1. Access Blocking in
Europe
An analysis of C-314/12 (UPC)
Banji Adenusi
Seminar Presentation on Contemporary Problems in IT/IP Law
Leibniz University Hannover, Germany
12 November 2015

2. The end justifies the means; but the
preservation of the freedom of access to
information remains sacrosanct.
To achieve that, establishing a harmonized EU-
wide test of proportionality for access blocking
becomes paramount.

3. Ø Access blocking in context
Ø A European overview
Ø UPC Telekabel
Ø Assessment
Ø Conclusion
Ø Bibliography
Outline

4. Access blocking in
context
Implementation of firewall or proxy system to
prevent access to network resources or the Internet

5. Geo-blocking ≠ access blocking
q Specie of Digital Rights
Management;1
q Reliant on geo-location of users;
q Access limitation to lawful content;
q Withholding of territorial license;
q Frowned upon by EU Parliament.2

6. Access blocking = content censorship
Access Blocking
IP
Blocking
DNS
Blocking
URL
Blocking
Configuration changes
to DNS server to block a
domain, e.g.
www.ab.example.com.
Combination of IP
& DNS blocks
using Deep Packet
Inspection or
proxy. Costly.
Data packet blocks
of IP destination
addresses. Risk of
over-blocking.
Blocking measures can however be easily circumvented using proxies, VPN, etc.

7. ‘404 Google’ by Els Aerts. http://www.agconsult.com/sites/default/files/blog/2011/02/404-google.gif

8. Internet user
VPN Provider
Secure Internet
Firewall
Hackers
Encrypted tunnel
VPN (Virtual Private Network)

9. A European
Overview
Art. 8(3) Directive 2001/29/EC
Art. 3 of Directive 2004/48/EC

10. United Kingdom
q Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
and others v Sky UK Limited & ors [2015]
EWHC 1082 (Ch) – PopcornTime access
block.
q EMI Records Ltd and others v British Sky
Broadcasting Ltd and others [2013] EWHC
379 (Ch) – KAT access block.
q Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
and others v British Telecommunications
Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch) – Newzbin
block.

11. q Corte di Cassazione [Supreme Court],
Third Criminal Section, The Pirate Bay,
49437/09, September 29, 2009 – The
Pirate Bay block.
q Tribunale di Milano [Tribunal of Milan],
Criminal, Lega Calcio, July 19, 2013 –
Rojadirecta domain names access block.
q Tribunale di Milano [Tribunal of Milan],
Criminal, Mondadori, November 22,
2012 -- Avaxhome.ws block.
Italy

12. q EMI Records (Ireland) Limited & ors v
UPC Communications Ireland Limited &
ors [2013] IEHC 274 -- access blocking
allowed under Irish law against The
Pirate Bay.
q EMI Records (Ireland) Limited & ors v
UPC Communications Ireland Limited
[2010] IEHC 377 -- access blocking not
available under Irish law.
q EMI (Ireland) Limited v Eircom Plc
[2009] IEHC 411 -- access blocking
allowed against The Pirate Bay.
Ireland

13. q La Societe Civile des Producteurs
Phonographiques (SCPP) v. Orange & ors
[2014] Case No 14/03236, TGI Paris -- ISPs to
implement all necessary measures to block
access to The Pirate Bay and mirrors.
q APC et al v. Google et al [2013] Case No
11/60013, TGI Paris -- injunctions against ISPs
and search engines to block access and
referencing to Allostreaming.
q Syndicat National des Producteurs de Music
(SNEP) v. Google France [2012]
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2012:C100832 – Google to
block all autosuggestion and referencing to
torrent sites.
France

14. q ZIGGO B.V & XS4ALL INTERNET B.V., v
B R E I N F o u n d a t i o n [ 2 014 ]
ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2014:88 -- Court of
Appeal ruling overturned a blocking
injunction against the appellants on
the ground that the blocking measures
for The Pirate Bay were ineffective and
disproportionate.
Netherlands

15. UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH
v
1. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH
2. Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft GmbH
CJEU Case C-314/12 [2014]
The legal obligation of an internet service provider (ISP)
whose services allowed its customers access to a website
infringing copyrighted films

16. Facts
Website in question enabled the download or
streaming of copyrighted films, without the
consent of the film companies by customers
of UPC.
Rightholders’ request to block access to the
website was declined by UPC.
Rightholders’ sought an outcome prohibition
(Erfolgsverbot) injunction against UPC on the
basis of Article 81(1)a of the Austrian
Urheberrechtsgesetz (Copyright Act).

17. May
2011
October
2011
UPC prohibited by court order from
providing its customers access to the site
by adopting specific blocking measures.
Decision partly reversed on appeal. UPC
to adopt all reasonable measures to
prevent access. Reasonableness of
measure to be considered in a separate
‘enforcement process’.
Facts
Further appeal to the Austrian Supreme
Court, and a referral to the CJEU.

18. Core Issues
1. Absence of contractual or business
relationship with the infringing
website: thus UPC ≠ an intermediary.
2. Access blocking measures costly and
easily circumvented.
3. Threat of liability for failure to
implement all reasonable measures to
end the infringement.
4. Guidelines for establishing
proportionality

19. OutcomeProhibition
Section 81
A person who has suffered an infringement
of any exclusive rights…,or who fears such
an infringement, shall be entitled to bring
proceedings for a restraining injunction.
Section 81(a)
If the person who has committed such an
infringement, or by whom there is a danger
of such an infringement being committed,
uses the services of an intermediary for that
purpose, the intermediary shall also be
liable to an injunction under subparagraph
(1).

20. EU legalframework for
intermediaries
8(3) Directive 2001/29/EC
Member States shall ensure that rightholders
are in a position to apply for an injunction
against intermediaries whose services are
used by a third party to infringe a copyright
or related right.
15 Directive 2000/31/EC
Member States shall not impose a general
obligation on providers…to monitor the
information which they transmit or store, nor
a general obligation actively to seek facts or
circumstances indicating illegal activity.

21. Article 3 ofDirective2004/48/EC
1. Member States shall provide for the
measures, procedures and remedies
necessary to ensure the enforcement of the
intellectual property rights… Those measures,
procedures and remedies shall be fair and
equitable, and shall not be unnecessarily
complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable
time-limits or unwarranted delays.
2. Those measures, procedures and remedies
shall also be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive and shall be applied in such a
manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to
legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards
against their abuse.

22. CJEU Decision
1. An intermediary includes ‘any person
who carries a third party’s infringement
of a protected work or other subject-
matter in a network’ (para 30).
2. Existence of a contractual relationship is
irrelevant for establishing an ISP as an
intermediary (para 35).
3. ISP is an inevitable actor in any
transmission on the Internet (para 32).
Interpretation of
an Intermediary
under Article 8(3)
of 2001/29/EC
(para 23)

23. 1. Balancing of fundamental rights
– protection of copyright
– freedom to conduct business
– freedom of information
(para 46).
2. Outcome prohibition does not infringe
the very substance of the freedom to
conduct a business (paras 50-51).
Compatibility of
o u t c o m e
prohibitions with
f u n d a m e n t a l
rights (para 42).
CJEU Decision

24. 3. Inherent freedom of the ISP to adopt
those measures that are reasonable
without making unbearable sacrifices
(para 52).
4. Flexibility of the injunction allows an ISP
to avoid liability by proving that
reasonable measures were taken (para
53).
CJEU Decision
Compatibility of
o u t c o m e
prohibitions with
f u n d a m e n t a l
rights (para 42).

25. 5. Measures must be targeted without
depriving internet users of the right to
lawful information (para 56).
6. Possibility for the users to assert their
rights once the implementing measures
are known (para 57).
Compatibility of
o u t c o m e
prohibitions with
f u n d a m e n t a l
rights (para 42).
CJEU Decision

26. Assessment

27. ‘injunction issued in general
terms and without specific
measures to be taken by the ISP
is incompatible with the
necessary balance required
under Art. 8(3) of 2001/29/EC.3
– Advocate General
shifts the burden of proof from
the right holders to the service
provider;4
Measures may be discretionary
& disproportionate.6
No clear guidance for
intermediaries;5

28. Restriction of
f r e e d o m o f
expression
‘ P r i v a t i z e d
censorship’7
Restriction of
fr eedom of
access to lawful
information
Impugning the
concept of fair
hearing

29. C o s t &
effectiveness
approach9
significant negative
economic impact of an
infringement = similar
access block
greater cost and constraint
to ISP and users = losses
were significant
Qualitative &
q u a n t i t a t i v e
assessment8
• intensity of the risk
• associated expenses
• de minimis consideration
• interest of the respective
parties
• commercial advantage to
the ISP
Developing a
proportionality
test

30. Freedom of information impact
assessment
• Public interest criterion
• Harm to access to information
• Alternative measures
• Financial cost
Developing a
proportionality
test

31. 1. Access blocking is a viable measure for
ending copyright infringement.
2. Specificity or otherwise of the measure
is irrelevant.
3. Safeguards for abuse.
4. Freedom of access to information.
5. E U - w i d e h a r m o n i z a t i o n o f
proportionality.
Conclusion

32. 1 T, Kra-Oz, ‘Geoblocking and the legality of circumvention’, [2014], pp. 2-4,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2548026 (accessed 09/11/15).
2 European Parliament, Resolution of 9 July 2015 on Harmonisation of certain
aspects of copyright and related rights, paras 8, 9 & 14
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA
+P8-TA-2015-0273+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN (accessed 09/11/15).
3 Opinion of Advocate General, CJEU Case 314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v
Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft GmbH
[2013], para 34
h t t p : / / c u r i a . e u r o p a . e u / j u r i s / d o c u m e n t / d o c u m e n t . j s f ?
t e x t = & d o c i d = 14 4 9 4 4 & p a g e I n d e x = 0 & d o c l a n g = E N & m o d e = l
st&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=822510 (accessed 09/11/15).
Bibliography

33. 4 M, Husovec, ‘CJEU allowed website-blocking injunctions with some
reservations’ [2014] Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol 9,
Issue 8, pp. 631 at 633
http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/06/19/
jiplp.jpu101.full.pdf+html (accessed 09/11/15).
5 F. F., Wang, ‘Site-blocking Orders in the EU: Justifications and
Feasibility’ [2014], pp 8
h t t p s : / / w w w . l a w . b e r k e l e y . e d u / fi l e s /
Wang_Faye_Fangfei_IPSC_paper_2014.pdf (accessed 09/11/15).

34. 6 C, Angeloupoulous, ‘Are blocking injunctions against ISPs allowed in
Europe? Copyright Enforcement in the Post-Telekabel EU legal
landscape.’ [2014] Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol 9,
Issue 10, pp 812 at 817
http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/08/12/
jiplp.jpu136.full.pdf+html (accessed 09/11/15).
7 L, Edwards & C, Waelde, 'Law and the Internet' (3rd ed. Hart Publishing
2009) pp. 628.

35. 8 J.B, Nordemann, ‘Internet Copyright Infringement: Remedies Against
Intermediaries - The European Perspective On Host And Access
Providers’ [2012] Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, Vol 59, Issue
4, pp 773 at 787 & 795.
9 P, Savola, ‘Proportionality of Website Blocking: Internet Connectivity
Providers as Copyright Enforcers’ [2014] JIPITEC, Vol 5, Issue 2, pp. 116 at
126
http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-5-2-2014/4000/savola.pdf (accessed
09/11/15).

36. Vielen Dank für Ihre
Aufmerksamkeit!