This Kat has
thought of it not just because Please, please, please, let me get
what I want has been
recently at the centre of a slightly less inspiring copyright dispute, but also because the dream of
an Italian regulation on online copyright enforcement may become
reality, at last.
Readers who also
follow The 1709 Blog will remember Italian Communication Authority (AGCOM)'s
failed attempts to adopt such a
regulation over the past few years. Probably because hope is the last to die,
last April recently elected AGCOM President Angelo Cardani announced that by the end of this summer
his Authority would issue a draft regulation, which would then be subject to
public consultation.
AGCOM would intervene only after unsuccessful takedown requests (but who would dare to say 'NO' to such an irresistible rightholder??) |
This is indeed
what happened today when - just in time before the summer break - AGCOM
released its draft regulation on online copyright
protection (interview with AGCOM rapporteur here; FAQs here).
According to the press release, the draft regulation
provides a balance between protection of copyright and fundamental rights,
including freedom of expression, the right of access to the internet, and
privacy. As a result, enforcement would be targeted solely at websites
commercially devoted to piracy, thus excluding individual users
and peer-to-peer activities from its scope.
AGCOM would
enforce copyright against alleged infringers, but would be able to do so only
(1) if requested by the relevant rightholder and (2) following an unsuccessful
takedown request submitted by the relevant rightolder to the alleged
infringer.
Proposed
enforcement measures are those already listed in the Legislative Decree 2003 No 70, by which Italy implemented the Ecommerce Directive into its national law.
Filippo was asked to promote legal content offers among tourists, but the day was so hot that he fell asleep inside the Colosseum |
The draft
regulation emphasises how more effective enforcement cannot come alone. It is
in fact necessary to promote legal content offers, along with consumer
information and education.
This part somehow echoes the recent Lescure Report in France (here and here). Among other things, that report acknowledged that online legal offer of contents is still insufficient in France, and feared that it might be unlikely for users accustomed to free consumption of illegal contents to switch to legal offers, even in the presence of low-priced options. This might be due to insufficient offer segmentation in terms of pricing models, functionalities offered
and editorial line. As such, the
report did not exclude the need for support by public authorities to
enhance the emergence of new services.
This part somehow echoes the recent Lescure Report in France (here and here). Among other things, that report acknowledged that online legal offer of contents is still insufficient in France, and feared that it might be unlikely for users accustomed to free consumption of illegal contents to switch to legal offers, even in the presence of low-priced options. This might be due to insufficient offer segmentation in terms of pricing models, functionalities offered
"Sure, I am just about to answer AGCOM consultation - I'll do that before cocktail hour." |
The draft AGCOM regulation does not say how it intends to promote legal offers. Thus, it is unclear whether this is destined to remain a vague plea or would instead translate into concrete measures.
In any case,
interested stakeholders will have 60 days (de facto, it is less than this, as August is perceived as holiday month in Italy) to let AGCOM know what they think of the draft
regulation by following these instructions.
Will Italy have its online copyright enforcement regulation at last?
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html