Who Needs Article 13: Italian Court Finds Facebook Liable For Hosting Links

from the seems-like-a-problem dept

As we've noted a few times now, the legacy entertainment business has decided that they no longer support Article 13, because it wasn't draconian enough. But, the real reason for their sudden cold feet was that there were a few indications that some of the European Courts might give them everything they wanted (and more) without even needing Article 13. And, that might just be happening. Recently a court in Italy found Facebook liable for hosting links to infringing content. Eleonora Rosati at IPKat both wrote about this and (thankfully) translated key parts of the ruling, such as the following:

The publication of RTI's audiovisual content through Facebook is an act of communication to a new public in that it is a public other than the one authorized by the claimant. Indeed, the links published through the Facebook page led not to content published by RTI itself through its own platform, but rather content published through a third-party site (YouTube) not authorized by RTI to making available the audiovisual content at issue. It follows that, lacking a specific authorization by RTI, the making available to the public (through a third-party portal) of the intro to animated series 'Kilari' must be considered unlawful.

Got that? This is a case where someone posted links to (likely) infringing videos on YouTube to Facebook. And of all the possible parties liable for infringing content on YouTube... the court agreed that it's Facebook that is liable because a Facebook user posted links to content on YouTube that is likely infringing. And somehow that's Facebook's fault. This is... ludicrous. But, this is also why the legacy entertainment companies are licking their chops over similar bad court rulings in the EU even absent Article 13.

The ruling's problems don't stop there. It does suggest that knowledge of the infringement is necessary, but (unlike the very reasonable -- and only workable -- standard in the US that the knowledge be specific of the infringing work and where it is) decided that no specific details are necessary for Facebook to become liable. As Rosati summarizes:

According to the Rome court... to notify a provider of an infringing activity it is not necessary to submit the relevant URL for each and every infringement.

This, again, is the kind of standard that copyright holders have been drooling over, in part because it makes it literally impossible for platforms to comply and thus leaves them liable to all sorts of lawsuits. And thus, even without Article 13, the EU is already completely screwing up the internet.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, eu, intermediary liability, italy, links
Companies: facebook, youtube

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2019 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The governments are putting a stop to a lot of piracy with these new laws

    Name one law that has ever stopped piracy. Ever.

    The Internet Of Thieves needs to be broken. It's illegal.

    So you admit it's already illegal to steal, then why do we need A11 and A13 if it's already illegal? A11 and A13 don't do anything to stop piracy, they just allow people to go after deep pocketed corporations who weren't involved in piracy to begin with solely because a tiny fraction of their users happened to engage in piracy.

    Just like FOSTA/SESTA had to be passed because "sexworkers" mistook their little internet subculture for mainstream acceptance.

    This is completely false. Sex work is still legal under certain circumstances. Sex TRAFFICKING (which is what FOSTA and SESTA were supposedly supposed to stop) always was and always will be illegal and anyone engaging, encouraging, or facilitating it was and still are breaking the law and can be arrested and prosecuted for it. FOSTA/SESTA changed nothing in that regard.

    All FOSTA/SESTA did was, just like A11 and A13, shift liability on to innocent third parties who had no intention of doing anything remotely illegal in those respects. For instance, previously, if someone set up a Facebook group for piracy or sex trafficking, the operators of that page had to be the ones you went after and at most, Facebook would be required to take down the page via court order. Now, in that same situation, you can prosecute Facebook for engaging in and facilitating piracy and sex trafficking and get a conviction. All for something they didn't do.

    FOSTA/SESTA, A11, and A13 are a giant joke and the only ones who don't seem to get it are people like you.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.