Copyright, copyright, piracy: the phenomenon in Italy is mainly linked to football matches, watched on streaming sites that do not hold the rights (about 11 million Italians use them, Fapav\/Ipsos data<\/a>), while the use of illegal downloading of music, movies, and TV series decreases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To counter the phenomenon, three bills have been presented in recent years (specifically, 1357 Butti<\/a>, 2188 Capitanio<\/a> e 2679 Zanella<\/a>), which provide new provisions to prevent and suppress the dissemination of copyright-protected content via the Internet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the examination of these proposals, the joint Culture and Transport Committees of the Chamber heard the opinions of several trade associations: in addition to Assoprovider, heard as an association that gathers Proximity Operators (ISP and WISP), representatives from Aiip (Associazione Italiana Internet Provider), Fapav (Federazione per la Tutela dei Contenuti Audiovisivi e Multimediali), Siae, and Aie (Associazione italiana editori) participated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Assoprovider, President Dino Bortolotto and lawyer Fulvio Sarzana participated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion essentially focuses on one point: do Internet Service Providers have responsibilities in combating piracy? Should they intervene directly and autonomously on those who access copyright-protected content?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In reality, as noted by the participants, Proximity Operators do not gain any advantage from piracy and, in fact, have everything to lose, suffering economic damage due to the increase in traffic volumes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n President Bortolotto then recalls that \"the optimal point of intervention against piracy should be the origin and not the destination<\/em>: essentially, action should be taken against those who \"produce\" and share illegal content, not against the users who consume it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this reason, TLC Operators cannot be consulted, since \"I am the last link in the transmission chain, the subject furthest from the one committing the crime.<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In technical terms, an ISP should intervene with a negazione del servizio<\/em> applied to the destination on an illicit origin. For Bortolotto, this possibility \"it is entirely to be verified in constitutional terms: there is indeed the risk that a private entity may decide in total autonomy which IP address should be obscured<\/em>, without the intervention of the judicial authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not only that: what would happen if, due to a clerical error, an incorrect IP address were indicated?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The president of Assoprovider provides an example: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00abLet's imagine what could happen if the IP address used to control the Mose of Venice were mistakenly blocked: the consequences would be catastrophic<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bortolotto also recalls the potential economic consequences of such an intervention by the ISPs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00abFor the small operators we represent, such costs can make a difference: our members cannot \"spread\" this amount over millions of users, as large telecommunications operators could. This would undermine the economic and business rights of ISPs, guaranteed by the Constitution.<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In conclusion, it explains that Assoprovider is always willing to \u201calways and in any case comply with the law<\/em>, but also that \u201cwill use all available tools to counter decisions that could pose an obstacle to the entrepreneurial freedom of the members<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Review the complete speeches by Dino Bortolotto and Fulvio Sarzana, starting from minute 21:<\/p>\n\n\n\nBortolotto: \"Unsustainable Costs for Operators\"<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n