Google Transparency
and the
Challenges of Content Control
FAST LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP Meeting
London, 13 June 2012

Eleonora...
Transparency may be scary (sometimes)
Google Transparency Report
24 May 2012

• Joined semi-annual government takedown
transparency report
• Covers approx 95% o...
Removal requests
Top Specified Domains
Highlights
• Form of notice consistent with the DMCA
• Limitations on number of queries to identify
infringements (1,000 at a time)
•...
Reactions
EFF
• The 3% of notices that Google did not comply with
is a large absolute number
• Google should extend the program out ...
Private enforcement
• Role of ISPs
DMCA and Ecommerce Directive: remove or disable
access to allegedly infringing material upon receiving
a re...
US Six-Strikes Enforcement Plan
• Agreement between major US ISPs and music
and film industries to discourage from illegal...
Scarlet and Netlog
(Cases C-70/10 and C-360/10)

No injunctions against an ISP which requires it to
install a system for f...
What future for content control?
CISPA
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act

• Amendment to 1947 National Security Act
(cybercrime)
• Protect agai...
EU
• Review of Enforcement Directive so to combat
more effectively IPR infringements via the
internet at their source (201...
Looking forward, but carefully
Thanks for your attention!

eleonora.rosati@eui.eu
Google transparency and the challenges of content control (E Rosati)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Google transparency and the challenges of content control (E Rosati)

525 views
431 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
525
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Google transparency and the challenges of content control (E Rosati)

  1. 1. Google Transparency and the Challenges of Content Control FAST LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP Meeting London, 13 June 2012 Eleonora Rosati eleonora.rosati@eui.eu
  2. 2. Transparency may be scary (sometimes)
  3. 3. Google Transparency Report 24 May 2012 • Joined semi-annual government takedown transparency report • Covers approx 95% of takedown requests received for Search since July 2011 • Data presented collectively and graphically for the first time • Not included: – Requests for products other than Search (ie Blogger, YouTube) – Requests for content appearing in other Google products (ie YouTube or Blogger URLs)
  4. 4. Removal requests
  5. 5. Top Specified Domains
  6. 6. Highlights
  7. 7. • Form of notice consistent with the DMCA • Limitations on number of queries to identify infringements (1,000 at a time) • 10 hours to process requests submitted via web form • Google removed 97% of search results specified by requests (cf data in government takedown requests) • When feasible and legal to do so, users notified, so to allow counternotice
  8. 8. Reactions
  9. 9. EFF • The 3% of notices that Google did not comply with is a large absolute number • Google should extend the program out to YouTube and Blogger RIAA • Artificial limitations imposed by Google on notifications • Amount of requests (1mil) little if compared to infringing links identified by Google alone (5mil) • Take down should mean keep down • Cannot but look forward to working with Google
  10. 10. Private enforcement
  11. 11. • Role of ISPs DMCA and Ecommerce Directive: remove or disable access to allegedly infringing material upon receiving a request • Filtering technologies: already there?
  12. 12. US Six-Strikes Enforcement Plan • Agreement between major US ISPs and music and film industries to discourage from illegally downloading copyright-protected contents • Complaint – series on online alerts slow down offenders’ connections and temporary disconnections. In any case: – Privacy – No filter/monitor networks for infringements – Never terminate an internet connection entirely, or otherwise interfere with subscribers' ability to receive calls and emails
  13. 13. Scarlet and Netlog (Cases C-70/10 and C-360/10) No injunctions against an ISP which requires it to install a system for filtering • all electronic communications • which applies indiscriminately • as a preventive measure; • exclusively at its expense; and • for an unlimited period, • which is capable of identifying the movement of electronic files with a view to blocking the transfer
  14. 14. What future for content control?
  15. 15. CISPA Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act • Amendment to 1947 National Security Act (cybercrime) • Protect against unauthorised access to networks or systems • Among cyber-threats also theft of intellectual property, now to be intended as R&D • Directly targeted at individual internet subscribers • Would make it possible for ISPs to actively monitor the private communications of subscribers to detect and censor the transfers of copyrighted content
  16. 16. EU • Review of Enforcement Directive so to combat more effectively IPR infringements via the internet at their source (2011 blueprint) • Necessary to improve the implementation of Ecommerce Directive and provide clarification concerning the liability of ISPs (Jan 2012 Communication) • Public consultation specifically looking at ways to locate illegal content on a website, and how website hosts should be notified about its presence (Jun 2012)
  17. 17. Looking forward, but carefully
  18. 18. Thanks for your attention! eleonora.rosati@eui.eu

×