Google and Cloudflare ordered to explain plans to defeat pirate IPTV * TorrentFreak

While rightsholders did not get everything they asked for when Italy passed tough new anti-piracy legislation in 2023, they still received more than most of their counterparts elsewhere in the EU.

Tougher penalties for providers of pirated content and those who consume it, including fines for simply watching a pirated stream. This is in addition to new site-blocking powers that are considerably more aggressive than those seen almost anywhere else, at least on paper.

With the launch of the nascent Piracy Shield blocking system, the technical cherry on top of a solid legal foundation, two initial issues were set to disappoint.

Target opponents’ strengths

The first problem is related to the chosen field of activity. Pirates are well known for their ability to obtain and copy content, but before the rise of streaming, distribution was mainly done by consumers, via P2P networks like BitTorrent. With content easier to obtain than ever, pirates in the IPTV space are now more often than not distribution specialists, so any reliance on technical measures works in their favor.

Second, laws designed to deter piracy have become more elaborate and stricter over the decades, but piracy itself has become easier and more prolific. Getting caught can lead to more serious consequences for those involved, but while the law does act as a deterrent, the availability of content suggests that when it counts, the law makes almost no difference.

Clearly, laws designed to prevent or deter piracy are not static over a long period of time and exist to be strengthened as the opportunity arises. Unfortunately, Italy’s blocking data suggests that major streaming providers are little affected by foreign laws and are extremely unlikely to face any sanctions in Italy.

“Piracy is an Internet problem”

Every few years, frustration sets in and the attention of rights holders shifts more to Internet infrastructure companies, typically Google, but also companies like Cloudflare, DNS providers, domain name companies, or anyone perceived to have a kill switch or magic filter. In Italy, where the idea that “anything is possible” seems to have clashed with reality, the focus is once again on Cloudflare and Google.

Piracy Shield had only been up and running for two weeks when Google suddenly found itself under pressure to crack down on piracy on its own initiative. Yet the specific issue in question—an alleged pirate app on Google Play—required only that a rights holder submit a takedown notice, which apparently hadn’t been done. Instead, public comments suggested that the problem was due to a lack of ethics and self-regulation.

Cloudflare provides infrastructure, Cloudflare becomes a target

Following a legal battle that ultimately forced Cloudflare to stop providing DNS services to music download platforms in Italy, Cloudflare is now facing a legal complaint filed by top-tier football league Serie A.

This directly concerns IPTV providers that use Cloudflare’s services, which means they cannot be blocked by Piracy Shield. Or rather, they cannot be blocked without also blocking innocent platforms.

As a result, AGCOM, the telecoms regulator, is taking a path already familiar to dozens of major rights holders: find companies that are not themselves pirating but have a lot to lose, present piracy as their problem to be solved, then increase the pressure and hope that something happens.

Cloudflare and Google summoned to Italy

According to a report from La Repubblica published on Sunday (perhaps appropriately behind a paywall and not indexed by Google), AGCOM has summoned Cloudflare and Google to attend an official meeting in Italy in September.

According to the report, AGCOM President Massimiliano Capitanio wants to hear directly from Google and Cloudflare about their strategies to combat piracy in Italy, particularly those targeting the sale and provision of pirate IPTV services. Additional measures to further limit the appearance of services in Google search results are apparently on the agenda, but even a total elimination may not yield the desired results.

By comparison, UK search results no longer contain results for major streaming sites; only imposters remain, but piracy levels are not decreasing. The fact that major platforms are also blocked by all major ISPs, with more robust systems than those deployed under Piracy Shield (a simple DNS change is not enough to unblock them), suggests a complex landscape ahead. When it comes to pirate IPTV devices and services discovered via search, anecdotal evidence points to a shift towards offline or private sales, often facilitated by social media platforms, not search engines.

AGCOM will almost certainly aim high

As for Cloudflare, the company has been clear about its legal position over the past few years. If rights holders have a complaint, it will immediately forward it to the entity that has the authority to remove the allegedly infringing content. The slides below outline the company’s key policy, but AGCOM, which has made a big deal about the “streams blocked in 30 minutes” standard for Piracy Shield, will want and demand much more.

Cloudflare’s Approach to Copyright Protection

If AGCOM obtains concessions or receives special treatment, two things are guaranteed: the other rights holders will demand the same or more, and then, when this does not achieve the desired result, all will continue to demand more.

How Cloudflare responds, if at all, could have implications for its global copyright protection policies.

Meeting under dark clouds

Given its recent experiences with AGCOM, Google’s starting position seems more complex. In May, the Italian Council of State upheld AGCOM’s sanctions against Google Ireland, YouTube and Twitter/X for violating the ban on advertising for cash games.

The Google Search decision established that the platform is an active host and therefore liable for the violation. The Court of Justice of the European Union had previously determined that since the Google Ads service is automated and passive, Google was not liable.

Friction between AGCOM and Google on this and several other issues may prove insignificant in light of an announcement made in mid-July by the Italian antitrust agency, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Competition and Markets Authority / AGCM).

The AGCM announced that it has opened an investigation into Google and its parent company Alphabet over alleged unfair practices involving users’ personal data. The agency said that the consent notices sent by Google to its users to log in to various services, such as Gmail and YouTube, “may constitute a deceptive and aggressive commercial practice.”

Google’s response was measured and not aggressive, simply indicating that it would cooperate with the authority on this matter.

Overall, Google seems to be presenting itself differently than it did a few years ago. For example, it is no longer completely opposed to many things it refused to do in the past, such as de-indexing pirate sites and completely de-indexing other sites.

Deploying heavy-handed tactics against Google over copyright issues, when things have been generally moving in the right direction for some time, may not be the best approach. Cloudflare, on the other hand, is a relative A newcomer to the piracy wars, it is already on a different timeline and trajectory, offering products that in some areas can be seen as an even greater threat.