion of the person allegedly injured is all that is required, in order to impose such correction to any website.

Hence, anyone who feels offended by any content published on a blog, an online newspaper and, most likely, even on Wikipedia can directly request to publish a "corrected" version, aimed to contradict and disprove the allegedly harmful contents, regardless of the truthfulness of the information deemed as offensive, and its sources.

There's been some lively discussion on the Wikimedia mailing list about this move. Some, for example, thought that the Italian community had overstepped the mark by blacking-out the site in this way, but the main Wikimedia Foundation has now issued this message of support:

The Wikimedia Foundation stands with our volunteers in Italy who are challenging the recently drafted "DDL intercettazioni" (or Wiretapping Bill) bill in Italy. This bill would hinder the work of projects like Wikipedia: open, volunteer-driven, and collaborative spaces dedicated to sharing high-quality knowledge, not to mention the ability for all users of the internet to engage in democratic, free speech opportunities.

Wikipedians the world over pride themselves on their ability to rapidly remove false information from their project. Wikipedia has established methods to receive complaints or concerns from individuals or organizations and a strong system exists to remove incorrect or false information, and if necessary to remove complete articles in an effort to prevent vandalism. For Wikipedians, there is no value nor need for this proposed legislation.

The other issue raised on the mailing list discussion is to what extent the Italian law, if passed, would apply to Wikipedia, since it is not an Italian organization, and the servers are in the US and the Netherlands. Italian editors are nonetheless worried they would be on the receiving end of legal threats anyway, and would rather not find out the hard way whether their work on the Italian Wikipedia were subject to the new legislation.

Then there's also the little matter of the Italian Constitution, part of which says:

Article 21 [Freedom of Communication]

(1) Everyone has the right to freely express thoughts in speech, writing, and by other communication. (2) The press may not be controlled by authorization or submitted to censorship.

All-in-all, the Italian politicians behind this proposed legislation emerge with little honor; at the very least, the new law will cast a chill over freedom of expression online in Italy, and at worst could see the Italian Wikipedia shut down permanently – a huge loss for its users and Italian culture.

Update: Via Carl Levinson, Roberta Ranzani and Jillian C. York on Google+, we've learned that the controversial paragraph 29 of the Wiretapping bill has been dropped (details in Italian). It's not clear exactly why, but the action by the Italian Wikipedia must surely have concentrated people's minds. However, it's important to note that the rest of the bill is still going forward - and has plenty of other changes that will harm freedom of speech in Italy if enacted.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, free speech, italy, wikipedia
Companies: wikipedia

BBC Thinks Only It Can Have TV Shows About People Dancing; Sues Berlusconi For 'Porn' Version

from the can't-own-ideas dept

When I heard that the BBC was suing Silvio Berlusconi's Mediaset, just knowing the two players involved, I expected to side with the BBC. But on this one I'm left scratching my head over the BBC's ridiculous claim. Apparently, the BBC thinks that it owns the idea of a reality TV show about dancing, a la "Dancing With The Stars" here in the US. In the UK, the BBC apparently runs a similar show called Strictly Come Dancing. Mediaset has apparently launched a new show, Baila! Everyone seems to admit that MediaSet didn't even copy Strictly Come Dancing. Instead, Mediaset points out that it actually adapted a South American dance show "Bailando Por Un Sueno (Dancing For A Dream)," which is different... in that it includes "scantily-clad dancers," and has even included "a model [who] danced topless and simulated sex."

Silvio Berlusconi's son, Pier Silvio Berluscoi, apparently responded by saying that it's "Ok to copy ideas" in television, and he's right. Copyright applies to expression, not ideas. And, even in this case, the ideas appear to be different -- in some ways very different. So, I don't get it. Does the BBC really think that it can own the idea of people dancing on a television show? It seems clear that some of this is to protect the BBC's relationship with a competing Italian TV network, which did license the BBC's show -- but still this seems like a gross overreach by the BBC.

Filed Under: dancing with the stars, italy, silvio berlusconi, uk
Companies: bbc, mediaset

EU Parliament Member Asks EU Commission What It Will Do If Italy Approves One Strike Copyright Law

from the good-for-her dept

We recently wrote about a ridiculous copyright law being proposed in Italy, that could ban people from using the internet based on a single accusation of infringement. As we noted, the law did not appear to agree with overall EU law. Some in the EU Parliament are taking notice. MEP Marietje Schaake has now officially posed a Parliamentary question to the EU Commission questioning how it would respond to such a law:

Via the press it has come to my attention that the Italian Parliament is currently considering a draft law by which internet users can be disconnected and blacklisted if they have been accused on an intellectual property infringement. The accusation does not necessarily need to originate from the rights holder of the work in question.

The draft law as it is proposed, violates several EU laws and principles, including:

- Article 1(3a) of the telecoms package, amending the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC,
- Article 6 ECHR concerning a fair trail
- Article 10 ECHR concerning the freedom to seek, receive and impart information,
- The principles of necessity and proportionality, and,
- Depending on implementation, the exemptions of intermediary liability in E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC,

Does the Commission agree the Italian proposal is in violation with EU laws and principles? If not, why not? What concrete action will the Commission undertake to put a halt to measures being implemented by Member States by which citizens may be disconnected from the internet?

While it will be interesting to see how the EU Commission responds, just the fact that such questions are being asked should hopefully generate some attention to this awful proposal.

Filed Under: eu, eu commission, eu parliament, italy, marietje schaake

Italy Proposes Law That Will Ban People From The Internet Based On Single Accusation Of Infringement From Anyone

from the seems-a-bit-strict dept

Glyn Moody points us to a frightening analysis of a proposed copyright law in Italy that seems positively ridiculous, in that you could lose access to the internet based on a single accusation (which doesn't even have to come from the copyright holder):

1) citizens, outside of any judicial proceeding and without the right to appeal to the judicial authority, may be banned to access the Internet if ANYONE (a rightholder or an ordinary citizen) notifies a provider about alleged infringement of copyright or trademark or patent ("one strike" disconnections);

2) Internet service providers must comply to the blacklisting of citizens who are *suspected* of copyright or trademark or patent infringements ("proscription lists" to ban citizens from any access to the Net);

3) an Internet service provider must use preventive filters against services that infringe copyright, trademark or patents;

4) an Internet service provider must not promote or advertise, and must use preventive filters against, services that do not directly violate copyright, trademark or patents, but that *may* lead citizens to *think* that infringing services exist;

5) a provider or a hosting provider which does not use effective filters will be charged with civil liability.

The post notes that this law would be compliant with an early version of ACTA, and suggests that this was done on purpose. However, the report also notes that this proposed law would clearly not be compatible with current EU law. Either way, that's quite a wish list from the entertainment industry.

Filed Under: copyright, internet access, italy, one strike