The recent decision by the UK government to dismiss measures aimed at website blocking, and the stance taken by Italian NRA AGCOM on the same matter, suggest that regulators are trying to strike a balance between different views among the stakeholders involved in the issues related to file sharing.

 

As Ovum’s recent research shows, the most common approach so far is to employ a “three strikes” procedure against end users in collaboration with ISPs. Having listened to the voice of content providers, policy makers are now taking into account the interests of other players in the industry – namely, ISPs and website owners. The UK government’s intention to reform the Intellectual Property framework also signals that it is time for a whole new approach to the issue. AGCOM (which is also in the process of approving rules against online copyright infringement) and other regulators should follow the UK example to avoid being left behind in such a fast-moving area.

 

Some European regulators are reconsidering their approach to tackling online piracy. The UK government’s recent decision not to proceed with website blocking provisions contained in the Digital Economy Act (DEA) signals a shift in the policy against illegal file sharing. Similarly, the Italian regulator AGCOM reviewed its proposal on the same matter, launching a new consultation in July, following [one in] December 2010.

 

As Ovum’s recently published research on regulatory measures against illegal file sharing shows, policy makers and regulators are taking action to tackle the issue by means of new rules which involve a higher degree of collaboration with ISPs.

 

Acts such as the HADOPI Law in France, or the DEA in the UK, have seen the “three strikes” approach gaining momentum as an effective means of discouraging users from illicit use of copyrighted content. However, having proposed the introduction of provisions to block websites offering unauthorized content, some regulators and policy makers are taking a step back. The likely reason for this change in policy is to be found in the willingness not to place an excessive burden on ISPs, end users, and website owners, alongside the acknowledgement that a new framework for intellectual property needs to be implemented.

 

While the “mere conduit” argument is generally losing strength due to the need to monitor end user’s behavior, we have recently seen two cases that suggest governments are unlikely to go any further in placing obligations on ISPs.