The Congress of Deputies has taken the first step toward reviewing how IP blocking is applied in Spain to combat audiovisual piracy. The Committee on Economy, Commerce, and Digital Transformation has approved an initiative calling on the government to make legal changes to prevent measures targeting illegal websites from inadvertently affecting legitimate services, individual users, or companies that have nothing to do with the infringing activity.
The debate has gained momentum around blocking related to sports broadcasts, especially those associated with football matches. In recent months, various voices from the tech sector have highlighted that some measures requested to block pirate sites have caused collateral effects on web services hosted on shared infrastructure. The issue is no longer just whether action should be taken against piracy—something that is widely accepted legally—but how to do so without causing disproportionate damage to the internet.
What the Congress has approved
The approved initiative is a Non-Legislative Proposal, known as a PNL. This means it does not automatically amend the law but expresses a political position and urges the government to act. In this case, the text calls for a new regulatory framework to ensure the proportionality of court-ordered blocks and protect citizens’ digital rights.
The proposal suggests creating a oversight mechanism involving several ministries, including Justice, Culture, and Digital Transformation. Its role would be to assess the impact of blocking orders on legitimate services and applications, as well as promote less aggressive technical solutions.
The core principle is technological proportionality. Put simply: if a measure seeks to block a website streaming football without permission, it should not also render other legal services inaccessible that share the same infrastructure. On the internet, a single IP address can be associated with multiple distinct pages, especially when content delivery networks, cloud services, or anti-attack providers are involved.
The initiative also proposes introducing responsibilities for overblocking. That is, if a request from rights holders ends up harming third parties, there could be avenues for compensation or reclamation mechanisms. This will be a key point if the measure ultimately leads to legal reform.
Why blocking an IP can affect third parties
To understand the issue, it’s important to discard the idea that an IP always corresponds to a single webpage. Today’s internet often involves multiple websites sharing an IP address, being hosted on cloud providers, content delivery networks (CDNs), security systems, or distributed networks that speed up load times, filter attacks, and improve availability.
This means that blocking an entire IP to shut out a specific site risks also blocking other unrelated sites that use the same address. It’s akin to closing an entire road to prevent a single vehicle from passing.
Rights holders argue that they need effective tools against sites that rapidly change domains, hosting providers, or technical addresses. Audiovisual piracy is a fast-adapting business that often leverages international infrastructures to evade shutdown. However, overly broad blocking measures can affect users, companies, media, applications, and services that operate legally.
The tension between these interests is clear. On one side are protections for intellectual property and audiovisual content; on the other is the need for the internet to function reliably—without indiscriminate cuts and with respect for rights like free expression, access to information, and legitimate economic activity.
What could change moving forward
The approval of this PNL does not mean immediate cessation of IP blocks. Court orders will still be in effect, and operators will continue to be obliged to comply when applicable. What has changed is that Congress has acknowledged the problem and called on the government to address it through more precise regulation.
If the proposal progresses, changes could be introduced to rules governing digital services and intellectual property. Protocols for best practices among operators, rights holders, internet platforms, and authorities might also be established. The goal would be to find more surgical blocking methods, with technical oversight and less risk for third parties.
For users, the most visible result could be fewer unexpected disruptions to legitimate services during sporting events. For tech companies and internet providers, clearer regulation would bring greater legal certainty. For rights holders, it would mean justifying that the requested measures are necessary, proportionate, and technically appropriate.
This case also offers a broader perspective. The internet has become an essential infrastructure for working, informing, studying, selling, and communicating. Any decision affecting its functioning must be taken with care. While blocking illegal content may be necessary, imprecise actions can cause damage beyond the initial goal.
The debate does not pit copyright against digital rights as incompatible; rather, the challenge is balancing them. Piracy must be pursued, but the tools used shouldn’t jeopardize legitimate services or turn private entities into technical arbiters of which parts of the network should remain accessible.
Congress has opened the door to this conversation. The next step is to see whether the government translates it into concrete changes and whether those changes manage to do something difficult: protect content without disrupting parts of a shared network.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Congress banned IP blocking?
No. The approved initiative does not immediately prohibit blocking. It requests the government to change regulations to avoid indiscriminate measures and harm to third parties.
Why are IP blocks used against piracy?
They aim to prevent access to websites offering content without authorization, such as illegal sports broadcasts. The problem arises when the blocked IP also services legitimate sites.
What is overblocking?
It’s when a measure intended to block an illegal service ends up affecting websites, applications, or users that are unrelated to the infringement.
Can affected parties claim damages?
The initiative proposes studying liability and compensation mechanisms for damages caused by disproportionate blocks, but a legal reform would still be needed to implement this.
via: Teléfonos