ITALIAN PRIVACY AUTHORITY PROHIBITS IPR HOLDERS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ROME 000089 SIPDIS STATE PLEASE PASS TO EEB/TPP/IPE URBAN, WALLACE PLEASE PASS TO USTR YANG, GROVES, WILSON COMMERCE PLEASE PASS TO WILSON E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/15/2019 TAGS: ECON ETRD IT KIPR PGOV SUBJECT: ITALIAN PRIVACY AUTHORITY PROHIBITS IPR HOLDERS FROM MONITORING PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS Classified By: ECON Minister Counselor Tom Delare for reasons 1.4 (b,d) (U) 1. SUMMARY: The Italian Data Protection Authority (also called the Privacy Authority) has decided that monitoring peer-to-peer (P2P) networks to find cases of illegal trading of copyrighted material violates privacy laws. Previously most legal action taken in Italy against those engaged in piracy has been a result of rights holders investigating and then informing authorities. Though competent public authorities are still authorized to monitor on-line traffic and pursue criminal cases, this decision has effectively stalled investigation into on-line piracy in Italy. Instead the Privacy Authority says industry and government must find new ways to prevent IP theft. This impasse puts privacy and IPR at odds and demonstrates the need for a authoritative coordinating body to address the protection of IPR in Italy. A key Italian Privacy Authority official has now taken a position with the EU where industry fears his influence may lead to a stricter interpretation of privacy laws at the EU level. Post would like to push this issue with the GOI, and seeks guidance on this point (see Comment in paragraph 11). End Summary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What is legal, what is not? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (U) 2. The Italian Data Protection Authority (Also called the Privacy Authority) says monitoring of P2P traffic by other than public authorities violates privacy laws because P2P traffic is a form of private communication. Giovanni Buttarelli, Secretary General of the Privacy Authority, asserted that this decision is in line with EU court decisions, while Simona Lavagnini, an attorney and chairman of the IPR Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce, insists this is an extremely narrow interpretation of EU law. (U) 3. Rights holders have in the past monitored Internet traffic to identify sharing of music and video files, then reported this information to the authorities who were able to pursue action against those acting illegally. Now rights holders have ceased monitoring this traffic for fear of being accused of violating data privacy laws. Since prosecution has depended on this type of information from rights holders, this Privacy Authority decision is effectively preventing new criminal cases against copyright infringers from being investigated or prosecuted. Though public authorities still have the right to monitor and bring legal action, Buttarelli conceded that legal redress through the courts in Italy is typically a long process of dubious effectiveness. According to Lavagnini the Privacy Authority's message to the public is that illegal uploading and downloading can't be prosecuted, making it in essence legal. - - - - - - - - - - - A Poster or a Party - - - - - - - - - - - (U) 4. Lavagnini also said she believes the Privacy Authority has misinterpreted "communication." Private data communication, she said, would be between individual parties, but uploading video or music to a P2P network is the equivalent of putting a poster up on a wall; it isn't directed at an individual and therefore isn't private "communication." (U) 5. Buttarelli rejected this argument. He said it had been considered by the Privacy Authority and was an "old debate." He compared P2P networks instead as analogous to having a cocktail party to which you invited a large group of friends, some of whom might bring other friends, but said that the understanding was still that no hostile 3rd parties would attend. In P2P he said you are opening your computer to people under certain conditions, and the industry violated those conditions. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What about Internet Service Providers? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (U) 6. Buttarelli stressed the need for industry to develop ROME 00000089 002 OF 002 advanced technologies that would protect their intellectual product and to think differently about protecting IP. He mentioned Digital Rights Management specifically. (Comment: Apple's recent decision to eliminate DRM from iTunes purchases demonstrates how consumer frustration with DRM has pushed that company to move in another direction. At the same time, industry seems to recognize the need for new approaches, an example being the music industry's recent decision to stop pursuing court action against illegal downloaders and their decision to instead coordinate with Internet Service Providers on ways to protect music from piracy. End Comment) He also mentioned "anonymous controls" and "relationships with judicial authorities" as potential avenues for industry to pursue, but in the end said prevention and not "suppression" was the way to protect IP. (U) 7. IP industries have sought cooperation with Internet Service Providers as a way to enforce their intellectual property rights, but according to Lavagnini, ISPs are interpreting Privacy Authority decisions to mean that they can't share data and, thus, can't cooperate. Buttarelli said there is role for ISPs in combating piracy, but didn't elaborate on what form that might take. (U) 8. Buttarelli spoke to EconOff just prior to moving to Brussels where January 17 he became European Data Protection Assistant Supervisor. Lavagnini said IP industries worry that Buttarelli's influence at the EU level could lead to stricter interpretations of privacy rights to the detriment of intellectual property rights. (C) 9. In another recent meeting, EconOff asked Antonio Amendola at the Italian Telecommunications Authority, AGCOM, whether that authority should have a role in negotiating this issue. Amendola said that AGCOM should be involved in on-line IPR protection, but said budget and staffing shortages in the recent past have prevented AGCOM from focusing on the issue. He hopes AGCOM will play an increased role in the future. - - - - - - Comment - - - - - - (C) 10. While Buttarelli declined to state outright that the monitoring of peer-to-peer networks to find illegal uploaders and downloaders was a dead end, this is the only conclusion that can logically be drawn from the conversation. IP industries clearly view the Privacy Authority as standing in the way of their right to protect their own product, and Buttarelli appeared frustrated that Privacy Authority decisions have been interpreted by industry as being anti-IPR protection. The Privacy Authority may view these two rights (privacy and IPR protection) as equal rights that must be protected equally, but it does not seem interested in considering how its rulings affect IPR. (U) 11. This is another example of how the lack of coordination between different authorities makes addressing IPR protection difficult in Italy. Absent a coordinating body with the power to force cooperation, strides forward will be difficult. This decision by the Privacy Authority is a serious obstacle to combating on-line piracy. Post would like to press the issue with the GOI -- to indicate that it will likely be highlighted in this year's Special 301 Report and that this apparent preference for privacy over protecting intellectual property rights is another stumbling block to Italy's efforts to come off the list. We seek USTR and Department guidance on this issue. SPOGLI