from http:/ / punto-informatico.it/2710555/PI/Interviste/italia-intermediario-non-responsabile.aspx
Hosting advertising, web space and provide assistance to those alleged to have committed a crime does not mean though there be co-responsible ' is a direct economic return. The ruling of the GIP Rome, the interview with the lawyer Sarzana
Rome - The crime of prostitution does not invest those that provide online registration services for domain names, hosting, site maintenance to persons suspected of having committed the crime, competition are not responsible for the crime of pimping online site owners who are paid to host a banner through which it is proposed commercialization of bodies. The responsibility is not unfolding chain of suppliers of services to determine, a ruling that the Warrant in Rome, addressing the question of criminal liability of the provider, has been acquitted by the actors who had provided computer services to a site with content presumptively illegal. Computer Point speaks with his lawyer Fulvio Sarzana di S. Ippolito, a lawyer representing one of two providers.
Point Computer : As the novelty of the Judgement of GIP in Rome?
Fulvio Sarzana : The award of the GIP of Rome is in the field of criminal liability of the provider, the first known in Italy in the previous proceedings which are clearly enshrined in the absence of accountability of the same provider for the activities placed to be the owner of a website that displays content on the network capable of configuring a crime. There have been other civil proceedings in the past who had "touched" the matter from a different perspective, the civil law.
Another important principle that is reflected by the measure is that the owners of sites that place advertising banners of sites that may violate criminal laws can not respond by way of participation in the crime. The difference with the past is of course in the different impact that a criminal sentence (so far unique) may have regard to the principles laid down by the Courts and Civil nell'ausilio that the measure would give to those who are involved in events with implications penalisitici.
PI: How did the judicial process and how did it come to this decision?
FS: The decision not to prosecute is was issued after the preliminary hearing and provided the acquittal of the Provider who provided hosting services, maintenance and support services to the site due to alleged sexual services online, and that he had registered the domain name of the site and had hosted a banner ad on their site due to the offending site. This is the first published decision that sets out clearly, a criminal law perspective, the lack of responsibility of the telematics service provider (whether an entity that registers domain, which provides web space or putting banner ads on your site ) for crimes committed by the owner of a website.
PI: What are the salient points of the sentence?
FS: Regarding the placement of responsibility on the banner has expressly ruled that the sentence "is irrelevant (for the contest in protest of the offense) a reference to the informative advertising insertion PG Company XXXX due xxxxxx accused or the site does not fall on the criminal act carried out in the specific subject of imputation. "
In the liability of hosting provider has expressly stated that the sentence "must reach a similar conclusion in relation to the co-defendant, not being identified specific elements of connection between the company and the site xxx xxxxxx such conclude that there is a competition of the latter in the activity carried out by co-defendant, not resulting in particular, the existence of a profit statement for the first associated with the use of the site and offered the girls and being limited in its activities to support and maintenance of web space granted to customers; follows the finding of not pursued for lack of fact. "
PI: The ruling appears to establish the criminal liability of providers under competition only in cases where there is was a direct economic participation in profits linked to the site, right?
FS: The ruling, interpreting for the first time in a criminal provisions of Legislative Decree no. April 9, 2003, 70 of which serves as reference standards in defining the grounds for criminal liability of the provider, said the principle according to which the provider can not be considered responsible participation in the crime unless it is shown that has had a direct economic benefit from the activities on the site charged.
In this respect, the decision seems to go well beyond the legal provisions already mentioned that, because of a provider's obligation to prior surveillance activities carried out by the owner of a site outside his trade, however canonize the responsibility of the provider that is actually aware that activity or information is illegal, and not just aware of these facts, upon request of the competent authorities, does not act expeditiously to remove or disable access to information. According to the GIP
so just basically proof of the absolute strangeness of the provider to the activities of the owner to exclude the criminal liability of the entrepreneur "cybercrime". To establish the responsibility then you must be a direct benefit because otherwise, as it is in the profit that is obtained by the banners, there is liability in the competition. So if the provider or owner of the site earnings generated in the provision of services, without participating in the profits of the owner, in principle, and, according to the reconstruction of the GIP, it should be held accountable.
PI: What impact will this measure be the judge of Rome (and any others which may follow) on the ongoing discussion in Parliament and not the liability of providers for crimes committed by users?
FS: The ruling is highly significant because it interprets correctly the Community and national rules on liability of intermediaries, excluding root "drift" of the restrictive rules that the provider would take the form of "policeman of the network " and that in recent months have resulted in a number of measures presented to the Chambers, notes bills until the bill Carlucci Barbareschi.
