On March 21, a Spanish court ordered the Telegram social messaging service to suspend operations after receiving complaints from media companies including Movistar (Telefonica), Mediaset, Antenna3 and the rights-management organization EGEDA; that Telegram users were distributing copyrighted content from pirate sources via the platform. Telegram had not responded to a July 2023 court request for information that could help lead officials to identify the uploaders’ accounts.
The judge ordered the suspension as “a precautionary measure” while the matter was being investigated. One source noted that the investigation could have lasted through September.
Soon thereafter, the Spanish consumer group FACUA challenged the suspension as being heavy-handed, and the suspension was halted on March 25. ISPs must respond to blocking orders quickly but Telegram had reportedly remained available.
“It’s as if they closed the internet because there are websites that illegally host content protected by copyright, as if they cut off all the television signal because there are networks that incur piracy,” said Rubén Sánchez, the Secretary General of FACUA
Telegram has received other blocking orders in the past. In 2023, courts in Brazil and Somalia issued orders against extremist content being carried on the platform.
Further reading
High Court orders temporary suspension of Telegram’s services in Spain. Article. March 23, 2024. Reuters.
FACUA considers Telegram’s precautionary blocking for hosting copyrighted content without permission to be disproportionate. Article. March 23, 2024. FACUA
Spain’s High Court halts temporary suspension order of Telegram’s services. Article. March 25, 2024. Spain in English.
Spain: Judge halts blocking of Telegram pending probe. Article. March 25, 2024. Deutsche Welle (DW)
Why it matters
This case is a variation on the theme of site blocking, which is in itself not controversial. But it’s like walking a tightrope. On one hand, rights holders are entitled to copyright protection. But over time, there have been multiple complaints by consumer advocates that some such orders may go too far.
Further complicating the situation is the possibility that technical countermeasures may yield “false positives” that interfere with legitimate distribution or access – as recently happened with Italy’s Piracy Shield.
