A French court ruled that upstream internet intermediaries, including Google and Cloudflare, must block access to certain websites engaged in piracy and illegal streaming upon the request of the sports rights holders. The ruling holds intermediaries responsible for the proliferation of illicit streams despite their efforts not to host such services due to their ability to use alternative domains, offshore hosting, and redundant servers.
Google Challenges the Decision as Ineffective, With the Ability to Circumvent Being “Near Certain Death”
Google has filed a complaint against the decision, arguing that the measures, including DNS filtering, IP blocking, and blocking virtual private networks (VPNs), are ineffective and pose a threat to the free core internet.
Google has filed a complaint against the decision, arguing that the measures, including DNS filtering, IP blocking, and blocking virtual private networks (VPNs), are ineffective and pose a threat to the free core internet.
The company asserted that the recommended methods “would be largely ineffective” and “risk stifling legitimate online services,” noting that circumvention techniques would allow illicit sites to continue operating with relative ease. The company highlighted the possibility of overblocking, with numerous reputable services and websites being impacted since multiple domains or DNS providers host the same content.
Google provided examples of services that were previously blocked in France, including Google Drive, Amnesty International, UNICEF, the Australian Senate, and the Stanford Law Review.
Electronic Frontier Foundation Warns About Loss of Internet Freedom and Big Tech Control, Calling the Ruling an Anti-Technology Fundamentalist
EFF has also criticized the decision, arguing that the ruling’s broad language could jeopardize internet freedom by encouraging the use of major technology companies as censors. The organization has repeatedly opposed indiscriminate filtering of disallowed content, arguing that it suppresses lawful speech.
Electronic Frontier Foundation Warns About Loss of Internet Freedom and Big Tech Control, Calling the Ruling an Anti-Technology Fundamentalist
EFF has also criticized the decision, arguing that the ruling’s broad language could jeopardize internet freedom by encouraging the use of major technology companies as censors. The organization has repeatedly opposed indiscriminate filtering of disallowed content, arguing that it suppresses lawful speech.
Additionally, the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned that the ruling set the stage for even more restrictive content moderation policies in the broader technology industry.
Similar Upstream Content Blocking Rules Could Be Debated in Congress
The intensified fight against piracy has seen similar proposals introduced in Congress. In the United States, several lawmakers are considering legislation that would require internet intermediaries to adopt similar policies regarding copyright infringement.
Similar Upstream Content Blocking Rules Could Be Debated in Congress
The intensified fight against piracy has seen similar proposals introduced in Congress. In the United States, several lawmakers are considering legislation that would require internet intermediaries to adopt similar policies regarding copyright infringement.
The issue has gained momentum as the use of unlawful streaming services has skyrocketed throughout the country. Increased costs, including hikes in subscription services, advertisement, and the segmentation of works across different platforms, have prompted consumers to resort to illegal streaming sites. Technology companies have been lobbying to stop broad measures that could impact the entire internet core while copyright holders push for stronger actions against rampant infringement.
This article has been indexed from CySecurity News – Latest Information Security and Hacking Incidents
Read the original article: