The peer-to-peer filters were rejected by the Advocate General of the European Union, considered not respectful of citizens’ freedom and the right to information.
For several years, telecommunications companies have been questioning the opportunity to limit, with specific filters, peer to peer, a practice mostly illegal – but not necessarily so – used for file sharing. Only a few weeks ago, we talked here on FullPress about the decision by Telecom Italia to filter peer to peer, with the aim of rationalizing bandwidth resources and therefore allowing everyone to browse at a guaranteed minimum speed.
A contrary opinion has arrived regarding the application of filters to sites that do P2P and this time it’s a rather authoritative voice: it is indeed the opinion of Cruz Villalon, Advocate General of the European Union.
Villalon has expressed himself on the issue of filters on peer to peer, based on the dispute opened for about 7 years between the provider Scarlet Extended and Sabam (a Belgian organization comparable to SIAE in Italy).
Voices have been raised in various quarters wanting providers to adopt technical measures to limit the download speed from peer-to-peer systems, thereby indirectly inhibiting its use, trying thus to protect copyright.
Advocate Villalon does not seem to share this opinion and points out that, according to him, with such a provision three rights are violated specifically:
1) protection of personal data of internet users;
2) secrecy of communications;
3) freedom of information.
One is closely connected to the other, as can be understood.
Limiting the web with filters, preventively and perhaps even in cases not at all harmful to copyright, is thus an inadequate solution to resolve the dispute between the two parties (and the peer to peer issue in general).
Moreover, the proposed filtering system would incur implementation costs borne only by the providers who, at this point, would also be burdened with an additional responsibility: the legal liability for what ends up on the network, if illegal.
Finally, the European Union cannot order the application of filters if within the State where the dispute has been opened there is no specific national legislation applicable to the issue.
Although the opinion expressed by Villalon is very influential, we clarify that it is an absolutely non-binding intervention: the final verdict on the matter must still await the public ruling of the European Court of Justice. However, it is noteworthy how much the opinion of the Advocate General of this community body is generally respected.
Has a phase of greater openness of the web therefore begun? The filters will they really be banned or will a compromise be found to protect both the rights of web users and those of authors of works covered by copyright? Surely this first opinion, quite clear and authoritative, will open the debate in view of the final ruling.
Pubblicato in Business
Be the first to comment