While it has succeeded in blocking pirate sources, opinions differ dramatically as to whether the blocking performance of Italy’s Piracy Shield piracy detection and incident ticketing platform has been effective. The latest trio of complaints accuse the platform of restraint of trade, violation of European laws regulating the Internet, conflicts of interest, lack of transparency by Italy’s communications regulator AGCOM, and a complaint by one of AGCOM’s own board members.
Another question goes to whether or not Piracy Shield has actually deterred piracy. The complaints and opinions referenced in this article are linked below to their sources.
In the beginning
Piracy Shield is chartered to reduce access to illegal distribution over the Internet, by detecting illegal instances and communicating them to Internet service providers, which must respond within 30 minutes. The platform was initially developed for the Italian Lega Seria A football league, which donated the platform to AGCOM.
Early reports of success
In its 2024 annual report, released in July 2024 and therefore reporting on just three months of Piracy Shield operations (February to May), Agcom, the Italian communications regulator and national coordinator of the EU’s Digital Services Act, said that Piracy Shield had responded to more than a thousand takedown requests by rights-holders for live sports programming. During that period, 18,879 FQDNs (Fully-qualified Domain Names) and 4,006 IP addresses that had been illegally broadcasting live sports events were disabled, according to Agcom’s report.
Gathering storm clouds
As 2024 progressed, Piracy Shield was found to be responsible for unjustified site blocking. Internet service providers also had been required by regulation to receive automated blocking notices from the Piracy Shield platform, which led at least one Internet service provider to exit the Italian market.
In March, the platform blocked IP addresses belonging to Cloudflare, which blocked traffic to a telecom company and to a volunteer group. One ISP had to exit the Italy market because it could not afford to meet AGCOM’s requirements. In October, the platform blocked access to Google Drive and to YouTube back-end services.
Internet Infrastructure Coalition
In November 2024, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2C) filed a comment to the Office of the US Trade Representative, citing shortcomings in Piracy Shield. “…Piracy Shield mandates (compliance with blocking orders)… with no mechanism for recourse. The failure to include controls on blocking has resulted in numerous instances of blocking … causing users to lose access to large numbers of global websites with no connection to piracy. Rather than address the significant concerns … Italy has expanded the program.”
I2C concluded that “Piracy Shield-mandated blocking has adversely impacted by US network providers and US businesses whose websites were inappropriately blocked as a result of Italy’s inadequate safeguards…”
AGCOM Commissioner files internal complaint
In December, a complaint surfaced from within AGCOM, by Elisa Giomi, one of Agcom’s own commissioners. Her first statement was to dispute the official position that the platform required re-engineering to keep up with evolution, saying errors generated by the platform were “not attributable to defects in (piracy) reports…but to the functioning of the platform itself and further complaining that AGCOM risked “unintentionally limiting freedom of expression” and engaging in censorship.
CCIA complaint
In January 2025, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) addressed several serious concerns in a letter to the heads of three Directorates of the European Commission. “While (Piracy Shield’s) approach aims to protect intellectual property and reduce online piracy, (it is) a potentially extremely blunt instrument to address online copyright infringement.
“Additionally, the fact that the Piracy Shield platform was developed for AGCOM by a company affiliated with Lega Serie A, which is one of the very few entities authorised to report, raises serious questions about the potential conflict of interest exacerbating the lack of transparency issue,” said CCIA.
Furthermore, “(The EU’s) Open Internet Regulation … prohibits ISPs from blocking or slowing down Internet traffic unless required by a law. The post-Piracy Shield lockdown also contradicts the Digital Services Act (DSA) in several aspects, in particular Article 9.”
CCIA was also of the opinion that “recent amendments to Italian copyright law … contradict principles set forth in the European Union’s Digital Services Act,” in which Italy would mandate punishments against intermediary providers that extend far beyond those by the DSA.
Piracy deterrence?
The CEO of CDLAN Italy, which operates data center, CDN and cloud services in the country, reported that the number of users to DAZN’s site – based on numbers reported by Agcom in December – was about the same in 2024 as it was in 2023, and deduced that Piracy Shield had little effect one way or the other on piracy.
At least for DAZN – other than that DAZN’s pricing increased by €4 last year.
Further clouds on the horizon?
Wired Italy reported in January that disgruntled ISPs requested technical tables from AGCOM to document the operations of Piracy Shield, including notices presented to end users that they have been blocked and redirected, limits on site blocking for the benefit of smaller ISPs, and penalties against ISPs for information links relating to enforcement; which Wired theorizes to be an effort by AGCOM to hide errors in the Piracy Shield platform.
And yet, the platform remains celebrated in certain quarters
Despite the current and past challenges, Piracy Shield continues. FAPAV, the Italian anti-piracy organization, celebrated Piracy Shield and Agcom’s overall efforts in its own 2024 year-end summary. “140 sites (were) blocked by AGCOM on direct report from (FAPAV), and 180 blocked through the Judicial Authority,” said FAPAV president President Federico Bagnoli Rossi.
“The AGCOM regulation on Copyright is a fundamental tool for combating piracy that … has benefited from an innovative implementation with the “Piracy Shield” platform that allows the blocking of illegals in 30 minutes for live sports content,” said FAPAV.
Mr. Bagnoli Rossi also expressed hopes that Piracy Shield’s rapid reporting features would be extended to other forms of screen entertainment, including first-run movies and live TV sports programming.
Further reading
Piracy Shield, a year later prepares to become even more intrusive. Article. January 30, 2025. by Rafaele Angius. Wired Italy
Re: Italian Piracy Shield and Copyright Law amendments. Letter. January 21, 2025. Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
“I just finished a call with Agcom related to #PiracyShield…” Article. By Brian Turnbow. January 16, 2025. via LinkedIn
Italy: Anti-piracy initiative hasn’t increased subs. Article. by Branislav Pekic. January 23, 2025. Advanced-Television
Italy: Anti-piracy organization saw 2024 as a year of accomplishments. Article. December 20, 2024. by Steven Hawley. Piracy Monitor
Italy: Agcom commissioner protests agency’s rationale defending Piracy Shield platform. Article. December 10, 2024. by Steven Hawley Piracy Monitor.
Comment from Internet Infrastructure Coalition. October 21, 2024. Posted by the Office of United States Trade Representative
2024 annual report on the activity carried out and work programs. Report. July 18, 2024. Agcom (Autorita per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni)
Why it matters
Piracy Shield has been a legitimate attempt at automating the notification and takedown process in Italy, supported by a government agency and by anti-piracy advocates in that country. But the fact remains that Piracy Shield’s automation is only as good as the rules and algorithms driving it, and that’s where the true challenge resides.
It is disheartening to read complaints about the obfuscation of platform errors and the reported lack of transparency about pending regulations by AGCOM.
