Massimo Cavazzini

Come riporta Security and the Net, Scarlet -brand belga di Tiscali – ha vinto la propria battaglia in tribunale contro i filtri al traffico P2P.

The Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (Sabam, the Belgian version of the RIAA) started a case against Tiscali, one of the largest ISP’s in Belgium. In it, they argue that ISP’s are responsible when their customers transfer copyrighted files via their network. In 2004, Sabam (in their own words) ”obtained an intermediary judgement by virtue of which the court acknowledged that copyright infringements (regarding the reproduction right and right of communication to the public) were being committed by TISCALI customers. ”

The court then ordered a study into whether Tiscali (now called Scarlet) could be forced to block the transfer of copyrighted material through their network. This was finished last year, and in june 2007 Scarlet was ordered to implement technical measures to block the transfer of copyrighted works via P2P networks within six months. The fine for not following these instructions was set to €2500 per day.

This year, Scarlet asked the court to cancel this order because the systems Sabam proposed for filtering traffic didn’t work as advertised; Sabam has already apologized to the judge about providing incorrect information. The court has now ruled in favor of Scarlet, staying the fine until the final ruling in this case which is expected about a year from now. [via]

Update: pare che non sia vero eppure i giornali continuano a dire – senza ulteriori precisazioni – che il round è di Scarlet, perchè ha vinto in primo grado e fino all’ottobre del 2009 non ci sarà un ulteriore grado di giudizio. Secondo l’IFPI i filtri devono essere attivati entro oggi. Vedremo.

La realtà sta probabilmente nel mezzo. Come spiega lo studio di avvocati che ha difeso Scarlet, the Brussels Court of First Instance delivered its verdict that Scarlet had indeed done all that was in its power to respect the initial Court ruling and that the filtering technologies recommended by the SABAM did not work. The court therefore retrospectively ruled that Scarlet does not need to pay any fines. To put things in context, since January 2008, Scarlet was under threat of paying 2500€ of fines a day, which meant a total sum of nearly 750.000€. The Court’s verdict today means that Scarlet no longer has to pay this sum. For the rest, the Court ruled that it could not judge on the technical and legal issues put forward by Scarlet and that the Brussels Court of Appeal was the only competent court to rule on these. The appeal case will take place in October 2009.

In sostanza, Sabam aveva chiesto che Scarlet pagasse 2500 euro al giorno per il passato, e ha perso. Nulla vieta (come si legge nel comunicato Ifpi) che chieda nuovamente la stessa cosa per il periodo che va dalla sentenza dei giorni scorsi fino alla sentenza del 2009, ma non è certo – come invece sostiene l’Ifpi – una decisione della corte di giustizia belga. La corte ha semplicemente dato ragione a Scarlet per il passato, ma non ha parlato nè di filtri nè di futuro. A mio parere quindi, Scarlet ha vinto il primo round (la sentenza per il passato) e creato un precedente importante per combattere nel secondo round.