Sulla responsabilità degli Internet Service Provider (ISP)

Violazione di copyright (fornendo link a opere protette) da parte della piattaforma

Eric Goldman posta un commento (dandone pure il link, che segue, al testo) a US Appels Court del 10 circuito 16 ottobre 2023, caso No. 21-4128, Greer v. Moon e Kiwi Farms.

Si tratta di azione contro la pericolosissima piattaforma Kiwi Farms che nel caso permise l’upload da parte di terzi di materiale in violazione di copyright.

IL punto giuridico è se ricorra o meno un suo contributory infringement e in particolare l’elemento della material coontribution: cioè del terzo dei tre richiesti dalla giurisprudenza usa (“Mr. Greer had to plausibly allege: (1) his copyrighted work was directly infringed by a third party, (2) Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms “kn[ew] of the infringement,” and (3) Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms “cause[d] or materially contribute[d] to [third parties’] infringing activities.” Diversey, 738 F.3d at 1204.9 We address each in turn“).

Nel caso specifico la piattafroma non solo non rimosse il materiale, anzi dichiarandolo apertamente, ma pure irrise la vittima (tra l’altro affetta da facial paralysis)

Ecco il passaggio:

<<When Mr. Greer discovered the book had been copied and placed in a Google Drive on Kiwi Farms, he “sent Mr. Moon requests to have his book removed . . . .” RI.18. Mr. Moon pointedly refused these requests. RI.18. In fact, instead of honoring the requests, Mr. Moon posted his email exchange with Mr. Greer to Kiwi Farms, belittling Mr. Greer’s attempt to protect his copyrighted material without resort to litigation. RI.18–19.
After the email request, Kiwi Farms users continued to upload audio recordings of Mr. Greer’s book, followed by digital copies of his song. When Mr. Greer discovered the song on Kiwi Farms, he sent Mr. Moon a takedown notice under the DMCA. Mr. Moon not only refused to follow the DMCA’s process for removal and protection of infringing copies, he “published [the] DMCA request onto [Kiwi Farms],” along with Mr. Greer’s “private contact information.” RI.22. Mr. Moon then “emailed Greer . . . and derided him for using a template for his DMCA request” and confirmed “he would not be removing Greer’s copyrighted materials.” RI.23. Following Mr. Moon’s mocking refusal to remove Mr. Greer’s book and his song, Kiwi Farms users “have continued to exploit Greer’s copyrighted material,” including two additional songs and a screenplay. RI.23>>.

Violazioni di copyright e vicarious liability di eBay

Il prof. Eric Goldman nel suo blog dà notizia del Trib. Del Maine Case 2:22-cv-00284-LEW del 28 luglio 2023, Okolita v. Amazon Walmart eBay , su allegata coviolazione da parte di dette piattaforme dei diritti sulle sue fotografie.

La domanda è rigettata tranne che in un punto che sarà approfondito : per la vicarious liability .

Ecco il passaggio:

<<Homing in on eBay’s right and ability to supervise and control infringing activity conducted on its online marketplace, Ms. Okolita alleges in her third claim that eBay is liable to her for failing to stop and/or prevent ongoing incidents of infringement of her copyrights.

To be vicariously liable for infringement, the facts need to demonstrate that eBay profited from the direct infringement of third-party users of its services “while
declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it.” Grokster, 545 U.S. at 930. This final claim satisfies the plausibility standard. It does so because the law suggests the need for consideration of the qualitative nature of eBay’s response to Ms. Okolita’s takedown requests and eBay’s knowledge and understanding of the infringers’ conduct on its online marketplace. In the context of a motion to dismiss, a plausible claim is viable and an examination of the quality of eBay’s response to Ms. Okolita’s takedown requests is suited for a summary judgment record or trial. Moreover, to the extent eBay premises its motion to dismiss on the copyright safe harbor found in § 512(c), that entails a separate inquiry that arises in the context of an affirmative defense. Although the current record establishes that eBay has a § 512(c) policy (on paper) and that eBay did remove content that infringed Ms. Okolita’s copyright(s), I am not persuaded that a review of Ms.
Okolita’s FAC and its attachments makes it obvious that eBay is sheltered by the safe harbor>>.

Da noi una domanda analoga difficilemente avrebbe successo in base all’art. 6.2 del Digital serices act reg.- Ue 2022/2065 (2. Il paragrafo 1 non si applica se il destinatario del servizio agisce sotto l’autorità o il controllo del prestatore). Almeno in una interpretazione testuale: ma non ne è escluso affatto un esito opposto con interpretazione estensiva

Il 230 CDA salva Amazon dall’accusa di corresponsabile di recensioni diffamatorie contro un venditore del suo marketplace

La recensione diffamatoria (lievemente, per vero: sciarpa Burberry’s asseritamenye non autentica) non può vedere Amazon correposanbilòe perchè oepra il safe harbour citato.

Si tatta di infatti proprio del ruolo di publisher/speaker previsto dala legge. Nè può ravvisarsi un contributo attivo di Amazon nell’aver stabilito le regole della sua piattaforma, come vorrebbe il diffamato: il noto caso Roommates è malamente invocato.

Caso alquanto facile.

Così l‘appello del 11 circuito 12 giugn 2023, No. 22-11725, MxCall+1 c. Zotos + Amazon:

<<In that case, Roommates.com published a profile page for each subscriber seeking housing on its website. See id. at 1165. Each profile had drop-down menu on which subscribers seeking housing had to specify whether there are currently straight males, gay males, straight females, or lesbians living at the dwelling. This information was then displayed on the website, and Room-mates.com used this information to channel subscribers away from the listings that were not compatible with the subscriber’s prefer-ences. See id. The Ninth Circuit determined that Roommates.com was an information content provider (along with the subscribers seeking housing on the website) because it helped develop the in-formation at least in part. Id. (“By requiring subscribers to provide the information as a condition of accessing its service, and by providing a limited set of prepopulated answers, Room-mate[s.com] . . . becomes the developer, at least in part, of that in-formation.”).
Roommates.com is not applicable, as the complaint here al-leges that Ms. Zotos wrote the review in its entirety. See generally D.E. 1. Amazon did not create or develop the defamatory review even in part—unlike Roommates.com, which curated the allegedly discriminatory dropdown options and required the subscribers to choose one. There are no allegations that suggest Amazon helped develop the allegedly defamatory review.
The plaintiffs seek to hold Amazon liable for failing to take down Ms. Zotos’ review, which is exactly the kind of claim that is immunized by the CDA—one that treats Amazon as the publisher of that information. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). See also D.E. 1 at 5 (“Amazon . . . refused to remove the libelous statements posted by Defendant Zotos”). “Lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider [like Amazon] liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional edi-torial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone, or alter content—are barred.” Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330. We therefore affirm the dismissal of the claims against Amazon>>.

(notizia e link dal sito del prof. Eric Goldman)

Differenza tra non applicabilità dello safe harbour e affermazione di responsabilità

La corte distrettuale del Wisconsin -western dist.- 31.03.2023, caso No. 21-cv-320-wmc, Hopson + Bluetype c. Google + Does 1 e 2, ha ben chiara la differenza tra i due concetti: che non sia invocabile il safe harbour non significa che ricorra in positivo responsabilità (anche se di fatto sarà probabile).

Non altrettanto chiara ce l’hanno alcuni nostri opininisti (dottrina e giurisprudenza).

Nel caso si trattava del safe harbour per il copyright in caso di procedura da notice and take down e in particolare da asserita vioalzione della procedura che avrebbe dovuto condurre google a “rimettere su” i materiali in precedenza “tirati giu” (§ 512.g) del DMCA).

<<Here, plaintiffs allege that defendant Google failed to comply with § 512(g)’s
strictures by: (1) redacting contact information from the original takedown notices; (2) failing to restore the disputed content within 10 to 14 business days of receiving plaintiffs’ counter notices; and (3) failing to forward plaintiffs’ counter notices to the senders of the takedown notices. As Google points out, however, its alleged failure to comply with § 512(g) does not create direct liability for any violation of plaintiffs’ rights. It merely denies Google a safe harbor defense should plaintiffs bring some other claim against the ISP for removing allegedly infringing material, such as a state contract or tort law claim. Martin, 2017 WL 11665339, at *3-4 (§ 512(g) does not create any affirmative cause of action; it
creates a defense to liability); see also Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286-87 (2001) (holding plaintiffs may sue under a federal statue only where there is an express or implied private right of action). So, even if Google did not follow the procedure entitling it to a safe harbor defense in this case, the effect is disqualifying it from that defense, not creating liability under § 512(g) of the DMCA for violating plaintiffs’ rights.>>

Ancora nulla circa tale procedura in UE: gli artt. 16-17 del DSA reg. UE 2022/2065 non ne parlano (pare lasciarla all’autonomia contrattuale) e nemmeno lo fa la dir. specifica sul copyright, art. 17 dir. UE 790/2019.

(notizia e link dal sito del prof. Eric Goldman)

Youtube non è corresponsabile delle violazioni di copyright consistite in ripetuti upload sulla sua piattaforma

Youtube non è corresponsabile delle violazioni di copyright date da ripetuti upload sulla sua piattaforma. Così US distr. court southern district of Florida 16 maggio 2023, Case No. 21-21698-Civ-GAYLES/TORRES, Athos overseas ltc c. Youtube-Google.

domanda attorea:

According to Plaintiff, Defendants are liable under direct and secondary infringement theories for YouTube’s failure to prevent the systematic re-posting of Plaintiff’s copyrighted movies to its platform. Plaintiff contends that YouTube has turned a blind eye to rampant infringement of Athos’ copyrights by refusing to employ proprietary video-detection software to block or remove from its website potentially infringing clips, and not just clips specifically identified by URL in Plaintiff’s DMCA takedown notices. In essence, Plaintiff argues that evidence of YouTube’s advanced video detection software, in conjunction with the thousands of takedown notices Athos has tendered upon YouTube, give rise to genuine issues of fact as to whether Defendants have forfeited the DMCA’s safe harbor protections.

Domanda rigettata: il provider non pèerde il suo safe harbour ex 17 US code § 512 per assenbza dell’element soggettivo:

<<Indeed, in Viacom the Second Circuit rejected identical arguments to the ones asserted here by Athos, which were presented in a lawsuit brought by various television networks against YouTube for the unauthorized display of approximately 79,000 video clips that appeared on the website between 2005 and 2008. Viacom, 676 F.3d at 26. Among other things, the Viacom plaintiffs argued that the manner in which YouTube employed its automated video identification tools—including liming its access certain users—removed the ISP from the safe harbor. Id. at 40–41. Yet, the court unequivocally rejected plaintiffs’ arguments, holding that the invocation of YouTube’s technology as a source of disqualifying knowledge must be assessed in conjunction with the express mandate of § 512(m) that “provides that safe harbor protection cannot be conditioned on ‘a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity[.]’”9 Viacom, 676 F.3d at 41 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 512(m)(1))>>

poi:

<<Plaintiff conflates two concepts that are separate and distinct in the context of YouTube’s copyright protection software: automated video matches and actual infringements. As explained by YouTube’s copyright management tools representative, software-identified video matches are not necessarily tantamount to copyright infringements. [D.E. 137-7, 74:21–25]. Rather, the software detects code, audio, or visual cues that may match those of a copyrighted work, and presents those matches to the owner for inspection. Thus, while YouTube systems may be well equipped to detect video matches, the software does not necessarily have the capacity to detect copyright infringements. See id. Further, the accuracy of these automatically identified matches depends on a wide range of factors and variable. [Id. at 75:1–10, 108:2–110:17, 113:3–114:25]. That is why users, not YouTube, are required to make all determinations as to the infringing nature of software selected matches. [Id.].
Second, Plaintiff does not point to any evidence showing that YouTube, through its employees, ever came into contact, reviewed, or interacted in any way with any of the purportedly identified video matches for which Athos was allegedly required to send subsequent DMCA takedown notices (i.e., the clips-in-suit). As explained by YouTube’s product manager, the processes of uploading, fingerprinting, scanning, and identifying video matches is fully automated, involving minimal to no human interaction in the part of YouTube. [Id. at 68:22–69:18, 118:17–119]. The record shows that upon upload of a video to YouTube, a chain of algorithmic processes is triggered, including the automated scanning and matching of potentially overlapping content. If the software detects potential matches, that list of matches is automatically directed towards the copyright owner, by being displayed inside the user’s YouTube interface. [Id. at 68:22–70:25]. Therefore, the record only reflects that YouTube does not rely on human involvement during this specific phase of the scanning and matching detection process, and Plaintiff does not proffer any evidence showing otherwise>>.

sintesi:

<<As the relevant case law makes clear, evidence of the technologies that ISPs independently employ to enhance copyright enforcement within their system cannot form the basis for ascribing disqualifying knowledge of unreported infringing items to the ISP. Such a conception of knowledge would contradict the plain mandate of § 512(m), “would eviscerate the required specificity of notice[,] . . . and would put the provider to the factual search forbidden by § 512(m).” Viacom, 718 F. Supp. 2d at 528. Thus, we find that Athos’ theory that specific knowledge of non-noticed infringing clips can be ascribed to Defendants by virtue of YouTube’s copyright management tools fails as a matter of law>>.

Notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof Eric Goldman

L’embedding non costituisce comunicazione al pubblico però non permette la difesa del safe harbour ex § 512DMCA

Il giudice Barlow della Utah District Court, 2 maggio 2023, caso 2:21-cv-00567-DBB-JCB, decide un’interessante lite sull’embedding.

Attore è il gestore dei diritti su alcune foto eseguite da Annie Leibovitz. Convenuti sono i gestori di un sito che le aveva “riprodotte” con la tecnica dell’embedding (cioè non con riproduzine stabile sul proprio server).

Il giudice applica il c.d server test del noto caso Perfect 10 Inc. v. Google del 2006 così sintetizzato: <<Perfect 10, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether Google’s unauthorized display of thumbnail and full-sized images violated the copyright holder’s rights. The court first defined an image as a work “that is fixed in a tangible medium of expression . . . when embodied (i.e., stored) in a computer’s server (or hard disk, or other storage device).” The court defined “display” as an individual’s action “to show a copy . . ., either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process ….”>>.

Quindi rigetta la domanda nel caso dell’embedding sottopostogli :

<<The court finds Trunk Archive’s policy arguments insufficient to put aside the “server” test. Contrary to Trunk Archive’s claims, “practically every court outside the Ninth Circuit” has not “expressed doubt that the use of embedding is a defense to infringement.” Perfect 10 supplies a broad test. The court did not limit its holding to search engines or the specific way that Google utilized inline links. Indeed, Trunk Archive does not elucidate an appreciable difference between embedding technology and inline linking. “While appearances can slightly vary, the technology is still an HTML code directing content outside of a webpage to appear seamlessly on the webpage itself.” The court in Perfect 10 did not find infringement even though Google had integrated full-size images on its search results. Here, CBM Defendants also integrated (embedded) the images onto their website.(…) Besides, embedding redirects a user to the source of the content-in this case, an image hosted by a third-party server. The copyright holder could still seek relief from that server. In no way has the holder “surrender[ed] control over how, when, and by whom their work is subsequently shown.” To guard against infringement, the holder could take down the image or employ restrictions such as paywalls. Similarly, the holder could utilize “metadata tagging or visible digital watermarks to provide better protection.” (…)( In sum, Trunk Archive has not persuaded the court to ignore the “server” test. Without more, the court cannot find that CBM Defendants are barred from asserting the “embedding” defense. The court denies in part Trunk Archive’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.>>

Inoltre, viene negato il safe harbour in oggetto, perchè non ricorre il caso del mero storage su server proprio di materiali altrui, previsto ex lege. Infatti l’embedding era stato creato dai convenuti , prendendo i materiali da server altrui: quindi non ricorreva la passività ma l’attività , detto in breve

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof Eric Goldman)

Il motore di ricerca è corresponsabile per associazioni indesiderate ma errate in caso di omonimia?

La risposta è negativa nel diritto USA, dato che Microsoft è coperta dal safe harbour ex § 230 CDA:

Così , confermando il 1° grado, la 1st District court of appeal della Florida, Nos. 1D21-3629 + 1D22-1321 (Consolidated for disposition) del 10 maggio 2023, White c. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, ed altri.

fatto:

Mr. White sued various nonresident defendants for damages in tort resulting from an episode of a reality/crime television show entitled “Evil Lives Here.” Mr. White alleged that beginning with the first broadcast of the episode “I Invited Him In” in August 2018, he was injured by the broadcasting of the episode about a serial killer in New York also named Nathaniel White. According to the allegations in the amended complaint, the defamatory episode used Mr. White’s photograph from a decades-old incarceration by the Florida Department of Corrections. Mr. White alleged that this misuse of his photo during the program gave viewers the impression that he and the New York serial killer with the same name were the same person thereby damaging Mr. White.

Diritto :

The persons who posted the information on the eight URLs provided by Mr. White were the “information content providers” and Microsoft was the “interactive service provider” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) and (3). See Marshall’s Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC, 925 F.3d 1263, 1268 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (noting that a search engine falls within the definition of interactive computer service); see also In re Facebook, Inc., 625 S.W. 3d 80, 90 (Tex. 2021) (internal citations omitted) (“The ‘national consensus’ . . . is that ‘all claims’ against internet companies ‘stemming from their publication of information created by third parties’ effectively treat the defendants as publishers and are barred.”). “By presenting Internet search results to users in a relevant manner, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft facilitate the operations of every website on the internet. The CDA was enacted precisely to prevent these types of interactions from creating civil liability for the Providers.” Baldino’s Lock & Key Serv., Inc. v. Google LLC, 285 F. Supp. 3d 276, 283 (D.D.C. 2018), aff’d sub nom. Marshall’s Locksmith Serv., 925 F.3d at 1265.
In Dowbenko v. Google Inc., 582 Fed. App’x 801, 805 (11th Cir. 2014), the state law defamation claim was “properly dismissed” as “preempted under § 230(c)(1)” since Google, like Microsoft here, merely hosted the content created by other providers through search services. Here, as to Microsoft’s search engine service, the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment finding Microsoft immune from Mr. White’s defamation claim by operation of Section 230 since Microsoft did not publish any defamatory statement.
Mr. White argues that even if Microsoft is immune for any defamation occurring by way of its internet search engine, Microsoft is still liable as a service that streamed the subject episode. Mr. White points to the two letters from Microsoft in support of his argument. For two reasons, we do not reach whether an internet streaming service is an “interactive service provider” immunized from suit for defamation by Section 230.
First, the trial court could not consider the letters in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The letters were not referenced in Mr. White’s written response to Microsoft’s motion. They were only in the record in response to a different defendant’s motion for a protective order. So the trial court could disregard the letters in ruling on Microsoft’s motion. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(5); Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky, 341 So. 3d 1131, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). Without the two letters, Mr. White has no argument that Microsoft was a publisher of the episode.
Second, even considering the two letters referenced by Mr. White, they do not show that Microsoft acted as anything but an interactive computer service. That the subject episode was possibly accessible for streaming via a Microsoft search platform does not mean that Microsoft participated in streaming or publishing the episode

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)

L’azione di danno ex § 512.f Copyright Act concerne solo l’abuso di copyright, non di marchio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CV 22-4355-JFW(JEMx), del 21 aprile 2023, Yuga Labs, Inc. -v- Ripps, et al., decide una lite su marchio in causa promossa dal titolare del NFT “Bored Ape” contro un visual artist (Ripps) che lo critica: Ripps is a visual artist and creative designer who purports to create artwork that comments in the boundaries between art, the internet, and commerce. According to Defendants, Yuga has deliberately embedded racist, neo-Nazi, and alt-right dog whistles in the BAYC NFTs and associated projects.3 Beginning in approximately November 2021, Ripps began criticizing Yuga’s use of these purported racist, neo-Nazi, and alt-right dog whistles through his Twitter and Instagram profiles, podcasts, cooperation with investigative journalists, and by creating the website gordongoner.com.

Y. manda allora richieste di notice and take down (NATD) per marchio spt. ma anche per dir. di autrore.

R. reagisce azionando la disposizione nel titolo.
Ma la corte -delle 25 richieste NATD- esamina solo quelle (quattro) che hanno portato al take down e solo quelli di copyrigjht (una), non quelle su marchio (tre). Del resto il tenore della norma è inequivoco.

E rigetta l’eccezione (o dom. riconvenzionale?): With respect to the only DMCA notice that resulted in the takedown of Defendants’ content,
Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the notice contains a material misrepresentation that
resulted in the takedown of Defendants’ content or that Yuga acted in bad faith in submitting the
takedown notice. Although Defendants argue that Yuga does not have a copyright registration for
the Ape Skull logo that was the subject of the DMCA takedown notice, a registration is not required
to own a copyright. Instead, a copyright exists at the moment copyrightable material is fixed in any
tangible medium of expression. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, 139
S.Ct. 881, 887 (2019); see also Feist v. Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 449 U.S. 340, 345
(1991) (holding that for a work to be copyrightable, it only needs to possess “some minimal degree
of creativity”). Moreover, courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that a logo can receive both
trademark and copyright protection. See, e.g., Vigil v. Walt Disney Co., 1995 WL 621832 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 16, 1995).

La setnnza è itnerssante però anche -soprattutto.- per il profili di mnarchio e concorrenza sleale circa l’uso dell’NFT.

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)

Responsabilità del Registrar di domain names per l’uso illecito del dominio da parte del nuovo assegnatario? Si applica il safe harbour ex § 230 CDA?

L’appello del 9° circuito 3 febbrio 2023, No. 21-16182, Scotts Rigby v. Godaddy, sull’uso indebito del nome di dominio “scottrigsbyfoundation.org;” dato a un terzo e divenuto sito di giochi d’azzardo.

dal Summary iniziale:

<<When Rigsby and the Foundation failed to pay
GoDaddy, a domain name registrar, the renewal fee for
scottrigsbyfoundation.org, a third party registered the thenavailable domain name and used it for a gambling
information site. (…)
The panel held that Rigsby could not satisfy the “use in
commerce” requirement of the Lanham Act vis-à-vis
GoDaddy because the “use” in question was being carried
out by a third-party gambling site, not GoDaddy, and Rigsby
therefore did not state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). As
to the Lanham Act claim, the panel further held that Rigsby
could not overcome GoDaddy’s immunity under the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which limits
the secondary liability of domain name registrars and
registries for the act of registering a domain name. The
panel concluded that Rigsby did not plausibly allege that
GoDaddy registered, used, or trafficked in his domain name
with a bad faith intent to profit, nor did he plausibly allege
that GoDaddy’s alleged wrongful conduct surpassed mere
registration activity>>

E sorpttutto sul § 230 CDA , che protegge da molte domande:

<<The panel held that § 230 of the Communications
Decency Act, which immunizes providers of interactive
computer services against liability arising from content
created by third parties, shielded GoDaddy from liability for
Rigsby’s state-law claims for invasion of privacy, publicity,
trade libel, libel, and violations of Arizona’s Consumer
Fraud Act.

The panel held that immunity under § 230
applies when the provider is an interactive computer
services, the plaintiff is treating the entity as the publisher or
speaker, and the information is provided by another
information content provider.

Agreeing with other circuits,
the panel held that domain name registrars and website
hosting companies like GoDaddy fall under the definition of
an interactive computer service.

In addition, GoDaddy was
not a publisher of scottrigsbyfoundation.org, and it was not
acting as an information content provider.>>

Il reclamo cautelare milanese nella lite sui servizi DNS di Cloudfare , promossa dalle major titolari di copyright

Torrent Freak dà il link alla molto interessante ordinanza milanese (decisa il 22.09.2022 e dep. 4 novembre 2022, parrebbe) che decide il reclamo cautelare Cloudfare c. Sony-Warner-Universal Music, RG 29411/2022, rel. Tarantola.

Il reclamo di Cloudfare (C.) è rigettato e , parrebbe, a ragione.

Alcuni punti:

E’ confermata la giurisdizione italiana ex art. 7.1 sub 2) reg. 1215/2012 (anche se non è chiaro perchè, dato che la disposizione si applica a chi è domiciliato in uno stato UE e viene convenuto in altro stto ue: ma C. è di diritto usa)
il diritto è riscontrato in capo alle major ex art. 99 bis l. aut.
le condotte addebitate son sufficientemente individuate. Si tratta del servizio di domain name system (DNS) che risolve i nomi in stringhe IP. Esso si affianca agli ordinari servizi di access provider, servendo spesso per anonimizzare l’accesso . Di fatto è noto a tutti che tramite il dns di C. si riesce ad eludere i blocchi imposti agli (e attuati dagli) internet access provider.
per dare un inibitoria, non serve che l’inibito sia corresponsabile civilmente della vioalzione: basta che sia strumento per l’accesso a server ospitanti materiali illeciti. Gli artt. 14-17 del d. gls. 70 del 2003 sono chiarissimi (norme mai citate dal giudice, però!).

Nè c’è alcun dubbio che che C. sia un internet provider (caching, art. 15 d. lgs. 70/2003).

non è chiaro il rapporto tra i siti convenuti in causa e C., che nega ne esistano (assai dubbio: perchè mai dovrebbe interporsi tra i siti stessi e l’utenza? Chi le dà incarico e chi la paga?)
venendo confermata la cautela di prima istanza, è confermato che l’inibitoria concerne pure i siti c.d. alias (cioè quelli creati in aggiutna per eludere e che reindirizzano automaticametne le richiesta ai siti originari bloccati)
le difficoltà esecutive dell’ordine : è il punto più interessante a livello teorico, anche se richeiderebbe approfondimenti processuali . Per il giudice non contano, dovendosi risolverle ex art. 669 duodecies cpc. : << Non è al riguardo configurabile alcun onere preventivo a carico delle parti ricorrenti, né alcun obbligo in capo all’AG all’atto della pronuncia dell’ordine cautelare, di descrivere le specifiche modalità tecniche di esecuzione dell’ordine, ove – ritenuta la sussistenza dell’attività che è ordinato inibirsi – è la parte cui è rivolto l’ordine inibitorio che potrà rappresentare eventuali difficoltà tecniche nell’ambito dello specifico procedimento ex art. 669 duocecies cpc (peraltro già instaurato, come evincibile dagli atti). >> ,

iL PUNTO è come detto assai stimolante anche se meritevole di approfondimento. A parte che la natura sostitutiva del reclamo porterebbe alla competenza proprio del giudiuce del reclamo, l’attuaizone avviene sì sotto il controllo del giudice, purchè un minimum sia indicato nel provvedimento. E allora può questo limitarsi a dire “filtra tutte le richeiste di accesso a questo o quel sito”? tocca al convenuto chiedere lumi, dice il giudice. OK, ma se è volonteroso; e se non lo è? Penalità di mora? E come può controllare il vincitore la corretta attuazione?

Il comando cautelare era: <<adottare immediatamente le più opportune misure tecniche al fine di inibire a tutti i destinatari dei propri servizi l’accesso ai servizi denominati “kickasstorrents.to”, “limetorrents.pro” e “ilcorsaronero.pro”, inibendo la risoluzione DNS dei nomi a dominio “kickasstorrents.to”, “limetorrents.pro”, “ilcorsaronero.pro”, sia in quanto tali che preceduti dal prefisso www, nonché inibito alla resistente la risoluzione DNS di qualsiasi nome a dominio (denominato “alias”) – che costituisca una variazione dei predetti DNS di primo, secondo, terzo e quarto livello – attraverso i quali i servizi illeciti attualmente accessibili attraverso i predetti nomi a dominio possano continuare ad essere disponibili, a condizione che i nuovi alias siano soggettivamente e oggettivamente riferiti ai suddetti servizi illeciti>>.