Walled Culture has been following closely Italy’s poorly-designed Piracy Shield system. Back in December we reported how copyright companies used their access to the Piracy Shield system to order Italian Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to all of Google Drive for the entire country, and how malicious actors could similarly use that unchecked power to shut down critical national infrastructure. Since then, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), an international, not-for-profit association representing computer, communications, and Internet industry firms, has added its voice to the chorus of disapproval. In a letter to the European Commission, it warned about the dangers of the Piracy Shield system to the EU economy:
The 30-minute window [to block a site] leaves extremely limited time for careful verification by ISPs that the submitted destination is indeed being used for piracy purposes. Additionally, in the case of shared IP addresses, a block can very easily (and often will) restrict access to lawful websites – harming legitimate businesses and thus creating barriers to the EU single market. This lack of oversight poses risks not only to users’ freedom to access information, but also to the wider economy. Because blocking vital digital tools can disrupt countless individuals and businesses who rely on them for everyday operations. As other industry associations have also underlined, such blocking regimes present a significant and growing trade barrier within the EU.
It also raised an important new issue: the fact that Italy brought in this extreme legislation without notifying the European Commission under the so-called “TRIS” procedure, which allows others to comment on possible problems:
The (EU) 2015/1535 procedure aims to prevent creating barriers in the internal market before they materialize. Member States notify their legislative projects regarding products and Information Society services to the Commission which analyses these projects in the light of EU legislation. Member States participate on the equal foot with the Commission in this procedure and they can also issue their opinions on the notified drafts.
As well as Italy’s failure to notify the Commission about its new legislation in advance, the CCIA believes that:
this anti-piracy mechanism is in breach of several other EU laws. That includes the Open Internet Regulation which prohibits ISPs to block or slow internet traffic unless required by a legal order. The block subsequent to the Piracy Shield also contradicts the Digital Services Act (DSA) in several aspects, notably Article 9 requiring certain elements to be included in the orders to act against illegal content. More broadly, the Piracy Shield is not aligned with the Charter of Fundamental Rights nor the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU – as it hinders freedom of expression, freedom to provide internet services, the principle of proportionality, and the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial.
Far from taking these criticisms to heart, or acknowledging that Piracy Shield has failed to convert people to paying subscribers, the Italian government has decided to double down, and to make Piracy Shield even worse. Massimiliano Capitanio, Commissioner at AGCOM, the Italian Authority for Communications Guarantees, explained on LinkedIn how Piracy Shield was being extended in far-reaching ways (translation by Google Translate, original in Italian). In future, it will add:
30-minute blackout orders not only for pirate sports events, but also for other live content;
the extension of blackout orders to VPNs and public DNS providers;
the obligation for search engines to de-index pirate sites;
the procedures for unblocking domain names and IP addresses obscured by Piracy Shield that are no longer used to spread pirate content;
the new procedure to combat piracy on the #linear and “on demand” television, for example to protect the #film and #serietv.
That is, Piracy Shield will apply to live content far beyond sports events, its original justification, and to streaming services. Even DNS and VPN providers will be required to block sites, a serious technical interference in the way the Internet operates, and a threat to people’s privacy. Search engines, too, will be forced to de-index material. The only minor concession to ISPs is to unblock domain names and IP addresses that are no longer allegedly being used to disseminate unauthorised material. There are, of course, no concessions to ordinary Internet users affected by Piracy Shield blunders.
An AGCOM board member, Elisa Giomi, who was mentioned previously on Walled Culture as a lone voice within AGCOM exposing its failures, also took to LinkedIn to express her concerns with these extensions of Piracy Shield (original in Italian):
The changes made unfortunately do not resolve #critical issues such as the fact that private #reporters, i.e. the holders of the rights to #football matches and other live #audiovisual content, have a disproportionate role in determining the blocking of #domains and #IP addresses that transmit in violation of #copyright.
Moreover:
The providers of #network and #computer security services such as #VPNs, #DNSs and #ISPs, who are called upon to bear high #costs for the implementation of the monitoring and blocking system, cannot count on compensation or financing mechanisms, suffering a significant imbalance, since despite not having any active role in #copyright violations, they invest economic resources to combat illegal activities to the exclusive advantage of the rights holders.
The fact that the Italian government is ignoring the problems with Piracy Shield and extending its application as if everything were fine, is bad enough. But the move might have even worse knock-on consequences. An EU parliamentary question about the broadcast rights to audiovisual works and sporting competitions asked:
Can the Commission provide precise information on the effectiveness of measures to block pirate sites by means of identification and neutralisation technologies?
To which the European Commission replied:
In order to address the issues linked to the unauthorised retransmissions of live events, the Commission adopted, in May 2023 the recommendation on combating online piracy of sport and other live events.
By 17 November 2025, the Commission will assess the effects of the recommendation taking into account the results from the monitoring exercise.
It’s likely that copyright companies will be lauding Piracy Shield as an example of how things should be done across the whole of the EU, conveniently ignoring all the problems that have arisen. Significantly, a new “Study on the Effectiveness and the Legal and Technical Means of Implementing Website-Blocking Orders” from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) does precisely that in its Conclusion:
A well-functioning site-blocking system that involves cooperation between relevant stakeholders (such as Codes of Conduct and voluntary agreements among rights holders and ISPs) and/or automated processes, such as Italy’s Piracy Shield platform, further increases the efficiency and effectiveness of a site-blocking regime.
As the facts show abundantly, Piracy Shield is the antithesis of a “well-functioning site-blocking system”. But when have copyright maximalists and their tame politicians ever let facts get in the way of their plans?
Robin Edgar
Organisational Structures | Technology and Science | Military, IT and Lifestyle consultancy | Social, Broadcast & Cross Media | Flying aircraft