Most existing EU regulation regarding filtering overlaps with or supplements the
existing policies of individual states. On issues of child pornography, human trafficking, terrorist propaganda, and fraud, there exists a broad consensus to monitor and
block offending material. Surprisingly, no such consensus exists on who or what
should be held responsible for such material. Most countries have agreed to treat ISPs
as mere conduits of information. However, some countries have held these entities
responsible for offending material.
The EU maintains a liberal regional policy toward ISPs, limiting their liability under
the Electronic Commerce Directive, 7 however, member states have been inconsistent
in applying the directive. In July 2007, a Belgian court required an ISP to implement
technical measures in order to stop copyright infringements committed by its subscribers through P2P networks. 8 In 2008, the British government warned that, absent
ISPs’ ‘‘voluntary self-regulation,’’ it would hold service providers legally responsible for
allowing unlawful file sharing. 9 British ISPs have, by all appearances, already chosen to
self-regulate. 10
Despite the lack of strong EU-level regulation, many member states have taken
it upon themselves to filter unwanted content. Many countries, such as the United
Kingdom, 11 Sweden, 12 Finland, 13 Denmark, 14 Germany, 15 and Italy, 16 filter child pornography, and some governments (e.g., United Kingdom, France) have pressured ISPs
to prevent copyright infringements by filtering. 17 Quite recently, it was reported that a
number of Web sites in Belgium were blocked. In contrast to other countries, the Web
sites were filtered not because of displaying pornographic content but in order to guarantee the privacy rights of suspects or criminals who committed sexual offenses against
children and whose identity was accordingly revealed in the targeted Web sites. 18
In addition to filtering directed by governments, ISPs and search engines within
countries have often taken it upon themselves to monitor and filter controversial content. Often, these companies have decided to self-regulate in order to preempt government regulation.
Copyright
Film studios, record labels, and their associations have all strongly lobbied the EU to
require ISPs to block potential copyright infringements and terminate the contracts of
subscribers who visit particular Web sites. Yet the EU has been slow to act, authorizing
studies but rarely taking action. Generally, however, where the EU has failed to assist
the content industries, individual states have been quick to act, enthusiastically prosecuting companies and individuals who violate copyright law, both within and outside
their borders.
The EU’s policy on intellectual property and illegal file sharing is laid out in
three directives. The Electronic Commerce Directive standardizes information and
Europe Overview
281
existing policies of individual states. On issues of child pornography, human trafficking, terrorist propaganda, and fraud, there exists a broad consensus to monitor and
block offending material. Surprisingly, no such consensus exists on who or what
should be held responsible for such material. Most countries have agreed to treat ISPs
as mere conduits of information. However, some countries have held these entities
responsible for offending material.
The EU maintains a liberal regional policy toward ISPs, limiting their liability under
the Electronic Commerce Directive, 7 however, member states have been inconsistent
in applying the directive. In July 2007, a Belgian court required an ISP to implement
technical measures in order to stop copyright infringements committed by its subscribers through P2P networks. 8 In 2008, the British government warned that, absent
ISPs’ ‘‘voluntary self-regulation,’’ it would hold service providers legally responsible for
allowing unlawful file sharing. 9 British ISPs have, by all appearances, already chosen to
self-regulate. 10
Despite the lack of strong EU-level regulation, many member states have taken
it upon themselves to filter unwanted content. Many countries, such as the United
Kingdom, 11 Sweden, 12 Finland, 13 Denmark, 14 Germany, 15 and Italy, 16 filter child pornography, and some governments (e.g., United Kingdom, France) have pressured ISPs
to prevent copyright infringements by filtering. 17 Quite recently, it was reported that a
number of Web sites in Belgium were blocked. In contrast to other countries, the Web
sites were filtered not because of displaying pornographic content but in order to guarantee the privacy rights of suspects or criminals who committed sexual offenses against
children and whose identity was accordingly revealed in the targeted Web sites. 18
In addition to filtering directed by governments, ISPs and search engines within
countries have often taken it upon themselves to monitor and filter controversial content. Often, these companies have decided to self-regulate in order to preempt government regulation.
Copyright
Film studios, record labels, and their associations have all strongly lobbied the EU to
require ISPs to block potential copyright infringements and terminate the contracts of
subscribers who visit particular Web sites. Yet the EU has been slow to act, authorizing
studies but rarely taking action. Generally, however, where the EU has failed to assist
the content industries, individual states have been quick to act, enthusiastically prosecuting companies and individuals who violate copyright law, both within and outside
their borders.
The EU’s policy on intellectual property and illegal file sharing is laid out in
three directives. The Electronic Commerce Directive standardizes information and
Europe Overview
281