1. Google Transparency
and the
Challenges of Content Control
FAST LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP Meeting
London, 13 June 2012
Eleonora Rosati
eleonora.rosati@eui.eu

2. Transparency may be scary (sometimes)

3. 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)

4. Removal requests

6. Top Specified Domains

7. Highlights

8. • 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

9. Reactions

10. 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

11. Private enforcement

12. • Role of ISPs
DMCA and Ecommerce Directive: remove or disable
access to allegedly infringing material upon receiving
a request
• Filtering technologies: already there?

13. 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

14. 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

15. What future for content control?

16. 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

17. 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)

18. Looking forward, but carefully

19. Thanks for your attention!
eleonora.rosati@eui.eu