Tag Archives: Ziggo

The Pirate Bay’s Domain Suffers “40% Traffic Drop” After Dutch Blocking

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bays-domain-suffers-40-traffic-drop-after-dutch-blocking-180302/

Over the past several years, Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN has been engaged in continuous legal action against local ISPs Ziggo and XS4All. BREIN felt they should block The Pirate Bay to reduce copyright infringement but the ISPs felt blocking was disproportionate.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and then to the EU Court of Justice for clarification. Last June, the ECJ ruled that as a platform effectively communicating copyright works to the public, The Pirate Bay can indeed be blocked by ISPs.

The case will go back to the Supreme Court which is likely to give permanent blocking the go ahead. However, BREIN wanted a blocking decision more quickly and got one last September when The Hague Court of Appeal told Ziggo and XS4All to block The Pirate Bay pending a Supreme Court decision.

With The Pirate Bay blocked by the ISPs from September last year, BREIN has been monitoring the effect of the blockade on traffic to the site. In a statement, the anti-piracy outfit suggests that blocking is doing its job.

“Monitoring by ComScore shows that the number of unique visitors to thepiratebay.org from the Netherlands has dropped by more than 40% between September 2017 and December 2017 after internet providers Ziggo and XS4ALL were ordered by the court to demand access to the site on the basis of BREIN’s claim,” BREIN writes.

Ziggo is the largest cable operator in the Netherlands and XS4All one of the longest standing, so it comes as no surprise to learn that traffic to The Pirate Bay’s main domain has been hit. However, since the site can be accessed in numerous different indirect ways, including via proxies, mirrors and VPNs, to name a few, does BREIN’s claim that “blocking works” still hold water?

According to BREIN director Tim Kuik, yes it does.

“We also are blocking many proxies and mirrors. There is a whole list of them which also changes. New ones are added and others may be deleted,” Kuik informs TF.

“The monitoring compares like with like and shows a trend that correlates with other sources. I think this trend holds true for all blocked sites.”

So, to be clear, the 40% does not represent a drop in Dutch traffic to The Pirate Bay’s site and/or content overall, it only represents traffic which goes directly to the specific thepiratebay.org domain. Anyone circumventing the blockade isn’t counted.

Of course, that’s not to say that the overall traffic numbers from the Netherlands aren’t down as well, but there are no public figures to prove that one way or another. The precise impact of proxies and mirrors is also unclear but Kuik thinks that the blockades themselves send a message.

“Bypassing a blockade requires users to take action to illegally download and it is now clear that they are committing a criminal offense and most people do not want that,” he says.

VPNs are undoubtedly an effective unblocking solution for some but Kuik doesn’t believe they represent a big threat, currently at least.

“We think VPN use is not common under the average user, that is more something for the hardcore and not all of those will use it for access to illegal sources,” he informs TF.

While BREIN is fairly relaxed about VPNs for now, the group suggests it could take action if they begin to pose a risk to the site-blocking regime they’ve fought so hard for.

“If it becomes problematic, blocking could in principle also be demanded from VPN services,” Kuik warns.

Given the 40% figure and the caveats above, it is likely that the direct traffic figure to The Pirate Bay’s domain will fall again in the months to come. Mid-January a Dutch court ruled that local Internet providers KPN, Tele2, T-Mobile, Zeelandnet and CAIW must follow Ziggo and XS4All by also blocking The Pirate Bay.

There’s no doubt that blocking has at least some effect on direct traffic to pirate sites and it’s clear that entertainment industry groups feel it’s essential as part of a bigger anti-piracy toolkit.

Thus far, however, pirates have proven to be extremely resilient so the Netherlands will probably need further action against a much broader range of sites if blocking is to have any meaningful effect.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

T-Mobile Blocks Pirate Sites Then Reports Itself For Possible Net Neutrality Violation

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/t-mobile-blocks-pirate-sites-then-reports-itself-for-possible-net-neutrality-violation-180130/

For the past eight years, Austria has been struggling with the thorny issue of pirate site blocking. Local ISPs have put up quite a fight but site blocking is now a reality, albeit with a certain amount of confusion.

After a dizzying route through the legal system, last November the Supreme Court finally ruled that The Pirate Bay and other “structurally-infringing” sites including 1337x.to and isohunt.to can be blocked, if rightsholders have exhausted all other options.

The Court based its decision on the now-familiar BREIN v Filmspeler and BREIN v Ziggo and XS4All cases that received European Court of Justice rulings last year. However, there is now an additional complication, this time on the net neutrality front.

After being passed in October 2015 and coming into force in April 2016, the Telecom Single Market (TSM) Regulation established the principle of non-discriminatory traffic management in the EU. The regulation still allows for the blocking of copyright-infringing websites but only where supported by a clear administrative or judicial decision. This is where T-Mobile sees a problem.

In addition to blocking sites named specifically by the court, copyright holders also expect the ISP to block related platforms, such as clones and mirrors, that aren’t specified in the same manner.

So, last week, after blocking several obscure Pirate Bay clones such as proxydl.cf, the ISP reported itself to the Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications (RTR) for a potential net neutrality breach.

“It sounds paradoxical, but this should finally bring legal certainty in a long-standing dispute over pirate sites. T-Mobile Austria has filed with regulatory authority RTR a kind of self-report, after blocking several sites on the basis of a warning by rights holders,” T-Mobile said in a statement.

“The background to the communication to the RTR, through which T-Mobile intends to obtain an assessment by the regulator, is a very unsatisfactory legal situation in which operators have no opportunity to behave in conformity with the law.

“The service provider is forced upon notification by the copyright owner to even judge about possible copyright infringements. At the same time, the provider is violating the principle of net neutrality by setting up a ban.”

T-Mobile says the problem is complicated by rightsholders who, after obtaining a blocking order forcing named ISPs to block named pirate sites (as required under EU law), send similar demands to other ISPs that were not party to court proceedings. The rightsholders also send blocking demands when blocked sites disappear and reappear under a new name, despite those new names not being part of the original order.

According to industry body Internet Service Providers Austria (ISPA), there is a real need for clarification. It’s hoped that T-Mobile reporting itself for a potential net neutrality breach will have the desired effect.

“For more than two years, we have been trying to find a solution with the involved interest groups and the responsible ministry, which on the one hand protects the rights of the artists and on the other hand does not force the providers into the role of a judge,” complains Maximilian Schubert, Secretary General of the ISPA.

“The willingness of the rights holders to compromise had remained within manageable limits. Now they are massively increasing the pressure and demanding costly measures, which the service providers see as punishment for them providing legal security for their customers for many years.”

ISPA hopes that the telecoms regulator will now help to clear up this uncertainty.

“We now hope that the regulator will give a clear answer here. Because from our point of view, the assessment of legality cannot and should not be outsourced to companies,” Schubert concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Kodi Piracy and Addon Predictions for 2018

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/kodi-piracy-and-addon-predictions-for-2018-171228/

During 2017, Kodi and its sea of third-party addons hit the headlines hundreds of times.

Streaming in this fashion became a massive deal throughout the year and eventually, copyright holders decided to take action, cracking down on groups such as TVAddons, ZemTV, and addons offered by jsergio123 and The_Alpha.

In November, the problems continued when the Ares Project, the group behind the hugely popular Ares Wizard and Kodi repository, threw in the towel after being threatened by the MPA-led anti-piracy coalition Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment.

The combined might of Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Warner, Netflix, Amazon, and Sky TV was too much, leading to Ares Project leader Tekto shutting everything down.

This was a significant development. Over a two year period, Ares serviced an estimated 100 million users. After interviewing Tekto last month, today we catch up with the developer again, listening to his thoughts on how the scene might further develop in 2018 and what threats lie ahead.

TF: Could you tell us a bit about Kodi’s suitability as an unauthorized streaming platform moving forward? Is it flexible enough to deal with threats, is its current development effort sufficient, do addon developers like the way it works, and how could it be improved?

Tekto: The public awareness of Kodi and the easy ways with which it can be customised via builds and its open source nature makes it the perfect platform for Python coders. It’s easy to fork, copy, adapt and learn, and it’s good for “builders” who modify, personalize, and “brand”.

It’s also easy for users to obtain, install, and work with the plethora of wizards and addons etc, all backed by up blogs and YouTube tutorials. It’s the perfect open source platform to develop and customise to access a massive range of content. Content that may well be contentious but regardless, it is publicly available all over the web.

TF: Obviously Kodi is the big thing at the moment but other apps, such as Showbox, TerrariumTV, and similar products are carving a decent niche for themselves. Where do you see the market sitting on these kinds of products moving forward and are they a threat to Kodi’s dominance?

Tekto: The apps and other services don’t offer the same level of personalization. That’s what will keep a certain dedicated following happy with Kodi. We’ve had Plex, Streamio, Emby and so on, but none offer the flexibility of Kodi.

TF: Does Kodi have any major weaknesses that you know of? Is it under threat from other systems perhaps?

Tekto: Lets not forget we had CCcam [card sharing] for a decade and with Sky [UK TV provider] changing their encryption to end that source, a myriad of IPTV providers sprung up to replace it. All that killing the CCcam method has done, is moved people off CCcam to IPTV. It hasn’t stopped piracy or access to “premium content”, it just moved somewhere else. It probably also makes the providers more money than CCcam accounts ever did.

TF: There have been a lot of legal threats in 2017. Are third-party addon developers and their community under serious threat?

Tekto: If Kodi third-party devs “stopped”, something else would take over. All the Android apps that have sprung up (some have been around a while anyway) are already filling some gaps or giving options for those looking to stream.

Having tried some of these, I have to say for non-tech users there are two or three apps that will suit them perfectly. Others need more work and fewer invasive ads to be more successful. Will Kodi stop? No. It is evolving and finding a new path. It has to. Well, the coders have to, at least.

TF: What is your overall assessment of the various legal attacks this year?

Tekto: What is being missed by all these legal “efforts” is the removal of the sources being accessed. Whilst the sources exist, apps and Kodi add-ons will find ways to access them.

Did taking out a few Kodi devs and a wizard remove any content? Did it stop just one movie from being accessed? No. It did nothing to stop piracy. It did, however, give those receiving HUGE fees to act for the various movie and broadcasters, something to write on their “success” boards and reports.

It just upset users for a few days whilst things adapted to the new situation. The Kodi builds listed on Ares all had their own wizards anyway – so they all carried on working. All the add-ons on Ares were mostly linked to Github, so they carried on working anyway.

The takedown of guys working on the URL resolver for Covenant didn’t work at all. The code still works and if you add, let’s say, Real Debrid, it won’t ever stop working, even Exodus still works! Let’s add to this that Covenant was then forked five or six times and re-marketed.

I’d say it probably increased “acts of copyright infringement” or at least access to “copyright infringing material”. TV Addons immediately took over development of the “URL resolver”, so it will be maintained and fixes for it released.

The URL resolver module uses regex – regular expressions to emulate a web browser (for the most part). Let that sink in; A URL resolver is a way to bypass a web browser, as most of the content is hosted on “publicly accessible” websites, that still remain publicly available with or without Covenant or whatever the forks are called.

TF: Sp there isn’t a Doomsday scenario?

Tekto: If the Kodi third-party scene is somehow stopped – all Wizards, builds, etc were all stopped this very second – there would be a dozen new apps for Android in weeks. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of websites you could switch to, to watch the same content. ACE, MPA etc need to wake up to that fact.

TF: One of the big deals this year, as far as the legal position goes, has been the clarification of “communication to the public” following cases at the European level featuring [pirate box seller] Filmspeler and The Pirate Bay. How do you think this will affect the addon and build scenes moving forward?

Tekto: I’ve long believed that Kodi wizards and scraper addons operated in a way that wasn’t illegal, in that they never provided content, never actually handled the copyright protected files themselves.

It still remains my belief that the recent efforts to use the Ziggo [Pirate Bay] ruling concerning “communicating to the public” is directly linked to torrents or at the very least actually providing content itself. It may be legal “saber rattling” – however standing your ground in the face of a well-funded legal behemoth is beyond hobbyists.

TF: An addon developer I spoke with recently said that fellow addon developers will need to be smarter in future, perhaps by developing addons that aren’t so obviously infringing and are more general in their functionality. Do you feel this is a route they’re likely to take and will it make any difference? How do you think a more ‘underground’ scene will affect the situation on the ground?

Tekto: Going Underground? Most will say grab a VPN and you’re safe – take note that a VPN isn’t enough. They may not get your logs, but they will get your payment info, or the times you are online tagged against another log etc. Anything like PayPal, Gmail, AdSense, etc is 100% out too – they will give people up in a heartbeat. People will have to avoid Facebook, Twitter and so on, as again, they will also link back to the “real you”.

I expect more will move to Tor as a first level of hiding their identities. Hosting via Tor-only sites might be a way to avoid some obvious methods of tracing people. Add-on devs could access Github and release code without ever having to reveal who they are.

Let’s not get into the whole “freedom of speech” etc scenario, however. It should mean that any developer should realistically make much greater efforts to hide their identities.

TF: Thank you for your time, Tekto. Any final messages for the readers?

Tekto: Yes, our Ares Wizard has returned. It’s a mainentance tool now.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

The Pirate Bay & 1337x Must Be Blocked, Austrian Supreme Court Rules

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-1337x-must-be-blocked-austrian-supreme-court-rules-171014/

Following a long-running case, in 2015 Austrian ISPs were ordered by the Commercial Court to block The Pirate Bay and other “structurally-infringing” sites including 1337x.to, isohunt.to, and h33t.to.

The decision was welcomed by the music industry, which looked forward to having more sites blocked in due course.

Soon after, local music rights group LSG sent its lawyers after several other large ISPs urging them to follow suit, or else. However, the ISPs dug in and a year later, in May 2016, things began to unravel. The Vienna Higher Regional Court overruled the earlier decision of the Commercial Court, meaning that local ISPs were free to unblock the previously blocked sites.

The Court concluded that ISP blocks are only warranted if copyright holders have exhausted all their options to take action against those actually carrying out the infringement. This decision was welcomed by the Internet Service Providers Austria (ISPA), which described the decision as an important milestone.

The ISPs argued that only torrent files, not the content itself, was available on the portals. They also had a problem with the restriction of access to legitimate content.

“A problem in this context is that the offending pages also have legal content and it is no longer possible to access that if barriers are put in place,” said ISPA Secretary General Maximilian Schubert.

Taking the case to its ultimate conclusion, the music companies appealed to the Supreme Court. Another year on and its decision has just been published and for the rightsholders, who represent 3,000 artists including The Beatles, Justin Bieber, Eric Clapton, Coldplay, David Guetta, Iggy Azalea, Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Metallica, George Michael, One Direction, Katy Perry, and Queen, to name a few, it was worth the effort.

The Court looked at whether “the provision and operation of a BitTorrent platform with the purpose of online file sharing [of non-public domain works]” represents a “communication to the public” under the EU Copyright Directive. Citing the now-familiar BREIN v Filmspeler and BREIN v Ziggo and XS4All cases that both received European Court of Justice rulings earlier this year, the Supreme Court concluded it was.

Citing another Dutch case, in which Playboy publisher Sanoma took on the blog GeenStijl.nl, the Court noted that linking to copyrighted content hosted elsewhere also amounted to a “communication to the public”, a situation mirrored on torrent sites like The Pirate Bay.

“The similarity of the technical procedure in this case when compared to BitTorrent platforms lies in the fact that in both cases the operators of the website did not provide any copyrighted works themselves, but merely provided further information on sites where the protected works were available,” the Court notes in its ruling.

In respect of the potential for blocking legitimate content as well as that infringing copyright, the Court turned the ISPs’ own arguments against them somewhat.

The ISPs had previously argued that blocking The Pirate Bay and other sites was pointless since the torrents they host would still be available elsewhere. The Court noted that point and also found that people can easily upload their torrents to sites that aren’t blocked, since there’s plenty of choice.

The ISPA criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, noting that in future ISPs will still find themselves being held responsible for decisions concerning blocking.

“We do not support illegal content on the Internet in any way, but consider it extremely questionable that the decision on what is illegal and what is not falls to ISPs, instead of a court,” said ISPA Secretary General Maximilian.

“Although we find it positive that a court of last resort has taken the decision, the assessment of the website in the first instance continues to be left to the Internet provider. The Supreme Court’s expansion of the circle of sites that be potentially blocked further complicates this task for the operator and furthers the privatization of law enforcement.

“It is extremely unpleasant that even after more than 10 years of fierce discussion, there is still no compelling legal basis for a court decision on Internet blocking, which puts providers in the role of both judge and hangman.”

Also of interest is ISPA’s stance on how blocking of content fails to solve the underlying issue. When content is blocked, rather than removed, it simply displaces the problem, leaving others to pick up the pieces, the Internet body argues.

“Illegal content is permanently removed from the network by deletion. Everything else is a placebo with extremely dangerous side effects, which can easily be bypassed by both providers and consumers. The only thing that remains is a blocking infrastructure that can be misused for many purposes and, unfortunately, will be used in many places,” Schubert says.

“The current situation, where providers have to block the rightsholders quasi on the spot, if they do not want to engage in a time-consuming and cost-intensive litigation, is really not sustainable so we issue a call to action to the legislature.”

The domains that were listed in the case, many of which are already defunct, are: thepiratebay.se, thepiratebay.gd, thepiratebay.la, thepiratebay.mn, thepiratebay.mu, thepiratebay.sh, thepiratebay.tw, thepiratebay.fm, thepiratebay.ms, thepiratebay.vg, isohunt.to, 1337x.to and h33t.to.

Whether it will be added later is unclear, but the only domain currently used by The Pirate Bay (thepiratebay.org) is not included in the list.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Съд на ЕС: медийни концентрации

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/kpn19560/

Стана известно решение  на Общия съд по дело T‑394/15 KPN BV  (Netherlands),  v European Commission

 

Жалбоподателят KPN BV е активен в сектора на кабелните мрежи за телевизионни, широколентови интернет, фиксирани телефонни услуги и мобилни телекомуникационни услуги, по-специално в Нидерландия.

Liberty Global plc е международен кабелен оператор, който притежава и експлоатира кабелни мрежи, предлагащи телевизия, широколентов интернет, фиксирана телефония и мобилни телекомуникационни услуги в единадесет държави-членки на Европейския съюз и Швейцария. Г-н Джон Малоун, американски гражданин, притежава най-голямото миноритарно участие в Liberty Global.

Ziggo NV притежава и управлява широколентова кабелна мрежа, която обхваща повече от половината от територията на Нидерландия. Това предприятие предоставя цифрови и аналогови кабелни видео, широколентов интернет, мобилни телекомуникации и услуги за цифрова телефония (Voice over Internet Protocol). Ziggo притежава 50% от HBO Nederland.

На 10 октомври 2014 г. Комисията приема Решение C (2014) 7241, с което обявява концентрацията, включваща придобиването от Liberty Global на изключителен контрол над Ziggo, за съвместима с вътрешния пазар и със Споразумението за ЕИП (Дело COMP / M.7000 – Liberty Global / Ziggo) (ОВ 2015, C 145, стр. 7) .

KPN обжалва решението  на три правни основания –  явна грешка в преценката относно евентуалните вертикални последици на концентрацията на пазара на pay tv,  нарушение на задължението за анализ на евентуалните вертикални антиконкурентни ефекти на пазара на спортни телевизионни канали  и   явна грешка в преценката относно упражняването на решаващо влияние върху г-н Malone върху Liberty Global.

Съдът анализира второто основание – липсата на мотиви – и потвърждава, че обжалваното решение не съдържа достатъчен  анализ относно вертикалните ефекти, които биха произтекли от предложената концентрация.

В резултат отменя решението на ЕК.

Filed under: EU Law, Media Law Tagged: съд на ес

Yarrrr! Dutch ISPs Block The Pirate Bay But It’s Bad Timing for Trolls

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/yarrrr-dutch-isps-block-the-pirate-bay-but-its-bad-timing-for-trolls-171005/

While many EU countries have millions of Internet pirates, few have given citizens the freedom to plunder like the Netherlands. For many years, Dutch Internet users actually went about their illegal downloading with government blessing.

Just over three years ago, downloading and copying movies and music for personal use was not punishable by law. Instead, the Dutch compensated rightsholders through a “piracy levy” on writable media, hard drives and electronic devices with storage capacity, including smartphones.

Following a ruling from the European Court of Justice in 2014, however, all that came to an end. Along with uploading (think BitTorrent sharing), downloading was also outlawed.

Around the same time, The Court of The Hague handed down a decision in a long-running case which had previously forced two Dutch ISPs, Ziggo and XS4ALL, to block The Pirate Bay.

Ruling against local anti-piracy outfit BREIN, it was decided that the ISPs wouldn’t have to block The Pirate Bay after all. After a long and tortuous battle, however, the ISPs learned last month that they would have to block the site, pending a decision from the Supreme Court.

On September 22, both ISPs were given 10 business days to prevent subscriber access to the notorious torrent site, or face fines of 2,000 euros per day, up to a maximum of one million euros.

With that time nearly up, yesterday Ziggo broke cover to become the first of the pair to block the site. On a dedicated diversion page, somewhat humorously titled ziggo.nl/yarrr, the ISP explained the situation to now-blocked users.

“You are trying to visit a page of The Pirate Bay. On September 22, the Hague Court obliged us to block access to this site. The pirate flag is thus handled by us. The case is currently at the Supreme Court which judges the basic questions in this case,” the notice reads.

Ziggo Pirate Bay message (translated)

Customers of XS4ALL currently have no problem visiting The Pirate Bay but according to a statement handed to Tweakers by a spokesperson, the blockade will be implemented today.

In addition to the site’s main domains, the injunction will force the ISPs to block 155 URLs and IP addresses in total, a list that has been drawn up by BREIN to include various mirrors, proxies, and alternate access points. XS4All says it will publish a list of all the blocked items on its notification page.

While the re-introduction of a Pirate Bay blockade in the Netherlands is an achievement for BREIN, it’s potentially bad timing for the copyright trolls waiting in the wings to snare Dutch file-sharers.

As recently reported, movie outfit Dutch Filmworks (DFW) is preparing a wave of cash-settlement copyright-trolling letters to mimic those sent by companies elsewhere.

There’s little doubt that users of The Pirate Bay would’ve been DFW’s targets but it seems likely that given the introduction of blockades, many Dutch users will start to educate themselves on the use of VPNs to protect their privacy, or at least become more aware of the risks.

Of course, there will be no real shortage of people who’ll continue to download without protection, but DFW are getting into this game just as it’s likely to get more difficult for them. As more and more sites get blocked (and that is definitely BREIN’s overall plan) the low hanging fruit will sit higher and higher up the tree – and the cash with it.

Like all methods of censorship, site-blocking eventually drives communication underground. While anti-piracy outfits all say blocking is necessary, obfuscation and encryption isn’t welcomed by any of them.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Block The Pirate Bay Within 10 Days, Dutch Court Tells ISPs

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/block-the-pirate-bay-within-10-days-dutch-court-tells-isps-170922/

Three years ago in 2014, The Court of The Hague handed down its decision in a long-running case which had previously forced two Dutch ISPs, Ziggo and XS4ALL, to block The Pirate Bay.

Ruling against local anti-piracy outfit BREIN, which brought the case, the Court decided that a blockade would be ineffective and also restrict the ISPs’ entrepreneurial freedoms.

The Pirate Bay was unblocked while BREIN took its case to the Supreme Court, which in turn referred the matter to the EU Court of Justice for clarification. This June, the ECJ ruled that as a platform effectively communicating copyright works to the public, The Pirate Bay can indeed be blocked.

The ruling meant there were no major obstacles preventing the Dutch Supreme Court from ordering a future ISP blockade. Clearly, however, BREIN wanted a blocking decision more quickly. A decision handed down today means the anti-piracy group will achieve that in just a few days’ time.

The Hague Court of Appeal today ruled (Dutch) that the 2014 decision, which lifted the blockade against The Pirate Bay, is now largely obsolete.

“According to the Court of Appeal, the Hague Court did not give sufficient weight to the interests of the beneficiaries represented by BREIN,” BREIN said in a statement.

“The Court also wrongly looked at whether torrent traffic had been reduced by the blockade. It should have also considered whether visits to the website of The Pirate Bay itself decreased with a blockade, which speaks for itself.”

As a result, an IP address and DNS blockade of The Pirate Bay, similar to those already in place in the UK and other EU countries, will soon be put in place. BREIN says that four IP addresses will be affected along with hundreds of domain names through which the torrent platform can be reached.

The ISPs have been given just 10 days to put the blocks in place and if they fail there are fines of 2,000 euros per day, up to a maximum of one million euros.

“It is nice that obviously harmful and illegal sites like The Pirate Bay will be blocked again in the Netherlands,” says BREIN chief Tim Kuik.

“A very bad time for our culture, which was free to access via these sites, is now happily behind us.”

Today’s interim decision by the Court of Appeal will stand until the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the main case between BREIN and Ziggo / XS4ALL.

Looking forward, it seems extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will hand down a conflicting decision, so we’re probably already looking at the beginning of the end for direct accessibility of The Pirate Bay in the Netherlands.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Piracy Fines For Dutch Pirates, Starting This Autumn

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-fines-for-dutch-pirates-starting-this-autumn-170828/

In 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that the “piracy levy”, used in the Netherlands to compensate rightsholders for illicit downloading, was unlawful. In the immediate aftermath, downloading from unauthorized sources was banned.

Three years on and illegal downloading is still considered by rightsholders to be a problem that needs to be brought under control. This means that BitTorrent users are the number one target since their activities also involve uploading, something that most courts consider to be a relatively serious offense.

With that in mind, Dutch film distributor Dutch Filmworks (DFW) is preparing a wave of anti-piracy activity that looks set to mimic the copyright-trolling activities of similar outfits all over the world.

A recent application to the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens), revealed that DFW wishes to combat “the unlawful dissemination of copyright protected works” by monitoring the activities of BitTorrent users.

“DFW intends to collect data from people who exchange files over the Internet through BitTorrent networks. The data processing consists of capturing proof of exchange of files via IP addresses for the purpose of researching involvement of these users in the distribution or reproduction of copyrighted works,” it reads.

People who are monitored sharing DFW titles (the company says it intends to track people sharing dozens of releases) will get a letter with an offer to settle in advance of being taken to court. Speaking with NOS, DFW CEO Willem Pruijsserts now reveals that the campaign will begin in the autumn.

“[The lettter] will propose a fee,” he says. “If someone does not agree [to pay], the organization can start a lawsuit.”

Quite how much DFW will ask for is not yet clear, but Pruijsserts says the Dutch model will be more reasonable than similar schemes underway in other regions.

“In Germany, this costs between €800 and €1,000, although we find this a bit excessive. But of course it has to be a deterrent, so it will be more than a tenner or two,” he said.

In comments to RTLZ, Pruijsserts confirmed ‘fines’ of at least hundreds of euros.

According to documents filed with the Dutch data protection authority, DFW will employ an external German-based tracking company to monitor alleged pirates which will “automatically participate in swarms in which works from DFW are being shared.” The company has been named by RTL Z as German company Excipion, which could be linked to the monitoring outfit Tecxipio, which began as Excipio.

In conversation with NOS, Pruijsserts said that “hundreds of thousands” of people watched films like Mechanic: Resurrection without paying. This particular movie is notable for appearing in many piracy cases in the United States. It is one of the titles pursued relentlessly by lawyers acting in concert with notorious copyright-trolling outfit Guardaley.

Perhaps the most crucial element moving forward is whether DFW will be able to get ISPs to cooperate in handing over the personal details of allegedly infringing subscribers. Thus far, ISPs Ziggo and KPN have indicated they won’t do so without a court order, so further legal action will be required for DFW to progress.

When DFW’s application for discovery is heard by the court, it will be interesting to see how far the ISPs dig into the anti-piracy scheme. Finding out more about Guardaley, if the company is indeed involved, would be an intriguing approach, especially given the outfit’s tendency to scurry away (1,2) when coming under intense scrutiny.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Dutch Film Distributor to Target BitTorrent Users For Cash ‘Fines’

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/dutch-film-distributor-to-target-bittorrent-users-for-cash-fines-170802/

For many carefree years, Dutch Internet users were allowed to download copyrighted content, provided it was for their own personal use. In 2014, however, the European Court of Justice ruled that the country’s “piracy levy” to compensate rightsholders was unlawful. An immediate downloading ban followed.

That action took place more than three years ago but as recently reported by Dutch anti-piracy BREIN, the country still has an appetite for unauthorized content consumption. Some of that takes place with the assistance of torrent sites but for the most part, file-sharers have had little to worry about.

That could all be about to change with the news that local film distributor Dutch Filmworks (DFW) has announced its intention to monitor torrent site users and collect data on their online activities. The news comes via the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens), which needs to be formally advised in order for the data collection to go ahead.

DFW’s plans are outlined in a detailed application (Dutch, pdf) dated July 2017. It explains that DFW wishes to combat “the unlawful dissemination of copyright protected works” in order to protect their own interests, and this involves collecting data on Dutch individuals without their knowledge or permission.

“DFW intends to collect data from people who exchange files over the Internet through BitTorrent networks. The data processing consists of capturing proof of exchange of files via IP addresses for the purpose of researching involvement of these users in the distribution or reproduction of copyrighted works,” it reads.

DFW will employ an external German-based tracking company to monitor alleged pirates which will “automatically participate in swarms in which works from DFW are being shared.” Data collected from non-Dutch users will be stripped and discarded but information about local pirates will be retained and processed for further action.

However, in order for DFW to connect an IP address with an individual, the company will have to approach Internet service providers to obtain subscriber information including names and addresses. DFW says that if ISPs won’t cooperate voluntarily, it will be forced to take its case to court. Given past experience, that will probably have to happen.

In March 2016, anti-piracy outfit BREIN obtained permission from the Dutch Data Protection Authority to collect similar data on alleged BitTorrent users, aiming to change attitudes among pirates with fines and legal action.

Several ISPs, most prominently Ziggo, announced that they would not voluntarily cooperate with BREIN and that personal information would only be handed over if BREIN took them to court. It’s logical to presume that Dutch Filmworks will receive the same treatment.

Should the company be successful, however, it has had detailed a stepped plan. First, the alleged pirate will receive a warning and DFW will aim to reach “an amicable settlement” for the breach. If one cannot be reached, further legal action could be taken, up to and including prosecution and claims for damages.

The whole scheme certainly sounds like a classic “copyright trolling” operation in the making but only time will tell which end of the spectrum this project will fall. When asked by NU.nl whether DFW would actually be seeking cash from alleged pirates, it declined to comment.

“This is the first step in this process. We’re going to see what we’re going to do after 25 August,” a spokesperson said.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

BREIN Takes Down 231 Pirate Sites in Six Months, But That’s Not All

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/brein-takes-down-231-pirate-sites-in-six-months-but-thats-not-all-170722/

Over the years, the MPAA and RIAA have grabbed hundreds of headlines for their anti-piracy activities but recently their work has been more subtle. The same cannot be said of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN.

BREIN is the most prominent outfit of its type in the Netherlands but it’s not uncommon for its work to be felt way beyond its geographical borders. The group’s report for the first six months of 2017 illustrates that in very clear terms.

In its ongoing efforts to reduce piracy on movies, music, TV shows, books and games, BREIN says it carried out 268 investigations during the first two quarters of 2017. That resulted in the takedown of 231 piracy-focused sites and services.

They included 45 cyberlocker linking sites, 30 streaming sites and 9 torrent platforms. The last eDonkey site in the Netherlands was among the haul after its operators reached a settlement with BREIN. The anti-piracy outfit reports that nearly all of the sites were operated anonymously so in many instances hosting providers were the ones to pull the plug, at BREIN’s request.

BREIN has also been actively tracking down people who make content available on file-sharing networks. These initial uploaders are considered to be a major part of the problem, so taking them out of the equation is another of BREIN’s goals.

In total, 14 major uploaders to torrent, streaming, and Usenet platforms were targeted by BREIN in the first six months of this year, with each given the opportunity to settle out of court or face legal action. Settlements typically involved a cash payment of between 250 and 7,500 euros but in several instances, uploaders were also required to take down the content they had uploaded.

In one interesting case, BREIN obtained an ex parte court order against a person running a “live cinema” on Facebook. He later settled with the anti-piracy group for 7,500 euros.

BREIN has also been active in a number of other areas. The group says it had almost 693,000 infringing results removed from Google search, pushing its total takedowns to more than 15.8 million. In addition, more than 2,170 listings for infringing content and devices were removed from online marketplaces and seven piracy-focused Facebook groups were taken down.

But while all of these actions have an effect locally, it is BREIN’s persistence in important legal cases that have influenced the copyright landscape across Europe.

Perhaps the most important case so far is BREIN v Filmspeler, which saw the anti-piracy group go all the way to the European Court of Justice for clarification on the law surrounding so-called “fully loaded” set-top boxes.

In a ruling earlier this year, the ECJ not only determined that selling such devices is a breach of copyright law, but also that people streaming content from an illicit source are committing an offense. Although the case began in the Netherlands, its effects will now be felt right across Europe, and that is almost completely down to BREIN.

But despite the reach of the ruling, BREIN has already been making good use of the decision locally. Not only has the operator of the Filmspeler site settled with BREIN “for a substantial amount”, but more than 200 sellers of piracy-configured set-top boxes have ceased trading since the ECJ decision. Some of the providers are the subject of further legal action.

Finally, a notable mention must go to BREIN’s determination to have The Pirate Bay blocked in the Netherlands. The battle against ISPs Ziggo and XS4ALL has been ongoing for seven years and like the Filmspeler case, required the attention of the European Court of Justice. While it’s still not over yet, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will eventually rule in BREIN’s favor.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Съд на ЕС: за достъпа до The Pirate Bay

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/the-pirate-bay-5/

Вчера беше публикувано решението на Съда на ЕС по дело C‑610/15 Stichting Brein срещу Ziggo BV и XS4ALL Internet BV.

Решението засяга функционирането и достъпа до The Pirate Bay.

Спорът

9 Ziggo и XS4ALL са доставчици на достъп до интернет. Значителна част от техните абонати ползват платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB, индексатор на BitTorrent файлове. BitTorrent е протокол, чрез който потребителите (наричани „равноправни устройства“ или „peers“) могат да споделят файлове. Съществената характеристика на BitTorrent се състои в това, че файловете, които се споделят, са разделени на малки сегменти, като по този начин отпада необходимостта от централен сървър за съхраняване на тези файлове, което облекчава тежестта на индивидуалните сървъри в процеса на споделянето. За да могат да споделят файлове, потребителите трябва най-напред да свалят специален софтуер, наречен „BitTorrent клиент“, който не се предлага от платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB. Този BitTorrent клиент представлява софтуер, който позволява създаването на торент файлове.

10      Потребителите (наричани „seeders“ [сийдъри]), които желаят да предоставят файл от своя компютър на разположение на други потребители (наричани „leechers“ [лийчъри]), трябва да създадат торент файл чрез своя BitTorrent клиент. Торент файловете препращат към централен сървър (наричан „tracker“ [тракер]), който идентифицира потребители, които могат да споделят конкретен торент файл, както и прилежащия към него медиен файл. Тези торент файлове се качват (upload) от сийдърите (на платформа за онлайн споделяне, каквато е TPB, която след това ги индексира, за да могат те да бъдат намирани от потребителите на платформата за онлайн споделяне и произведенията, към които тези торент файлове препращат, да могат да бъдат сваляни (download) на компютрите на последните на отделни сегменти чрез техния BitTorrent клиент.

11      Често пъти вместо торенти се използват магнитни линкове. Тези линкове идентифицират съдържанието на торента и препращат към него чрез цифров отпечатък.

12      Голямото мнозинство от предлаганите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB торент файлове препращат към произведения, които са обект на закрила от авторски права, без да е дадено разрешение от носителите на авторското право на администраторите и на потребителите на тази платформа за извършване на действията по споделянето.

13      Главното искане на Stichting Brein в производството пред националната юрисдикция е да разпореди на Ziggo и на XS4ALL да блокират имената на домейни и интернет адресите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB с цел да се предотврати възможността за ползване на услугите на тези доставчици на достъп до интернет за нарушаване на авторското и сродните му права на носителите на правата, чиито интереси защитава Stichting Brein.

Въпросите

 При тези обстоятелства Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Върховен съд на Нидерландия) решава да спре производството по делото и да постави на Съда следните преюдициални въпроси:

„1)      Налице ли е публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29 от страна на администратора на уебсайт, ако на този уебсайт не са налице защитени произведения, но съществува система […], с която намиращи се в компютрите на потребителите метаданни за защитени произведения се индексират и категоризират за потребителите по начин, по който последните могат да проследяват, да качват онлайн, както и да свалят закриляните произведения?

2)      При отрицателен отговор на първия въпрос:

Дават ли член 8, параграф 3 от Директива 2001/29 и член 11 от Директива 2004/48 основание за издаването на забрана по отношение на посредник по смисъла на тези разпоредби, който по описания във въпрос 1 начин улеснява извършването на нарушения от трети лица?“.

Вече имаме заключението на Генералния адвокат Szpunar, според което

обстоятелството, че операторът на уебсайт индексира файлове, съдържащи закриляни с авторско право произведения, които се предлагат за споделяне в peer-to-peer мрежа, и предоставя търсачка, с което позволява тези файлове да бъдат намирани, представлява публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29, когато операторът знае, че дадено произведение е предоставено на разположение в мрежата без съгласието на носителите на авторските права, но не предприема действия за блокиране на достъпа до това произведение.

Решението

Понятието „публично разгласяване“ обединява два кумулативни елемента, а именно „акт на разгласяване“ на произведение и „публичност“ на разгласяването (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 29 и цитираната съдебна практика). За да се прецени дали даден ползвател извършва акт на публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29, трябва да се отчетат няколко допълнителни критерия, които не са самостоятелни и са взаимозависими.

  • ключовата роля на потребителя и съзнателния характер на неговата намеса. Всъщност този потребител извършва акт на разгласяване, когато, като съзнава напълно последиците от своето поведение, се намесва, за да предостави на клиентите си достъп до произведение, което е обект на закрила, и по-специално когато без неговата намеса тези клиенти по принцип не биха могли да се ползват от разпространеното произведение. (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 31 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • понятието „публично“ се отнася до неопределен брой потенциални адресати и освен това предполага наличие на доста голям брой лица (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 32 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • закриляното произведение трябва да бъде разгласено, като се използва специфичен технически способ, различен от използваните дотогава, или, ако не е използван такъв способ — пред „нова публика“, тоест публика, която не е била вече взета предвид от носителите на авторското право при даването на разрешение за първоначалното публично разгласяване на произведението им (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 33 и цитираната съдебна практика).
  • дали публичното разгласяване  е извършено с цел печалба (решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 34 и цитираната съдебна практика).

42 В случая, видно от акта за преюдициално запитване, значителна част от абонатите на Ziggo и XS4ALL са сваляли медийни файлове чрез платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB. Както следва и от представените пред Съда становища, тази платформа се използва от значителен брой лица, като администраторите от TPB съобщават на своята платформа за онлайн споделяне за десетки милиони „потребители“. В това отношение разглежданото в главното производство разгласяване се отнася най-малкото до всички потребители на тази платформа. Тези потребители могат да имат достъп във всеки момент и едновременно до защитените произведения, които са споделени посредством посочената платформа. Следователно това разгласяване се отнася до неопределен брой потенциални адресати и предполага наличие на голям брой лица (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 45 и цитираната съдебна практика).

43      От това следва, че с разгласяване като разглежданото в главното производство закриляни произведения действително се разгласяват „публично“ по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29.

44      Освен това, що се отнася до въпроса дали тези произведения са разгласяват на „нова“ публика по смисъла на съдебната практика, цитирана в точка 28 от настоящото съдебно решение, следва да се посочи, че в решението си от 13 февруари 2014 г., Svensson и др. (C‑466/12, EU:C:2014:76, т. 24 и 31), както и в определението си от 21 октомври 2014 г., BestWater International (C‑348/13, EU:C:2014:2315, т. 14) Съдът е приел, че това е публика, която носителите на авторските права не са имали предвид, когато са дали разрешение за първоначалното разгласяване.

45      В случая, видно от становищата, представени пред Съда, от една страна, администраторите на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB са знаели, че тази платформа, която предоставят на разположение на потребителите и която администрират, дава достъп до произведения, публикувани без разрешение на носителите на правата, и от друга страна, че същите администратори изразяват изрично в блоговете и форумите на тази платформа своята цел да предоставят закриляните произведения на разположение на потребителите и поощряват последните да реализират копия от тези произведения. Във всички случаи, видно от акта за преюдициално запитване, администраторите на онлайн платформата TPB не може да не са знаели, че тази платформа дава достъп до произведения, публикувани без разрешението на носителите на правата, с оглед на обстоятелството, което се подчертава изрично от запитващата юрисдикция, че голяма част от торент файловете, които се намират на платформата за онлайн споделяне TPB, препращат към произведения, публикувани без разрешението на носителите на правата. При тези обстоятелства следва да се приеме, че е налице разгласяване пред „нова публика“ (вж. в този смисъл решение от 26 април 2017 г., Stichting Brein, C‑527/15, EU:C:2017:300, т. 50).

46      От друга страна, не може да се оспори, че предоставянето на разположение и администрирането на платформа за онлайн споделяне като разглежданата в главното производство се извършва с цел да се извлече печалба, тъй като тази платформа генерира, видно от становищата, представени пред Съда, значителни приходи от реклама.

47      Вследствие на това трябва да се приеме, че предоставянето на разположение и администрирането на платформа за онлайн споделяне като разглежданата в главното производство, съставлява „публично разгласяване“ по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29.

48      С оглед на всички изложени съображения на първия въпрос следва да се отговори, че понятието „публично разгласяване“  трябва да се тълкува в смисъл, че  в неговия обхват попада предоставянето на разположение и администрирането в интернет на платформа за споделяне, която чрез индексиране на метаданните относно закриляните произведения и с предлагането на търсачка позволява на потребителите на платформата да намират тези произведения и да ги споделят в рамките на мрежа с равноправен достъп (peer-to-peer).

Масовите коментари са, че решението засилва позициите на търсещите блокиране организации.

Filed under: Digital, EU Law, Media Law Tagged: съд на ес

Съд на ЕС: блокиране на достъпа до The Pirate Bay

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/%D1%81%D1%8A%D0%B4-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B5%D1%81-%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8A%D0%BF%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D0%BE-the-pirate-bay/

Стана известно заключението на Генералния адвокат Szpunar по дело C‑610/15 Stichting Brein срещу Ziggo BV и XS4ALL Internet BV.

В това дело  Съдът трябва да конкретизира правните основания и обхвата на евентуалната отговорност за нарушенията, извършени от  уебсайтове като The Pirate Bay („TPB“). TPB е един от най-големите и най-известни уебсайтове за споделяне на файлове, съдържащи музикални и кинематографични произведения. Споделянето е безплатно и при повечето от тези произведения — в нарушение на авторските права.

Генералният адвокат напомня скорошни решения на Съда на ЕС, свързани с правото на публично разгласяване на произведения в интернет  – Svensson  и GS Media,  ново е и решението  Filmspeler – тези дела се отнасят до вторичното разгласяване на вече достъпни в интернет произведения.

Ответниците в главното производство  Ziggo BV и XS4ALL Internet BV  са дружества, учредени по нидерландското право, чиято дейност   е доставка на достъп до интернет на потребители. Ищецът Stichting Brein представлява носителите на авторски права.

Stichting Brein иска да се разпореди на Ziggo и на XS4ALL да блокират достъпа на получателите на техните услуги до интернет адресите на уебсайта TPB, който е торент индексатор за споделяне на файлове на принципа peer-to-peer. Искането се основава на обстоятелството, че получателите на услугите на ответниците в главното производство използват посочените услуги чрез този уебсайт индексатор и така извършват масови нарушения на авторските права, като споделят помежду си файлове, в които се съдържат закриляни обекти (главно музикални и кинематографични произведения), без разрешението на носителите на тези права.

Преюдициални въпроси:

„1)      Налице ли е публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29 от оператора на уебсайт, ако на този уебсайт няма защитени произведения, но съществува система […], с която намиращи се на компютрите на потребителите метаданни за защитени произведения се индексират и категоризират за потребителите, и посредством която потребителите могат да намират, качват и свалят защитените произведения?

2)      При отрицателен отговор на въпрос 1:

–        дават ли член 8, параграф 3 от Директива 2001/29 и член 11 от Директива 2004/48 основание за издаването на забрана по отношение на посредник по смисъла на тези разпоредби, който по описания във въпрос 1 начин улеснява извършването на нарушения от трети лица?“.

В т.т.19-29 Генералният адвокат обяснява функционирането на peer-to-peer мрежите. Според  тази картина сайтове като TPB снабдяват ползвателите с карти за намиране на незаконно съдържание.

В т.т. 30-42 се исяснява кога има публично разгласяване според правото на ЕС. След което се анализира хипотезата, при която закриляни с авторско право произведения са споделяни в peer-to-peer мрежа. Според ГА операторите на уебсайтове като TPB, които позволяват произведенията да бъдат намирани и достъпни,  организират системата, която позволява на потребителите да получат достъп до произведения, предоставяни на разположение от други потребители. Ето защо според ГА тяхната роля може да се приеме за необходима – и още:

Вярно е, че такъв уебсайт само регистрира наличното съдържание в peer-to-peer мрежата, т.е. метаданните, свързани с произведенията, които се предлагат за споделяне от потребителите в мрежата. Следователно операторът на уебсайта по принцип няма никакво влияние върху присъствието на дадено произведение в тази мрежа. Той е само посредник, който позволява на потребителите да споделят съдържанието на принципа peer-to-peer. При това положение не може да му бъде отреждана решаваща роля за публичното разгласяване на дадено произведение, ако той не знае, че произведението е било неправомерно предоставено на разположение, или ако, след като бъде предупреден за неправомерния характер на това предоставяне, предприема коректни действия, за да отстрани това. Ако обаче от момента, в който операторът узнае, че предоставянето на разположение е извършено в нарушение на авторските права, и той не предприеме действия, за да блокира достъпа до въпросното произведение, неговото поведение може да се счита за насочено към изрично позволяване неправомерното предоставяне на разположение на произведението да продължи и следователно това поведение може да се счита и за съзнателно.(51)

Нататък позицията на ГА вече е предвидима:

53.      Следователно намесата на тези оператори отговаря на изведените в съдебната практика критерии за необходим и съзнателен характер. Поради това според мен следва да се приеме, че тези оператори, едновременно и съвместно с потребителите на мрежата, са също така инициатори на предоставянето на публично разположение на споделяните в мрежата произведения без съгласието на носителите на авторските права, когато съзнават, че това е неправомерно, но не предприемат действия за блокиране на достъпа до тези произведения.

54.      Ето защо на първия преюдициален въпрос следва да се отговори, че обстоятелството, че операторът на уебсайт индексира файлове, съдържащи закриляни с авторско право произведения, които се предлагат за споделяне в peer-to-peer мрежа, и предоставя търсачка, с което позволява тези файлове да бъдат намирани, представлява публично разгласяване по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1 от Директива 2001/29, когато операторът знае, че дадено произведение е предоставено на разположение в мрежата без съгласието на носителите на авторските права, но не предприема действия за блокиране на достъпа до това произведение.

Съответствието на блокирането с основните права

 Според ГА преценката за законосъобразност на такава мярка трябва да се прави за всеки отделен случай, като се анализира пропорционалността между, от една страна, мярката и произтичащото от нея лишаване от достъп до информация, и от друга страна, значението и тежестта на нарушенията на авторските права, извършени чрез този уебсайт. Предприетите мерки не трябва да лишават неоснователно интернет потребителите от възможността за правомерен достъп до предоставяната информация. Все пак е несъмнено, че мярка за блокиране на достъп до уебсайт лишава интернет потребителите от достъп до наличната информация, независимо дали тя е правомерна или не.

Окончателната преценка за пропорционалност на предвидената мярка е задача на националните юрисдикции.

Освен това, мярката трябва да има за резултат да предотврати или поне да направи трудно осъществими неразрешените посещения на закриляни обекти и в значителна степен да разубеждава интернет потребителите, които ползват услугите на адресата на разпореждането, да посещават тези обекти, предоставени на тяхно разположение в нарушение на авторските права. С други думи, мярката трябва да има за цел да се преустанови и избегне нарушаване на авторски права и при преследването на тази цел тя трябва да бъде ефективна в разумни граници.

 

Filed under: Digital, EU Law, Media Law Tagged: съд на ес