sitoctt/en/post/2023-04-16-Che-Impatto-Nuova-Legge-Anti-Pirateria-Italiana.md

+++
Title = "🏴‍☠️ What impact will the new Italian anti-piracy law have?"
CreatedOn = "2023-04-16"
Downsync = "/it/posts/Che-Impatto-Nuova-Legge-Anti-Pirateria-Italiana.html"
HTMLTitle = "<span class=\"twa twa-🏴‍☠️\"><span>🏴‍☠️</span></span> What impact will the new Italian anti-piracy law have?"
Description = "They have approved a law in Italy for a strong fight against piracy. The fact is that it entails important risks for Internet users."
Categories = "Internet Blogs"
UpdatedOn="2023-04-17"
+++

{{< noticeAutomaticTranslation it >}}


<!-- Autogenerated by ListedDownsync.js. Do not edit (unless also set "% Downsync = False") - it would be overwritten. -->
<h1><span class="twa twa-🏴‍☠️"><span>🏴‍☠️</span></span> What impact will the new Italian anti-piracy law have?</h1>

<p>Some will know, in Italy the <strong>new anti-piracy law</strong> has been <strong>approved</strong>, and now the <strong>doubts</strong> with which we enthusiasts of sharing free we have to deal with are different:</p>

<ul>
<li>When will it come into force? (I hope not exactly at the time I'm writing this post 😰)</li>
<li>How much money will the entertainment lobbies have spent to ensure that the law was passed with total unanimity?</li>
<li>What <strong>real consequences</strong> will it bring to us <strong>ordinary citizens</strong>?</li>
</ul>


<h2>Blocks (instant and per IP)</h2>

<p>The point that perhaps struck me most about the law (here <a href="https://documenti.camera.it/leg19/pdl/pdf/leg.19.pdl.camera.217_A.19PDL0028100.pdf" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">the PDF examined by the Commission</a>, and <a href="https://temi.camera.it/leg19/dossier/OCD18-17872/disposizioni-contrasto- illicit-direct-transmission-or-diffusion-and-illegal-use-of-contents-protected-by-law-d.html" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">the final report</a>) - perhaps because I own various online properties, totally personal, which have zero economic value for me, but unquantifiable sentimental value - it is the <strong>obligation for Internet service providers to respond to <strong>blocking requests snapshots</strong>.</p>

<p>A <strong>copyright</strong> holder can send a <strong>blackout request</strong> which, when it is <strong>urgent</strong> - think of a meeting live sports, which is being illegally retransmitted in real time - must be honored in <strong>no more than 30 minutes</strong> by all providers, without <strong>any adversarial or formal process</strong>: it will be <strong> >the owner</strong> of the blocked website will then have to open legal proceedings to <strong>challenge the blocking</strong> and request its restoration.<br>
For illicit sites, all <strong>domain and subdomain names</strong> (DNS), and <strong>IP addresses</strong>, present will be blocked and, I have no idea under what limits , all possible futures.</p>

<h3>The new responsibilities</h3>

<p>By "suppliers" we do not mean only the telephone operators who provide the connection to the Internet, but in general those "<strong>involved in any capacity in the accessibility</strong>" of illegal services, and it is even explicit reference to <strong>search engines</strong>.</p>

<p>Search engines do nothing but return <em>links</em> accompanied by a description, and in reality <strong>they do not directly provide <strong>pirate material</strong>: in practice , this law even aims to <strong>hinder those who only provide links</strong>, not just those who physically allow the downloading of data.</p>

<p>For this logic, the managers of <strong><em>social networks</em></strong> will also be held <strong>responsible</strong> (and I imagine that with "information society" in text refers specifically to them), and possibly <strong>small online communities</strong>.</p>

<h3>An expensive firewall</h3>

<p>The <strong>potential for abuse and errors</strong> is very high, and in fact, seen impartially, this move can in any case be summarized in the <strong>obligation</strong> for ISPs to <strong>build a <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-mega-firewall-could-render-italian-isps-liable-for-over-blocking-230413/" rel="noopener nofollow " target="_blank">mega-firewall</a></strong>, to all intents and purposes under the <strong>ultimate control</strong> of the State</strong>, with all the others <strong> >problems</strong> that arise from it (even accidental).<br>
Sooner or later an <strong>over-blocking</strong> incident will happen, and there will be <strong>problems with Web services</strong> that have nothing to do with piracy, if they start messing around with address blocks IPv4.</p>

<p>In any case, a <strong>big hit</strong> will probably be seen <strong>on everyone's bill</strong>, even those who do not consume or share pirated material!<br>
<strong>Centralizing a network</strong> that has existed for decades, built from the beginning as decentralized, is <strong>a tough business</strong>, and other states that work to control information know this well .</p>

<p>An <strong>example</strong> can be given by comparing Russia and China: both states have a certain <strong>desire to control</strong> political dissent on the Internet, but:</p >

<ul>
<li>For <strong>Russia it is difficult</strong>, as it has a more <strong>traditional</strong> Internet infrastructure, which began to develop as decentralized well < strong>before Putin's arrival</strong>, when the present government was of a different type.</li>
<li>For <strong>China it is easier</strong>, because the government in office <strong>at the time</strong> (the Communist Party, like today), understood the potential of the Internet, and made sure that development took place <strong>immediately</strong> according to a <strong>centralized</strong> scheme.</li>
</ul>

<p>It is therefore inevitable that raising this <em>mega-wall-of-fire</em> now, from nothing, will entail <strong>substantial costs</strong>, which however will be at the <strong>total expense< /strong> of all of us <strong>consumers</strong>, instead of being at the expense of billion-dollar entertainment multinationals (which will only be burdened by the costs of the unified state platform that will connect rights holders and ISPs).</p >

<p>But this last detail, rightly, does not matter to our parliamentarians and senators, who fortunately for many years have received respectively <a href="https://www.laleggepertutti.it/353259_quanto-guadagnano-i -parliamentarians" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">1200 and 1650 € per year just for telephone costs</a>, thanks to those of us, idiot citizens, who pay taxes.</p>


<h2>Hunting for users</h2>

<p>In addition to wanting to <strong>counter</strong> in a specific and now unequivocal way the "<strong>live broadcast</strong>" of duplicate content - something that is already generating <strong>discontent</strong> among those football fans with a <strong>tight budget</strong> - apart from the usual content in general (audiovisual, print, or IT), the law expressly goes against end users , <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/ew-pirate-iptv-bill-moved-to-senate-as-italy-takes-on-digital-mafias-230324/" rel="noopener nofollow" target ="_blank">at least a certain category</a>.</p>

<p>In fact, <strong>fines of up to €5000</strong> are foreseen in the event of a repeat offense, for those who (as far as I can understand, from reading the law and watching other people's videos and articles) purchase subscriptions to paid pirate services, such as the famous "<strong>pezzotti</strong>", the illegal <em>IPTV</em> packages.</p>

<h3>Are some okay?</h3>

<p>All in all, despite the initial general fear and alarmism, it seems that the only users who have something to fear are precisely the latter, because - although it must be said that I know relatively little about the law, and it is not easy to apply generic text comprehension skills on legal bricks, so who knows - the <strong>text talks about buying or renting</strong>, and <strong>not</strong> also things like <strong>downloading at no cost</strong> >.</p>

<p>If, therefore, up to now, surfing the Internet to <strong>find links</strong> to "crisp" football matches, with pixels has never actually been prohibited as big as biscuits and the habit of <em>buffering</em>, or <strong>download</strong> the tenth film of the week via <em>torrent</em>, or even <strong>stocking up</strong> > of free video games repackaged, one can well imagine that <strong>things will remain as they are</strong> in this sense.</p>

<h4>...Maybe not absolutely</h4>

<p>Definitely <strong>less peaceful</strong> moments could be experienced by those who <strong>participate in the sharing</strong> of copied content, even with a torrent left in <em><strong>seeding</strong> ></em>.<br>
In Italy it seems that no single <em>seeder</em> has ever been prosecuted, nor has his connection ever been blocked, but with the authorization to <strong>block</strong> <strong>IP addresses</strong> the situation risks <strong>changing</strong>, and perhaps from today ISPs will have to <strong>stop throwing away</strong> lawyers' letters</strong> ; if not the hundreds who arrive every day from the United States, with the presumption of wanting a US-only law to be respected in Europe (the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act" rel=" noopener nofollow" target="_blank">DMCA</a>), at least those few Italian annuals do (assuming they really exist!).</p>


<h2>It's not just the "digital mafia" that will suffer</h2>

<p>Those who are worse off in this whole story are certainly the members of the "<strong>digital mafia</strong>" - as Massimiliano Capitanio, commissioner of <a href="https, calls it ://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorit%C3%A0_per_le_garanzie_nelle_comunicazioni" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">AGCOM</a> - that is, those who <strong>sell premium pirated packages</strong> , <strong>profiting</strong>: for them, <strong>fines of up to €15.5m</strong> and <strong>prison of up to 3 years</strong>.</p>

<p>Perhaps, if this new law targeted <strong>only them</strong>, <strong>there wouldn't be much to <strong>discuss</strong>: <strong>they have no passion </strong> for sharing, only that of <strong>money</strong>.<br>
Perhaps there would not be much of an objection even if, by going against the platforms that make certain links available, we considered acting <strong>only</strong> against those <strong>profit-making companies</strong>: Google, Microsoft ( with Bing), Facebook, Twitter, and so on.</p>

<p>But in Italy they have already <em>blown up</em> TNTVillage, and I don't want the <strong>decimation</strong> of all the other <strong>online marketplaces</strong> created < strong>by the people for the people</strong> - non-profit, and indeed <strong>often disposable</strong>, both in time and money - just because <strong>it bothers someone</strong> that the <strong>main functionality of the Web</strong> is used: hypertext links, invented to encourage the <strong>free and free sharing</strong> of culture and entertainment, <strong>without barriers</strong>. </p>

<hr>

<p><img src="[staticoso:CustomPath:Assets]/Media/Misc/Keep-Seeding-Monitor.webp" alt=""Keep seeding""></p>