I want to make it clear that my original comment was a personal note, and in no way represents WIPO's position. I have requested to delete the comment, but Mr. Masnick rejected my request. I am therefore correcting the record in this way.
I want to make it clear that my original comment was a personal note, and in no way represents WIPO's position. I have requested to delete the comment, but Mr. Masnick rejected my request. I am therefore correcting the record in this way.
I can certainly give some insight into this article, as I am the one who developed BRIP for WIPO. Please note I am just a developer, not a director or a lawer, but here is what I can reply to your article.
You accuse WIPO to "block sites they declare infringing".
Well first, we don't block anything.
Let me make it clear that BRIP's goal is not to block infringing websites, but to deprive them from advertising, therefore most of their revenue.
Now I don't see how WIPO technically could, even if they wanted, and were legally allowed to, block advertising from being served to infringing websites. Advertising is served to websites by advertising platforms, such as Google Ads. WIPO blocking ad serving would require our systems to be layered between every advertising platform's servers and every website out there, which is unrealistic, to say the least.
However, advertising platforms can consult the BRIP database, and therefore know whether the website they were requested advertising from has been declared as infringing. Then, with this information, they can decide to serve the ad or not. We are technically unable to prevent them from serving ads if they decide to do so anyway.
BRIP only stores and provides information. It doesn't block anything as it has neither the technical nor the legal powers to do so.
Second, we don't declare anything infringing.
The BRIP platform is merely a central repository for national authorities such as HADOPI in France, AGCOM in Italy, or Roskomnadzor in Russia.
These authorities are governmental and they declare websites as infringing, as they legally have the power to do so. We don't have this power, so we don't add or remove anything from the database.
Now answers to your "not answered" points :
What is the process to make sure sites on the list are actually engaged in ongoing infringement?
Every national authority have their own process and it depends entirely on their own judgement.
Are sites notified?
No. They know what they're doing.
Do sites have any due process by which they get to plead their own case? Is there any appeals process?
If they have been flagged by their national supreme internet authority, it will be difficult to contest, but here again, this is a process we have noting to do with. Displeased websites will have to try and contact their national authority directly, as they alone can remove a website/domain from their list in the BRIP database. Technically, we could of course remove a website from an official list, but legally we absolutely can't.
How are "authorized contributors" vetted and approved?
Authorized contributors are exclusively national/governmental internet supreme authorities.
Will an authorized contributor lose their authorization if it is found that they have nominated sites incorrectly?
It is not our role to judge wether a flagged website is actually infringing or not. If it is in the BRIP database, it means a governmental authority placed it there, and we don't have to contest their decision.
Is there any way for the public or NGOs to review the list for accuracy?
On the BRIP database itself, no. They would have to contact governmental authorities directly and request a list of the websites they declared as infringing.
I hope this clarifies the situation, let me know if you have any more questions, hopefully I can answer.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jeremy Thille.
BRIP Developer's note
I want to make it clear that my original comment was a personal note, and in no way represents WIPO's position. I have requested to delete the comment, but Mr. Masnick rejected my request. I am therefore correcting the record in this way.
Re: Re: WIPO's reply
Re: Re: WIPO's reply
WIPO's reply
I can certainly give some insight into this article, as I am the one who developed BRIP for WIPO. Please note I am just a developer, not a director or a lawer, but here is what I can reply to your article.
You accuse WIPO to "block sites they declare infringing".
Well first, we don't block anything.
Let me make it clear that BRIP's goal is not to block infringing websites, but to deprive them from advertising, therefore most of their revenue.
Now I don't see how WIPO technically could, even if they wanted, and were legally allowed to, block advertising from being served to infringing websites. Advertising is served to websites by advertising platforms, such as Google Ads. WIPO blocking ad serving would require our systems to be layered between every advertising platform's servers and every website out there, which is unrealistic, to say the least.
However, advertising platforms can consult the BRIP database, and therefore know whether the website they were requested advertising from has been declared as infringing. Then, with this information, they can decide to serve the ad or not. We are technically unable to prevent them from serving ads if they decide to do so anyway.
BRIP only stores and provides information. It doesn't block anything as it has neither the technical nor the legal powers to do so.
Second, we don't declare anything infringing.
The BRIP platform is merely a central repository for national authorities such as HADOPI in France, AGCOM in Italy, or Roskomnadzor in Russia.
These authorities are governmental and they declare websites as infringing, as they legally have the power to do so. We don't have this power, so we don't add or remove anything from the database.
Now answers to your "not answered" points :
Every national authority have their own process and it depends entirely on their own judgement.
No. They know what they're doing.
If they have been flagged by their national supreme internet authority, it will be difficult to contest, but here again, this is a process we have noting to do with. Displeased websites will have to try and contact their national authority directly, as they alone can remove a website/domain from their list in the BRIP database. Technically, we could of course remove a website from an official list, but legally we absolutely can't.
Authorized contributors are exclusively national/governmental internet supreme authorities.
It is not our role to judge wether a flagged website is actually infringing or not. If it is in the BRIP database, it means a governmental authority placed it there, and we don't have to contest their decision.
On the BRIP database itself, no. They would have to contact governmental authorities directly and request a list of the websites they declared as infringing.
I hope this clarifies the situation, let me know if you have any more questions, hopefully I can answer.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jeremy Thille.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt