Google Transparency and the

Challenges of Content Control

FAST LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP MeetingLondon, 13 June 2012

Eleonora Rosatieleonora.rosati@eui.eu

Transparency may be scary (sometimes)

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)

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)• 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

Reactions

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

Private enforcement

• Role of ISPs DMCA and Ecommerce Directive: remove or disable access to allegedly infringing material upon receiving a request

• Filtering technologies: already there?

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

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

What future for content control?

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

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)

Looking forward, but carefully

Thanks for your attention!

eleonora.rosati@eui.eu