The Closing of the Net  "original and valuable"  Times Higher Education

In the  discussion about the liability of ISPs and whether and how ACTA provides for it, one clause that deserves to get the spotlight thrown more sharply onto it is   Article 2.5: "Provisional Measures".


This clause provides for a court to order the blocking of websites, and actions against ISPs on the application of the rights-holders.  In the UK, we have already had this debate, since there is a clause rather like this in the Digital Economy Act. ACTA would appear to taking from the DE Act.

The DE Act  clause  was

put there following rights-holder lobbying for measures to take account of future technological developments. Indeed, there is evidence that the clause was written by the British recorded music industry lobby group known as the BPI (see my previous articles on this topic).  It was deeply unpopular and provoked a public protest, and is in the law because the previous Labour regime whipped its members to vote for it in the dying days of the last discredited Parliament.


The UK  clause will have to go to the European Commission  for a compliance check against EU law and will again be put  before the UK Parliament.


The ACTA provision in Article 2.5 applies to both websites and ISPs. What is not clear in  ACTA  Article 2.5 is the circumstances  under which action could be taken against ISPs and exactly what that action could consist of. What does "prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right" mean  in the ISP context? Does it just mean that the court could order the  ISP  to filter out the alleged infringing websites, pages or domains? Could it be used to prevent the ISP from carrying out its business? Will it result in an increased liability for ISP, who may end up over-blocking in order to comply with the injunction?   


ACTA Article 2.5 appears to say that courts may order such measures even before proceedings begin. The ACTA further provides for seizure of goods. This  is not just about impounding some badly recorded DVDs at a car-boot sale. It  could refer to web  servers,  and its implications are serious. P2P tracker sites could be immediately terminated by such action.  The implications of this leading to censorship must be considered.


But we must consider what it means for next generation technologies. How far could it be used to kill new developments before their inventors have  a chance to develop a business proposition - if all a rights-holder has to do is to say that a techology could be used to infringe copyright?  


In the context of the EU aquis communitaire,  ACTA Article 2.5  would need to be examined to see exactly what legal changes are necessary. Such changes  would not only apply to copyright, but to all intellectual property rights covered by ACTA.                                                       



 ACTA Leaked draft of 25 August 2010



[EU/CH/J: 1. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the

authority, at the request of the applicant, to issue a provisional measure intended to

prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right. Such provisional

measures may also be issued under certain conditions in relation to an intermediary

whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right.

Each Party shall also provide that provisional measures may be issued, even before the

commencement of the proceedings on the merits, to preserve relevant evidence in

respect to the alleged infringement.]


UK Digital Economy Act

17 Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on

the internet

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting

by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which

the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection

with an activity that infringes copyright.


This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2010) ACTA & web blocking - measuring the threat 9 September 2010








The Copyright Enforcement Enigma tells the story of the 2009 Telecoms Package and how the copyright industries tried to hijack it.

'accurate and absorbing account of the story of the Telecoms Package' -Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology

'...a must read for those interested in knowing in depth about copyright enforcement and Internet.' -Journal of Intellectual Property Rights.  

Read more  

Ask your library to get it!

Order direct from the publisher.

Go to   Amazon

Copyright Enforcement Enigma launch, March 2012

European Parliament launch for Copyright Enforcement Enigma

Don't miss Iptegrity!  RSS/ Bookmark is the website of Dr Monica Horten, European expert on Internet policy and Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science. She is an independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee on Cross-border flow of Internet traffic and Internet freedom (MSI-INT). She was shortlisted for The Guardian Open Internet Poll 2012. Iptegrity  offers expert insights into Internet policy. Iptegrity has a core readership in the Brussels policy community, and has been cited in the media. Please acknowledge Iptegrity when you cite or link.  For more, see IP politics with integrity is made available free of charge for  non-commercial use, Please link-back & attribute Monica Horten. Thank you for respecting this.

Contact  me to use  iptegrity content for commercial purposes

The politics of copyright

A Copyright Masquerade - How corporate lobbying threatens online freedoms

'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review

Paperback and Kindle and Epub formats.

Available from all good online bookstores or get it from the publisher Zed Books  direct:

Amazon UK

Amazon USA